From: WALL STREET JOURNAL
Not By Geeks Alone
By CHESTER E. FINN, JR. and DIANE RAVITCH, August 8, 2007
In
a globalizing economy, America's competitive edge depends in large
measure on how well our schools prepare tomorrow's workforce.
And
notwithstanding the fact that Congress and the White House are now
controlled by opposing parties, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle
are bent on devising new programs and boosting education spending.
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 rexxxxs, 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 conxxxx.
(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, xxxxer 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).
| 
发表于 2007-8-27 19:31
