Public education is in the midst of a perceptual crisis. The “public-school-as-smorgasbord” proponents, the privatization faction, the voucher believers, the private school crowd and the transformers — those small but vocal minorities who insist that every public school is mediocre at best, that their students do not stand a chance in today’s competitive market — all proclaim loudly their way is better and will lead to the miraculous and marvelous reinvention of our failed system of public education.
Baloney.
My personal belief is that segregation is the driving force behind many of these so-called choice movements and their proponents, and that their focus on the 7 percent of students not in public education rather than the 93 percent who are is misplaced. But we will save that argument for another day.
At its inception, public education was never intended to educate all children, and the model of standardized curricula, standardized testing, standardized attendance requirements and standardized teaching methodology does not serve to meet the personalization so desperately needed to overcome the effects of poverty and low expectations.
Academic success was a matter of temperament, birth, race and the chance that somewhere along the way those who fit the mold, followed directions, modeled good behavior and did their homework would find a teacher, usually in the lower elementary grades, that took a personal interest in their success and achievement. The prospect of attending college was limited to a small percentage of primarily white males. The belief that all children could learn was nonexistent and would have been seen as a waste of time, effort and money.
Every value-added proponent, every “let’s-get-rid-of-bad-teachers” strategist assumes that all students come to school excited about learning and academic achievement.
Again, baloney.
Our first efforts should be made in leading our children to knowledge rather than attempting to stuff it into their ears. Don’t believe for a second they are not intelligent simply because they learn in different ways or come to us from poverty. Watch a kid with a video game or with sports. They really despise those activities that do not challenge them and do not return to the ones they solve too easily, but will spend hours upon hours taking on the challenges of games that stretch their imaginations and capabilities.
Secondly, we must change the sterile classroom environment that has changed little since the 1800s — one where the “innovation” is an outdated computer that may be used occasionally as a reward during the odd times it actually connects to the Internet.
There is no reason we cannot immerse students and teachers in a digital-learning environment that challenges their creativity, their achievement and their engagement.
The third key is the simultaneous elimination of the national dependence upon standardized testing as the single allowable measure of student academic achievement and a valid indicator of teacher effectiveness.
We have insisted on using a minimum-standards test to judge whether or not third-, fifth- and eighth-graders are ready to move to the next grade. Why are we not trusting our teachers to make these determinations?
When students are engaged and involved in what we ask them to learn, teaching the test does not become the focus of daily activities — learning does.
When teachers are allowed and encouraged to work with one another, to collaborate about student work and to learn to become teacher leaders, the possibilities for student achievement expand exponentially. I have seen this model at work in many of our schools in Georgia that have principals who have the courage to allow teachers to be leaders.
Jim Arnold is the superintendant of Pelham City Schools.
About the Author
