principle of opportunity versus principle of proof

america's educational system is guided by two somewhat contradictory principles: the principle of opportunity and the principle of proof.

the principle of opportunity basically means that ALL people have the right to be educated in our society. this is the motive force behind the creation and maintenance of our public school system. it is the "inclusive" tendency, that continually forces schools to draw ever wider circles to "include" all manner of students into the "fold," notably "special education" students (those with learning disabilities, mental retardation, emotional/behavioral disorders, etc.).

the principle of proof, however, holds that schools are "proving grounds" which serve to discriminate the "good students" from the "poor students"; presumably, those who are good students are qualified for more difficult and/or higher paying jobs, while the poor students are more or less "stuck in a rut." this, in contrast to the principle of opportunity, tends to be an "EXCLUSIONARY" tendency; it is the motivation behind what is commonly called "tracking," i.e. the division of the student body into different "tracks," with "good students" taking higher level courses and "poor students" taking basic or even remedial courses.

whichever principle you profess to believe in, the school system AS IS exists as a tension between these two fundamental principles. in an ideal world, we could deliver on the demands of both principles, i.e., getting ALL students to perform at HIGH levels. but in reality, this is not only impractical, it is IMPOSSIBLE...

i heard on the radio that cuba is supposed to have an above 90% literacy rate. IMPOSSIBLE. in any given population, there are many who are mentally retarded or otherwise cognitively impaired, and thus who CANNOT become literate. this percentage alone makes a 90% literacy rate IMPOSSIBLE. those who believe that this IS possible and is applicable to our diverse society are from another dimension or something... particularly in the united states, where we believe strongly in the principle of opportunity, and take any and all comers (second language speakers, etc.), teachers are hard-pressed to achieve consistent standards in ANY field, particularly literacy.

NCLB (no child left behind) attempts to apply a standard (principle of proof) universally (principle of opportunity). the internal contradiction of attempting to satisfy two VERY DIFFERENT and oppositional tendencies naturally dooms it nearly to failure from the start. while it is perhaps admirable in its call for standardization, it is unrealistic, failing to appreciate not only the PRACTICAL and logistical requirements for execution, but the fundamentally PHILOSOPHICAL divide it attempts to naively bridge.