Good intentions are the basis of most education reform efforts. People intend to do good things in education, but most of the time, the efforts do not work. Recent events have brought the "free market" into the arena of education. People were told that private schools did a much better job teaching for less money. Private schools did a better job at educating kids. However, a government study showed that when private and public school students were compared from equivalent demographic groups, private schools and public school results were very similar.
It would seem then, that the private school does not necessarily have better instruction than the public school. What really seems to set the private school apart from its public counterparts is the selection process. The selection process is private schools is determined by family income. Students from higher income families that have more advantages can go to private schools that can be "selective" in admission policies and standards. Thus, by selecting students that will be successful, one can create a successful environment.
The same thing happens in public schools. As David Berliner of the University of Arizona points out, the financial lines are drawn across zip codes. It is easy to predict public school success or failure based on factors like family income. Thus, in many ways, the data shows that schools, both public and private, have been rather inert in creating "reform" efforts, good intentions have not managed to find a way to overcome demographic factors.
The question that must be asked is what is the difference between schools where students come from relative wealth and those who do not. While looking at the problem for some time, it became clear that the common denominator between wealth and school success is less disorder. There is not only less disorder in the schools for wealthier students, there is also less disorder in the classroom. Students who are grouped according to ability will create a learning environment that is easier to deal with. It is much easier to teach to a group whose reading levels range from 8th to 12 grade levels as opposed to 3rd versus 12th grade levels. Schools in wealthier areas will have students who are more prepared for the classes, and therefore, the classes will be easier to teach.
The answers to improving education comes from insuring that students are properly prepared for the classes they take. Can legislators do things to make education more important to people who make less money? How about eliminating the child tax credit for students who fail in school? How about deportation for families whose children fail to attend school? Does it sound cruel? Well, the data seems to indicate that schools can work, but that the home environment must support the education process. How can people who are less fortunate put more of their effort and resources towards the education process? If you want to improve education, one way is to change the schools, but if it is really important, the family must also be involved in the solution.
School reform is a subject that is always discussed. However, if American education wants to improve, the schools are only one part of the solution. The importance of education must also be felt in the home. Poverty and education are intrinsically interwoven, and poverty follows along family lines. Unless given an incentive to succeed in school, how will it happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment