Emily asked, "Why are we afraid to tell students that the world is not fair?"

This is an excellent question worthy of discussion, and I can only begin to scratch the surface here, but I shall do my best to present some reasons for why we do this.

The primary reason for not telling students that the world is unfair, at least at lower levels, is to preserve in them some element of idealism. Why would we do this? Frankly, it's vital to keep idealism alive because without it, we have no hope of ever moving forward. We must first envision a better world, an ideal world, so that we may take practical steps to move towards a more equitable world.

There is no doubt that the world, as it is, is inherently unfair. Some are given far more opportunities than others. But this does not always have to be the case. We have the potential to make a fairer, more equitable world (not perfectly fair, as there are always elements outside of our control), but we need to have the drive to do so. We need to believe that we can make the world better, need that drive to improve our lots in life, or we are doomed to slavery and oppression. To deny even that seed of hope to our next generation is a disservice to our species, our society, and ourselves.

To end with a question: Is it more important to present the world as it is, or the world as it could be?

Delivering Educational Products, and Other Free-Market Frauds

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/03-4

I read this article today and thought immediately of PTL. There is something perverse about describing education in economic terminology, teachers as "producers," students as "consumers," and applying the mythological "free market" to higher education. This is especially disturbing in light of a recent lawsuit being brought against a for-profit college chain under allegations of fraud. Is this the "free market" we want in charge of our education?

There is little doubt that privatization is actually harmful to the consumer when it comes to services. Medicare's administrative costs are a fraction of those of the private insurance industry. Privatization is proving a blow to public libraries. And of course, for-profit colleges suck up federal dollars to give worthless degrees to students who are then forced to default on their loans because they cannot find a job (as the article on fraud mentions, for-profit colleges make up 12% of the students in higher education, but takes in 25% of federal education aid, and 50% of students who default on education loans attended for-profits).

To end with a question: Is it wise to treat a school like a business?

A New Measure for Classroom Quality

A recent article in the New York Times addresses one of the key elements of the education reform "debates" that have been going on of late -- specifically, how to address the quality of a teacher.

The article puts forward a simple method of measuring teacher quality: amount of instruction time. In brief, the author suggests that an effective way to measure teacher performance is how much class time is spent on instruction vs time spent trying to maintain order, conduct non-instructional classroom business, etc. In addition, making the teachers available to students for remedial instruction and tutoring, as well as availability of online resources for tutoring, would help narrow the gap education gap between those children of rich, highly educated families and poor, less-educated families.

On the surface, this seems like a good idea. There is certainly no denying that more efficient delivery of content, and availability of extra help resources would be a boon to students. However, there are practical problems with some elements. The assumption that poorer students will have access to the internet outside of school may well be a dangerous one to make, and the success of efficient delivery of material is still dependent on the students being able to actually come to school in the first place (and be motivated to do so). These extra resources, and focus on efficient teaching, are nice, but resources that are unused are of little value. Great ideas overall, but I doubt that they will be effective alone.

To end with a question: How might we best encourage underperforming students to take advantage of educational resources to supplement their education outside of the classroom?

On Private Vs Public Schooling: A Response

Shelby asked: "Which would be the more effective route to take for educational reformation: more alternative, private schools, or revamping public schools?"

As I have mentioned numerous times before, I am a product of private education (parochial school for K-8, Catholic prep school for 9-12). My parents insisted on sending me to private schools because of the sorry state of our town's public schools (the public high school in my hometown lost its accreditation when I was applying to private high schools). I have never been in a public school, so my only experience with the public education system is indirect, through articles and books describing it.

Despite this, I am a firm believer that effective education reform must make revamping our public schools a key facet. As Shelby pointed out in her post, not all (or even most) people can afford a private education for their children. Indeed, I am convinced that one of the key factors in the success of private over public education is that private schools tend to have far better resources than public schools. As I view education as a public good, our education reform efforts must necessarily rely strongly on public schools.

I was originally going to blog about the article that Shelby linked (I'll provide the link here, as well, since I will draw that in). Our teachers are, without a doubt, woefully underpaid and underprepared for the challenges that they are faced with, especially considering the growing hostility that state and local governments seem to be showing towards them. We do not pay our teachers enough to make a living, we don't give them enough resources to properly teach, we stick them with far too many children to teach, and then demonize them as "bad teachers" when their students fail.

However, this emphasis on schools may be missing the elephant in the room. In a letter to the editor to the NY Times, one teacher asks "what am I to do with the one [student] who spent two weeks in a mental hospital, the two who have run away, the one with no ride to school, the three who have been suspended for drugs and the countless others who attend class only one or two days a week?"

