Not a year goes by for as long as I can remember that the subject of reassessing and reforming public education becomes a central issue as though the education profession hasn’t been doing just that for the past hundred years as each generation requires a different set of tools. At the turn of the last century, class size was a problem owing to the influx of immigration causing concern for class management, particularly in targeting individually vastly diverse children. When city and state colleges grew, there was a need to upgrade academics to prepare more for higher education but it did not become the norm because general secondary education was still the mainstream to prepare students for adult life, particularly with reading not as much of a barrier simply because students read so much more and read to in earlier years.
In earlier decades there was no disparagement that many students were perceived as non-academic as long as they showed industry in learning subjects related to citizenship and trades that would carry them through in later life. With the advent of the GI Bill, college-bound curricula became more pressing, and schools adjusted and then excelled when Sputnik transpired. Still, most schools soon recognized that intensive academics was not for everyone and forcing it on a child who lacked inherent ability would do more harm than good. When Title I was introduced it was apparent that there was not only inherent inability but ability degraded because of social conditions. The problems of society were unjustly left to the schools to solve through remedial instruction without allowing for the still inherent learning problems regardless of social circumstances. Nor did the public differentiate between the environmental quality of suburban and urban schools themselves, playing a large role in the varying degree of educational progress.
Today with the attrition of quality jobs and the rise of non-technical service jobs, it is unrealistic to bully public schools into farm teams for colleges. The recognition that more students can be reached for college preparation than ever before does not mean that schools should neglect those students who simply desire a basic education that will prepare them for a simple, non-glamorous existence above mere subsistence. Nor does this suggest that opportunity is shutdown for those who blossom later in life, similar to what was discovered earlier and grew night schools of all sorts and later community colleges. In the meantime a student who legitimately is incapable or unwilling to pursue academics should be granted practical studies in his or her pursuit of comfortable achievement. It makes no sense — educationally and economically — for one who is bound to work at Target or Wal-Mart for most of his or her life to have to compete in school with one destined for Harvard.
Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 16, 2005.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com