Public Education in America: Looking into the crystal ball

A wish we all have. To find a crystal ball. See if what we're doing now will pay off tomorrow. Where we go to college. Whom we marry. Where we buy a house. How we raise our kids. We think about it in the big picture, too. Our economy. Our politics. So it is with our public schools. They always seem like a playground for experimentation. Some proved to be bad ideas, like open-classroom school buildings. Most have been replaced. Or the brilliant idea when I was in high school. English and history taught as electives. Let the students choose what interests them. I'm still working to fill in the blanks from that scattershot experience. And the "new math" roller coaster. We all paid the price for that one. But, they were bumps in the road compared to what is playing out now.

I've been glimpsing a crystal ball. And what I see frightens me.

In a nutshell, it's the current experiment with our public schools: Standards, high-stakes testing, performance pay and charter schools. President Obama (and former President George W. Bush), the U.S. Department of Education, Congress, governors, state legislatures, conservative, free-market think tanks, "new-age," Democratic think tanks and major business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are all convinced these four elements will pave the way to excellence. Don't get me wrong. We need basic standards. We need basic achievement data. We need to focus on the varying educational outcomes between children, especially those who live in poverty, many of whom are black, Hispanic and/or special-needs. But the remedies are so narrowly applied and sanctions so inflexible that the overall, long-term educational health of children, schools, communities and society is being overlooked and, in many respects, damaged.

Here is the reform agenda, in bold, and what I see unfolding---

Standards and testing. Accountability and data systems, curricula and classroom practices are increasingly being designed around implementing standards and raising test scores. A burgeoning private industry has grown up around it, and profiting handsomely. Traditional and charter schools are being defined by it. This, while private and parochial schools are not.

Critical thinking skills, creativity, teamwork, outside-the-classroom and hands-on learning, civics, the humanities and world languages will continue to diminish in our public classrooms. At the same time, that kind of rich teaching will continue to take place in private and parochial schools. (And to a limited degree in rebellious public classrooms and schools where whole-child learning is valued by teachers, principals and families.) Inevitably a narrow approach creates a tight, standardized box for teaching and learning- "What do I need to know to pass the test?" It's a short-sighted way to educate our children. And hard to turn around. Too much public money is being spent, too many public policies are being written and too many habits are being acquired. 

Performance pay. Teachers (and administrators who manage them), especially younger ones who will have had no other experience outside a standards and testing environment, will focus increasingly on raising test scores because now their pay and advancement will depend on it. They will be coerced into staying inside that tight, standardized box. And discouraged from creating the dynamic, enriching, empowering world of learning that our children need. The kind that builds multiple skills, instills deep knowledge, inspires innovative ideas and creates strong community.

Charter schools. Started out as an innovative idea. Satellite schools, freed from rigid rules and regulations, designed and run by experienced educators to try out ideas and approaches that could be replicated in all schools. But as conservative, free-market politicians and think tanks picked them up as a cause célèbre, they changed from being collaborative to competitive. And because they are publicly funded, they fall under the same accountability system that traditional schools do. So now standards and testing dictate their design and place them in the same tight box as the traditional schools. (There are independent-minded, outside-the-narrow-box charter schools scattered here and there, but they are the exception not the rule.) Increasingly, for-profit management and hedge fund companies are involved in charter schools, casting a shadow of doubt on the schools' real purpose and furthering a "bottom-line performance" (i.e. test scores) paradigm. And as many in this new crop of charter schools advertise themselves to parents in struggling, urban neighborhoods, they've inevitably become an avenue to separate "desirable" children from "undesirable" ones. In some cities, most notably New York City, they have divided parents and children by encouraging them to compete with one another instead of uniting them to educate and nurture all children. We are seeing the decline of two of America's greatest strengths: Children sitting side by side growing and learning together. And our public school system as the incubator for the next generation of inventors, innovators, dreamers, doers, thinkers and leaders.

Now we hear that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will use unprecedented executive power to offer states waivers to the costly, onerous and unreasonable No Child Left Behind (NCLB) laws. But there's a catch. In return, states will be required to double down on implementing the President's reform agenda. Although he portrays the waivers as much-needed flexibility, it seems more like a stealth way to codify his Race to the Top competitive grant program, basically designed around standards, testing, performance pay and charter schools. 

Congress in its paralysis is late in fixing NCLB. Its members are complaining about the waivers and the President's circumvention of the legislative process, but they seem incapable of doing anything about it. The President knows this. And he knows that states are desperate for waivers. It's not hard to predict that states will be cajoled into making a deal. He says he wants them to use what teachers and administrators have learned about achievement over the last decade since NCLB was passed. Move from test-preparation to real learning. But the parameters haven't changed. They've only been intensified.

Additional note: Vouchers. Controversial and repeatedly voted down by voters, they are on the rebound. A wide spectrum of supporters, from conservative, libertarian and civil rights circles. A new law in Indiana that's wide open will be an indicator of what may come in other states, depending on the politics and an evolving view of public education. Indiana parents can use it for any school, public, private or parochial. Eligibility is open to families with much higher incomes than has been customary. The limit on the number of available vouchers will be lifted in two years. What do I see in that crystal ball? Parents having more control and flexibility over where their children are educated. They can leave the standards and testing regimen in public schools, traditional or charter, and get a whole-child education. Or on the negative side, they can choose to separate their children from those they don't care for. This option will strengthen urban parochial schools that have seen parents choosing charter schools instead. BUT. There is not capacity, capability or even desire by the private and parochial network to educate ALL children. So, the social fabric of many communities, predictably struggling, urban ones, traditionally tied together through its schools, will weaken. Hardest to teach, hardest to reach left in traditional schools. Others flowing in and out of charter, private and parochial schools. Schools outside the public realm, with public dollars mixed in, picking and choosing, keeping or kicking out children who fit or don't fit, who obey or don't obey. And the concept of publicly-funded education made muddy through tax dollars returned to some parents, but provided to them by all.

