Putting the ‘public’ back in public schools

September 2, 2006

Guest Post by Morbo

My kids went back to school this week, which got me thinking about one of my favorite topics: the state of public education in America.

What combination of factors makes a good school? Can the success of public schools in affluent suburbs be duplicated in troubled areas? How do we encourage more parental involvement?

I’ve always believed that too many people in America see schools as operating in a vacuum. They think they can send their kids there and everything will work out. In fact, public education is bound to fail unless it is backed by strong parental involvement and community support.

Oddly enough, I found support for this idea recently in an unexpected place: “Parade,” a Sunday supplement carried by many newspapers that usually focuses on the latest travails of Jennifer Aniston, recently took a look at what it takes to turn around troubled public schools. It’s worth a read.

I’ve struggled with this issue for years. We know our schools are not adequately funded in many areas. But adequate funding, it seems to me, is only part of the answer. We need a community wide solution — at the risk of sounding New Age, it must be a holistic approach.

We cannot expect children whose home life is chaotic or even dangerous to go to school and do well — even in a well funded school. We cannot expect kids to ace their tests when they are hungry and growing up in poverty. We cannot expect youngsters to rise to the top when their parents don’t check their homework, don’t read to them, own no books and sit zoned out in front of the television for six hours per day. We cannot expect young people to succeed when the surrounding community — be it a gritty inner city area or a pocket of rural poverty — does not see the value of education.

So what do we do? The “Parade” article suggests that finding ways to re-engage the community can make a real difference. A school in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for example, challenged the community to step up to the plate. Reads the story:

A local nonprofit hosted forums where parents and others in the community shared their hopes for the school with teachers and administrators. Governance boards – including students, parents, community leaders and school staff – were created to guide the school’s direction.

In Mobile, Ala., educators turned to the business community for help. They made a pragmatic argument: without an educated workforce, the community will not attract new firms and grow. Business leaders agreed to back a new property tax to fund the schools, which passed. Many have continued working with the schools in other ways.

“Parade” profiled several communities that worked hard to revitalize their schools. In not one did the people decide to give up and distribute vouchers for private schools so that 10 percent of the kids could leave the public system. These communities recognized that a real solution has to be one that works for all children.

That’s encouraging — even if the task sounds daunting. I’m always skeptical of plans that call for people to voluntarily raise their taxes, for example. And it can be very difficult to persuade people whose children are grown or who have no children that they have a stake in the public schools. Still, it’s good to know a roadmap, albeit a difficult one, may exist for those communities with the gumption to unfold it.

Thanks Morbo.

Ironically community involvement in the schools is an area that Christians would be well suited for and incredibly helpful in if they acted like real Christians and not like right-wing survivalists. That’s one tragedy of voucher schools–not only kids and money but the most committed parents are also lost to the community school.

  • It’s been a long time since I looked at the research in this area, but several things came through so strongly that they bear repeating. The first addressed students’ reading skills and behaviors. Controlling for a great variety of factors (rich or poor districts, high and low divorce rates, ethnic composition, per-capita funding of schools, region of the country, etc.) the overwhelming factor influencing kids’ reading was having at least one parent who regularly read in the home.

    The other addressed general learning patterns. Again a variety of other factors, thought to be related, were included in the study. But what appeared to be the major factor, cutting through all the rest, was a simple one: school size. I remember one of the component studies was a report on who became Nobel laureates, who received recognition for academic accomplishment, and so on. For all you hear about the need for expensive scientific equipment in schools, the overwhelming majority of winhers came from tiny, rural schools (a disproportionate number of them one-room schoolhouses). The Nobel winners wound up at prestigious research universities, but they began in one-room schools in Kansas.

    That got me thinking (this was over thirty years ago) about a social experiment. What would happen if we re-created the one-room school in urban neighborhoods? Children could walk to the nearest house or apartment designated (rented) as a school. There would be one teacher for all elementary grades. No P.E., no special learning equipment,, just a teacher, students and a small supply of books (we’d supply the texts and otherwise rely on public libraries). After bringing this up with a number of my colleagues (they were from the school of education; I’m in demography/sociology) I came to the conclusion that the experiment simply couldn’t be pulled off. The education establishment (schools of education mainly) would never approve since there’d be nothing for the “educationists” to do. Since I never had any children of my own, and since it certainly was not my area of professional interest, I abandoned toying with the idea. I’m still convinced there’s something to it though.

