In short, any of the disciplines that assist in making human beings understand themselves and what it means to be human is to take a back seat to mathematics. Any study that helps us understand our place in the world, and any course that causes us to better understand how we are routinely manipulated by politicians and economic powers â not to mention the forces of history – are to be given no attention at all by this man who would be king. His plan addresses our need for engineers, but not good citizens. For scientists, but not ethical business people.
His remarkably narrow vision of education is also short sighted. While it is true that several foreign countries are graduating more PHD’s than we are, it is also true that the engine of the American economy is fueled as much by its creativity as its engineering. And that, in large measure requires thinkers who can expand beyond the confines of their disciplines. How does Reillyâs approach foster creativity? It doesnât.
While his plan pays lip service to minorities, it is essentially elitist. Reillyâs own background must advise him that there are problems peculiar to poorer communities. Poor and minority students are routinely lost long before their first high school math class. While Reilly tailors his entire education program to the twenty or thirty percent of the population fitted either by interest or temperament to the sciences, he discards the eighty- percent of the population that is not. There is nothing in his program for remedial training; nothing about tutoring â except, of course, in math and science. There is no mentoring program; nothing that would allow children on the margin some exposure to adults who could show them that there are possibilities they havenât yet dreamed of.
When one distills this so-called education plan, one must conclude that its essence has nothing to do with giving the majority of students hope in their future. It does little to mitigate the deficits of their past. In fact, it doesnât seem to spring from any interest in students at all. It appears that its basis is what is good for the economy and how students can best serve it.
While the particulars might be original â like finding room for fifty, thatâs right, fifty, not five hundred interns â the philosophy behind it, is old hat. There is a perceived problem in math and science. So Reilly appeals to the most obvious, plays on the fear of the majority, and, ultimately, does very little for most of their children. And most cynical of all, he doesnât bother to tell us how he will fund this or any initiative.
Recall that this is the man who would roll back taxes, oppose any attempt by municipalities to increase revenues beyond current methods, and has given no indication of increased state aid. So he might consider telling us which programs he will cut in order to educate this new cadre of scientists.
Reilly has a point. There is a need for math and science majors, for math and science teachers. But there is also a need for people who can read and write, for people who can think without a calculator. There is pressing need to give ALL of our children hope. Any just and sensible educational plan requires the balance to address all of these things. Reillyâs does almost none of it.
