Education Reform Needed

Democracy Should Seek
The Development of the Individual

I last wrote about a speech by Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota’s governor, concerning school reform, and expressed the idea that school reform should be based on sound ideas about motivation.

Wow. It's the school's job to motivate students? I suppose that's so if students are all hatched in test tubes and, having no parents, are wards of the state. Failing that, it is, to put it simply, the job of parents to motivate their offspring, by any legal means at their disposal, for you see, children don't always comprehend what is best for them and tend to give little thought to the future. It is a student's job to take full, daily advantage of the educational opportunities provided for them by their teachers.

It should go without saying that teachers must provide that opportunity. Of course teachers should be encouraging and should work to present interesting and engaging lessons, but ultimately, learning is not all about entertainment and the classroom is not a movie about a motivational football coach who takes a group of losers to the state championship on the force of his personality. Learning takes work. If a student is unwilling to do that work, no amount of teacher motivation will prevail.
Mike | 03.14.07 - 12:20 pm | #

These thoughts, by Mike, above, I’m sure would be welcomed by many school professionals on the front line of school work, who, regardless of their best efforts, are experiencing much student failure. Failing schools usually have quite a long blame list: society, TV, drugs, the culture. Much blame goes to parents, and, the biggest blame for student failure is often put on the individual student, himself or herself. As Mike writes: “Learning takes work. If a student is unwilling to do that work, no amount of teacher motivation will prevail.”

Mike’s comments seems to say that the system is fine -- that the problem is the individual within the system. I’ve come to believe the opposite. I believe it is the system, itself, that is the chief determiner of system success and that, therefore, our school system needs major reform. Students achieving far below their potential, at both low and high levels of achievement, I believe, is a symptom of system fault.

Pawlenty expresses the fear that today’s lackluster high schools will imperil our future economy, and, as a solution, he recommends an increase in student requirements and sanctions. It hard to imagine that Pawlenty’s reform idea is serious. Even if it works, and some students begin to function at new minimum levels, it makes no sense that our future economy will be saved. The future will demand great leaps in the educational levels of our citizenry, not simply marginal improvements.

These great leaps will not come about via new government regulations, but by allowing a clear vision of educational purpose to direct the redesign of public education. Winning -- making good grades, getting awards, getting scholarships, etc. -- seems to define current educational purpose. The argument pushing current school reform is that the system needs to be changed so that there are more winners -- no child left behind -- and fewer losers.

The problem with the current system, however, is not that there is not enough winners. The problem is that a system that uses its authority to define winners and losers is probably not a system that produces quality. The old Soviet system identified “winners,” who were allowed to shop at “dollar stores,” and who were assigned the best government apartments. Producing more winners would not have solved the Soviet’s overall problem. The Soviet system did not produce quality -- even for its winners.

Those of us who are winners, because of the present education system, usually want to think that public schools are working fine -- particularly for the good students. We want to think that the public schools’ sorting of winners and losers is appropriate: Why fix what is not broken? But the truth is, a lack of quality pervades the entire system, and a poor quality of education encumbers winners and losers alike. Winners and losers, alike, are often learning at a level far below their potential. Winners and losers, alike, are often involved in wasteful tasks that contribute nothing to their individual growth or maturity.

School reform must start by answering some basic questions, the first one being: what in the world are we trying to accomplish? Our answer must be centered in democratic values, and must be the type of answer that would not be embraced by the North Korean Ministry of Education. Our schools must do much more than guide students to align with authority, much more than train students to be society’s future workers.

The purpose that should guide education design, it seems to me, is simply this: the development of the individual. Our democracy continues to fund public education because democracy depends upon the strength and wisdom found within each individual. New levels of human maturity will be needed to meet the challenges of the future. We need a system of public education that can answer this challenge.

Do High School Slackers Imperil Our Future?

Motivation, Not Curriculum:
The Key to School Reform

Minnesota’s governor, Tim Pawlenty, says that too many Minnesota high school students are goofing off. In his “State of the State” speech, Pawlenty says:

“Too many of our high school students today are engaged in academic loitering for much of their high school career. In too many cases, our high school students are bored, checked-out, coasting, not even vaguely aware of their post-high school plans, if they have any, and they are just marking time.”

Pawlenty adds: “This is a silent crisis and has the potential to devastate our future prosperity, if we don’t fix it.” His solution is to ratchet up high school math and foreign language requirements and to push more students into completing a year of college work before completing high school.

