Education

I am one of those who thinks education in the US should be and needs to be far better than it is.  I've said this for decades.  I have leveled criticism in a number of directions and still do.

Recently I read a scathing critique of "the privatization of schools." that is of charter schools, online schools, for-profit schools, and the like.  I know I won't convince any advocates of these schools, but the evidence is clear, on average, charters, onlines, for-profits don't outperform traditional schools.  No doubt some individual such schools do, but let's then measure them up with the top-achieving public schools.  This article helped to open or re-open my eyes to some ideas--those of others as well as my own.

I used to make the analogy between private colleges and public colleges and private and public K-12 schools.  I'm not so sure that analogy is valid.  Oh, as a product of a private college and the wonderful education it provided, I'm still a big advocate of them, of their existence.  I no longer think that the same standards and evaluations apply to both scenarios.

It's interesting how much big-money is tied up in the privatization of education.  Some of the biggest names, some of the nation's wealthiest people have a stake in privatization.  We have to ask why.  I supposed, to give some of them the benefit of the doubt, they do have at least some altruistic motives.  From this article, let's emphasize "some."  There are many other motives, ranging from hatred of teachers' unions to political philosophy to just plain making money.

Outperform?  Most private schools--and this includes parochial ones--can pick and choose who can attend.  And, if those who have been selected prove to be problems, often it's out they go.  Those with special needs, too, are often not included in these schools.  That the privates "do more with less" is a fallacy.  They don't have to "teach" the students who cost far more than average students. And, of course, there are other factors.

The public schools are very reactionary.  They have fallen in line, like the good little sycophants they are, with all of these standardized tests.  Evidence is pretty clear. Standardized tests are not a very good indicator of quality education.  Again, with all of the propaganda out there, who is going to believe that?   Pointing to the nations with the best-performing schools in the world, e.g., Finland, students take very few standardized tests.  But in the past couple of decades, where can the money be found?  Yep, you nailed it--standardized tests.  It's not just the state-mandated tests either. The emphasis on Advance Placement tests and courses is another detriment.  I was taken aback, even stunned, last week when Michael told me on the drive home from school that only one of his classes had discussed the Presidential election--and that was one of the two classes without a state-mandated standardized test.  But, hey, wasting one day on something as trivial as the election of the President of the US (not to mention the historic character, the campaign, etc.) might cost a question or two on the test(s).  Some schools have eliminated recess to have more class time for "the tests."  The top-schools in the world actually have more recess time!  To get them ready for the tests, we now have students beginning to read and do math in kindergarten.  After all, that means more time to prepare to do well on the tests.  They might well be developmentally ready for reading and writing at age 5 (and, in fact, many students are), but are they socially ready?  Is that really in the best interests of students/children rather than in the best interests of schools paranoid about tests?  Again, pointing to the best-achieving schools in the world, students often aren't given the rudiments of math and reading until age 7 or so, the equivalent of second grade.  Until then, mostly school for them is play.  The last I heard, "play" wasn't on the tests.

Of course, what to do about improving schools?  First, don't assume any group that includes "reform" in its title is interested in better schools.  As often as not, even more so, the groups more interested in making money throw out the term "reform."

Despite the low ranking of US schools internationally, our best colleges and universities are still seen as the best in the world.  Would it be so hard to study what Harvard and Yale and Amherst (OK, I had to slip that in!) do to educate their students and then tailor K-12 education to match that?  (With that in mind, like any self-respecting old codger, I have my doubts about the continued quality at these institutions.  "Back when I was a kid......")  I've written on this a lot over the years; no need to recount it again.

I still think we need to attract and develop better teachers.  It's no surprise I think administrators are a large part of this problem, but it's also bigger than that.  I listened to a man last night, not a teacher by any means!, rant and rave about how Americans constantly hear about the importance of education, yet in spending, in how teachers are treated, etc., out actions belie our beliefs.  "We treat our teachers like sh*t," he bellowed, attracting the attention of others nearby.  (No doubt they thought, "There's another one of those teachers......)  Echoing what I've said for years, "Who in his (or her--I want to avoid any microaggressions!) right mind would be a teacher today?  Low pay. Constantly criticized."

Yet, there are difficulties with this.  I had another conversation this week about this.  There are some marvelous teachers out there, really hard-working, gifted, etc.  And there are likely enough serviceable teachers, too.  (As I noted in my discussion, "Not everyone can be Miguel Cabrera.  There is room for Andrew Romine."  I think Romine is a very underappreciated player.)  With the proper training and oversight (notably in the areas of their own education, quality, and rigor), something I really doubt can be provided by today's administrators (even if they wanted to provide it), these teachers can be effective.  But there are still far too many lousy teachers, just plain rotten, who belong in a lot of places not called classrooms.  I can still recite legions of stories.  The problem with this is in identifying the really good and the lousy teachers.  OK, it's not really difficult; it's the politics of such identification.  Who are sycophants (Yes, I like that word a lot and, besides, it was Dictionary.com's word of the day on Thur!) of the administrators?  How do you think their evaluations read vs those of teachers who question, well, questionable policies and programs?  Is one's "favorite" teacher one's "best" teacher?  As much as I hate to admit it, one or two of my Amherst professors were not at all "favorites," but they were very good teachers.  (Most of the best, though, were and remain favorites.)

If this Presidential election is an indictment of our educational system (and our inability to think critically), improvements must be made.  I really think implementing improvements will not be as difficult as convincing Americans to be concerned, of convincing them that improvements (other than tests, tests, tests), and of convincing them that there are very few people in education today who are capable of enacting true improvements.