X
Business

Back to school

The best high schools in America are based on individualized and specialized curriculum, not "the basics." Once more into the breach on the topic of reinventing the schools.
Written by Mitch Ratcliffe, Contributor

Following on the postings and active debate about the way American schools operate, here's a pointer to Newsweek's coverage of "America's Best High Schools," What Makes a High School Great.

Contrary to the philosophy of making the basics the focus of K-12 schooling, the article reports that the schools that do the bestThe best high schools are lavish in their approach to individual students. job of preparing kids for college and, hence, contributing to the competitiveness of the nation and their ability to become whatever they can imagine, are high schools that emphasize the critical thinking skills of citizenship and the liberal arts. These schools treat kids as individuals, not parts of a mass moving on to employment and just employment. The whole student has to be engaged to make it possible for adult success.

Throughout the week last week, I was told by commenters that I was spouting liberal claptrap. Hey, if creating innovators and active citizems is liberal, so be it. Instead of debating costs, let's acknowledge that the results are sub-par and start talking about the solutions.

My point last week, which is reinforced by the findings about the best high schools, is that successful schools are lavish in their approach to individual students. They provide opportunity as a way of rewarding increasing competence. That's the basis of a great democratic education, one that maximizes initiative and critical thinking.

The incredible economic returns during the mid-20th century in terms of rising American incomes distributed across the economy that stand in stark contrast to the contracting incomes generally and widening social chasm between rich and poor of the last 25 years, defy the argument that public education is a bad investment.

The conservative philosophy, which argues that the greatest incentive is personal investment, does not map to public education. It denies the idea that society can invest in its future more effectively by creating great schools that are available to every kid. Several commenters argued that specialized knowledge should be available only when the family or student pays for it directly, yet the performance of the schools described by Newsweek show that public institutions can produce highly motivated and successful graduates without indenturing the student to loan companies or asking that families sacrifice essentials like insurance to pay for private schooling.

A great public school declares that we believe everyone can achieve greatness. We lost track of that priority 25 years ago and have to rediscover it.

Editorial standards