Momentile

A Random Post

 

How to fix America’s schools?

There was recently an article titled Five Ways to Fix America’s Schools by Harold Levy in The New York Times. Having taught at the college level (for a brief time) and spent a fair amount of time as a student (a lot of time), this caught my attention. I would generally agree that our school system could be better, but how to go about doing it is of course the tricky question. So I read over the article and thought I’d pull out the 5 ways that Levy suggests and add some comments.

Raise the age of compulsory education. Twenty-six states require children to attend school until age 16, the rest until 17 or 18, but we should ensure that all children stay in school until age 19. Simply completing high school no longer provides students with an education sufficient for them to compete in the 21st-century economy. So every child should receive a year of post-secondary education.

While I agree with the idea here, I am not so sure it will have the intended outcome. For instance, getting a degree is often just a formality. It’s a hoop through which you have to jump to get more money. I have seen lots of people (and have felt myself this way at times) that have not been prepared by their education to actually perform their job function. It is not always true that a person coming out of college is more prepared to do a job than someone who left high school and worked for a couple of years. Yet the hoop is a college degree and you’re out of luck if you don’t have it. So if everyone starts getting a bit of a college level education, I don’t see the money automatically following. That being said, I really don’t see more education as a bad thing.

I do like the idea of having some sort of mandatory ‘extra year.’ Make the options for what’s done during this year varied, but I especially like the volunteer idea. Everyone is able to help out in some way and I think volunteering strengthens one’s character and one’s community. Hopefully this can come to fruition in the near future.

Use high-pressure sales tactics to curb truancy. Casual truancy is epidemic; in many cities, including New York, roughly 30 percent of public school students are absent a total of a month each year. Not surprisingly, truants become dropouts.

Growing up the way I did and going to the school I did (high school), I couldn’t imagine skipping school. If you weren’t in homeroom at the time the bell rang, the nuns would start calling your house. I did skip school, but never without my father knowing (someone had to write a note…). I never even considered faking a note. I wouldn’t say that I was an especially great student or really wanted to be in school, but the system prevented me from getting around that. Why? I guess it’s because my parents wanted me to be in school. This gets back to one of the points Levy brings up, and I feel is really important, family. There needs to be a structure in place to help the school system. In many cases, I think that structure is the family.

If there is no one at home to make you get up in the morning and get to school, why do you do it? Because you want to? Not even I am that naive. Sometimes you do things because you have to and because it’s what is expected of you. If your support system is not setting that expectation, it’s easy to just let it go by the wayside.

It seems obvious to me that if you are not in school, you are not learning. From what I understand, schools spend a lot of resources trying to track down students that aren’t in the classroom. These are resources that could be better spent trying to actually educate students. But at the end of the day, even if you catch a student one day, you can not make him show up the next. Ultimately, it’s the student’s decision and I think that really needs to be helped along through an interesting in learning and an inferred consequence (from the support system) if they do not go.

Advertise creatively and aggressively to encourage college enrollment. The University of Phoenix, a private, for-profit institution, spent $278 million on advertising, most of it online, in 2007. It was one of the principal sponsors of Super Bowl XLII, which was held at University of Phoenix Stadium (not bad for an institution that doesn’t even have a football team). The University of Phoenix’s enrollment has clearly benefited from its advertising budget: with more than 350,000 students, its enrollment is surpassed by only a few state universities.

Well this point is really geared toward universities. And even then, I don’t know if I really agree. Advertising is generally misleading and I don’t think that’s what we need in our university system. School has become such a big business that it’s sometimes hard to tell if they are doing what is good for the university or what is good for the student. There does need to be interest from students to attend university, but I don’t know that you need to generate that through glitzy advertising.

Unseal college accreditation reports so that the Department of Education can take over the business of ranking colleges and universities. Accreditation reports — rigorous evaluations, prepared by representatives of peer institutions — include everything students need to know when making decisions about schools, yet the specifics of most reports remain secret.

This certainly sounds like a good idea. Why not let the consumers (students) see an honest accounting of the institutions in which they are interested? Every school has problems, that’s ok. But give the consumers the best set of facts available and let them make the decision that is right for them. I am generally a pro-honesty person (and I’ll give you no examples of when I am anti-honesty!).

The biggest improvement we can make in higher education is to produce more qualified applicants. Half of the freshmen at community colleges and a third of freshmen at four-year colleges matriculate with academic skills in at least one subject too weak to allow them to do college work. Unsurprisingly, the average college graduation rates even at four-year institutions are less than 60 percent.