  • The Gates Foundation has an amazing report on schools. As much as I distrust Microsoft, it’s clear to me that Gates is the new Carnegie. Go here http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Education/

    My kid will start school soon and my general piece of advice will be this: It’s not the school’s job to teach you; it’s your job to learn. Schools teach to the idiotic national tests that determine funding, not to the tests of life, personal interests and curiousity. The student, in addition to navigating this mindless test prep, has to determine his own path, investigate his interests, etc.

  • AYM: We have differed on other matters, and may again, but here you have nailed something so well that I can only wish you could send this post to every parent in the country. It is dead on. A teacher can prepare a student for tests, yes, but the only thing he can do that is really valuable is to convey his own interest in a given subject, why he personally is excited by it, and get the students to go ‘outside the book’ to learn more about it.

    On atother topic, I always shudder a little at the idea of pushing ‘parental’ or ‘community’ involvement. It sounds good at first, and those parents who truly want their kids to go beyond themselves, to know more and to think in different ways are valuable.

    But too often the parent can be scared if the child does this, if they do not accept the parent as the seat of all wisdom, if they question and challenge the parent’s ideas. The same with ‘communities.’ How many communities would, if they had full control over what the student was to be taught, would insist on Creationism, not Intelligent Design, would challenge any teacher who questioned America’s wisdom in all things, or their motives, who portrayed ‘great men’ as, instead, men who were great but who were also men with all their flaws? How many parents and communities, even now, attempt to censor what their children are given to read, what ideas they are taught, etc?

    Yes, parental and community involvement can be a good idea, but one that needs to be ‘handled with care.’

  • Bad editing, that should read ‘another’ not ‘atother’ and “creationism or Intelligent Design, not Evolution.” Sorry, cats are calling and distracting me, reminding me they are hungry.

  • TEST TEACHERS

    I think the best way to test teachers is to test them on how well their students do NEXT year.

    Teachers Smith and Jones both teach 3rd grade. Teacher Smith’s students average a 83 on the 3rd grade test given at the end of each year. Teacher Jones’ students averge 80 on the same test.

    Who is the better teacher?
    How can you tell? I don’t think there is enough information to tell.

    However, when the students go into 4th grade and have different teachers and take the 4th grade test then you might have enough information to tell.

    For example, if Teacher Smith’s students get an 83 on the 4th grade test while Teacher Jones’ students get an 82 on the same 4th grade test then you have some evidence that Teacher Jones is a better teacher than Teacher Smith because his students did better after taking Jones’ class.

    This would eliminate a lot of the problems of teaching to the test because it is far harder to teach a 3rd grader how to pass a 4th grade test than it is to have him pass a 3rd grade test. The 3rd grade teacher won’t have any incentive to help his students cheat. In fact, teachers would have a far stronger incentive to prevent cheating.

    This isn’t a perfect way to test teachers but it seems to me that it is better than any other suggestions I have seen.

  • You say: “We cannot expect children whose home life is chaotic or even dangerous to go to school and do well — even in a well funded school. We cannot expect kids to ace their tests when they are hungry and growing up in poverty. We cannot expect youngsters to rise to the top when their parents don’t check their homework, don’t read to them, own no books and sit zoned out in front of the television for six hours per day.”

    That’s right.

    So, yes, you can try to fix the parents. Though what makes you think you know how to motivate the parents to change?

    Or, you can motivate the kids.

    The way to motivate kids is the same way we motivate adults. Because kids are people, too. The way we motivate adults in our capitalistic society, is we pay them for good work. With that money, they can make sure that they’re not starving and they can buy books and they can improve their lives. That’s what we do with adults. Communist societies expect that adults will all work and be motivated for the betterment of the community. Most Americans laugh at that idea and think that motivating people through paying them based on merit and/or work time put in is the right way to go.

    Yet people refuse to notice that children are made the same way as adults.

    Of course, the current system favors the middle class, with parents who WILL check their homework and read to them…. which is why we have this system.

    Because if poor kids became competitive with middle class kids, how would the middle class ensure that their kids, and theirs alone, rose to the top?

  • Re motivation of children (posting by Catherine, at 7):

    I find it interesting that, when I was growing up (in Communist Poland), the big day of the school year was the first day. The excitement was whipped up with a special show, parents coming to watch, “best” dress, etc. First graders, just entering, got a special welcome, with front seats. All together a big hoopla, so that you’d think school was going to be fun. And a big step in your growing up process — adulthood was coveted, because every child knows that adults get to do what they want, while kids have to obey.

