From Our Brains to Yours
More first principles: What is school for?
Last week, I argued that in all the hubbub about TARP dollars and stimulus spending versus tax cuts, we’re missing the point: what are our our “first principles” when it comes to the economy? Before we can decide whether the various proposals on the table are good or bad, worth the investment or not, we need to be able to answer a basic question: what do we want our economy to do? In other words: what are the first principles under which we should be working?
Seth Godin posits the same question for our public schools. He asks, “what is school for?” Before we can say whether they’re effective or not, whether they’re good investments or not, whether they’re meeting goals or not, we need not just standardized test results but the first principle: what is school supposed to do?
This is the fundamental point of the strategy class I teach at Georgetown: plans, tactics, and implementation are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. They only have value if they happen in the context of a guiding principle (or set of principles) that lays down clearly where we start from, where we want to go, and how we think we can get there. My question about the economy, and Seth’s about education, is at it’s core: what is our strategy?
Seth suggests a long list of possible answers for shools. Take a look at his list here. For what it’s worth, this is a first stab at my list of answers to the question, “what is school for?”
- Be trained in the rudimentary skills to become a productive member of society
- Learn how to be, live, and work with the many different sorts of people you share the world with (this might be the same as Seth’s “create a social fabric”)
- Learn for the sake of learning
- Learn creativity and problem solving
- Be trained in the rudimentary skills for effective citizenship
What does your list look like? Does it change anything about how you think public school budgets should be spent? How they should be evaluated?
I also think school is for leveling the playing field so that all kids – no matter their skin color or socioeconomic status or skill level when they arrive at school – have an equal chance in life.
Unfortunately, too many schools – especially those in our big, urban districts – do not do this very well right now. But they should!
Now you’re speaking my language! I am spending half my time in a progressive teacher-preparation program, and the other half in an elementary school in an extremely large, diverse and ostensibly successful school system. The guiding principles of the teacher-prep program closely mirror your list. The reality? Not so much. The problem is the politics and the disconnect between the needs and best interests of the children and those of the people allocating the money and writing the policies. Sigh.
Sarah – agreed! I guess I’d put that into the big buckets of rudimentary skills: if everyone’s got them, there’s de facto a level playing field.
Susan – the trick is to bring it into our politics. What questions do we ask School Board candidates? Who do we recruit to run for School Board? What qualifies a Superintendent? And it’s on all of us to be more strategic about what we fight for in the political context – in flush times, we can fight for everything. In leaner times, we’ve got to let our principles guide us? What can we let go while staying true to our principles?
For ed organizations the same is true. What is school for??? Ed organizations need to be clear about which purpose(s) they’re furthering, and stick to them. More and better teachers definitely serve a number of our “first principles” – whatever the list looks like, I’d think – janitors with full benefits as opposed to janitors who are contract workers (that’s Labor’s battle!) maybe don’t.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. The idea of “first principles” is so important when tackling the complicated world of education policy.
While I have been an on again/off again supporter of national standards (not the hodgepodge state standards we have today), standards often don’t leave room for the important questions: “what is school for”" or “what is our strategy?” Or, standards are created before asking the question. However, these questions are a must if we as a nation are to get anywhere with our education policy. The answers should, in part, drive policy.
However, I have recently been thinking a lot about our huge education system and wondering whether I need to rethink how I approach the topic:
1. If creating national standards becomes and issue during this administration, perhaps we should create a loftier and philosophically oriented Declaration of the Educational Rights of the Child like the UN’s beautiful Declaration of the Rights of the Child – one of the most moving things I have read.
2. Once this is done, and we, through the piece, are reminded of what we believe each child deserves, we can focus on the more practical – what should each child really know and understand as he/she moves through school. Some states have better standards based tests than others. This is a gross oversimplification – anyone in Ed Policy knows this – but might be more sensible than what we have now.
3. Create a sensible, and less punitive way in which to deal with schools that don’t meet standards – while everyone hails the fact that this or that school finally met standards, we do away with some very important parts of schooling that a curriculum hijacked by standards ignores. Schools can become very flat and institutional (in the not so great sense) when forced to focus on teaching to a test.
4. Allow States and, particularly localities and individual schools and school districts to come up with creative programs of their own. Taking away a local schools power to better itself through community involvement, teacher participation in curriculum, etc. is not a long term solution. A lot of progressive and innovative programs throughout the country were hurt by NCLB’s focus on testing – Deborah Meier is one to go to when looking for this type of critique.
5. In the end, as well, I am always reminded of what one professor of mine said in a moment of, perhaps, exasperation – that we will never solve many of educations problems without tackling inequity in a broad sense. This is a bold statement, but true in many ways. However, apart from fixing it all, I think there are ways to create more responsive, creative and exciting schools where children learn “the basics” as well as engage in positive and meaningful learning and become of a part of a real community.
We just have to let ourselves dream a bit…Hope is the word of the day.
Alright, done ranting for now.
I don’t even know where to begin with regard to this topic. There are so many answers as to what school is for. School provides the core instructional foundations for life and career success. It provides the knowledgebase and the skills (like the creativity and problem solving Seth mentions) one needs to achieve. It provides the socialization opportunities so children learn to be productive, engaging, interesting citizens.
School also provides us real benchmarks to know how are kids are progressing. We know what they should be learning in fourth grade, and measure whether they are learning it. If they aren’t, we find out why and provide the interventions to get there. It means that are schools are essentially providing the building blocks for life success, and with each grade and each level of instruction, we learn more than builds on what we have already built on.
The problem with the question is we are focused on school, which is the physical building. A justifiable focus with discussion about economic stimulus, but the question should really be “what is public education for?” School is merely one of the delivery mechanisms for public education. That education is a civil right. That education is what leads to equality and opportunity for all. That education is what ensures every child is prepared for the rigors and opportunities that are before him, and that no pathway is closed off.
That education is also delivered through more than just the schoolhouse. State after state are now adopting regulations on virtual K-12 education, with Alabama now requiring at least one online course for graduation. That’s why Obama is investing in issues like school technology, so we can complement classroom learning with structured learning coming in through other venues.
Shayna, I appreciate the question about who should be on school boards and such. But at the end of the day, school boards are like any other political races. We don’t build blue ribbon school boards of experts, in our great representative democracy any person can serve, regardless of background, knowledge, or skill. The issue of superintendent is an interesting one. There is no one model that defines a superintendent. Different models have worked in different places, including supes with no education experience whatsoever leading real transformation.
The real question is what makes a good teacher. All of the technology, textbooks, instructional materials, manipulatives, and research in the world has zero impact if it isn’t put in the hands of a good teacher. A school board member and supe need to recognize that first and foremost. Kids don’t learn from teachers that are ill-equipped or ill-supported in the classroom. Good teachers require ongoing professional development that is linked to the content. If there is an educational circle of life, it starts and ends with the teacher. So what is the true mission statement for public school teacher? And how do we make sure that we are getting equal levels of quality, commitment, and effectiveness in all schools, particularly our urban schools?
Patrick – I don’t think you’ll find much disagreement here re: your broad brush statements, but I’ll beg to differ that it all comes down to teachers.
Teachers are certainly the front lines, but as Susan hinted at, teachers operate within the confines of the budgets, policies and evaluation schema set forth by (usually) school boards, superintendents, and the like. Teachers that don’t heed the will of the powers that be don’t get to stick around in public schools for long.
Your argument is that ultimately policy doesn’t matter, teachers do. I’d wager that teachers wouldn’t wholeheartedly agree.