Pawlenty warns that future prosperity is in jeopardy, but, the truth is, more is in jeoprady than prosperity: inadequate education of our youth not only threatens our economy, it threatens our very democracy. It is crucial that our educational system begin to function at a much higher level and, in order to reach that higher level, there must be major reforms that successfully finds a way to substantially increase student motivation.

Motivation, I believe, is tied to a principle that Americans have long held. This principle states that motivation does not come from central planning and bureaucratic control, but comes via individual freedom and democratic processes. The wealth of a nation often comes via the efforts of highly motivated entrepreneurs, and happens within a system that is structured to encourage individual efforts. The old Soviet Union, the current North Korea and the current Cuba prove that an educated / trained citizenry is not enough to produce prosperity. A Bill Gates could not have flourished in those countries. It seems a sound idea that motivation and prosperity come from the same sources: freedom and opportunity. And children who are immersed in freedom, opportunity and responsibility are the children who are best prepared to contribute to a democratic society.

It would seem that this American insight about motivation should be the insight that guides the operation of American schools. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and, instead, schools seek quality in a manner that cannot possibly work. The guiding philosophy of school management, in fact, is that quality comes via hierarchical processes and bureaucratic control. And, though this approach, again and again, has shown to be a disaster, the solution to low quality that is offered, repeatedly, is that more hierarchical processes and more bureaucratic control is the answer.

Pawlenty makes a case for increased governmental regulations. He appeals to the common sense notion of the importance of education. He says that because the future is perilous, we must provide young people with the best education possible. Yes. And where will this best education come from? Pawlenty’s answer seems to be: by establishing more governmental requirements, using more technology, and giving more rewards and punishments.

But, the problem is not that schools lack adequate curriculum, technology or power over students. The problem is that even top students are working far below their potential. Minnesota, like all states, already has a big system of academic rewards, requirements, and punishments that already fail to motivate the slacking high school students that Pawlenty cites. It seems unlikely that Pawlenty’s more-of-the-same reforms will result in much increase in motivation -- within failing students or within top students -- and motivation is the key to accomplishment.

As in medicine, the first order of schools should be: do no harm. Yet schools, by implementing a consensus view of education, systematically infantilize students and impede students’ natural motivation toward individual growth. Humans have an untold potential to produce an amazing wealth of ideas, compassion, peace, and prosperity. Schools must find ways to strengthen the will and determination of each student. The future will demand solutions that will stretch the limits of human maturity. Schools must find ways to inspire students to new levels of individual effort and individual maturity -- levels so high that they could not be mandated.

Meaningful school reform, I believe, would show how to personalize each student’s education. A personalized education is the key to generating amazing new levels of student motivation. This school reform would not be easy: putting motivation at the center of school design, via a personalized approach, would require a major upheaval in how we think about schools and a major upheaval in how schools conduct themselves.

Pawlenty’s plan defines education as the transmission of curriculum, but, education must be much more than that. Education, ultimately, is not what the system does, it is what the student does. Education, as Yeats said, is not about filling a pail, it is about lighting a fire.

The Philadelphia "School of the Future"

The School of the Present
Is Failing
And Technology Is Not The Solution

I’ve been reading about the “School of the Future,” a 9-12 public high school that opened just this fall in a brand new, especially designed $63 million structure in Philadelphia. Microsoft partnered with Philadelphia City Schools to help design and outfit the building. And it is beautiful. The school is full of the latest technology; it is a paperless, broadband island; each student is assigned his or her own laptop computer. The school is designed to be small; it will add a new freshman class each year, reaching its maximum size of 750 students within four years.

I’ve read several funny blog comments from writers who are obviously scornful of Microsoft. These comments speculate what this school might look like -- if it models the inadequacies and glitches associated with Microsoft products.

As I read it, the school will be evaluated on the basis of the same test score results used to evaluate all Philadelphia city schools. Wow. It seems safe to predict that the graduates of this new school will knock the socks off these test, and will make scores far superior to the scores made in other Philadelphia city high schools. Here are at least four reasons why high tests scores by students in this new school is a safe prediction:

1. There is great competition to be a student in this school -- 170 freshman students were chosen by lottery from the group of 1500 students who applied.
2. There is competition to be a teacher in this school -- teachers from all Philadelphia City Schools were encouraged to apply.
3. The success of this school is of great importance to many individuals in power positions in Philadelphia.
4. The school provides a safe, modern, beautiful, physical environment.

