A Brighter View of K-12 Education in California?
In contrast to the pessimistic (or, some might argue, realistic) view of K–12 education in California cited in last week's post, Michael Grunwald's "Despite Its Woes, California's Dream Still Lives" in Time presents a much brighter view of California's situation.
Despite current setbacks, Grunwald avers, California's position on "the cutting edge of the American future—economically, environmentally, demographically, culturally and maybe politically" secures its status as "a dream state." He quotes genomic pioneer J. Craig Venter, who calls California "the most dynamic place for change on earth."
Grunwald points out that the law school at the University of California, Irvine, opened this semester and "was instantly more selective than Harvard or Yale." Although he mentions the free tuition, he doesn't note that it likely had more to do with the school's selectivity than anything else.
Virtually buried among his rosy assertions and facts is Grunwald's acknowledgment, toward the end of the article, that California's public schools "have been deteriorating for years" and that, along with expensive housing, they "pose a real obstacle to the dream of upward mobility." He also concedes that the state's recent sharp cutbacks have hit education especially hard. "Fortunately," he optimistically concludes, "help may be on the way" in the form of political reforms and potential "forward-thinking" successors to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
So which view of the current state of K–12 education in California is correct—Grunwald's in Time or Judis's in The New Republic? Or do both positions, taken together, present the most realistic assessment of and prognosis for education in the Golden State?
Despite current setbacks, Grunwald avers, California's position on "the cutting edge of the American future—economically, environmentally, demographically, culturally and maybe politically" secures its status as "a dream state." He quotes genomic pioneer J. Craig Venter, who calls California "the most dynamic place for change on earth."
Grunwald points out that the law school at the University of California, Irvine, opened this semester and "was instantly more selective than Harvard or Yale." Although he mentions the free tuition, he doesn't note that it likely had more to do with the school's selectivity than anything else.
Virtually buried among his rosy assertions and facts is Grunwald's acknowledgment, toward the end of the article, that California's public schools "have been deteriorating for years" and that, along with expensive housing, they "pose a real obstacle to the dream of upward mobility." He also concedes that the state's recent sharp cutbacks have hit education especially hard. "Fortunately," he optimistically concludes, "help may be on the way" in the form of political reforms and potential "forward-thinking" successors to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
So which view of the current state of K–12 education in California is correct—Grunwald's in Time or Judis's in The New Republic? Or do both positions, taken together, present the most realistic assessment of and prognosis for education in the Golden State?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
