So Levy's first point: Raise the age of compulsory education to 19.
I am on the fence regarding this point; I do not think that we need more worthless education, but I could support a well-designed program - and non-compulsory additional years have worked in other countries (Germany, Montreal's CEGEP). It would be a nice inroad for the federal government to education (which I support). However, I think that it cannot all be focused on college preparation: because a modern college education will not be necessary for all career paths- it is more about the responsibility and maturation that can occur in the years from 18-22 than it is about taking courses on the Romantic Poets. Multiple options must be presented to students. I am torn further regarding the suggestion that advanced students who are ready for college at a younger age get government support at the level they would have if still in school. As a precocious learner myself I would have liked such a program, however, almost all studies show that keeping the most gifted students in general classes raises the level of other students. And Levy's suggestion that the departure of advanced students could relieve overcrowding is ridiculous- the students that will be prepared for college at a younger age will come from the wealthier suburban school districts that were not struggling with overcrowding in the first place.
Point 2: Curb truancy.
A very good goal- but I am not sure that pressuring parents, especially those that have already failed their children, is the sole route to be followed. Surely the fact that the schools with the highest levels of truancy are failing in other ways too means that if we could make then worth attending, fewer students would be truants.
Point 3: Advertise for college attendance, take on for-profit universities.
Here I need to do a little research: against which other universities 'degrees does a University of Phoenix diploma stack up? Is it as good for students straight out of high school? It is clearly beneficial for middle-class students that they are brought up in an environment where parents and teachers expect them to succeed and go on to college, and if advertising is the route to reach lower income students then I must support it. Once I again, I must restate my belief that college is not a panacea for all ills, and many career paths should not require it. The time and money it would cost our society for 100% college attendance would not be worth what most students currently learn in college.
Point 4: Public rankings of colleges, not US News and World Report.
I fully support this idea, and though I will object to any method actually set-forth, the UK example is one we could follow. (I dislike the details and bureaucracy my UK academic colleagues have to endure for the ranking of their programs- and there are ways to game their system also, but well, at least it isn't the USNWR methodology.) Speaking of which, I think that improvements in the education of students have been made by universities solely seeking to improve their ranking.
Point 5: Improve pre-college education. Keep Americans in STEM fields.
This is the most important point, and the least developed idea. How do you do you want to do this Levy? And if you do this Levy, are any other of the other points necessary?
Point 2: Curb truancy.
A very good goal- but I am not sure that pressuring parents, especially those that have already failed their children, is the sole route to be followed. Surely the fact that the schools with the highest levels of truancy are failing in other ways too means that if we could make then worth attending, fewer students would be truants.
Point 3: Advertise for college attendance, take on for-profit universities.
Here I need to do a little research: against which other universities 'degrees does a University of Phoenix diploma stack up? Is it as good for students straight out of high school? It is clearly beneficial for middle-class students that they are brought up in an environment where parents and teachers expect them to succeed and go on to college, and if advertising is the route to reach lower income students then I must support it. Once I again, I must restate my belief that college is not a panacea for all ills, and many career paths should not require it. The time and money it would cost our society for 100% college attendance would not be worth what most students currently learn in college.
Point 4: Public rankings of colleges, not US News and World Report.
I fully support this idea, and though I will object to any method actually set-forth, the UK example is one we could follow. (I dislike the details and bureaucracy my UK academic colleagues have to endure for the ranking of their programs- and there are ways to game their system also, but well, at least it isn't the USNWR methodology.) Speaking of which, I think that improvements in the education of students have been made by universities solely seeking to improve their ranking.
Point 5: Improve pre-college education. Keep Americans in STEM fields.
This is the most important point, and the least developed idea. How do you do you want to do this Levy? And if you do this Levy, are any other of the other points necessary?
No comments:
Post a Comment