So to improve our education system, we need to educate more effectively? Well, I guess it couldn’t hurt. I can certainly second this sentiment. When teaching at the college level, I often had to teach remedial topics instead of teaching the actual stated material for the class. Students just hadn’t learned it previously or if they did, they were unable to use any of it. This is of course not all students, but you can’t just leave half the class behind because they don’t know ’something they should have already learned.’ And leaving it up to the student to learn in their free time and catch up is not really a viable option. And so it snowballs. The next course they take they may not know some of the material that they were supposed to learn in my class.

I generally agree with Levy on most of his points but I think that he missed a couple of big things. Among them I’d say the following three are probably tops on my list: student responsibility, rekindling an interest in learning and bringing a greater level of respect to the teaching profession.

I don’t think any of these are novel ideas so I’ll just try and briefly explain what I mean. Teachers are often treated like crap. They are often not respected by the students or the students’ parents. Teachers generally aren’t paid well and are sometimes made to teach subjects in which they are unfamiliar. This sounds like a recipe for a great job huh? I think it’s a marvel and a credit to the teachers that we currently have that they take such pride in their work and do such a good job. I would like to see a raising of the status of teachers so that we can attract more of them and help the ones we currently have do a better job.

I think there also needs to be a rekindling of the interest in learning. Like I said before, you can’t make anyone go to school and even if you can, you can’t force someone to learn. We need to make learning fun. Now that’s obviously not always going to be the case. Some things we talk about in school just isn’t that interesting, that’s to be expected. However, the entirety of an education doesn’t need to be that way. Student run discussions, student dictated lessons and things like that could certainly help bring more students in the fold. This is starting to sound like one of those ‘bad students make good’ TV shows, but I think it can really happen. But I think you need institutional support to make it happen. One example of this would be a lessening of emphasis on testing students. When teachers teach a student to pass a test, that’s all he knows. But if you can take the focus off of a test and put it on learning, I think there could be a benefit.

But above all, I think what we need is a cultural focus on student responsibility. The students need be willing to learn and need to want to learn. Showing up for a class is not enough to guarantee that you will be successful. I saw many students at the college level expect to pass because they paid money to be in the class. What the student is paying for is the opportunity to learn. Teachers can help the students as best they can to learn, but at the end of the day, the ultimate effort rests with the student. If we let our students pass just because they showed up, we are doing the whole system a disservice. And the next group of students that come through will know that they can just slide through. I sometimes wonder if this is my ‘back when I was a kid…’ moment, but I can’t stress enough how much I think we have culturally gotten away from an ethic of student responsibility.

Is our education system great? Well it has its good points and its bad points. While I think it does a good job for educating certain groups, I think it fails other groups and overall, I think we could do better. Obviously there are no easy fixes or else it’d probably already be fixed. But hopefully with the above I’ve laid out some of my ideas. Now I need to spellcheck 20 times so I don’t make a mistake in the ‘education post.’ :)

Potentially related posts:

  • Jimbo
    Joe, Jimbo here...I've been a Jeffco public school teacher for 18 years. I joined the union for the negotiating clout and the liability insurance. And beleive me, folks...if you're a bad teacher in my district, you'll get your due process (union-mandadted) but in the end, you'll lose your job. Jeffco also has open enrollment as BVSD does...most larger districts offer this option....choice is available, so vouchers are moot...plus vouchers offer far less $ than needed to attend private schools, so most familes still cannot afford to send their kids to a private school even with a voucher...
  • Joe
    Hey Jimbo,

    I have heard similar things about the unions. I was hoping a teacher would chime in with what actually goes on. While I am sure there are bad teachers that slide through based on the union's actions, I imagine that they're the exception rather than the rule. Also, from what I've heard from others, one of the main benefits of the unions is the protection from frivolous lawsuits from students and families.

    Also, good point about the vouchers. The vouchers scare me because I am afraid what would happen is exactly what Mike (above) wanted to happen. These are schools, not restaurants. It doesn't ruin my life if I got eat at McDonalds and not at Boulder Cork. But if I have to go to a second class school that could really change the course of my life. I am sure it's idealistic, but I'd like to see some sort of equalization of quality across the schools. Now how you go about doing that is a huge problem.

    Thanks for commenting Jimbo!
  • Ed
    Joe, all of your points sound reasonable to me. I have not been to school since 1961, when I graduated from high school. I went to college at night while I was working. I have conducted some technical classes at work. Never had kids and have no clue what the school environment is like today.

    The best learning environment is one where each student works at their own pace, as much as possible.

    Instructions should engage the students, again as much as possible. According to Michael Stebbins, in his book Drug, Sex & DNA, science classes have become lectures, students often don't perform their own experiments. If I remember correctly he was talking about high school. That's a terrible way to teach science.

    I think (hope) in the class room of the future lessons plans will be programed into computers, with the teacher monitoring the progress, and spending time with those students who ask questions, or need the most help. You pass a test, you go one to the next lesson, however long that takes.

