“For What It’s Worth…”

      I have been in public education as a student, teacher, assistant principal and principal for 47 years.    I have witnessed a great deal from segregation to busing to urban disarray to suburban self centeredness to magnet energy.  All of these descriptions are, of course, gross generalizations.   Schools are not predictable systemic units, but independent organisms.   Calling any schools a success or failure ignores the complexity of the culture within a school.   Some struggle to get students to a place that provides opportunity, but that is as much due to circumstances beyond a school’s influence as school decisions.  Sure there are educators, from superintendents to classroom assistants, who influence positive and negative outcomes for students, but no circumstance acts as the sole contributor.  Contrary to the political narrative of simpletons, no one succeeds on their own.  There are many schools that need to improve, but there are many more that make profound differences in the life of a child. 

            The last thirty plus years of the “reform era” have been marked by an arcane approach to the human condition.  Limited in intellectual vision and weak in delivery, policy makers and politicians have let us down again and again.  For what it’s worth, allow me to be arrogant enough to propose ten reforms that would get results.

1.     Stop the practice of justifying action on failure:  Since a Nation at Risk in 1983, policy makers, pundits and politicians have consistently pointed to the challenges in public schooling as failures.  This is an overly simplistic and unproductive approach to serving students.  Since the beginning of Public Schools in the United States, students who have a foundation for learning have succeeded in school.  Resources, opportunity and rich experience are the keys to academic success.  The opportunities available to privileged students have to be provided to the underprivileged to see meaningful gains in academic success.  Failure has become an excuse to withdraw from public schools.  We cannot succeed in serving children if we do not engage.

2.     Use standardized tests as a diagnostic tool and focus on teacher actions to justify policy:  Standardized tests are not designed to judge teacher or school performance.  Such practices simply get in the way of meaningful instruction.  Diagnostic tests can provide a base line for learning.  Expect teachers to regularly adjust best practices to meet the needs of students.  Principals can easily determine coaching priorities for staff from documented evidence that this is taking place without deflating teacher morale.

3.     Bring back kinesthetic production: We have hands for a reason and our brain needs to use many synapse to build dendrites.  Mental dexterity comes from a variety of experiences that stretch brain capacity.  Getting away from shop, Home Ec, Music and Art keeps children from expanding problem solving capacity and creativity. (And get rid of Career Classes.  They’re worthless.)

4.     Require Professional Development that is chosen by teachers and individual schools:  Schools are where students are served.  Each school has unique needs and should be allowed to improve based on their own determination.  Schools can choose to team with other schools free from fiat.  Funds should go directly to schools with no strings attached and should be provided to allow schools to serve their professional needs.  The theoretical justification, free from the ideological,  for vouchers and charters is to go around the byzantine organizational structure that has become the “public schools.” It would be much more efficient to simply get the money directly to the schools with better results.

5.     Nationalize teacher certification requirements:  Universal teacher standards do not limit a state’s ability to determine learning standards.  In other words, this would not be an infringement on “states rights.”  Federal certification requirements would establish a bar to improve teacher quality and enhance the likelihood for success.  This would also require colleges and universities to make meaningful changes in their education degree programs based on accreditation requirements.  This would take the cost of certification out of state budgets and put it in the hands of a federal budget with a greater capacity to do this efficiently.

6.     Require teacher candidates get a four-year degree in content with a 2 to 3 year Masters that is practicum heavy:  Successful teachers must have intellectual curiosity.  Whether liberal arts or vocational specific, teacher training should not begin until after such a four-year degree.  At least 2/3 of a Masters program for teaching should be spent in schools.   There is a reason why medical school residencies are grueling, meaningful internship will give a better indication of a candidates ability and help that prospective teacher determine whether teaching is their vocation.

7.     Set a minimal age requirement of 25 years of age for teachers:  Speaking of brain research, we now know that the frontal lobe determines the executive function of the brain.  This part of the brain does not mature until around twenty-five.  I have worked with excellent teachers who are younger, but as a rule, too many are not ready.  There is a reason why only 59% of students graduate from college on time.  Organizational maturity and impulse control are crucial for good teaching.  We need to stop sending young teachers to slaughter before they are ready.  

8.    Re-establish step pay systems with cost of living requirements for teachers and school based administrators:  People see raises as evidence of appreciation.  Teachers know that they are not paid enough, but this does not mean they don’t need outward visible signs of appreciation.  The 2008 crash became an excuse to not pay teachers.  We will continue to see fewer and fewer go into the profession if they do not see a reward. 

9.     Federal funding in P-12 education should go directly to schools with limited requirements for spending:  Funds should be distributed according to need based on FRL (poverty) percentages.  Principal’s should be given the ability to spend the money where needed without restrictions placed at the district level.  Schools should not be labeled Title 1.  Funding should not be based on competitive requirements meant to push a specific government agenda.    Programs established to impact instruction at the federal level are typically limited in effective reach for students. The money can be better spent.

Establish parent support programs that include mental health, health and career services in elementary school communities where needed:  Student success is dependent on opportunity.  That includes opportunity for parents to be supported in their efforts to provide for their children.  Elementary schools represent a microcosm of culture that can give families the resources to find meaningful experiences that increase the likelihood of a meaningful citizenship.  Jeffery Canada in Harlem is correct on this front.  Give it a chance to work and expand the model.