The Cross-Pollinators
Whenever the discussion of improving educational standards enters the public discourse, impassioned reformers often cite the “failing education system.” I would like to start by taking an objective look at this “failing system” and determine what is failing. I would also like to debunk a lot of the inflammatory rhetoric – education, in general, is not any far worse than it has ever been.There are no immediate, dire straits, plaguing the current system, that have not always been present. In short, the education system of today is not much worse off than the education system of thirty years ago. The media, general conjecture, popular culture and popular opinion will all have us believe that: 1) teachers are not as prepared as they once were, 2) demographics have negatively impacted US scores, 3) the current generation is more apathetic, more uninterested, and more distracted, and 4) the change in the American family is the core determent of our children’s performance. I feel that there is a lot nostalgia clouding these sentiments. To counter this nostalgia, I would like to take a look at specific statistics.
As part of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) was developed as the chief research division of the United States Department of Education. The IES provides annual statistics on student achievement, performance goals, and Federal education standards. These statistics are completed by four different statistic centers, including the National Center for Educational Statistics which is primarily responsible for the Nation’s Report Card. According to the NCES: “The average reading and mathematics scores on the long-term trend National Assessment of Educational Progress were higher in 2008 than in the early 1970s for 9- and 13-year-olds; scores for 17-year-olds were not measurably different from the early 1970s” (NCES). In lieu of these findings, it is fair to say that since the advent of standardized testing and achievement/performance indicators, American students’ reading and mathematics levels have remained consistent (give or take a few points each year).
This means our students are as well equipped and as successful as students of the past four decades. Proof of this comes directly from the NCES report: “The average reading score for 17-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in 2004 but was not significantly different from the score in 1971. In mathematics, the average score for 17-year-olds in 2008 was not significantly different from the scores in either 2004 or 1973” (NCES). With this said, then where does all the inflammatory rhetoric come from? Why such a panic about the US education system? Why do we call for reform and institutional change? The issue facing modern day education: is its international standing.
As globalism has drastically changed society and culture, so too, is it impacting the educational institution. American students are no longer compared simply to their peers, to varying demographics, or to performance of past students. American students are now evaluated not just on domestic standards, but also international performances. Why? Because: as these students enter an international marketplace, their preparation and performance competes on a global level – not a local level. This is where the US education system lags behind, not as it is compared domestically or through its own history, but against those students from Finland, Denmark, Germany, and Japan. “Compared with the other countries and other education systems, the U.S. average was lower than the average in 9 countries and other education systems” (NCES).
These statistics were confirmed in a USA Today report by Chung Sung-Jun: In Ranking, U.S. Students Trail Global Leaders. Sung-Jun, drawing on information provided by the Associated Press, states: “Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math” (Sung-Jun). Among those countries which have habitually topped the Programme for International Student Assessment reports, were other less recognized countries such as: South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Canada (Sung-Jun). What does this mean for the US education system? U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, commented on the findings: "This is an absolute wake-up call for America… The results are extraordinarily challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education” (Sung-Jun). It is not that the education system is failing, it has always been failing.
The system itself has produced mediocrity at best, and now as we compete globally for jobs, market shares and emerging markets, we can longer be content with the mediocre. 20th century models are geared towards efficiency and effectiveness. The current educational model is based on this – targeting the middle range, and ensuring more students receive efficient education. However, this is not comprehensive. And in today’s global market, a comprehensive, personalized education is necessary to succeed. In this white paper, I am going to boldly claim that we need to not just revamp or retool the US education system, but we need a complete institutional change if we are going to compete globally.
In prior writings, I call this institutional change a paradigm shift from autogamy to allogamy: autogamy being a self-fertilizing idea which is cultivated in 20th century thinking and allogamy being a cross-fertilizing idea, cultivated in 21st century thinking. If the standard for US education is not a comparison of its past, but a comparison of its contemporaries, then its students will need to be contrasted against German, Finnish, Japanese, Chinese and Korean students. This is why an institutional change is necessary and unavoidable.
No comments:
Post a Comment