udents. We have plenty of statistics to show that children from a stable environment with plenty good food, rest, and security...do way better in their studies than less fortunate kids. Public Schools, on the other hand, here in America must take all students in their jurisdiction. Private schools sometimes pay teachers better and have high technology classrooms with fewer students/ teacher than public schools. Technology can lower the difference between poor and wealthy families or it can make things worse. In my opinion, each student needs a champion. This is a parent or caring adult that takes a personal life-long interest in the success of the student. This champion has high expectations, love, and celebrates every achievement in the student's educational experience. We have EQ, IQ, & experience that contribute to expectations of a student. I can tell you of the experience we have here in Arlington, Virginia, USA. We deal with 190 languages in our public school system. We regularly score in the highest results for performance and 90% of our high school graduates go on to college. As a population we have the highest number of graduate degrees in the USA. It is expensive to live here. We have high quality libraries with many resources available online and several computers available in each library. We have many community events and great public transportation. Low crime. Many pets. We provide high quality affordable, subsidized housing for those who qualify and an award winning social services department that works with enlightened law enforcement to do the best they can to rehabilitate people with difficult lives. I have always felt that public schools are better preparation for real life compared with private that encourage exceptional people to avoid less fortunate people. This sense of exclusiveness brings a sense of entitlement and reinforces the concept that poor people are poor because they are lazy. Poverty is a byproduct of greed. Love & Peace, Deborah …
ca in Senior Citizens' gatherings (55+ age in nursing homes or retirement communities). What you did not mention in your wonderful essay is the lack of visual discrimination that is present in conventional face-to-face communication. Unless you use Skype or similar technology, a person can remain anonymous on the Internet. I have a Master's in IT (Computer Sciences) and got both degrees online when I was past 50 years old. I talked with many students who did better online because they were never called on by teachers in traditional schools. I know people today that home school their children because of discrimination they felt when they were young. Here in America we use computers to rehearse soldiers with post traumatic stress & brain injury. To get a concept they may need to repeat 100 times. if they did this with others present they would feel inferior but the computer is comfortable.
Most apprehension (fear) of technology is because 85% of any population hates change.…
place, not much like most of the restaurants just up the road in the tourist-packed town of Camden. It opens for business at 5:30 AM, seven days a week, every week of the year. For a reasonable price it offers, "All you can eat seafood."
Hanging on the north wall of the restaurant is an enormous enlargement of a photograph taken in 1907. It shows the under-construction schooner Mertie B. Crowley being launched just south of town. A crowd watches as she slides down the ways into the waters of Penobscott Bay.
What catches your eye about the Mertie B. Crowley—and may explain why the picture is on the wall—is that she has six masts rather than the usual three.
What were Rockland's shipwrights thinking? It's 1907, for crying out loud! Just 44 miles down US Route 1 from Rockland is the Bath Iron Works, a company that, by 1907, had been building steam powered ships for years. Did those Rockland shipbuilders think that by souping up the old design-adding more masts and sails-they could compete?
Think of the Mertie B. Crowley as a metaphor for the education your children and grandchildren are getting. In education, that "old design" is called the "core curriculum," the mix of math, science, language arts, and social studies courses taught in America's schools.
In 1983 the National Commission on Excellence In Education published a report called "A Nation At Risk." Several CEOs of American businesses read the report and concluded that our schools were so bad Russia or some other foreign power was about to eat our lunch. What was needed, they said, was"rigor"—schools that were as tough and demanding as those they thought they'd attended when they were young. What had happened, they believed, was that America's teachers, once first-rate, were no longer getting the job done, had gradually slacked off, probably suffering from "the soft bigotry of low expectations." So, bypassing educators and working directly with state governors and other politicians, the CEOs built an educational counterpart
to the Mertie B. Crowley. They demanded and got a souped up core curriculum—more math, more science, new standards, more standardized tests, more drills, less social studies, art, music, and other "frills." The politicians named it No Child Left Behind, the CEOs joined them on board, and they set sail toward a "world class" education.
Educators still did the grunt work—wrote the standards, administered the tests, posted the scores—but only CEO's and politicians were allowed in the pilot house to steer the education reform ship.
Staying on course, those in the pilot house believed, was simple. Educating well wasn't complicated, was just a matter of transferring information from those who knew to those who don't
know. If information wasn't getting transferred, it was either because (a) teachers didn't know what information to transfer, or (b) they weren't trying hard enough.
Those were easily solved problems, said the CEOs and the politicians. If teachers didn't know what information to transfer, ever-more-detailed "standards" would tell them. And if they weren't trying hard enough, market forces-competition, merit pay, choice, vouchers, charters, publicity, fear of job loss, labeling and grading of schools, and so on-would pressure them to shape up. Competition, of course, required precise score-keeping, so a lot more standardized testing was necessary.
Has it worked? Not according to Louis V. Gerstner, ex-CEO of American Express, RJR Nabisco, IBM, and the Carlyle Group, and winner of many awards for his efforts to reform American education. In a November 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed, he said, "We must start with the recognition that, despite decade after decade of reform efforts, our public K-12 schools have not
But he has an explanation for the failure. He thinks the standards and accountability procedures Congress pressured the fifty states to put in place are lousy—too local, too political, too varied to allow direct performance comparisons. What's needed are national standards, and national
As you'd expect, the CEOs think nationalizing businesses and industries is a really bad idea, and they strongly disapprove of the kind of centralized, top-down decision-making that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but educating kids, they're sure, is easier than making widgets or moving money around. Gerstner wants Congress to become America's school board, and thinks the first thing it should do when it takes over is install national standards and tests. Yes, it's true the Constitution says education is a state responsibility, and it's true that a 35-year-old law says the feds can't mess around with the curriculum, but that's no obstacle. The national standards can be "voluntary." If federal dollars are funneled to the "volunteers," the locals, always short of school operating funds, will quickly knuckle under.