School is an important place to try to improve. But investment in to schools will be inadequate unless we couple it with a renewed War on Poverty and work to provide a better home life for our nation's poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

To end with a question: Can education alone counter the deleterious affects of poverty?

Teacher as Authority Figure: A Response

Stephen asked: "Can a teacher be an authority figure while truly fostering skeptical independent thought about authority figures?"

I think that it is more than possible for a teacher to be an authority figure while fostering independent thought about authority figures. The key is that the teacher must not exercise authority arbitrarily. A good teacher should be a good model for a fair authority figure, specifically:

The teacher should not inflict punishments on students arbitrarily.
The teacher should explain to the students why the rules exist, why it is to their advantage to follow them, and the consequences of not following them.
The teacher should use appropriate punishments fitting to the offense committed.
The teacher should respect students, and in return expect to be respected.
The teacher should show willingness to listen to the needs of the students, and respond accordingly, within reason.

Yes, this may not be a particularly specific list, and perhaps a tad vague. But the point is that a teacher, I think, can and should be a model authority figure, and through that role guide students into navigating relationships with authority figures.

To end with a question: How much authority should a teacher have in the classroom (or, put another way, when should the teacher assert authority, and when should the teacher defer to other authorities (administration, parents, law enforcement, etc))?

Is Learning Fun?

A line from Kim's response to a question on a previous post of mine has gotten me thinking. Kim asserted that "It is true that learning is fun." But is it? I'm not so sure.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/who-we-are/201104/how-educators-misunderstand-students

In the above article, the author, Steven Reiss, a Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Psyciatry at Ohio State University, says that the answer is, quite simply, "no." His assertion is that learning is not, in fact, fun, except for a small number of people who are so enamored with it that they become educators. These individuals make the mistake of assuming that something that is true for them must be true for everyone.

In fact, google "is learning fun?" and the results come up with a plethora of results on how to MAKE learning fun. This should cause some pause. If learning is inherently fun, why must we take extra effort to MAKE it fun? Shouldn't it be fun in and of itself?

This error, the assumption that learning is fun for ONE person must mean that learning is fun for EVERYONE, reeks of the sort of blindness that can commonly be seen in evangelists. They are firm in their belief that THEIR church is the right way and the best way to reach , and thus feel compelled to try to convince others that their way is right. But just because this religion is right for the evangelist does not necessarily mean it will be right for the family next door, the politician down the street, or the atheists across the country. Intelligent, reasonable people would find this idea absurd. So why do we cling to the notion that learning must be fun, when most children (and adults!) clearly do not find it either fun or worthwhile?

This post is filled with questions, so feel free to answer any one of those, or indeed the title of the post: Is learning fun?

The Talking Heads of School Reform

This article lays out some of the major problems of the education reform "debates" that have been going on in this country: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/weekinreview/10reform.html

As is often the case with morally charged policy issues — remember welfare reform? — false dichotomies seem to have replaced fruitful conversation. If you support the teachers’ union, you don’t care about the students. If you are critical of the teachers’ union, you don’t care about the teachers. If you are in favor of charter schools, you are opposed to public schools. If you believe in increased testing, you are on board with the corruption of our liberal society’s most cherished educational values. If you are against increased testing, you are against accountability. It goes on. Neither side seems capable of listening to the other.

The above quote illustrates a problem that, while certainly prevalent in all forms of political discourse today, is especially disheartening when dealing with an issues as important as education. Any real discussion is drowned out by the entrenched partisan interests that seem to do nothing but talk past each other about little details, while completely missing the heart of the issue. The worst of it is that (charitably, perhaps) these are well-meaning people with genuine concern for our education system, who are simply woefully ignorant of the big picture, clinging madly to details like standardized tests or charter schools, trying to find a panacea for our ailing school system without seeming to realize that meaningful reform will require much more than this or that fix.

The issue is much bigger than just looking at schools. Our schools mirror our society. If we want to fix failing schools, we cannot do it by simply trying to institute more standardized tests or replacing public schools with charter schools. We need to fix the inequalities in the economic and political system that lead to the issues we face in schools. When there are no jobs, when crime is the only way to make a living, when children go to sleep hungry because their parents can't afford food (and 15 million children in this nation live in poverty), it's absurd to think that a standardized test is going to help their education. They need stability at home to succeed in school and beyond, and to achieve this, we need to bolster our social welfare programs, and reorganize our economy to bring decent jobs so our struggling families can make ends meet.

To end with a question: Schools are undoubtedly vital institutions for the perpetuation of our society. Given that, can meaningful school reform be successfully enacted absent reforms to the surrounding political and economic systems?