Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ State of the State address placed a lot of emphasis on the ineffectiveness of the government school system. He told us that Indiana’s education system is failing many elementary-age kids in what most people consider to be its most basic assignment: teaching students to read.
As part of explaining the government’s latest and greatest idea on how to fix this mess, he said, “If after four years, the system has failed in this most fundamental duty, then it will simply have to try again until it gets it right.”
I just have to ask - Why, Gov. Daniels? Why do they have to try again until they get it right? Why should you or any of us assume they can get it right?
Why don’t we just admit we do not now, and never did, have an organization devoted to education? What we have instead is a compulsory attendance system that’s merely dressed up in fancy political clothing to look like it’s all about educating the individual.
Think about it, if the government education system is a wonderful, enlightening place to be, why would we need to compel attendance? And since we do compel attendance and funding, what motivation and incentive do schools really have to be competent, let alone improve from that basic level?
If the government schools truly offer a valuable service families want, then there’s no need to compel attendance. Families would voluntarily send their children there and students would be happily engaged in learning as they freely chose from a variety of interesting options offered.
Lately, I’m learning nearly daily about the ways compulsion has increased regulation so deeply that education now has nothing to do with making sensible decisions that are in the student’s best interest; it’s only about the numbers. Is that really what education is supposed to be about?
When are we going to simply look at the evidence and admit the system we created just doesn’t work well? Not only for teaching the basics of reading, but also in creating inquisitive, curious people who know how to think for themselves. People who will be skeptical of what they’re being told and who will critically examine even long-accepted standards, such as government compulsion being morally good.
Under a compulsory government-funded system, instead of treating students as individuals, we use them as pawns for political game-playing. Politicians create big ideas intended to build their version of a “superior” country or individual state and government employees at all levels are expected to carry out their grand plans. This means there can be little focus on creating an inviting place filled with attractive programs that include lots of flexibility to meet individual needs, desires and differences.
Instead, the focus is on forcing students to attend, to stay even if they are not learning, and most of all, to comply. But perhaps that’s the intent. Maybe the system really doesn’t want us to think too deeply, maybe it’s merely to get us used to complying in other ways when we are adults.
How else can we explain it when people applaud Daniels when he says Indiana will “never give up on its children?” Our children are not the state’s, yet few consider that this is precisely what this statement means at its root.
No reform will work as long as we remain convinced that compelling attendance and funding is necessary. I for one am completely ready to discard any educational system that relies on such compulsion. It’s time we started focusing on education that meets individual learner’s needs and not government’s demands.
Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson advises her readers that the best way to compel her attendance anywhere is to have plenty of snacks available. Write her at debbie@debbieharbeson.com.
Columns
Related Photos
Discussion
HARBESON: Education should respect the individual
- Columns
-
-
CLERE: Walkout is absurd
The walkout by Indiana House Democrats entered its third week yesterday as tensions continued to rise and misinformation proliferated.
-
LADD: New Albany has new energy
New Albany is evolving. Public art has become more prevalent in the downtown, drawing more locals and outside visitors to our community; bringing more publicity.
-
HARBESON: The compromising nature of compromise
But there’s nothing inherently wrong with the concept of compromise. This is simply an example of how government coercion can skew and twist any concept beyond its original meaning and purpose.
-
RESCHKE: My Amazing Ohio River Bridges Project Plan
The point of sharing this memory is that once we have tolls, they will be there for as long as the bridges exist and the dollar price for frequent commuters that’s been proposed is the cheapest those tolls will ever be.
-
MOORE: The system can still work
On the local scene, services like Jerry Westmoreland’s recovery services, Bliss House, the Drug Courts (adult and juvenile) and the like are proper uses of this alcohol and drug fund money. Families in need due to a member having an addiction that affects all of them seem appropriate beneficiaries, too.
-
BEAM: As ‘Time’ goes by: A magazine’s maternal ploy
What does disgust me is the way Time used the cover photo to paint an inaccurate picture of attachment parenting and, some could argue, motherhood.
-
HAYDEN: For many, voting didn’t count for much
Three-fourths of Indiana voters who did vote, did so in the Republican primary. That makes sense: The Lugar-Mourdock contest was the marquee race, so plenty of Democrats sat it out.
-
HOWEY: Mourdock, Donnelly and the great divide
An hour after Mourdock made that explanation, U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly met with reporters at Ralph’s Great Divide restaurant. Donnelly insisted the site was chosen because “they have great meatloaf,” but used the place as a metaphor that the contrast between him and Mourdock “cannot be clearer.”
-
CUMMINS: Where did the Sabbath day go?
In the old days the little towns and rural areas across America, the churches were a vital part of our lives. They were sacred places where we received moral instruction and guidance.
-
DODD: The total package
One of the character traits anyone must possess in order to have a happy, fulfilled life is to know your own strengths. Even more important is to know your weaknesses and shortcomings. If you don’t think you have any or don’t recognize your own, someday after you get married they will be made imminently clear to you.
- More Columns Headlines
-
Georgia School Buses Escorted After Threat
Lady Antebellum Plays Prom in Tornado-hit Town
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Wife Found Dead
Raw Video: Soyuz Docks With Space Station
Defense Rests in John Edwards Trial
GM Says It Will Stop Paying for Ads on Facebook
911 Call: Confusion at Home Where Mom Shot Kids
Jury Convicts Steve Powell of Voyeurism Charges
Skechers to Pay $40 Million for Bogus Claims
Coffee May Be Key to Living Longer
Police to Groom of Slain Bride: Turn Yourself In
Laurie Fine: My Life Has Been Destroyed
FTC: Skechers Deceived Consumers With Shoe Ads
FBI Confirms Leak Probe on Al-Qaida Plot
Romney Calls Obama a 'Disappointment'
Honda Unveils New Robotics-powered Scooter
NJ Gov., Mayor Channel Seinfeld in Video Parody
Blood Drive for Woman With Flesh-Eating Disease
AG Race Tops Oregon Primary Interest
Obama Welcomes Beckham, Galaxy to White House
