A well-rounded education

Last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece from Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Diane Ravitch focusing on concerns that NCLB and recent legislation increasing funding for science, technoloyg, engineering and math subjects will increase the tendency of public school districts to abandon history, literature, geography, economics, etc. in favor of tested subjects.  Anyone familiar with recent education reform will recognize that Mr. Finn cannot be accused of a "don't worry; our schools are fine" mentality.  He was in the vanguard of raising cconcerns that urban students (primarily minorities) were being cheated of a solid education.  He's still on the same message, but now concerned that the focus on some "basics" will actually continue to shortchange these students.  The authors raise some good points, and at least one that addresses MNPS' SSA.  The full article seems to be available at:

http://online. wsj.com/article/ SB11865375953249 1305.html? mod=googlenews_ wsj

On the possible cheating of public school students, I pull two paragraphs:

Students who garner high-tech skills may still get undercut by people halfway around the world who are willing to do the same work for one-fifth of the salary. The surest way to compete is to offer something the Chinese and Indians (and Vietnamese, Singaporeans, etc.) cannot -- technical skills are not enough.

***

Pragmatic folks naturally seek direct links from skill to result, such as engineers using their technical knowledge to keep planes aloft and bridges from buckling. But what about Abraham Lincoln educating himself via Shakespeare, the Bible and other great literary works? Alan Greenspan's degrees are in economics but he plays a mean jazz saxophone. Indeed, many of today's foremost (and wealthiest) entrepreneurs, people like Warren Buffett, studied economics -- not a STEM subject -- in college. Adam Smith studied moral philosophy.

Of course, the children of well-to-do parents won't be subject to such shortchanging.  That means the children of the members of Congress who are passing these laws won't be subject to them either.  In the last couple of years, I've had a great deal more opportunity to get to know the world of elite private education.  "Focusing on the basics" is NOT the priority for such schools!

Abandoning the liberal arts in the name of STEM alone also risks widening social divides and deepening domestic inequities. The well-to-do who understand the value of liberal learning may be the only ones able to purchase it for their children. Top private schools and a few suburban systems will stick with education broadly defined, as will elite colleges. Rich kids will study philosophy and art, music and history, while their poor peers fill in bubbles on test sheets. The lucky few will spawn the next generation of tycoons, political leaders, inventors, authors, artists and entrepreneurs. The less lucky masses will see narrower opportunities. Some will find no opportunities at all, which frustration will tempt them to prey upon the fortunate, who in turn will retreat into gated communities, exclusive clubs, and private this-and-that' s, thereby widening domestic rifts and worsening our prospects for social cohesion and civility

Comments

[David Shearon]

Eric, I think it comports quite well, assuming a good set of underlying tests reading, writing, math, science, and social studies. The quantity of on-leve reading for a student is important to the acquisition of reading skills, vocabulary, grammar, etc. All of these will show up on good achievement tests and thus be reflected in value-added gains. Plus the knowledge picked up in such reading will show up in science and social studies, and reading and writing - knowledge matters in those areas, too. I was once PTSO President at a school with a heavily constructive, group work, project-oriented approach to 8th grade. This was a school for ordinary students, many from families with significantly below average inccomes. Value-added scores wered impressive everywhere but math, and that was because they were trying to use a 6th grade set of materials from Vanderbilt that fit their pedagogy and up-grade it to the level of the students. That didn't work, and the value-added scores helped estabilsh that fact so they could move on to other approaches to the same goal.

Also, when I started studying value-added, I talked with Bill Sanders about this very point. I said that if high value-added schools were not places I would want my own children to go, then I might not be very supportive. (Too bad more federal legislators and local business leaders don't take the same approach!) He pointed to the highest scoring middle school in the state in the early years of value-added (and still so today, I think) -- Maryville Middle School. Sixth - eighth grade, no entrance requirements, at that time a 3-1 student to computer ratio, lots of projects, student presentation were regularly attended by community members, and their was a get-up-to-speed program for those who came in below reading level so they could do the work expected.

Yes, I think a great education will produce great value-added scores for high, average, and low-achieving students.

[Eric]

Any thoughts on how value-added comports with quality liberal education? For example, might exposure to Junior Great Books be reflected favorably in value-added scores?