Recently, I got all fired up talking with a close friend. She's into science policy, and I'm into education policy. Her actual Ph.D. (pending!) and actual trips to D.C. inspire and excite me. During our talk, I ranted about the unsportsmanlike way our education system works. We'd be ashamed if it were peewee sports. I believe I'm taking this sports analogy from Jonathan Kozol's The Shame of the Nation.
In my rant, I argued that if we actually improved education for everyone, there would be more viable competition for top college spots. Then maybe the mediocre student from a strong school district would get more college rejection letters. It's simple economics, right? If you are the parent of that mediocre student, what is your incentive to improve public education for everyone? When we fail to improve our worst public schools, students with access to private and decent public education benefit from reduced competition for colleges and jobs. Unfortunately, there are people with an interest in maintaining the status quo.
My friend then said it was important that I pointed this out to her. She hadn't previously thought of public education issues in these terms. She had imagined the varied and complex causes, but had not thought of the added dimension of people uninterested in changing a thing. Not just uninterested in change, but invested against it.
Well then. It looks like I do have something to contribute, don't I? Maybe a reader of this blog will come across a new idea. My plan is to teach myself* as much as possible about education in America and share what I learn here.
*Did I mention I value learning? ;)
