|
|
|
|
 |
Consider the measure -- the America
Competes Act -- that recently passed Congress and is on its way to the
president's desk. The bill will substantially increase government funding
for science, technology, engineering and math ("STEM" subjects). President
Bush, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings as well as House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid support this initiative.
Nearly all of the 2008 presidential candidates endorse its goals. And 38
state legislatures have also recently enacted STEM bills. The buzz is as
constant as summer cicadas.
Indeed, STEM has swiftly emerged as the hottest education topic since No Child
Left Behind. They're related, too. NCLB puts a premium on reading
and math skills and also pays some attention to science. Marry it with
STEM and you get heavy emphasis on a particular suite of skills.
But there is a problem here. Worthy though these skills are, they ignore
at least half of what has long been regarded as a "well rounded" education in
Western civilization: literature, art, music, history, civics and
geography. Indeed, a new study from the Center on Education Policy says
that, since NCLB's enactment, nearly half of U.S. school districts have reduced
the time their students spend on subjects such as art and music.
This is a mistake that will ill-serve our children while misconstruing the true
nature of American competitiveness and the challenges we face in the 21st
century.
As with all education reforms, the STEM-winders mean well. They reason that
India and China will eat America's lunch unless we boost our young people's
prowess in the STEM fields. But these enthusiasts don't understand that
what makes Americans competitive on a shrinking, globalizing planet isn't
out-gunning Asians at technical skills. Rather, it's our people's
creativity, versatility, imagination, restlessness, energy, ambition and
problem-solving prowess.
True success over the long haul -- economic success, civic success, cultural
success, domestic success, national defense success -- depends on a broadly
educated populace with flowers and leaves as well as stems. That's what
equips us to invent and imagine and grow one business line into another.
It's also how we acquire qualities and abilities that aren't easily "outsourced"
to Guangzhou or Hyderabad.
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.
Apple's iPod was not just an engineering improvement on Sony's Walkman. It
emerged from Steve Jobs's American-style understanding of people's lifestyles,
needs, tastes and capacities. (Yes, Mr. Jobs dropped out of college -- but
went on to study philosophy and foreign cultures.)
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.
The liberal arts make us "competitive" in the ways that matter most. They
make us wise, thoughtful and appropriately humble. They help our human
potential to bloom. And they are the foundation for a democratic civic
polity, where each of us bears equal rights and responsibilities.
History and literature also impart to their students healthy skepticism and
doubt, the ability to question, to ask both "why?" and "why not?" and, perhaps
most important, readiness to challenge authority, push back against conventional
wisdom and make one's own way despite pressure to conform. (How will that
be viewed in China?)
We're already at risk of turning U.S. schools into test-prepping skill factories
where nothing matters except exam scores on basic subjects. That's not
what America needs nor is it a sufficient conception of educational
accountability. We need schools that prepare our children to excel and
compete not only in the global workforce but also as full participants in our
society, our culture, our polity and our economy.
Addressing a recent Fordham Foundation education conference, Arts Endowment
chairman Dana Gioia said "We need a system that grounds all students in
pleasure, beauty and wonder. It is the best way to create citizens who are
awakened not only to their humanity, but to the human enterprise that they
inherit and will -- for good or ill -- perpetuate."
Creating such a system calls not for a host of specialized new institutions and
government programs, but for closely examining the curriculum in all our
schools. It also calls for recalibrating academic standards and graduation
requirements, as well as amending our testing-and-accountability schemes -- most
certainly including NCLB -- by widening the definition of "proficient" to
include reasoning, creativity and knowledge across a dozen subjects as well as
basic cognitive skills. We need to start reconceptualizing "highly
qualified" teachers as people who are themselves broadly educated rather than
narrowly specialized.
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.
Not a pretty picture. Adding leaves and flowers to STEM and NCLB won't
necessarily avert it -- but hewing to basic skills at the expense of a complete
education will surely worsen it.
Mr. Finn and Ms. Ravitch, former assistant U.S. Secretaries of
Education and members of the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education at the Hoover
Institution, are editors of "Beyond the Basics: Achieving a Liberal
Education for All Children" (Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2007).
(Emphasis Added)
Send mail to
email@gaypasg.org with questions or comments about this web site.
|
