Schooling for Democracy

Abstract

CURRENT efforts at school reform--ostensibly designed to increase equality of outcomes--may actually be undermining our democracy by under-valuing wide range of talents required in 21st-century America. I contend that, instead of insisting on more and more standardization, we should be increasing variety, flexibility, and choice in what we offer in our schools. A REALITY CHECK Many policy makers today argue that all students should have a standard curriculum that will prepare them for college or There is little debate about how preparation for very different futures might also differ. Instead, more and more schools (and even some whole states) now require all secondary students to take traditional academic programs. The idea is to combat the soft bigotry of low expectations and prepare all students for college. The irony here is that, where such bigotry existed, it still exists. But now it has been transformed into bigotry of phony academic courses. Students are enrolled in, say, algebra, but course they actually experience has only a vague resemblance to real algebra. When kids complete such courses, they have on their transcripts, but they often have to take pre-algebra in a community college. They have not algebra; they've gone through a pseudo-algebra Why? Because these kids can't handle a real algebra course. Sometimes there is bigotry involved in this kind of response, but often it is simply truth. Lots of kids are neither prepared for nor interested in academic courses in mathematics. In trying too hard to keep such students from failing, conscientious teachers deliver a course largely devoid of genuine mathematics. A few imaginative, energetic teachers manage to pull some unprepared youngsters up to a respectable level of performance, but even teachers often sacrifice quality of their courses to spare their students experience of failure. But it is this system--not teachers--that is failing our kids. An enlightened school would spend time finding out what students are interested in and providing relevant courses. Kids who are forced into rigorous academic courses are doubly cheated: they do poorly in required courses, and they are deprived of courses in which they might do well. Do I seem to be defending tracking? Certainly, I'm not defending tracking as it has been implemented over last century, but I enthusiastically endorse concept. Schools should provide a variety of programs to address different needs, talents, and interests. Indeed, comprehensive high school introduced in early 20th century--for all its faults--made it possible to increase high school attendance from about 7% at beginning of century to well over 50% by mid-century. This was an unparalleled achievement in schooling. Unfortunately, differentiated programs--that is, tracks--were conceived hierarchically; best was academic track, others were thought to be lower, and vocational track was judged to be lowest of all. To make matters worse, students were tested or evaluated on basis of elementary school grades and were then assigned to tracks. Thus, much to our shame, students who had demonstrable talent in mechanics or business were shunted into courses that were often poorly conceived, poorly taught, and largely held in contempt. This way of treating kids had to end, but answer should not have been one we have chosen: force everyone into track once deemed best. I do not claim that all vocational courses have been of low quality. Many have been excellent. (1) It is clear also that most of goals we now hold for values and attitudes can be included in vocational as well as academic courses. The courses to be eliminated or drastically improved are those that have been regarded as dead ends, as dumping grounds for students thought to be incapable of academic work. …