-
Now that we have that over with, my first proposal is a policy of free public education. If you find the other post too long to merit reading, by all means skip it and read this one. I consider this a comprehensive and well-considered idea, that education at all levels should be free to the entirety of the public. I also feel that any person aspiring to denounce my philosophy will immediately show their true intentions: free, unadulterated access to education is a cornerstone of truly democratic societies. The British seem to think so.
Our educational system is incredibly obsolete for our time. To be sure, it is a good measure to mandate that all Americans should have the right to a high school diploma. However, we've come a long way from the days when this country had nine universities for its 13 colonies, to our current plethora of institutes of higher education. We are waist-deep in the information age, and any lack of emphasis on education will force us, as Americans, to fall further and further behind the rest of the world.
I will openly state, from the outset, that my plan is a deliberately deconstructive response to the "No Child Left Behind" [sic] measures. It seems ludicrous to me that the United States Congress would rationally choose to implement a measure placing educational emphasis on "bubble-sheet" tests and rigid standards for teachers. Not only is the intent of the legislation seriously warped, but to tie meaningless educational standards to a school system's federal funding seems underhanded and malicious. It is, essentially, the blackmailing of our nation's educators and administrators. As I have grown up and ridden the cusp of the "No Child Left Behind" generation, I have seen the results, and they're not pretty. The arguments made for this policy's purported success are purely self-feeding; it's been shown that the improvements on test scores have been the result of lowering standards (in the case of Missouri), or removing non-tested elements from school curricula.
Absent my concerns over Bush's idea of education, this is a uniquely troubling vision of the nation's future. Strangely enough, even with this major educational reform underway, President George W. Bush has threatened a funding proposal for education recently, prompting me to wonder why Bush consistently practices "fiscal discipline" in the areas of public education and healthcare. It's interesting to note the relation between the Department of Education's budget and that of the Department of Defense, and observe the Bush administration's clearly-defined funding priorities.
A college education almost certainly guarantees a significantly larger income where a high school diploma will not. Add in the fact that a bachelor's degree just doesn't go as far as it used to, and you have a population composed of suddenly under-educated citizens. Not only does our current approach ignore the need for qualified professionals in the technology-driven economic market, but it is tantamount to the enslavement of the lower class. Higher education is a blatant barrier to low-income families achieving better status in our society.
Not only are they less likely to receive a high school diploma, but low-income college students are much less likely to complete college than their high-income counterparts. This has a nullifying effect on any arguments made for completely merit-based educational recognition.
Low-income high school graduates in the top quartile on standardized tests attend college at the same rate as high-income high school graduates in the bottom quartile on the same tests. Only 36 percent of college-qualified low-income students complete bachelor’s degrees within eight and a half years, compared with 81 percent of high-income students.
Furthermore, low-income students, the ones who are most likely to need student loans, remain uninformed about their student loan options. Concurrently, minority students have a decreased probability of graduating. Is it any wonder why we, the structuralists of the world, think that this is a system of inheritance? How is a poor kid supposed to get a bachelor's degree, when federal grants are a pittance, and scholarships guarantee we'll be in debt for decades? Well, there's always the possibility of dropping out.
If people weren't forced to get their education in a 15-20 year sprint, they could space out their studies, more easily adjust their education with employment, and we would have a guaranteed supply of qualified personnel in all fields. Is this a bad idea? I ask all these rhetorical questions because the answers seem self-explanatory. Here's my suggested mode of correction: we should imbue a non-governmental organization with the powers to disburse funds to private educational facilities and organizations. These funds will be provided by the federal government, who would maintain a Department of Education, for purposes of administrating programs for professional fields which require government certification.
I don't think the government should be absent from public education. Their role is critical; as a democratic society, our elected officials should take care to preserve the values of our forefathers in a changing world. But, like a well-behaved student, the government should be neither seen nor heard in the administration of education. A non-governmental, non-profit organization should be responsible for disbursing federal funds to schools. Furthermore, rather than conforming to an unbending set of standards (in a field where one size does not fit all), we should be encouraging diversity and innovation in educational institutions. It is important now, more than ever, that the general population enjoy a well-rounded education in the liberal arts and in fields such as engineering or medicine.
If we adopt the philosophy of "lifelong learning," we can imagine that adults are just as able to learn and grow as adolescents. It should be immediately apparent that the only barriers to continuing education for adults are time and money. Assuming this, if education were free, what society would we see emerge?