An uncertain future at the very least. Yes, children will still be educated. One way or another. We still believe in universal access to a publicly funded education. But the what, how, why and where children learn will disperse into a more complicated, more costly Swiss-cheese fabric of schools. The traditional and charter school network within the public system will become more and more standardized, more and more test-focused. Then if the boundaries dissolve between public and private, as some would like, some very-American qualities of educating children will be lost. The long-standing dedication to teach most children, in all their wonderful diversity, together in a community-based network of public schools. The long-standing belief that public money should not be used to segregate children (however an unintented consequence it may be) or fund religious education.

To add another wrinkle, and I don't know if politicians and policymakers have thought about it, but many new immigrant families who come to the U.S. don't come from countries where universal education is a given. Many are accustomed to living with wide societal disparities. Unlike in the past, they come here now and are told it's okay to think only about your own child, compete for seats in publicly funded schools, measure the success of your child, teacher and school through standardized test scores. It's easy to see how standards, testing, performance pay and charter schools (and vouchers) will become accepted as the norm and families will begin to think that communities are not the lifeblood of our education system. And our democracy.

Now if public schools ruled heavily by standards and testing, weaker social fabric and a less democratic society are what reformers led by President Obama have in mind, then that's where we seem headed. Not hard to imagine a crystal ball foreseeing that. What's aggravating is that the reformers who control the purse strings, the bully pulpit and most campaign coffers ignore the oft-repeated lessons of top-ranked Finland, with its school system built on strong community, well-educated, well-supported, well-compensated teachers, little high-stakes testing, limited, flexible standards, more play, creative learning and teamwork. The reformers, too, dismiss the troubling fact that most send their own children to tony, progressive private schools, designed distantly from the standardized, test-driven public education they want to provide all other children.

I've written here before that I am an optimist by nature. But I've also written--a lot--that I believe we're on the wrong course with education reform. This crystal ball haunts me when I sleep and nudges me while I'm awake. I know I'm not alone. Educators, students, parents are concerned. And others. Young adults who experienced this testing regime and now feel cheated. Older citizens who wonder what happened to learning history, civics and literature. Business owners and managers who question why young employees don't communicate well and have trouble thinking on their own. But I just don't think those in power are listening or watching. And I'm more and more alarmed that our children, our society, our economy will soon pay the price, if they haven't already. 

What's the solution to convince those politicians and policymakers to reset their course, or at least listen? Here's a start---

Back off from making standards and testing the end-all and be-all. To benefit all public schools, traditional and charter. Incentivize and reward whole-child teaching and learning. Let teachers lead. Unleash their knowledge, their skills, their wisdom. Respect them. Trust them. Don't be afraid of the beautiful, messy, complexities in our children. Let them make mistakes. Let them dive into themselves and find their inner abilities and interests. Let teachers and students together do what it takes to reach their collective potential.

It's time to weaken the power of the federal government in making education policy. Strengthen local governance and decision-making. At the same time, re-focus the Department of Education on making sure local injustices don't emerge from more local control. Be especially vigilant and responsive when segregation starts creeping back, intentionally or unintentionally. No competitive federal grants that intensify inequities and encourage political favoritism. Re-tool federal programs that address the causes and conditions of poverty across departments and jurisdictions to level the playing field for low-income children in fundamental, sustainable ways, especially in their very early years.

Scrutinize self-serving interests of the testing industry and narrow operational goals of for-profit charter school management companies. Hold them accountable for a change. Question the involvement of hedge fund companies in charter schools. Is it a financial game to them? Or a way to secure seats for their own children outside the traditional public school system? If some are genuine, are they and other charter school board members sufficiently focused on the FULL educational needs of children enrolled in their schools and in the whole community? How do we shift more toward collaboration instead of competition in educating ALL children? How do we stop using urban children as objects of risky experimentation? How do we strengthen fragile communities not further weaken them?

Are school boards being shored up by their constituents-teachers and families-to fight back against what has become an unhealthy focus on high-stakes testing and some say a "race to the bottom?" Are they being dissuaded from parochial, short-sighted policy making? Likewise, are governors and state legislatures being held accountable to think of the best interests of all children, and not just narrow constituencies? Will they preserve the democratic foundation of public education or let it be taken over by competition and "markets?" Is the National PTA willing to get in the fray? What about The League of Women Voters and other organizations that fight against injustice, have records of protecting the interests of children and strength of our democracy, long argued for sound, visionary public policies?

The most vocal opposition to this agenda is coming from teachers who see its daily effects, so it's being called a "union" fight by the media and politicians. Speaking for myself, I worry about the reform agenda's effects on the integrity of the teaching profession, but I mainly worry about its effects on children now and in the future. I worry about our sense of community and devotion to the common good. I worry about the increasing fragility of American society and how we should be preparing our children for a complex, interdependent world. Learning how to take a test will NOT suffice. But as long as the supporters and promoters of this agenda portray criticism as sour grapes from teachers' unions and not what is best for children and American society, then the debate will be controlled by them. Opposition needs to be diverse, deep and organized.

I will continue to speak out. Hopefully others will, too. And we need to band together. We will not agree on everything. That's OK. But we need to keep the words "children," "community" and "democracy" in every conversation we have and every argument we make. To remind each other, and everyone, what this is all about and what is at stake.