|
March 08, 2006
Education: a "right" some people don't want!
One of my pet peeves is the appalling state of education in this country, and I've tended to focus on misguided educational theories, as well as teachers who can't teach. Patrick Welsh, an English teacher from Alexandria, Virginia, argues that in a rush to blame teachers, too many people are forgetting that American students just don't apply themselves: When asked to identify the most important factors in their performance in math, the percentage of Japanese and Taiwanese students who answered "studying hard" was twice that of American students.I would note that the place in which Mr. Welsh teaches -- T.C. Williams High School -- is a public school. That means some of the students don't want to be there, and it is probably very difficult for them to be disciplined or expelled. I had a friend who taught school and gave up. The kids didn't pay attention and there was no way to make them pay attention. I went to a private religious school, and if a student didn't pay attention, inevitable consequences would follow. If he was distracting other boys, he'd be immediately kicked out of class and sent to the principal. If he merely didn't apply himself, he'd get a failing grade. If these problems persisted, he'd be kicked out. What complicates this process in the public schools is that they're held hostage by a lack of alternative schools (and fierce legal opposition to the few that exist). As a practical matter, what is to be done with kids who simply will not pay attention, who will not learn, and who are disciplinary problems? It all seems to come down to this notion that there's a "right" to be there. I don't think there is any such right. Whether there's a "right" to education is questionable at best (as a libertarian I have a problem with the theory), but even if we concede that there is such a "right," what does it mean? A right to be educated? What is that? A right is something we normally think of as voluntary. In theory, a right is not a duty. The First Amendment right to free speech no more imposes a duty to speak out publicly than the Second Amendment imposes a duty to carry a gun. So how does this education "right" factor into the theory of rights? As a right to simply be in a physical location where there is an opportunity to be educated? The problem with seeing education as a "right" is that we don't see it as a right. We use government force to compel students to be in these places. Thus, it is not reasonable to see education merely as a right. What we call "education" is a duty imposed by the state as well as a right. If the state can impose such a duty, and compel the physical presence of students in places of learning, I see no reason why it can't require them to behave in certain ways. To do otherwise means that education ceases to be education, and ceases to be a right. Schools simply become government-mandated holding facilities for children. I'm not saying that there should not be government-mandated holding facilities for children, mind you. But why not restrict them to the students whose conduct demonstrates that they don't want to be in real schools? A two tiered system -- one for students who want to learn, and another for "students" who won't -- strikes me as eminently reasonable, and better than the present system of pretending that a duty is a right. This idea has been tried in the form of "alternative schools." But it's opposed -- and litigated every step of the way -- by people whose subordinates the rights of the many to the tyranny of the few -- the latter consisting of people who seem to think the right to education means the right to destroy it for others: Discipline and behavior problems in America's public schools are serious, pervasive and are compromising student learning. They are also driving a substantial number of teachers out of the profession. These are some key findings from a new national study of teachers and parents which found that while only a handful of trouble makers cause most disciplinary problems, "the tyranny of the few" leads to a distracting and disrespectful atmosphere. Teachers in particular complain about the growing willingness of some students and parents to challenge teacher judgment and threaten legal action.Under the present system, it borders on the frivolous to call education a right. If it is a right, it should be freely exercisable like any other right -- with penalties for interfering with it. There can be no right to education without a right to exclude those who interfere with the right, because interference with others' rights is not a right. The more troubling moral question is whether or not a student has a right to refuse to be educated. Does the right to education include the right to fail? I'd argue that it does, because without failure, there is no right to succeed. But if failure is not an option (as many don't think it should be), then why pretend there is such a thing as a right to education? posted by Eric on 03.08.06 at 08:46 AM
Comments
Frank Zappa said it best: "Drop out of school before your mind rots from exposure to our mediocre educational system...go to the library and EDUCATE YOURSELF if you've got any guts..." Is there a right to be educated? Of course there is -- no one has the right to deny you the knowledge you seek (except of course for military secrets and confidential personal information). Is there a "right" to fail? No, but a capitalist republic means you have the "freedom" to succeed, and the freedom to fail. The problem is: first, that we, AS A SOCIETY, have the OBLIGATION to give our kids the education they need to function and be free in this society; and second, that nearly everyone, particularly parents, are pushing their parts of that obligation onto each other; and since it's an obligation, there will be a point where we simply can't kick the kids out of the system, any more than a parent can kick a ten-year-old out of the family house. When I told my parents that one of my teachers was an idiot, they laughed and told me stories of their own stupid-teacher experiences. Then they told me to read the textbooks, learn the material on my own, and regurgitate as needed to get good grades. If they EVER took a stand against a teacher's action that I didn't like, I never heard of it; all I heard was "The school rules are law, just like our rules are law -- no special treatment!" The idea of me threatening a teacher in any way was simply alien to my world. Raging Bee · March 8, 2006 03:16 PM I come from a long line of teachers, and it's a difficult question... what do you do with these children. In general, the worst offenders for high/middle schools are from parents who are not interested in scholastic merits. This could be for any number of reasons: the parents are not involved in child's life, parents who spoil their children, parents who give more praise for athletic achievement(than academics). Basically, the child feels no need to excell academically. New school programs are being experimented with (according to 60 minutes) , especially for younger kids, that focus on parent involvement. Parents must spend X amount of time with their child, and if that doesn't happen the child is placed back in the regular schools. But what do you do with these students who are kicked out of multiple schools? (this is a common problem among troublesome students). Do you leave them home (which often happens in temorary suspensions) where there is usually no parental guardian around to watch them? where the child just learns to get into more trouble? Seperating students also gets tricky. Consider the a southern school (do not remember state) where students were set up into tiers of ability. Not suprisingly, many of the students were put into tiers based on ethnicity, not based on ability. After the system was finally ironed out, many white parents left the school upset that their children were no longer rated 'top tier'. It also 'damns' lower achievement students to a weaker system, which encourages dropout. Soon they get worse teachers, like education even less, go less often... Education needs a dramatic shakeup, a dramatic rethinking of the way to instill in our children the desire to learn. And that is the problem. Our schools are decent, it is more that our society views education as unimportant. Oh, people like the job you can get from education, but very few students make it to your average public college with a drive to learn (usually it takes a push and a shove) alchemist · March 8, 2006 03:30 PM Wow. I do not miss the days of being a graduate student. Having no money, catering to daddy's girls and momma's boys, competing with ass-kissers for funding. And for what? Just so I could have that little piece of paper. cyberpets · March 14, 2006 12:52 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Great post.
I also surmise that those who do not want to exercise their "right" to education also interfere with others' education in a financial way. I venture to guess that the costs of discipline, alternative schools, added security, etc. resulting from the recalcitrant students are massive. And would certainly be better spent on those who wish to actually learn.
I'd say No School for those who demonstrate no effort toward their own education. Or perhaps public service (picking up road litter, etc.) -- preparing them for their future as one of the uneducated. Tough Love, so to speak. Empower the schools to kick out the unwilling. Then, perhaps, public education can again make some progress -- once the participants agree on the ultimate objective.