The United States now has the world's largest service economy, shedding our previous status as an industrial superpower. Our product focus has shifted from goods to ideas, and it is upon these ideas (the end result of education) that our nation's future rests. Imagine the number of qualified scientists in a field of research doubling or even tripling. Now imagine that number being replicated throughout all fields of research, adding to the capabilities of our society to solve its own problems. This is an enormous improvement to envision, yet it would pale in comparison with the number available after the general population could educate themselves in any field. Your plumber would have a master's in literature, your secretary, a Ph.D. in communications, and your children could look forward to as many degrees as their heart could want. With all these informed people out and about, it's also easy to envision a world where conversation is more relevant and productive.
With higher education, there is an attendant decrease in crime rates. It could also offer a means for self-rehabilitation for the millions behind bars in this country.
A greater median of general education in this country would also, conceivably, increase voter turnout. College-educated students are not only more likely to vote, but it seems logical that they would also be more responsible voters, leading to a better democratic policymaking process as a whole.
Education for adults will have a spillover effect on the next generation, encouraging a cultural habit of lifelong learning. A study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research states:
The positive impacts felt by those enrolled in higher education filtered down to their children. Many survey participants (42.4 percent) indicated that their children had improved study habits since their enrollment in higher education and almost a third (30.4 percent) indicated that their children are now making better grades. The vast majority of respondents (88.0 percent) indicated that education made them feel better equipped to help their children achieve educational goals[emphasis added].
A mind toward the future is certainly what this nation needs. With people struggling to keep up with daily developments, it's easy to get lost in the river of the present and stop thinking about the inevitable ends we will be taken to. As of now, the future is something I know nothing about, but I know one way to make sure it will be a smooth ride with a few surprises as possible: educate. I believe that not only do we have an obligation as members of a democratic society to be educated and enlightened, but we have an obligation to future societies to structure our actions and policies in a reasonable way. To do otherwise would be to deny our own consciousness; by failing to operate by virtue of our natural gifts of intelligence, we deny an integral part of ourselves. I consider my proposal for free education to be a self-fulfilling plea to reason; we must adapt to the world around us, whether we choose to in our leisurely prime, or with predictable disaster staring us in the face.
2 comments:
"Add in the fact that a bachelor's degree just doesn't go as far as it used to"
Exactly, lower standards and challenges even further and the greatest value of a higher education is in the alternative t.p. market.
"Your plumber would have a master's in literature, your secretary, a Ph.D. in communications,"
"and your children could look forward to as many degrees as their heart could want"
Wasting more time in college does not solve practical problems. You don't need a degree to validate your own experience and acquisition of skills and knowledge. The goal is a lifelong pursuit of knowledge, and you don't just get this from higher education.
Also; pragmatism, not idealism. I envision a furthering enlightenment of our nation's populace to come about as a result of technological and cultural evolution, not radical policy.
I would like to re-iterate one of my primary objectives at this time: that of a level playing field. If we are to respect the notion that, in a democratic society, a well-informed citizen is better than a less-informed citizen (crazy idea?), then shouldn't we attempt to ensure that our citizens are well-informed, in order to secure a trend of responsible decisionmaking in this country?
Hideo, you are correct that furthering our own enlightenment should be a priority. However, I believe that your philosophy is the ideal one. You ignore the fact that most people don't have access to higher education right now, effectively isolating them from the most lucrative career fields (including politics). Even if a college education is only part of furthering your life's education, wouldn't you agree that it's an integral part? . . Especially in the area of equal wages/opportunity for all?
You make a decent point that our nation should naturally evolve through technological and cultural evolution; this is exactly what I want to see. But what are the forces of cultural evolution? Does political policy play no part in our nation's future? How are we supposed to "evolve," if we as citizens are isolated from our government, and our culture is manipulated by from behind the curtains in media conglomerate conference rooms?
To be sure, I agree with you that people should undertake the responsibility to educate themselves as part of a personal philosophy, rather than under pressure of a societal burden. But allow me to make this point, as well: I only propose making education free, not mandatory. People should be able to learn at their own pace, not forced to educate themselves at the prodding of authority. If people don't want to learn, they probably won't, but it's difficult to justify shutting millions out of an opportunity at higher education just because they can get a library card. Sure, college isn't a panacea for stupidity, but it seems that any college student (such as yourself) should be able to appreciate that sometimes, just reading the material won't cut it.
As an aside, a pragmatic mindset is most problematic in a democratic society. I'd rather have an idealist at the helm of this ship than a pragmatist who uses his position to further his own political objectives, or a pragmatic worldview. The moment we surrender our government to the pragmatists is the moment we surrender to fascism, simply because a pragmatist cannot be trusted to value the needs of others.
Post a Comment