This school is certain to be praised as a success and Microsoft, I imagine, will want to take credit and will want to make the claim that, “See, the success of schools depends on making heavy investments in technology and software.” But, compared to the power of these four foundational aspects of the school listed above, the fact that this school emphasizes the use of technology is insignificant.

Usually, high scoring schools are found in prosperous and exclusive communities. Philadelphia, in creating this new high school, has created a prosperous and exclusive island in its dysfunctional city school system, and, on this island an exclusive group of teachers and students are being provided a wonderful opportunity. Of course the test scores of students in this high school will be astronomical -- compared with test scores made by students in other Philadelphia high schools. But, high test scores are not enough -- not to evaluate the school of the future. After all, there are many schools, schools of the present, where students make high test scores. This new school, it seems to me, should have a higher and better defined aim than high test scores.

The “School of the Future” is a great title -- worthy of much contemplation. What in the world should such a title mean? What will the schools of the future be? I guess what schools will become will depend on what society itself becomes. If we are all living in some version of a North Korean totalitarian nightmare, then our schools will be included in that nightmare. If we are living within a Star Trek society, along with enlightened beings like Mr. Spock, then our schools will reflect that society as well. The theory is that schools, through educating the youth, can help advance society towards its ideals and goals. For that reason, totalitarian societies have always placed great value in forming and training youth, in preparing youth to assume the jobs and responsibilities of their society. Totalitarian schools are schools that anticipate the future -- that implant values, attitudes in today’s children that the state seeks, generally, to implant in society as a whole -- because totalitarian states know that it is the youth who will build the future.

An American school of the future, it seems to me, would be one that anticipates a future where American ideals are realized: liberty, justice, personal freedom, democratic participation, civic awareness. The advocates of the Philadelphia school seem to say that school is all about preparing students for employment, all about giving students the skills and experience needed to benefit from the advantages of this technological age. But that is not enough. North Korean leaders want this from their schools as well. And they want more. Americans should want more from their schools as well. Job training has its place but, by itself, job training does not advance the ideals at the foundation of our society. When we see how the foundations of our democracy are crumbling, it is fair to hold our schools accountable, and the fact whether students are passing tests or not is beside the point.

Our high schools in general -- and this new Philadelphia high school seems no exception -- are hierarchical, authoritarian, coercive and bureaucratic. It is the school itself, through its practices and ethos, that teaches, and, structured as they are, this “hidden curriculum” of our high schools teaches values inimical to the ideals at the foundation of our society. The operation of our high schools, in general, would not contradict the operating principles of North Korean society. Our schools at present fail to anticipate or prepare a future, through their operations and practice, that honors American ideals and values. And this failure, though seldom acknowledged, is the central failure of American schools -- not the failure indicated on tests.

It appears to me that Philadelphia’s new school, rather than finding a fresh view of what a school is, rather than finding more effective ways to inspire and prepare students for democratic participation, has stuck with a very conventional view of school and school purpose -- one that emphasizes test scores and college entrance. I want to do more research to see if this impression is correct and to see exactly what happens, over time, in this school. But it appears that in Philadelphia the take on the school of the future is that the school of the future is basically the school of the present with better technology. And the problem is that the school of the present is failing -- yes, even those schools that are islands of privilege with tons of technology -- and this failure, as stated above, has little to do with grades or college admissions.

So, in my judgement, what Philadelphia is offering as a school of the future is not enough. A school of the future is one that will give hope that those beings of the future, today's children, will sustain, refresh and enliven those core values upon which our democracy depends. So far as I can tell, fulfilling such a school purpose has not been part of the Philadelphia school design.

There is a huge need for American public education to be redesigned; there is a huge need for a school design that would implement, through its practices and ethos, American ideals, a school that would anticipate a flowering of democracy. Such a school would not be designed based on technology, but would be designed based on sound theory and profound insight into school purpose, human purpose, and human potential -- and based on profound understandings of the ideals we hold as a democratic society, and how these ideals can be modeled and celebrated in our schools.

