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.
