Public Education is Broken

More than likely, this entry will seem a bit dull, primarily because the thoughts are not new and I am not the only one attempting to put them into words.  But, as a teacher entering my third year, I hope to add to the cacophony that should erupt from schools and educators everywhere when they begin to see (and maybe even do something about) the gravity of the situation as the quality of education continues to deteriorate and more and more of the blame shifts to the institutions and their employees rather than to the children and parents or more appropriately to the culture of our society as a whole.

The education system in the United States is broken.  I’ll even expand my indictment to all legislatively mandated attempts at inculcating youth with largely inapplicable knowledge for the undefined and ever elusive purpose of “betterment” or “a job”, neither of which should ever be mandated.  Public education has failed to encourage independent thought, innovation, character, or enthusiasm, rather settling for minimalist and reductionist approaches that allow incompetence and naivete to walk across stages and accept worthless documents that won’t even get hung on a wall.  All because education, a tool and asset in the hands of capable people, is valued by few and therefore truly achieved by even fewer.  And the great social cornerstone has nothing and no one to blame except the systematic standardization and consequent sterilization of the educational process by those who are themselves ignorant of the purpose and goal of that which they are promoting.

You may be wondering why I say these things.  So I will give some examples that may or may not be from personal experience:

1. A student is expelled for shattering a trophy case with his girlfriend’s head during an argument.  In the civil proceedings, the judge determines that he should be returned to school per the legal mandate for minors.

2. Teachers are forbidden to give zero credit on any assignment.  A student must receive a minimum of 50% on assignments because otherwise the teacher may irrevocably alter the course of that student’s education and following life.

3. A student would rather be working than going to school.  He could be nobly motivated to “help the family” or commonly motivated to “make the money”, but either way it would be better to him than sitting through a set of biology notes about Carolus Linnaeus and binomial nomenclature or the banality of his English teacher’s idea of a “literary jewel”.

4. An upper level, intensive elective course requires that the student achieve a B average in a prerequisite course. A student who does not speak english and failed the prerequisite course is allowed to enroll in the elective. Once enrolled, the student receives and uses tools, equipment, and text materials totaling well over $250 and proceeds to fail the first semester and drops out of the course.

5. An exchange student from a country with an admittedly more rigorous education system decides to take his chances in the great US of A.  He has a formidable knowledge of biochemistry and physics as a tenth grader and can explain the complexities of protein structure and interactions to his American classmates through the use of a handheld translator and stumbling speech, to which those classmates react with mocking reverence and applause asking the student why he’s not at Harvard instead of this school.

6. State if not national standards are esteemed by most of those who are not actually in the field of education but nevertheless are in charge of implementing new directives and so administrators and educators are tasked with meeting arbitrary and misguided obligations so that “no child [is] left behind”.

The examples above are a minimal and simplistic list but I hope they serve to highlight a couple of the major issues facing the public education system: lack of motivation, diminished quality, and wasted resources.

So what are some solutions?

First and foremost, the legal mandate must be removed beyond 6th grade (I offer 6th grade as a concession rather than as an ideal. I think publicly funded education should be available for all but required only to the lowest possible level). There are students who, for the sake of the quality of education, should not be in school.

Second, teachers and school systems must be allowed to develop their own curricula and educational philosophies, and therefore be compared to one another, without concern for fitting into a national or state standard.

Third, resources given to public education should be allocated solely for use in educational programs and withheld from athletic or social programs.

I’ll address each one individually.

First, the legal mandate.  The problems with the requirement are many.  However, the core of the error is in thinking that forced compliance will guarantee a return, that the student will have necessary and pertinent skills by the end of his time in school.  Anybody in education knows that this is not the case.  There is no substantial return on the investment and the skills that are acquired are minimal and diminishing with each passing year, which is why a high school diploma is almost a formality and is thus mostly unimpressive, nearly valueless, and has been supplanted by the bachelor’s degree as the minimum educational requirement for most entry-level jobs.  Not only is there no substantial return, but there is an exorbitant amount of waste.  Consider the number of language workbooks purchased for French students who will never speak the language or pursue further study in the field; or the quantities of chemicals purchased and stored for students who would rather be sleeping than watching the chemical reactions performed with those chemicals; or the amount of paper used to print and send interim reports and report cards to parents/guardians who can find the grades online or are indifferent or oblivious. All in all, the current system is ineffective because it sets for itself the goal of providing an education in a broad range of subjects when students really only need to be able to read, write, and do basic math in order to be successful. Students receive a smattering of irrelevant bits of knowledge while failing to master those basic skills they will certainly need when carrying on their business. And society pays for the inefficiency.

The primary objection to this solution is usually that a person is much better off with even a minimal amount of mandatory education through the 12th grade.  The argument appeals to a socially conscious view that acknowledges the value of socialization and training in any form when there is no other context for those processes.  I agree that there is value in simple exposure to education. However, I don’t think there should be any legal mandate because socialization and training should never be the responsibility of anybody except the individual or his or her respective domestic authority. If neither the individual student nor their domestic authority sees the value in socialization and training, can we ever expect their success in a legally mandated setting?  I submit that we cannot without lowering our expectations to the extreme detriment of that legally mandated setting, which is precisely what glares at even the casual observer in the current situation.

The legal mandate must be reduced to at most the first few and essential years of education, during which a student is usually compliant and malleable and can be taught effectively in the basics of math, reading, and writing. Those are the essential subjects and every individual should be proficient in all of them in order to function in society. However, beyond that, only students who have shown a certain level of achievement and aptitude should continue on in publicly funded education.

Second, individualized curricula and educational philosophies.  There are good teachers and there are better teachers.  There are great administrators and there are poor administrators.  The standardization movement that has resulted in the formation of the SOL tests in Virginia and scores of analogous evaluations across the country strives to circumvent those differences to ensure that every educator teaches the same thing within the same time-frame without regard for the nuances of different people in different places.  The result is that there is no reason for a teacher to go above or beyond what the established curriculum requires. Why have the incentives for educators to distinguish themselves been diminished to the point of a bland monotony of styles and substance?  Because we are afraid that, rather than performing with distinction, those educators might distinguish themselves by performing poorly and that our children will be the victims.  And that is a legitimate concern (a concern which should drive conscientious parents to demand choice in which school their children attend).  Given the freedom to teach without any accountability beyond colleagues and immediate administrators, many teachers and school systems might teach very little and might teach very poorly.  But we can barely address such a concern because with a legal mandate there is a nearly insatiable demand for vast numbers of certified teachers.  So, just as standards are dropping for students, so they are dropping for potential teachers and that means that there are some very bad teachers who are hired and our worst fears are realized.

However and again, the cause of those bad hires is not addressed by standardization. The cause is skyrocketing enrollment. Instead of hiring those bad teachers in the first place, the real cause of the problem should be addressed and the number of students should be reduced by removing the legal mandate as I stated above.  What does that do?  It gives freedom that is desperately needed if education is to thrive, freedom to hire motivated teachers who have demonstrated that they have the knowledge and skill to effectively communicate material to motivated students. That gives rise to the age-old catalyst for progress: competition.  Just like the recent Lebron James debacle, given enough skill and the resulting demand for those skills, an individual will be sought after.  Certain teams can offer copious amounts of money and hope that the star will join their team in a shared quest for accomplishment.  And Lebron chose a team that he hopes will get him a ring.  Consider a similar situation that might arise given a little freedom in the education system–a star teacher with a notably effective curriculum developed from his expertise in his field wishes to work with the best and brightest students; a school system considers their course selection and selective enrollment to be just such an environment for the best and brightest and offers the teacher a job.  That gives the motivation, the incentive for a teacher to excel in his or her field. That is an opportunity for a school system to push its students to the edges of knowledge and discovery and innovation. And that, after all, should be a primary function of education in the first place.

Beyond decreased motivation for teachers and consequently for students, standardization has already begun to effectively reduce the quality of education. Let me explain. Success of a school system is measured by meeting arbitrary standards and, relatedly, the percentage of successful graduates based on those standards.  Simple enough.  However, that sets up a unique situation, one in which the administrators, parents, and students are bound together in a common desire to lower standards.  Let me explain in more detail. States want successful schools (read “high percentages”), administrators want successful schools (read “high percentages”), parents want successful students (read “contributing statistics for those high percentages”), and students want to succeed (read “have high percentages”) and so every player in the game who has control over curriculum and can influence the direction of education (besides the teacher) has a vested interest in lowering standards to the point of a 100% pass rate. The only way out of this mess is to avoid standardization and enlist the expertise of teachers who are motivated to push their students towards success.

Third, resources.  As of 2007, the cost of sending one student to primary or secondary school for one year was approximately $10,000.00. With over 56 million students in primary and secondary schools in 2009, the cost is staggering – over $600 billion annually. Not to mention the intellectual resources that are wasted in students and teachers who are neither challenged towards nor rewarded for superior performance at their tasks. The problems highlighted above should make us question the wisdom of continuing to pour that kind of money into a system that fails at the most basic levels (seniors who can’t write coherent essays can still graduate, students who don’t pass the SOL are given nearly unlimited chances to retake it, students who don’t know how to read are still placed in advanced level courses, teachers are required to give grades that are not reflective of what a student actually accomplished). In addition to the inefficiencies of education as a whole, a significant portion of any given school’s budget is likely to be allocated for non-educational expenditures, including but not limited to sports, meals, and special programs. Public funds that are spent on schools should be used solely for educational purposes and not the provision of enrichment activities. Such additional programs or activities should be reserved for private funds or money raised or donated by students and parents. The reason is that the purpose of educational institutions should not move beyond the boundaries of education. When it does, we lose focus and quality suffers.

In conclusion, things need to change. And the changes require an entire paradigm shift throughout the nation. I don’t think it is a change that will happen quickly or easily or maybe even at all. But it certainly won’t change if nobody says anything.

If you’re still reading this, thanks and I’d love to read your comments.

Advertisement