I have been thinking about maximization, equalization and meritocracy and the fact that they each have positive aspects, but each can be taken to extremes that seem unreasonable. I was thinking about how to take the ideal qualities of each and incorporate them into a policy that would benefit the citizens of our country. In a way, that is what our policy makers have tried to do, attempting to maximize citizen’s life chances by providing an education that gives the basis of knowledge to participate in our society, making an effort to bring all students up to a certain level of standards (NCLB), and assisting citizens in furthering their educations through institutions of higher learning. As there are issues with each of the three educational policy theories that Gutmann discussed, there are issues with the policies that have been established in our country. It seems that we have not successfully maximized citizen’s life chances by only giving them the basic knowledge to function in society. Our efforts to bring children up to a consistent higher level (NCLB) have weakened schools by taking away funding and in some aspects seem to have widened “the gap”. Although states help fund students to go to college, there are still many students who have natural abilities and motivation and cannot receive adequate assistance in order to attend institutions of higher education. I understand that it may be impossible to provide a “maximum life chance” to all citizens, and it may be unfair to only further the education of the lower level or the higher level students, but I am not convinced that a compromise is impossible to reach.
That is when I read several articles related to an alternative approach to education, the Reggio Emilia approach, initiated by a small town in northern Italy. After World War II the first institution the town rebuilt was its preschool. The community is directly involved with the education of their young children, and they help to support the preschools. Since 1963 many early childhood education systems like this were opened, due in part to state funding. I was not able to find specific information on the nature of the funding. The essential concepts are: “These schools are part of a public system that strives to serve both the child’s welfare and the social needs of the families, while supporting the child’s fundamental right to grow and learn in a favorable environment with peers and with caring professional adults.” (Koenig 18)
Some of the basic philosophies of these preschools are:
*Children are strong and capable beings.
*There is emphasis on the social constructivist theory that says we form ourselves through our interactions with those things around us.
*Children’s intellectual development is fostered through many different hands on stimulating activities.
*The design of the classroom environment is used to provoke student’s communication and interaction.
*Teacher is seen as partner, nurturer and educational guide to the student, the teacher is also constantly researching to find better ways to facilitate and encourage student learning, and documents the stages of students in order to better understand and support them.
*Parent is seen as partner in their child’s learning experience.
I find this approach to early education very holistic. I feel that it incorporates some of the positive ideals proposed in maximization, equalization and meritocracy. The state is providing adequate funding to these preschools, and the educators are maximizing the student’s potential future life chances. By allowing students to develop their communication skills, problem solving skills, and a general interest in learning, students will have the foundation necessary to further their education. Without discriminating these schools also provide an environment where students with special needs and gifted students can flourish. Their special needs students are referred to as special rights students, and they are able to work at their own pace right along with the other students. In this same manner, gifted students work on their own projects at their own pace.
Although the Reggio Emilia concept is developed towards fostering early childhood growth, and has an emphasis on the creation of art, I feel that our public education institutions could benefit from aspects of their philosophy.
If you’re interested in reading more about this, a good website I found is:
http://zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/index.htm
Koenig, Donna, and Davilla Koenig and Susan Koenig. “Bringing the Reggio Concept to
American Educators.” Art Education July 1998: 18-25.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As much as I agree with your reaction, the only issue that I just can not quite wrap my head around is how come politicians do not quite see education as more of a help than a hinderance to society.
If the government realizes that the principles of maximization, equalization and meritocracy are what drives education to the fullest potential available to all, then why is it the education suffers the most during a budget crisis. This aside from what the NCLB law mandates, as far as trimming funding for failing schools.
I like what you said about the program in Italy. It demonstrates what parents can do when they come together to provide educational resources for their children. We often think of education strictly in the formal schooling sense. I believe that Gutmann's democratic threshold is the best method of providing educational resources. People are given a basic level of education, so that they have the tools to continue educating themselves, just as these Italian parents and communities addressed their own needs.
In the business world many successful people have no formal education. Are they educated? Yes! They stay informed, read and study their industries. Their success comes from their ideas that work. Education should be about providing the tools for each individual to have the opportunity to educate themselves in the areas in which they are interested. That is how a society can best allocate its resources, even in these hard economic times.
My quick response to Brian's comment is that we seem to be moving in the direction of regarding education as a private good (like a home) as opposed to a public good (like a park or road).
Post a Comment