Some Say Tomato, Some Say Tomahto

What if you could design a school from the ground up? How would it be different from schools that exist? How would it be the same? What would be the aims of the school? Its mission? How large would it be? What would be the size of the classes? What would be your expectations for the quality of education? For the success of its students?

I ask the last two questions facetiously because, of course, no one would set out to build a school of low quality or one with a poor rate of success.  When one sets out to build a school one does so with a vision. But it may not be your vision. And one does so with an expectation of success. But it may not be your understanding of success.

Businesses differ from schools a very fundamental way. The product of a business must be a fit for an economically viable portion of the brains out there in order to succeed. Schools (and government) try to be a fit for all of the brains out there in order to succeed. But they can't. And so they then decide what all of the brains should be out there. That's why large national educational reform movements don't work. There are many different types of brains out there but the reform usually assumes just one. And there are many different needs out there but the reform assumes just one. That is why when I hear concerns expressed that the United States is lagging behind other nations in science and math I wonder if I can infer that to mean that the United States is surging ahead in other capabilities, such as literature, and history, and the arts? Or even better, in compassion and empathy and caring?

When we as a nation set about condemning the progress of our education systems we must first be certain we agree about the aims of education. And to understand that, we need to understand that every school is unique just as every child is unique and every teacher is unique. What is the fundamental teaching aim of PS 149 in Chicago, or Walnut Creek Charter School, or The Sisters of Grace School in Texas, or The La De Da Private School in Boston? Yes, each will tell you that the school's mission is to Educate the Whole Child For a Successful Life, or words to that effect. But are their aims truly the same? What is the actual underlying vision of those unique individuals who have come together to form a unique faculty to teach unique children in that unique environment? What are the particular driving needs of these students? of that particular community? Should we ask those teachers to stop teaching toward those needs so that they can all pass the standardized mathematics test? I think not.

Lets consider for a moment what federal education reform means. An emphasis on competitive success in math and science suggests a continuing emphasis on left brain capabilities; educating engineers and scientists to retain dominance over other countries in technology and manufacturing and, yes, warfare is assumed. But isn't that yesterday's news? Don't we now need communicators and autonomous thinkers and linguists for a globally connected tomorrow?

In my career as an educator, I have sat on multiple building committees working with architects for building and grounds  development. An issue that always arises is the design of pathways. First, the architect will propose a path design that is pleasing to the eye. Then an astute teacher on the committee will suggest that the children probably won't follow that path, because it doesn't lead where they wish to go. Next, a reluctant architect asks the teachers to propose a path that they believe the children will follow. That is when I suggest that we not design a pathway at all, but wait to see what path the children wear into the grass and then pave that over.  My suggestion was never followed. But it should be followed in a larger sense for education today. Because educational pathways are even now being worn in the grass for future pavement by many charter schools and public school districts and private schools, who can see the direction of education for the future in the needs of their students today. The process of educating is not static or final. Just as brains grow and develop and adapt so must schools. Just as there are millions of unique brains out there, so must there be different approaches to education. And with new technologies and global connections it is happening - on its own - by itself. Children are not waiting for state and federal agencies to decide how they should learn - they are learning and connecting. We need to watch how they learn, where they learn, and when they learn, and then give them what they need and pave it over.

The natural direction of education in the United States reflects this process. The growth of charter schools around the nation is indicative of the varied needs from community to community. A desire for smaller teacher student ratios and safer learning environments and increased use of technology and instruction in inter personal skills and the inclusion of the arts is leading the way. Private schools have continued to thrive, despite the recession, because they respond to this wish list. Charter schools are increasing for the same reason. Here lies the pathway to be paved.

Sorry, Parents - There Still Is No Free Lunch!

The word is out! The verdict is in! The true cause for lagging education in the U.S. has been identified. It is simply, and solely, the teacher!

As education reforms run their course, as political initiatives founder, as watchwords fail to galvanize, and as frustration has increased, finger pointing has begun.

The recent attempt by the Los Angeles Times to evaluate that city's teachers by the level of improvement of their students on certain standardized tests and then (apparently) to shame them into action by publishing the results takes missing the point to a whole new level. Never mind the fact that these tests are antiquated and incredibly narrow in scope, or that success in taking these or other similar tests requires consistent levels of emotional wellness and stability that may not be available to many of these children, or that these tests do not reflect creative "right-brained" learning experiences that may be of even greater value to the child, or ….I could go on, but first, let's consider just one aspect of this attitude: responsibility.

As a teacher of 35 years experience, I find myself asking the same question I have asked myself at some point during every one of those years: "Who is ultimately responsible for the education of the child?" This question is usually followed by another: "Why am I doing this by myself?"

There has been a general abdication of responsibility for educating children over the years by the communities to which the children belong. What used to take a village now takes only an individual, it seems. And now the village is blaming the individuals whom they have abandoned on the front line with the responsibility to teach what that community wants taught, how they want it taught,  where they want it taught, and (worse) when they want it taught. Because even the most effective teacher can not overcome a poorly constructed or archaic curriculum or respond to outdated teaching aims. Teaching is best done as a team effort, in concert with fellow teachers and administrators and parents, taking advantage of the latest gains in technology and neuroscience. The single autocratic teacher in a classroom with the responsibility to shape the lives of 35 or 40 students for good or ill is a dinosaur. It does, indeed, take a village.

It is time to look beyond traditional teaching methods to discover the real reasons that education in the United States is beginning to lag behind other nations. First, consider teaching aims. It is no longer sufficient to attempt to motivate students or teachers with economic goals. The narrow and competitive mission to crank out doctors and lawyers and engineers who can then collect a big paycheck and experience the American Dream doesn't work anymore. Americans recognize that there is more to life than that. Nell Nodding has put forward the aim of teaching toward happiness. That seems closer to the mark. I would respectfully suggest the aim of fulfillment, to learn to become and to experience all that you can, to expand your individual horizons in particularly their most difficult directions, to find unsuspected talents and abilities within yourself. Perhaps happiness would follow.

Second, examine the school wide curriculum to determine its compatibility with neuroscience. It is the brain that learns, after all, and our effectiveness at teaching is dependent upon understanding its growth and development. We are discovering more about the brain on an almost daily basis. The stages of development of the brain dictate the readiness of the brain to learn. Any experienced teacher can tell you that learning happens only when the child is ready to learn, not before. And neuroscientists are discovering that some stages come earlier than thought and some later and that in some cases specific windows of opportunity are presented and in other cases opportunity continues indefinitely.

Third, allow the teacher to truly teach, which means to have a part in the creation of that which is to be taught and how and when it is to be taught. This is the area of the teachers' training. It is not the area of the parents' training, in most cases. Give the teacher a larger part in determining the curriculum and syllabus.

Fourth, supply community support for teachers and schools. Be a part in determining teaching aims and mission and objectives. Attend meetings and conferences. Learn from the professionals what is effective in education today and help schools to effect positive change.

Finally, consider an attitude change. Education should be viewed in the same way we do our businesses. We should be hiring the professionals who supply the best abilities and are the best fit for the job and the school and then paying them accordingly. We should be always looking forward to new paths, rather than backward to old 'proven' traditional methods. The way in which the world communicates, collaborates, and connects has changed and continues to change and schools should be on the leading edge of that change, not protected from it. The way in which we were taught may have been good enough for us, but it is not now good enough for our children.