You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

Forum: Democratizing education

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results

I have always wondered about going to an Ivy League school. My brother, who attended Cornell, told me that up to the first day of Law School, fellow students were packing and leaving for Harvard upon receiving late acceptance notices to that school. Apparently, the name Harvard is just that important.

For those of us who choose (or are accepted into) less prestigious institutions of learning, there are other factors to consider. Extensive networking activities may avail themselves upon graduation, depending on college of choice, extracurricular affiliation, city and state you will eventually reside, degree and myriad additional reasons. Who knew? Back then, I thought higher learning was mainly about quality and degree of education.

Today, if I wanted, I could listen to undergraduate lectures at Yale. This academic institution has decided to post them on-line for anyone who wants to pursue the Yale experience -- at no cost. This is possible because of a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. I must admit I'm curious. I wonder if a course of study at an Ivy League school is really more rigorous than what I experienced at a reputable Midwestern university or is it that once you are accepted, you simply attend classes among higher-caliber students. If I acquired a syllabus and did all the work expected of an undergraduate student, would anyone take me seriously if I said I attended Yale? The question that begs to be asked is whether a person can achieve an acceptable level of education and prove academic ability without being awarded a degree from any particular institution of learning? When that is the case, then we are truly democratizing education.

I'm intrigued and pleased there is, for example, a foundation, Open Educational Resources (OER), seeking to "use information technology to help equalize access to knowledge and educational opportunities across the world. The initiative targets educators, students and self-learners worldwide." (http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Education/OER/openEdResources.htm)

While there are breakthroughs such as this, there are others who want badly to hoard quality education and prevent access to such learning. For example, State Rep. Monique Davis of Chicago has introduced House Bill 232 that, "Prohibits the State Board of Education and school boards from establishing, maintaining, or in any way supporting any virtual schools or virtual classes for elementary or secondary students in Illinois." Why can't some people fathom the idea of allowing our tax dollars to pay for anything but the public school system?

Why are so many people afraid of equalizing educational opportunity? Personally, I'm all for allowing access to curricula -- especially to that which is nonideological, which meets rigorous academic standards, and allows a student to pursue learning in a different venue than the traditional classroom. The likelihood is that a self-motivated individual can accomplish more -- and in less time than it takes at school.

Perhaps some students can avoid gangs or an unsafe environment. Maybe others can avoid being bullied. Our schools do not do enough to protect some kids. Could it be that others are experiencing proselytizing?

As a parent of two teenagers, I don't always agree with what they are exposed to in their classrooms. Certainly, I don't see a balance of ideological perspectives presented. Maybe some parents disagree with the academic curriculum at the local school or are uncomfortable with a strictly secular environment.

Recently, a court of law told some parents they could not object to the school offering lessons on same-sex "marriage." I am against schools teaching anything other than core academic subjects. But I suppose some people will want to debate me about what is considered a core subject and "more important" than other areas of learning.

For countless reasons, students should be allowed to choose the form and delivery of their education -- as long as it prepares them for their chosen career. It would be in our best interest to allow people to take tests or prove in other ways their qualifications in areas of study.

Abraham Lincoln did not attend a formal law school, yet he practiced law. While I do not advocate going backward and allowing just anyone to put up a shingle, I suggest people might be able to meet certain academic goals and objectives through nontraditional means, at less cost, and be able to prove their level of education without receiving a degree from a traditional institution. It is worth exploring.

If we are truly to democratize learning opportunities, we need to stop telling people where and how they are to receive their education. Instead, we should develop standards that must be met to prove a certain "degree" of learning has taken place. Many of us are lifelong learners. Isn't that really the goal?

NANCY SALVATO

President of The Basics Project, (www.Basicsproject.org) a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501 (C) (3) research and educational project promoting the education on the basic elements of relevant and important political, legal and social issues.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus