Standard Education in the USA - Article Example

Task: Standard education Matt Miller bemoans the local control of schools that has always dominated the American educational landscape. He cites the example of English schools that flourished in the 17th century. Horace Mann, in an attempt to transform education, had travelled to England to witness the different system of education that the English used. His attempts at nationalizing the delivery of education did not bear fruits, as individuals remain attached to local management of schools. On the other hand, Susan Headden believes that the problem with the American education lies in its incompetency in designing a standardized examination system. Although Matt Miller and Susan Headden appear to be making two different points, they actually agree that the American education system demands a degree of standardization. Matt Miller’s arguments concerns with reforms that encompass every part of education. Unlike Susan Headden, he makes an argument stretching beyond assessments. In the beginning of his article, Matt Miller gives the example of a nationalistic figure, Horace Mann, in advancing his thesis (Miller 1). He cites Horace’s ideas of developing common schools that would thrive on public funding and attendance by all students. His arguments stretch over the whole spectrum of American educational landscape by arguing that the curriculum should face national management. On the other hand, Susan believes that lack of standardized assessment deters the progress of education (Headden 1). She states that it is difficult to make educational policies if stakeholders do not have adequate representation of the real system. Both authors agree that financial inequity and limited finances are responsible for the problems stalling the progress of the American educational system. Matt argues that America has a regressive tax system that offers more benefits to the rich than it offers to the less privileged individuals. This means that the rich individuals have limited proportion of their wealth in tax form while the poor have a large proportion of their wealth in taxes. This creates an educational implication on communities while raising funds for schools. Schools in rich neighborhoods can easily raise more funds per pupil since the rich possess significant wealth in high-value property. On the other hand, segregated communities cannot easily raise proper funds in terms of dollars per pupil. Since taxes represent a sizeable percentage of school funding, poor schools faces difficulties in raising funds for essential activities such as research. Similarly, Headden recognizes that the admission of high-level tests is an expensive process. Poor schools do not utilize high-level tests since such assessments require significant funding (Headden 1). Poor schools dwell on measuring basic skills because related tests are easy to administer. Privileged children enjoy the extra attention that their teachers assign to assessments and overall education. On the other hand, poor children find themselves in an ugly reality of their schools cutting down on extra expenses. In the end, eliminating excess costs compromises on the quality education that every child should acquire. Headden highlights a fragmented education system that cannot produce consistent results. She argues that possessing a standard curriculum across states ensures that the stakeholders of education know the costs involved in undertaking high-level tests. In turn, the states can easily leverage their resources and set up the economies of scale that eliminate excess costs of carrying out tests. Headden argues that the industrialized world should operate in this sense such that given countries master how well the students master the standard curriculum at particular stages (Headden 1). Similarly, Miller highlights the devastation that small schools encounter in interpreting national education reforms. Due to segregation, schools exert uncoordinated efforts that do not bear fair educational results for every pupil. Headden and Matt highlight the issue of stunted research and development in schools. Research and development is critical for institutions and educational systems to progress. Matt asserts that local control is a stifling idea to R&D. Local control disincentivizes R&D due to limited benefits out of economies of scale. This suggests that it is relatively expensive to research on independent systems of education. Currently, the US has 15, 000 curriculum entities that handle educational matters in every district (Miller 1). Most of these districts cannot make adequate investments towards understanding, for instance, the best way of using computers to integrate different learning styles of students. There is a high likelihood of the local advocates confronting the federal government in case it tries imposing this solution to schools. Moreover, the private sector offering R&D services are disinterested in fragmented parties who do not bear direct responsibilities over given purchases. Headden gives an example of how R&D is transforming the American education system. The states have consulted two research teams that are conducting unique experiments for the best assessment method. The states will adopt the best assessment method and apply the same towards national benchmarking for colleges and careers. Producing a proficient assessment formula requires the collaboration between teachers, administrators, directors, psychometricians, and content experts. The No Child left Behind Policy (NCLB) is a critical concern in both of the articles. While arguing that NCLB was a noble standardization idea, it did not find a thriving environment. According to Headden, the NCLB policy required that students make progress towards a certain level of competency and proficiency. In addition, the policy would promote accountability among educationists. NCLB manifests successes in the sense in which it breaks down performance data in terms of racial and demographic parameters. It also introduced key changes in reading and math. Headden, however, argues that NCLB has a weak testing system that still requires students to recall and restate facts. In this sense, it inherits the failure of the traditional system. Matt professes the same sentiments when he states that NCLB helped reestablish standards while, unfortunately, leaving the definition of proficiency to independent states. Indeed, both of these authors agree that America should have a standardized system of education. While Matt addresses the overall aspect of the education system, Headden is mainly concerned with assessments. Headden believes that proper and standardized system is a foundation for every educational policy that strives after improving the quality of learning in schools. On the other hand, Matt stresses that a national education policy instills accountability and synchronizes the education system with socio-economic needs of a country. The authors investing in R&D and fixing the gap of funding is a fundamental means of standardizing education systems in the country. Works cited Headden, Susan. A test worth teaching to: The race to fix America’s broken system of standardized exams. The Washington Monthly. June 2012. Web. April 17, 2014. Miller, Matt. First, kill all the school boards: a modest proposal to fix the schools. The Atlantic. January 1, 2008. Web. April 17, 2014. Read More