Rogers and the Educational System
Fifteen years ago, I would probably welcome Rogers's ideas about the issues of the education system. Fifteen years ago, my familiarity with this system in the West was minimal, and i would accept anything that sounded logical enough. Fifteen years ago, I did not have kids who attended elementary school in the US.
I sometimes marvel at how quick people are quick to blame the failure of the American elementary school to do its work to society's satisfaction on the usual culprits: stagnant system and the of funds. May be, the ease of solutions is the reason: change the system radically or throw more money in. And yet I think that the problem is much deeper than that.
I believe there are three issues that cannot be resolved simply by throwing money on the problem or by pushing any experimental method, as wonderful as it can be. These are disregard for intellectualism, lack of encouragement of hard work and teachers' indifference.
I disagree with Rogers that the main attraction to learn something comes from the usefulness of the thing for the learner's life. Many of the things people do start with a seemingly sudden interest in something totally unrelated to their usual activities, and certainly without any utilitarian value. Mayan culture, astronomy, growing cacti - all interests me or my friends would have in childhood - can serve as examples. Good teacher, a book, a movie can spark this interest - in an environment where intellectualism, respect for knowledge as such, is cherished and praised. If the school is not such an environment, it's hard to expect that it will succeed in equipping its students to do autonomous choices later - they would not have much to choose from. People who lack the awe when exposed to knowledge are, in a sense, similar to the color-blind: they would look at the rainbow and see a gray strip; they would hear a name, an idea, a sound - and these would not trigger a desire to learn more.
If we stop at La Guardia airport and ask everybody we meet whether hard work is important, I bet that the vast majority will answer with an unequivocal "yes!" And yet I was amazed to discover that hard work would be the last thing that was encouraged when my daughter attended public school. Kids who invest their best efforts would not be distinguished by the teacher; doing your homework well in the first, second, third, even fourth grade would bring no more encouragement than doing it just to get by. The tasks themselves seemed to require very little effort; the ones that would, e.g., projects, would be mostly directed at parents - a thing that I found quite funny. School seems to be the only place where kids could learn that achievement requires hard work, as the daily tasks are easy with all the appliances, and preferred modes of entertainment are usually passive - TV, music, YouTube... We cannot talk about self-actualization of a person who is not accustomed to hard work, as any significant achievement requires proportionally effort.
I was fortunate to have a couple of excellent teachers in the elementary, middle and high school, one of whom had a greater impact on my life than college and work together. I was growing up in Soviet Union, and these teachers were operating in an oppressive, rigid, ideologically-regulated and cash-strapped educational system. And yet they succeeded in finding the way to make us learn, develop as human beings, and get excited about intellectual achievement. How? Because they cared. I once wondered aloud why my daughter, back then eleven years old, did not like social studies. I pointed out to her that they had a great textbook, and that the history of the US is actually more thrilling than most of the fiction he read back then. I said: "I'm sure Mrs XXX can tell you a lot about the things you have in the textbook, as she lived through some of it herself" "Oh", my daughter responded, "she actually sits there and reads from the textbook." Every psrent meeting with Mrs XXX would start with "Your daughter is just wonderful", and continue in a way that made me wonder if she actualy knew her personally. The school belonged to a relatively wealthy suburb, the school had excellent facilities, county's educational budget could easily compete with the government spending of some small counties. I would even venture to guess that in the 21st century America nobody would punush the teacher for deviating a little from the prescribed program and putting more personality and passion into it.
How can the society make sure that people who get into teaching are the ones who are excited about it? Raising wages? Improving the social perception of the teaching profession? Making sure the curriculum gives more freedom to individual teachers? Allowing parents to choose between two-three schools by enlarging school zones? All of the above?
A person who values intellectual achievement, knows how to work hard and has teachers who genuinely care, is equipped to realize her potential to built herself in the direction she wants. The one who lacks these three ingredients, would lack the opportunity and will need another impetus to compensate for them. I doubt that even the most sophisticated educational approach con compensate for the lack of these three.
This little essay is certainly subjective - after all, as a parent, I have significant personal interest in the subject...
I sometimes marvel at how quick people are quick to blame the failure of the American elementary school to do its work to society's satisfaction on the usual culprits: stagnant system and the of funds. May be, the ease of solutions is the reason: change the system radically or throw more money in. And yet I think that the problem is much deeper than that.
I believe there are three issues that cannot be resolved simply by throwing money on the problem or by pushing any experimental method, as wonderful as it can be. These are disregard for intellectualism, lack of encouragement of hard work and teachers' indifference.
I disagree with Rogers that the main attraction to learn something comes from the usefulness of the thing for the learner's life. Many of the things people do start with a seemingly sudden interest in something totally unrelated to their usual activities, and certainly without any utilitarian value. Mayan culture, astronomy, growing cacti - all interests me or my friends would have in childhood - can serve as examples. Good teacher, a book, a movie can spark this interest - in an environment where intellectualism, respect for knowledge as such, is cherished and praised. If the school is not such an environment, it's hard to expect that it will succeed in equipping its students to do autonomous choices later - they would not have much to choose from. People who lack the awe when exposed to knowledge are, in a sense, similar to the color-blind: they would look at the rainbow and see a gray strip; they would hear a name, an idea, a sound - and these would not trigger a desire to learn more.