Most educators, particularly younger ones, serve aboard the No Child Left Behind willingly, but the old hands think the ship is headed for the rocks. They keep asking questions, cupping their hands and yelling warnings up to the pilot house, but neither the CEOs nor members of Congress are paying attention:
• Hey, up there! The "core curriculum" you want to lock even more rigidly in place with national standards and tests was adopted in 1892. It had major problems even then, and with each passing year becomes more inappropriate and dysfunctional. For starters, it denies the seamless, mutually supportive nature of knowledge. It has no agreed-upon aim. No criteria say which new knowledge to teach or which old knowledge to dump. No built-in mechanisms force it to adapt to social change. It pushes information at learners at fire-hose velocity, and even the smartest kids can't cope. It doesn't move smoothly through ever-increasing levels of difficulty. It assumes reading is the main way kids learn. It disregards the brain's need for order and organization. It fails to address complex, critically important moral and ethical issues. It stuffs abstract ideas unrelated to their experience into kids' short-term memories, from which it disappears as soon as the test is over. It routinely neglects every thought process except recall. We could go on. Why in the world, when knowledge is exploding, would you think it's a good idea to freeze this 19th Century relic in bureaucratic place forever?
• Hey, up there! You're blaming us for things over which we have no control. Common sense says that if kids are hungry, or sick, don't see well, get moved every time the rent comes due, have serious family problems, are being knocked around or subjected to who knows what other kinds of abuse at home, it's going to affect how well they learn. Why, when we try to tell you this, do you always say, "No excuses!"? Are you scapegoating, afraid someone might point out that your decisions about off-shoring manufacturing or manipulating money might have something to do with why America's kids face so many problems?
• Hey, up there! Your single-minded preoccupation with corporately produced, machine-scored "measures of accountability" is killing real education. Those crude tests costing us billions of dollars are tails wagging the education dog. They can't measure those "higher order thinking skills" you keep claiming you want your employees to have; can't measure personal qualities
like tenacity, trustworthiness, and the ability to work with others; can't measure creativity, resourcefulness, or ingenuity; can't measure what kids can actually do with what the tests say they know. But notwithstanding all that, you're using the numbers they produce (numbers everybody knows politicians manipulate for political purposes) to shame us, fire us, close
us down, or to convince the public that public schools should be handed over to Edison or some other corporate chain.
• Oh, hey! Another thing about those tests! Every kid's head is wired differently. Shouldn't we rejoice in that fact and capitalize on it instead of pretending that there's such a thing as a standard kid? After all, it's different abilities and interests that make civilization possible. Why are you hell-bent on making every kid jump through the same hoops?
• Hey! Where's your evidence that Milton Friedman was right, that bringing market forces to bear would cure educational ills? Hasn't it occurred to you that most of us aren't in it for the money, that if we stick with it past the first couple of years it's because what turns us on are the looks on
kids' faces when they make sense of something they didn't understand? Sure, we'd like to make enough to live decently, but that's only reasonable. What do you think merit pay does to the cohesiveness of faculties and teacher teams that need to share insights and skills and work together in the interest of the young?
• Can you hear me? Thoughtful educators have always known that our 1892 curriculum was deeply flawed, and were on their way to setting up pilot programs to test alternatives when you took over. Sadly, while you've been busy making irrelevant anything other than guessing what was probably in the head of some moonlighting graduate student test-item writer, many of our insightful thinkers—Neil Postman, David Ausubel, John Holt, and others—have died.
The CEOs and politicians now steering American education, and experienced, professional educators, are so far apart in their assumptions about educating that communicating is all but impossible. At the root of that disconnect is the refusal of the non-educators to accept that educating is anything more than that a simple process of moving information from one head to
another. This Conventional Wisdom assumption, no doubt reinforced by their own mis-education, guts real education—makes human relationships irrelevant, emotion irrelevant, eye contact and body language irrelevant, individual interests and abilities irrelevant, class size irrelevant, caring and concern for kids' welfare outside the classroom, irrelevant, the real world
to which information relates, irrelevant.
Educating, really educating, is easily the most complex process in which humans engage. If it were simple, the world would almost certainly be a much lovelier place, free of war, poverty, and oppression. Far from being merely a matter of transferring information, educating requires the discerning of the models of reality in others' minds, and devising strategies for altering them. That's hard. Really hard.
No other profession equals teaching in inherent complexity and intellectual challenge. The longer thoughtful teachers teach, the more aware are they of the difficulty of the task, and the more modest they become in their claims of success. Teachers, good teachers, the kind of teachers America should want teaching the young, are still learning how to teach when they retire, forever wishing they had another chance to work with those they know they short-changed when they'd only had ten or fifteen years of experience. To assume that anybody who knows a subject can teach it, to assume that a kid fresh out of college can donate a couple of years to teaching as a sort of civic duty and do right by kids, to assume that a retired admiral or general, or mayor, or a successful CEO, can step into the classroom and do the job that needs doing, is utterly ridiculous.
America's schools—even those considered models to be emulated—aren't preparing the young for a future more complicated and dangerous than we can even imagine. It isn't just naive to think that today's educational problems can be solved by doing with greater determination and rigor what brought us to our present state, perverse.
If education policy continues to be shaped, as it presently is, by those who haven't spent tousands of hours working eye-to-eye with learners and thinking about what they’re doing, America doesn't have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of arriving at the 22nd Century in a form we'd recognize and approve.
The Mertie B. Crowley hauled ice to cities along America's East Coast for three years. Unable to hold course during a storm, she ran aground and disintegrated in 1910.…