Schools That Would Make Joseph Stalin Happy

Schools That Would
Make Joseph Stalin Happy


It seems I was dreaming the other day and I was thinking there must be a think tank, with lots of money to spend, that is studying and pondering the decayed state of American education and seeking solutions:

Think Tank Person #1: The seeds now being sown by our educational system, I fear, will eventually reap disastrous results. A generation from now, more or less, when the US constitution is changed and the US is ruled by a small oligarchy, when the opportunity for democracy has disappeared, it commonly will be agreed that the schools are to blame. It commonly will be agreed that schools paved the way for the collapse of our democracy. In the future, when it is too late, people will understand the terrible price of our current school structure. We currently have a school structure appropriate for North Korea or the old Soviet Union, not for a democracy.

Think Tank Person #2: Who would have thought that in a democracy, such as ours, schools would be known for their authoritative central control, unquestioned obedience, and rigid, punitive, and narrowly defined accountability. It is strange that a democracy would allow its schools to focus on purposes appropriate for totalitarian states: training workers for jobs, acclimating future citizens to passivity, convincing future citizens to accept the power structures of their society and convincing future citizens to accept the values of those in power. Schools, when asked to identify their best students, do not highlight strongly developed individuals with a passion for justice, democracy, freedom, and independent thinking. The best students, according to schools, are those who have most fully acknowledged the authority of the system, have met the demands of the system, and who have approbation of the system. Stalin would have been happy with such school criteria.

Person #1: We need to create a school design that will aim to develop effective citizens for a democracy, not effective citizens for a totalitarian state. We need to find ways for schools to help each child find and develop not only his or her academic potential but his or her entire human potential: the potential to continually grow in character and personal development, the potential be a good neighbor, the potential to value and advance justice, democracy and freedom, the potential to rise above narcissism and to contribute to the general good of society.

Person #2: Not all parents would want to send their child to a school that attempted anything other than academic instruction.

Person #1: That is why the school we create must be a school of choice, a charter school, using public money and open to all students -- a school of choice. It must be a school based on the free market. I believe that we can eventually prove to reluctant parents, over time, that a school that emphasizes developing the total education of a child is successful in helping each child develop his or her academic potential as well. I believe that, over time, because of the success of our school, parents will demand changes in their traditional public schools.

Person #2: But what are we really talking about? How should we go about designing a school that emphasizes the total education of children, and that prepares children to be effective citizens in a democracy? What is our vision of such a school?

Person #1: Why don’t we just give Terrell Shaw $1 million and see what he comes up with?

Person #2: Don’t you think that we should create a Request for Proposal (RFP), like the serious think tank that we are, and invite everyone who seeks to develop a good idea to apply?

Person #1: The question: What will a RFP look like that will generate thoughtful replies? Here’s my idea I’ve been thinking about. Let’s create an RFP that is a two part thought experiment.

Part One: Suppose you live in a time of kings and your king has a 12 year old child and the king assigns you the responsibility for the 12 year old’s total education. How would you define “total education”? What are the theories and principles that would guide your actions? How would you proceed with seeing to the education of the 12 year old?

Now that sets up the premise. The key question to answer is: How would you engage this 12 year old child in the persistent effort and concentration needed for his or her individual development? This is the same key question, of course, that is appropriate for every 12 year old, regardless of financial or social status. Would you reward and punish with grades and praise? Would you insist that he or she study math at 10:00 AM every day? I don’t think so. This thought experiment forces a realization that much of what we consider as appropriate schooling for the masses should be discarded, and a way should be found to meaningfully personalize the education of every child.

And the second part of this line of thought is this: Now that you have a strategy based on sound theories of how to successfully deal with the total education of the 12 year old child of a king, how would you apply your strategy to the total education of an impoverished charter school student, with a school budget of $5500 per student to spend? Answering this second part means that, by centering on the child, you would need to rethink basic school structures; you would need to rethink basic premises about the purpose and method for allocating resources.

Person #2: Treating every child like a king? What you are saying is that the system must start by acknowledging the worth and importance of the individual. The point is that schools should help each child to develop into strong individuals, not according to the definitions of the state, but according to the potential and inclinations of the child. The point is that schools should help each child to acquire the tools that will empower and encourage him or her to fully participate in democracy. A totalitarian state would ferociously oppose such aims for schools, and, the truth is, such a school would be condemned by totalitarian forces in our own country, who basically mistrust the force and potential of democracy.

I like your thought experiment idea. Are you going to write the RFP so we can more carefully look at the details?