Commentary on Taft's education reform
Gov. Bob Taft has correctly identified a crucial shortcoming among Ohio’s high-school students: Too few study foreign languages or tackle advanced math and science.
But the funding for his plan is elusive, and the mechanics of "Ohio Core" are vague.
The plan calls for four years of math, including Algebra 2; three years of science, including biology, chemistry and physics; and at least two years of a foreign language.
With less than a year left in office, the governor has given himself little time to advance what he described as a "major change."
Perhaps the plan would be more appropriately labeled "food for thought." In that spirit, let’s go over a few issues.
Taft has drawn a line in some shifting sands when he suggests making a heftier load of classes mandatory for applicants to statefunded, four-year colleges.
Two-year schools would get the remedial students, apparently. Granted, with smaller classes and teachers who actually want to teach, rather than conduct research, Ohio’s community colleges probably are better equipped for the challenge.
But do we want to push otherwise promising students into private or out-of-state schools? We also should understand thoroughly how such a mandate will alter the mission of two-year schools, long considered more accessible and affordable than four-year schools.
The college requirement is a reach, at best.
If foreign language is so important, we should be teaching it early on. Studies have shown that younger children can more easily and willingly grasp the subtleties of language.
Must we continue to endure our backward approach to language in this country?
And if we’re finally ready to take foreign language to heart, we might be sending a mixed message, and throwing good money after bad, with pending legislation that would make English the official language in Ohio.
Xenophobia and foreign-language development aren’t exactly compatible.
Besides, unless the school day is lengthened, we will be trading electives for mandatory courses, which isn’t all bad. But with relatively fixed resources, even well-off districts will have fewer choices at budget-cutting time.
Taft has proposed offering incentives — dare we say financial? — to increase the number of science, math and foreignlanguage teachers. But that’s easier said than done.
Most of our economy supposedly operates by supply and demand, although recent ups and downs at the gas pump suggest that the price per barrel of oil is linked to a little old lady at a slot machine in Reno.
When the demand for science teachers increases, we also can expect to pay more. Why should the lucky dog who’s good at math or science settle for the starting salaries we offer to teach public school in Ohio?
The prospect of change is exciting. Tapping the brains of schoolchildren in Ohio could produce wonderful results, assuming they are prepared for the task.
The brilliant and creative Carl Sagan likened the brain to a muscle, suggesting, "When it is in use, we feel very good. Understanding is joyous."
Kids want to learn and achieve. But pumping them full of expectations without preparation could create the opposite effect of Sagan’s rumination.
So, on second thought, Taft’s plan represents more than just food for thought.
That minimizes the proposal and sounds as though we’re talking about crumbs, which might be the case when it comes time to pay for such a plan.
But the larger concept suggests fundamental change. And for that, we should set the table for a banquet.
Ann Fisher is a Dispatch Metro columnist . She can be reached at 614-461-8759 or by e - mail . afisher@dispatch.com
posted by Kathie Bracy at 10:28 AM
<< Home