What to do with Public Education?

By Paul Skowronek

Advertising Manager

Throughout the late eighties and into the nineties, we've heard more than a fair share of depressing news with respect to the American educational system. Every few months, the network news is prompt in reminding us of our sluggish test scores and overall performance when compared to Japan, Germany, and other nations, where children are apparently learning more than simply making Valentine's Day cards and snowflakes out of white construction paper. Last week, the nation's 50 governors, along with President Clinton, other bureaucrats, and leaders of American big business met in New Jersey for the annual education summit, a.k.a. what to do with the failing public educational system. After the debate, the convention resolved to adopt "internationally competitive standards" in two years, businesses will begin checking academic transcripts from job applicants, and an autonomous private sector commission will be established to measure and report on state level educational progress.
According to this week's Time magazine, Michael Resnick, senior associate director of the National School Board's Association believes that the convention failed to address vital problems which directly influence America's educational decline. In short, he believes that educational performance is affected by the individual's circumstances, such as family life, health, and income level. It is indeed true that a student living in an urban school district in New York city who is parented by a single mother, lives in poverty, and has no time for homework since he must help support his mother is at a sizable disadvantage when compared with his suburban, upper-middle class counterpart with a "traditional" family.
But the problem lies deeper than this. No one can argue that educational decline is in no way influenced by the aforementioned circumstances. These factors do contribute to an inequality in the education that a student receives and retains. However, it cannot be denied that inequalities between rural and suburban schools exist that also affect the quality of education. These stem largely from monetary concerns. In poorer urban districts, there simply is not as large of a tax base to take advantage of as in wealthier suburban districts. Less money means one thing--less resources. By this, I mean that students in poorer districts learn history from outdated texts, learn science by performing experiments without proper equipment, and learn to type on Smith Coronas rather than Macs or PC's. Here, it is obvious that the school itself, albeit because it has no other options, cheats students out of a first rate education.
A common misconception, however, is that the students who will graduate ill-prepared for competition in today's ever-changing global marketplace are limited to poor, urban districts. Students from wealthy, rural districts with supportive, "traditional" families can also coast through the system having learned next to nothing. Use my alma mater, a well off high school in rural northern New Jersey, as a case study of this often overlooked, yet equally disturbing dilemma. The relatively new administration vowed and has succeeded at making the high school one of the most technically advanced in the nation. Now I am not just talking about the four computer labs, or the thirty computers available for student use in the library. My old high school is completely networked, operated a bulletin board, uses e-mail, and even has a world wide web home page. In addition, the high school erected three prototype classrooms complete with robots, more amazing computers, and resources that you might have previously found only at a nearby university. Do not interpret my negativity as an endorsement of an anti-technology position. I love technology and quite frankly would be lost without the world wide web, integrated e-mail, and every other feature that Trinity College provides. I am simply saying that millions of dollars were poured into this project at the same time the administration was contemplating curriculum, and extracurricular activities funding cuts. To say that this was money well spent would be a grave inaccuracy.
With all of the money thrown at the project, one might think that students scores would skyrocket, benefiting from all of the newfound research and other resources available. Yet the reality is that the school has millions of technological advances that teachers nor students seem to be able to utilize; no one knows how to use the equipment! Furthermore, it is apparent that today's students simply are not as motivated to achieve scholastically as were previous generations. This is somewhat of a risky generalization, but I'll go out on a limb. You can have all of the technology known to mankind available to assist your every educational need, yet without motivation, you still won't learn a thing. Such is the experience of many at my old school at present.
There will always been committees, councils, task-forces, and commissions delegated to finding a solution to the nation's educational woes. After all, America has never been satisfied with second or third best. Yet mandating standards, setting deadlines which will undoubtedly be broken, and establishing more agencies to deal with the nation's woes do not directly address the real problems which all, to varying degrees affect the nation's educational performance. There has been much talk recently about abolishing the federal Department of Education. Cutting through the bureaucracy, I believe will allow us to search for some real solutions, yet some centralized entity should remain in place to evaluate what works, why it works, and how other less fortunate areas will be able to take advantage of similar positive ideas and developments in educational improvement. Why not restructure the Department of Education to begin this logical process. Unfortunately, education summits and other meetings, while good intentioned, have failed. As the President himself says on occasion, "It's time for real change."