Get the First 12 Years Right
I do not doubt President Clinton’s good intentions when he advocates two years of college for all. Few would argue that more isn’t better when it comes to education. But simply housing reluctant scholars longer, while good for unemployment figures, will not necessarily make ours a more intellectual society. Shouldn’t we figure out how to make the most of the time we already hold students captive before extending their sentence?
Twelve years is a long time. I wonder how many 17-year-olds Clinton talked with about his idea. Chelsea and her friends may have offered one point of view, but many of the seniors I know are sick of school. Their interests have run counter to curriculum for years. Why would two more years in a classroom be a good use of their time? Given the depressing statistics on how few high school graduates meet Cal State minimum requirements for college-level math and English classes, it seems obvious that instead of focusing on higher education, we should be thinking about what is and isn’t happening in elementary and secondary education.
There are many who worry that in the rush to raise academic standards, we will penalize children who, through no fault of their own, have not been adequately prepared to meet them. Clinton’s answer to this was a good one: “Raising standards will not be easy, and some of our children will not be able to meet them at first. The point is not to put our children down but to lift them up.” Maybe we should reexamine the whole notion of what we mean by “standards.” The traditional standard is a crossbar, a barrier that students must break through if they are to be deemed proficient, a finish line of sorts. But the first definition of standard in the Oxford English Dictionary is “a flag, sculptured figure or other conspicuous object raised on a pole to indicate the rallying point of an army; the distinctive ensign of a king, commander, nation or city.” Why not replace our old image with this one?
Picture the impact it would have if we thought about academic standards as a national rallying point and really made education America’s first priority. This would mean that when children are not making the progress we expect, resources are marshaled to make sure that they do. Schools where large numbers of children historically have been under-prepared could be targeted for special attention and the finest teachers, paid on par with experts in other fields, brought in to turn the tide.
The military metaphor is apt. It’s time to declare war on ignorance. On the front lines we need reinforcements, crack teams of teachers and librarians, highly trained, committed professionals willing to work under fire. We also need more ammunition: science equipment, computers, textbooks. It is hard to get involved in a lesson on dissecting when there is only one frog for 35 students. The battle also must be waged on the home front. Let’s impose rationing on television viewing. Imagine public libraries, teaming with recent acquisitions, fully equipped for Internet access, open ‘round the clock.
We can win if we put our minds to it. If Clinton means what he says about lifting up America’s children, he is going to have to do more than make it possible for them to spend two more years in school. He needs to make sure schools get the first 12 right.