If we stop at La Guardia airport and ask everybody we meet whether hard work is important, I bet that the vast majority will answer with an unequivocal "yes!" And yet I was amazed to discover that hard work would be the last thing that was encouraged when my daughter attended public school. Kids who invest their best efforts would not be distinguished by the teacher; doing your homework well in the first, second, third, even fourth grade would bring no more encouragement than doing it just to get by. The tasks themselves seemed to require very little effort; the ones that would, e.g., projects, would be mostly directed at parents - a thing that I found quite funny. School seems to be the only place where kids could learn that achievement requires hard work, as the daily tasks are easy with all the appliances, and preferred modes of entertainment are usually passive - TV, music, YouTube... We cannot talk about self-actualization of a person who is not accustomed to hard work, as any significant achievement requires proportionally effort.
I was fortunate to have a couple of excellent teachers in the elementary, middle and high school, one of whom had a greater impact on my life than college and work together. I was growing up in Soviet Union, and these teachers were operating in an oppressive, rigid, ideologically-regulated and cash-strapped educational system. And yet they succeeded in finding the way to make us learn, develop as human beings, and get excited about intellectual achievement. How? Because they cared. I once wondered aloud why my daughter, back then eleven years old, did not like social studies. I pointed out to her that they had a great textbook, and that the history of the US is actually more thrilling than most of the fiction he read back then. I said: "I'm sure Mrs XXX can tell you a lot about the things you have in the textbook, as she lived through some of it herself" "Oh", my daughter responded, "she actually sits there and reads from the textbook." Every psrent meeting with Mrs XXX would start with "Your daughter is just wonderful", and continue in a way that made me wonder if she actualy knew her personally. The school belonged to a relatively wealthy suburb, the school had excellent facilities, county's educational budget could easily compete with the government spending of some small counties. I would even venture to guess that in the 21st century America nobody would punush the teacher for deviating a little from the prescribed program and putting more personality and passion into it.
How can the society make sure that people who get into teaching are the ones who are excited about it? Raising wages? Improving the social perception of the teaching profession? Making sure the curriculum gives more freedom to individual teachers? Allowing parents to choose between two-three schools by enlarging school zones? All of the above?
A person who values intellectual achievement, knows how to work hard and has teachers who genuinely care, is equipped to realize her potential to built herself in the direction she wants. The one who lacks these three ingredients, would lack the opportunity and will need another impetus to compensate for them. I doubt that even the most sophisticated educational approach con compensate for the lack of these three.
This little essay is certainly subjective - after all, as a parent, I have significant personal interest in the subject...
Education is indeed a tough nut to crack. I think tenure belongs in the system, but it ought to be used to protect teachers who hold controversial views, and also to protect teachers from relatively arbitrary decisions about reducing staff. On the other hand, tenure ought to be earned through performance, rather than merely getting by for a certain number of semesters.
ReplyDeleteBut, although I think tenure is an important part of education, most of the other so-called "conservative" suggestions about public education seem to make sense. I like standardized tests to see how students are performing against some national standard. The tests now used are flawed, but flaws can be corrected. I like the idea of merit pay. We ought to use pre-tests and post-tests, adjust for class sizes and the economic status and educational background of the families from which students come, and see which teachers are doing a better job, controlling for these other things that influence performance. Then, on top of adjustments for the cost-of-living, I'd award raises beyond that which are related to the learning performance of students. Also, I'd allow students and their parents to decide to which schools their students would go. There would be rules about schools needing to admit students who lived within a certain distance of their buildings (if families elected to send their children to those schools). As incentives to get some students to go to the less impressive schools I'd have total tuition waivers at public universities for the top 10% from each public school and also for the top 10% from a state, so that families would have a significant financial incentive to encourage their students to do well. The "top 10%" could be determined by some mix of scores on standardized tests, scores on AP tests, grades, and faculty recommendations.
Talent among teachers is probably distributed on a normal curve, and I think teachers who consistently (say, over a three-year period) perform a standard deviation below state or local averages ought to be penalized. There are probably several dimensions of teacher skill, and teachers who excel in one area but lag behind in another ought to be given an opportunity to develop their areas of weakness and apply their time mostly in their areas of strength.
Teacher salaries (as a base) ought to be set at some percentage of the average year-round full-time male income earned by college graduates in the state or standardized metropolitan area where they are working, say 100% of the previous year's year-round full-time as abase for tenured faculty. And then, on top of that, there ought to be opportunities for bonuses that would bring salaries up as high as 200% of the base depending upon the performance of students currently in that teacher's classroom or former students. There would have to be formulas that would take into account family background, income, neighborhoods-of-origin, and so forth (as those variables are generally the most significant contributors to variance in scholastic achievement). But, this could clearly be done.
- Eric