"What learning can the state properly demand of its students?"

-Horace's Compromise, p. 85, written in 1984

Today I don't think this question gets the time and thought it deserves. Again, the central term of this question, "learning", is left largely undiscussed. Learning is what the teachers are in charge of; the debate on the other hand, discussed by all of those important people that don't teach, revolves around the machinations of merit pay, school governance models, and union politics. Yes, you want charters schools. Yes, you want vouchers. Yes, you want to recruit better teachers. Yes, you want more accountability. But to what end? What will happen in these schools? Does this deserve your time and attention?

Ted Sizer lists three areas that should be required learning for everyone: (1) literacy, "the ability to...read easily and sensitively enough to comprehend at least the basic arguments presented by contemporary political and social life," (2) numeracy, "the ability to use numbers, arithmetically and algebraically, and to understand the concepts, relationships, and logic embedded in mathematical thought," (3) civic understanding, "a grasp of the basis for consensual democratic government, a respect for its processes, and acceptance of the restraints and obligations incumbent on a citizen," (p.86).

I don't think there would be too much argument with this as a basis for schools today. But then he goes on to say:

However, beyond these three elements, the claims of the state have far less merit. The state has no right to insist that I be "employable" on its terms of what a "career" may be. This is my private matter, and I take the risk that no one will purchase the services that I prepare myself to offer. The state has no right or obligation to tell me how to spend my leisure time. I can enrich myself and the state if I am cultured, but it is unreasonable of the state to impose on me its own definition of culture. As long as my style of life and values do not impinge on those of others, I should have the sovereign right to be what I want to be, including a slob. (p. 86-87, my bold)

Sizer goes on to write that "encouraging" particular careers or definitions of culture should be acceptable, to contrast with mandating these things. He rounds out his thoughts with the claim that, "Americans must come to terms with the limits on compulsion, on the minimal reasonable claims of the state on the time and minds of young citizens," (p. 87).

Today, this would fall into the category of "soft bigotry". The reform climate pushes college on everyone. Paternalistic charter schools do push a particular, middle-class culture on students. The goal of high-paying careers for as many people as possible seems to be the unspoken goal of our system. (And with good reason! Widening inequality has put those without a college degree in a very difficult position.)

Moreover, so much of today's educational discussion seems to be tied to our national economic interests (this is a particularly egregious example). Presumably, if we send everyone to college and prepare people for careers in science and technology, our GDP will rise and America will maintain its superpower status. Should this be the goal of our schools? Are there practical implications for making this the goal of our schools? If we are society that has become obsessed with our own gross domestic product and little else, we will likely create students that are obsessed with our GDP, or their own personal wealth, and little else.

We need to bring learning and the purpose of schools back to the table. I think Sizer's three criteria are a good starting place.

Rambling, incoherent

Ted Sizer wrote: "We rarely underestimate the difficulties of learning. Having had to learn, we know that it is a complicated and unpredictable business," (Horace's Compromise, p. 2).

In today's climate, I disagree. I believe the wide majority, those that have never taught, regularly discount any challenge related to learning.

You're in sixth grade and you can't add fractions with unlike denominators with 80% accuracy? There's something wrong with your teacher. Or maybe you. You're lazy, kid. Get with it.

As every punishment must fit its crime, so too must every reform correspond to a particular failing of the system. Witness the rise of the "no excuses" mantra. Want to outlaw excuses? Someone must have been making a whole damn lot of them.

Can anyone who has never taught fractions really have an opinion? Should we really be listening to them at all? I'm not trying to be divisive, I really want to know. Should Bill Gates really be a powerful voice on education? Something tells me learning fractions was never that hard for him.

Is learning hard? Teaching? What does it even mean to learn? Have you ever learned? How do you know? How could you prove it to someone? Is there more than one way to prove it? Who or what caused your learning? How do you know? Do any of these questions even matter? To whom?

Until we, and I mean everyone, really wrestle with these ideas I see little hope for progress. Hold up a great school. Let's take a look. What's that, you say? The students have learned a lot? According to whom or what source? What did they learn? Did your school teach it to them? How do you know?

Popular assumptions undergird the debate. We are quick to applaud a school with high test scores. This is unquestionably a place where much learning has taken place; thus it deserves our attention. Left unwondered: are high scores really evidence of learning? What in fact, causes high scores on this particular exam? Do we know that the school played a role in causing the high scores?

Those few that ask these questions find a small audience and risk the label of contrarian.

Teaching Is What Matters

I've recently picked up Horace's Compromise by the late Ted Sizer. I'll try to post as I go through it. So much of this book rings true to me (though some parts need updating for the 21st century) I have a feeling there will be more to write, but the first thought is with respect to teaching.

From the introduction: "Curiously most of us, lay people and educators alike, tend to underrate teaching...We can play at learning, without retaining much save the temporary pleasure of the play, and we can act the teacher, strutting expectable stuff in front of blackboards. Real learning and real teaching require more." This is obviously still true. Few of those with a mainstream voice on education policy are willing to examine the details of what great teaching entails. Certainly for the policy wonks, actual teaching is a radioactive substance best left to those slovenly masses who actually have to handle it on a daily basis. They would much rather focus on the important stuff: parsing the intricacies of school governance models or arguing endlessly about national standards.

Last April, the New York Times ran a piece about out-of-work professionals turning to teaching amid the recession. Pam Grossman, ed professor at Stanford, made some insightful statements. She wrote (bold is mine):

Because all of us have spent thousands of hours in classroom observing teachers, we may underestimate the skill required to engage a group of children or adolescents and ensure that they are learning. Much of the teaching we do in everyday life, as parents or employers, involves telling or tutoring. As parents, we help children with math homework, test them on their vocabulary words, answer their questions. But teaching is much more than telling, and teachers have to know more than right answers.

My impression is that most reformers working from without, who have little or no experience teaching, likely misunderstand fully any and all problems with our educational system, since they likely misunderstand fully any and all aspects of teaching. If teaching is a sort of knowledge transfer then logically any problem must lie with its agents; the teller or the telling is flawed.

Let me ask: Bill Gates, when you consider a high school with low math scores, do you shake your head and and wonder how teachers could not give accurate lectures on the quadratic formula? Do you wish that teachers would write equations more clearly on the blackboard? That they had more mathematical knowledge? That there were more and neater examples on paper?

Anyone with classroom experience will know that in many cases, it doesn't matter how clear your message is to the kids; it takes more and varied approaches. It takes student action and engagement with the content; it takes relevance to student lives (and I'm not talking about putting homework on an iPhone). It takes myriad other techniques, tasks, and ideas.

If teachers are going to shape the future of education, then we need to do a better job of convincing the public of what it really means to be a good teacher. Which means teachers' unions doing a better job of highlighting their star teachers and what they do. Which means media coverage that is more than a feeble-minded dichotomy between syrupy sweet Hollywood martyr-pics and "serious" articles and op-eds decrying the corruption and entitlement among teachers.

Maybe we need David Simon to make an HBO series about real schools.