Brett cited a story in the Washington Post that notes 50% of the children under age 5 in this country are minorities. Brett notes to significant problems raised by this demographic reality:
That throws two tremendous challenges into the face of public education – challenges that will manifest on an epic scale.Indeed, a couple of important points.
First, we have a poor track record of educating African-American and Hispanic children. They consistently trail whites and Asians on NAEP tests, and they also have much higher dropout rates than other populations. If we don’t learn to reach these audiences much more effectively, our problems will only accelerate and intensify.
Next, this brings up real issues of school funding. As Andrew Rotherham has noted, as the population ages, they will feel less inclined to outlay more and more money for public education. As the article states, some older people will be even less inclined to lend their support if the school population looks less and less like them.
On the first question, I don't have much of solution, other than to say that we must, as a nation, move beyond the simple excuses of poverty, minority status and victimhood that are constantly bandied about as the reason for the poor showing. Admittedly socio-economic status may impact education, but it certainly does not in any way determine the success or failure of a child. I do not endorse social programs to help these students stay in class or get better grades, I simply expect them to do so. I refuse to buy into the situation that if we just make classes "more relevant" to their "cultural heritage" they will do better. If relevance to cultureal heritage is so important, why do Asian American students succeed when the curriculum is supposedly not geared to their heritage either?
The funding issue presents a very difficult situation indeed. Generally, those without school age children are loathe to support any tax or bonding measure for schools. The impact will be on aging school facilities.
But interestingly, I have not seen much antipathy for school funding as many people suspect. Just as people continue to pay taxes to support programs they don't use or agree, I am not sure so sure that people without kids in the school system will cease funding school initiatives. If anything, I believe the incentives to be reversed. In areas where the population is not comprised mostly of families with small chilren, I think you are more likely to find a government and a school board that is more likely to think twice before proposing a school construction bond issue. It is far more prudent to ask only when money is needed (and more likely to be passed) than to routinely ask for bonds and be defeated regularly at the polls. Thus, geographic areas with fewer children, while not needing as many schools, may actually have more fiscally prudent school systems--for the very reason that they know frivolous spending on schools will not be well received by the electorate.
No comments:
Post a Comment