    I would do away with summer vacations as they are now structured. Students could take breaks whenever they have passed a certain level of training. If needed a student might have to stay in school all year round. If they choose to an advanced student could also keep taking classes all year round.
  • Joe
    Hey Ed,

    Sadly, the way that schools teach doesn't meet the needs of everyone. The thing is, it meets my needs! :) I think I am one of those 'product of the system' type of people. I have gotten very good at listening to lectures and discerning what material is important and what to study. This is obviously a skill, but maybe not the one they were trying to teach me.

    Hands on learning would definitely be a very good way to go but it just requires time and money. But if, as you suggest, some of it can be automated, I think this would be a very interesting system.

    The problem I have with a lot of these types of discussions is one of arbitrary limits. Do people get any vacation? Probably yes, but how much? Do we require people to participate in any schooling? Probably yes, but how long do we make them stay? Do we allow people to direct their own education so they're interested in what they're learning? Probably yes, but what is the 'core lessons' that we force them to learn.

    It's all arbitrary and can make all the difference in the world. I have always thought it interesting though that a lot of the people who go on to become 'really smart' are the same people who didn't do well in school. Not a universal plan for success obviously, but interesting none the less.
  • Ed
    You are correct that in a country the size of the US it is hard to create a system that will work for everyone. Money and resources are a major limitation.

    It will be nice if every American child can have access to a computer, at home and in school. That will create a tremendous amount of flexibility. I would make this a priority.

    I don't see any reason, other than cost, for giving students, and teachers, two months vacation. I don't know how much more it would be to have classes all year round, with one or two week breaks through out the year. The summer vacations were originally created so kids could work on the farm. This is no longer needed.
  • Office #1A
    I guess it's time for my rant. And instead of talking to you about it, i'll look like i'm working and comment here.

    #1 - Reduce the age of compulsory education. Usually by 8th grade or so you'll know if a kid wants to be in school. Let them quit and get a technical job. We spend way too many resources trying to keep people in school who have no business being there. Let them apprentice and learn a trade. We always need good tradesmen and that takes time to learn. Of course, the #1 job of school is to keep people out of the workforce so that the adults have jobs. (#2 is baby sitting).

    #2 - Get rid of the teachers' union. The union does everything it can to prevent testing/ranking of teachers, or anything that would allow merit pay or any reward for good teaching. They do this because they don't want the bad teachers (and there are lots of them) from being fired. So what happens? Economics takes over an all teachers are paid based on the average value that they bring, rather than their individual value. That means that the good teachers who are worth more will quit and head to industry and the bad teacher will cling on to their job. This brings the average down and the cycle continues. If every teacher had to negotiate pay every year, they'd have to justify their jobs and they'd do better. Plus you could easily get replace a bad teacher with one of the millions of new educations majors.

    #3 - Vouchers or some other way of providing choice. Boulder Valley does is semiright by having open enrollment, but if every one had a choice of where to send their kid to school then schools would worry more about educating and less about all the other crap. And let economics take over, the better schools should cost more. By keeping everything "fair" (or rather equitable) the best are held down by the worst.

    Lots more, I have tons of rants on this, but I need to get back to fixing a CR.
  • Joe
    Man, I need Google Wave so I can respond to different parts of your comment!

    #1 - You know, I was initially really against this idea. But a friend of mine who I've talked this over with suggested something similar. Why should we force people to be in school if they don't want to be or don't need to be? Trying to force everyone into college isn't really a good solution. However, I do think there is a line here and it's arbitrary. Where do we stop forcing people to go to school? 18? 12? And I guess it's the parent making the decision? So while I have come around to the idea that we shouldn't be forcing kids to stay in school through college, I don't know if I've come all the way down to 8th grade.

    #2 - I feel like this is a bit harsh on the teachers' unions though I do see your point. In this instance, I really wish there was a teacher who could comment. I feel that what I perceive to be the truth about what the union does might not really be the case. I am against teachers who don't know the material teaching. I am also against teachers who do a terrible job being able to continue. But I am not sure that it's just the teachers' union that is making this happen.

    #3 - I like vouchers if they're done right. Since this is my website, I will take the opportunity to not define 'done right' at all. What worries me, and what I think you want, is everyone will flock to certain schools because they're better. That just means that bad schools will get worse and good schools will get better. This is fine if you have money to go to the best schools but if not, you're screwed. Which means that if you don't have the money to choose a good school, you'll be stuck at a bad one and the cycle will just keep repeating itself. Even if the voucher covers the cost of the school, you may still not be able to afford the transportation to get to where the good school is. So in my ideal world, I'd like to see schools as achieve some level of equality when it comes to educational standards.

    Thanks for the comments Mike!
blog comments powered by Disqus