Schools of opportunity

— In addition to all the normal back-to-school preparatory rituals prior to last week, I also participated on a small advisory panel for a few classes at Jonesboro High School.

A teacher friend and fellow parent had first invited me to be part of this group a couple of years ago when JHS was formulating a long-term plan for its desktop publishing program and wanted some real-world opinions as to computer software and so forth.

Several of the teachers treated several of us real-worlders to lunch while we talked nitty gritty about computer platforms (Mac vs. PC), layout programs (In-Design vs. Quark) and so on. Then they treated us to a tour of their newly outfitted classrooms to show that our previous collective recommendations had been taken to heart and implemented.

Being an Apple enthusiast, I was awestruck when I saw gleaming, brand-new iMacs lining the walls in one room. Students there will be using Final Cut Pro for their class projects, the very same software used by video professionals the world over.

Ditto with desktop publishing students, who will be firing up Creative Suite 4, the latest version of Adobe's industry standard powerhouse. Marketing and accounting students will be likewise benefiting from incredibly up-to-date technology and techniques.

The important thing about these hightech laboratories of skilled instruction is that they didn't happen by accident. The teachers made a concerted effort, including extra effort, to understand both the expectations of colleges and employers in these fields and the workplace tools students that will encounter there.

Talk about a head start. A student with a talent for videography, for example, will literally have the opportunity of a lifetime sitting in front of a latest-edition computer using a world-class editing program. Desktop publishing students cruising along in CS4 will be working with a newer version of that softwarethan many college-educated employees at small businesses.

I was reminded of all this by the 2009 report published by the National Center for Education Statistics on international assessments. U.S. students, while holding steady or doing slightly better in math and science scores than they did a few years ago, are still falling behind internationally, the NCES report said. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan bluntly stated that we were "lagging" behind the rest of the world in "pretty substantial" ways.

International comparisons are never simple. Many foreign schools have classes all day, all year. Many foreign countries don't offer universal or free education. Many cull less than proficient students early, diverting them to technical training. That means we're hardly comparing apples with our global counterparts.

What's more, the NCES international assessments report, which is required by law, doesn't conduct a study itself. Instead, it analyzes data from a number of other international studies, spanning combinations of episodic participation among countries, and even then not always the same in each study each year.

The resulting mishmash can be difficult to compare, especially over time, and at best gives a snapshot of test scores.

Outcome analysis is valuable, but hardly comprehensive when assessing a system. Input invariably affects output, and with regard to something as pliable as education, input is arguably the most important factor.

History is replete with stories of students hungry for knowledge withoutaccess to formal schooling who rose to levels of mastery and success. Conversely, a state-of-the-art school with a fabulous curriculum and great teachers often isn't enough to lift a student with no interest (and no parental influence) out of apathy and ignorance.

Viewed in that context, a better international measure would be the degree of opportunity offered by a nation's school system. We ought to be gauging the resources available to any willing student rather than a collective extrapolation of test scores taken by students with wideranging levels of commitment and determination.

We don't analyze our own governmental system that way. Our federal republic was designed to facilitate the realization of natural rights. It's been a clear understanding from the first, although it's gotten fuzzier of late, that happiness itself cannot be the product of government. Government can seek only to provide the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness. Citizens, as Ben Franklin famously remarked, must catch it themselves.

Likewise, schools can be powerful

enablers of education, but they cannot

guarantee it and must not be measured

exclusively against that standard. The

NCES should be directed to conduct an international opportunity assessment. A student intent on getting an education has incredible. and likely unparalleled, opportu

nity here in America, even in poorer states like Arkansas.

I'd like to see how the Russian Federation, which surpassed U.S. fourth-graders in average reading scores, would compare in the opportunity its schools present.

There's always room for improvement in public education, but we need to stop confusing what schools can do with what students and parents aren't doing.

-

———◊-

———

Dana D. Kelley is a free-lance writer from Jonesboro.

Editorial, Pages 19 on 08/28/2009

Upcoming Events