Response to "Are all Texan children college bound?"

Chantell at Citizens Actions Toward The Government brings up some interesting points regarding education in her post "Are all Texan children college bound?" The falling graduation rates in the United States, and specifically Texas, are alarming. So is the fact that the U.S. is slipping in worldwide education rankings. Do we want to create a separate curriculum for students not pursuing post-secondary education? Is it better to graduate students by a lower standard rather than have them drop out?

It is common in other countries (such as Japan, Switzerland, or Korea for example) to have different secondary programs for students based on interest or ability. The examples I've chosen are considered to have some of the best educational systems in the world. So I think Chantell's question as to whether or not each student needs to follow the college bound curriculum carries a lot of weight. However, the standards for all students in these other countries are still very high and students are expected to put in significant effort. In the U.S., expectations are far lower, yet the dropout rate is much higher. Perhaps this demonstrates that the issue isn't the difficulty of the curriculum, but the expectations we as a society have on students and the cultural value we place on education. If we lower the standards to get more kids through the system and provide them with a minimal level of education, it will also lower the value of a diploma. It also won't change the fact that these children are being undereducated.

As our economy shifts from an industrial to a technological base, so shift our educational needs. We can't (nor should we want to) compete with countries like China or India in manufacturing. These are developing economies, with a much lower wage structure than ours. As a developed nation, our jobs need to be innovating and creating the products those countries manufacture. We can't afford to let the world pass us by in these areas. Additionally, a strong parallel exists between a nation's quality of life and it's education. Beyond the economic benefits, levels of education also affect societal problems (crime rates and teen pregnancy for example.)

Many question whether TAKS and the No Child Left Behind Act are the most effective way to raise our schools' standards. The arguments against these programs are legitimate, but I think it's important to remember that the reason these programs exist in the first place is to reestablish skill levels that our schools have been failing to meet. When trying to reach universal proficiency, what level of proficiency is expected? Chantell argues that we need to bring back the minimum plan so that "so that all children, regardless of their academic abilities will have the chance to graduate with pride." Pride is something we feel when we earn something, not when something is given to us. The whole point of education isn't to make students lives more difficult in the short term, but to make their lives easier in the long term. I understand her reasons and respect her argument, but I think we need to be very careful when lowering our academic standards. While I agree that bringing back the minimum plan may address some immediate concerns, I'd hate to see us headed in the wrong direction.

Like so many problems, there is no simple solution to this issue. We as a nation need to reevaluate our education system. We need to understand that the only way to remain the most economically powerful country in the world is to make education a priority. That doesn't just mean pushing children to excel in their studies, but also improving systems to support students dealing with issues like poverty and pregnancy, insuring that they don't slip through the cracks. It means increasing school budgets instead of trying to make our educators make do with less. It also means increasing the wages of teachers and finding ways to make the field more competitive.

Regardless of the standards we set or how we measure them, we can't expect the state of education to improve as we consistently try to find ways to spend as little as possible on it. Clearly, Texas has a long way to go.