    Here, the biggest day is the last day of school, as if we’re trying to convey that all that counts is the holidays, not the learning. The school is over, you can now play for weeks on end, no responsibilities at all. Hurrah.

    Pfui.

  • Reading is the linchpin—and I can offer a first-hand account of its value.

    Our son, who is currently 8-and-a-half, just started third grade this week.

    He was only 8 days old the first time I took him into the department at my University and showed him off to everyone.

    He was about 2 months old when I took him to the main library (a 12-story building, by the way) for the day to do some research for an article. There was always time to read to him, even though he hadn’t a clue about “lesson plans,” or “curricular intellect” or even something called “Perceptual Education.”

    Before he was a year old, many of the professors would stop in and visit with us—whether in my “pedagogical cave,” or the local coffee-shop that was like a second home for a good many years. Some even brought little gifts—those wondrous board-books that always seem to double as teething toys.

    Now—at his current age—he’s starting 3rd Grade with a mid-year 4th Grade reading level in his pocket.

    The older of his two sisters is starting 1st grade, and can already read at her “end-of-year” grade level. She has been “just as exposed” to literature as her big brother, and she’s a bit further ahead than he was at that point

    The younger of the two girls—a week shy of being 18 months old—already walks into the room with a book in her hand, and asks “read this?”

    A few of students with little ones at home have seen this, and have made the greater effort to apply what they’ve seen in their own families. not a lot, mind you—but a few.

    If America wants better schools—the kinds of schools that were successful before the madness of standardized testing—then it needs to re-adopt the curricular skeletons that existed in a “pre-standardization” world. Those packaged tests do nothing for learning; they rob valuable time from real learning; they denigrate the educational experience by forcing kids to line up in a discriminatory order; and they merely line the pockets of the test manufacuters with more money that should stay with the schools….

  • Neil Wilson (post 6): The “value added” approach to measuring educational effectiveness assumes that students do not start at the same level, and it is silly to base performance evaluation on the assumption that they do. The true measure is progress over the course of a year, and that can’t be measured without taking each student’s starting point into account. I agree that knowing that Smith’s students average an 83 on the end-of-year third-grade test and Jones’ students average an 80 tells me little about the relative teaching ability of Smith and Jones. But if Smith’s students averaged 85 on the second-grade test and Jones’ averaged a 76 (assuming similar metrics), I could make the case that Jones is actually the better teacher. I’m not sure I agree with basing a teacher’s evaluation on how well his/her students do after a year of instruction with a different teacher, but it would be an interesting piece of research.

    Angry Young Man (post 3) and Steve (post 9): I can’t speak for all states, but here in Ohio, the state tests are built to measure the state academic content standards, and teachers are expected to design and deliver lessons to teach the same standards. Ergo, the “teaching to the test” argument is a canard; if teachers cover the content, they are preparing their students for the tests. Test preparation is not something teachers do in addition to or instead of teaching the content; it IS teaching the content.

  • I agree with Steve (#9) that reading is vital to general education and that reading to a child as early as possible makes all the difference. Our son insisted on learning how to read at a very early age (at 2.5, he began learning the Polish alphabeth, because it’s easier; by 4, he could read any text in both languages), probably in self defence — both his father and I had our noses in a book or newspaper most of the time. And his father had some very literary friends who conspired on the project; one of our son’s first toys was a set of blocks with letters on them, given to him by Howard Nemerov at 4 months…

    But the question is… How do you make the “unconverted” parents — the ones who don’t read much themselves — teach their children to be thirsty for knowledge that comes from reading, not from watching TV? Neither of my parents had much in the way of formal education — both had to go to work before they were 15 — but both loved to read, so finding amusement among the books on their shelves at home and in public libraries was, for me, a natural thing to do. And there was no TV available till I was 12, which helped too.

    I used to tutor (as a volunteer) some kids in my son’s primary school, when they were falling behind and, perhaps, was able to snatch one or two out of the jaws of general stupor. But I still don’t see how it can be done on a large scale, beyond the Pangloss’ “tend your own garden” bit…

  • This is all well and good, but (which I hate to use) what about my students? Those whom my co-workers and I call “feral” because society and their parents have forgotten them. By the way, I teach at a continuation school. Example, student A went to school for only 248 days from K-8th grade. WHY? Mom was a crank addict, Dad was in and out of prison and had over 22 kids by 3 different women. The only reason he made this many days was the Welfare/attendance lady went with the cops to get him and some of his siblings for school. Out of this family, I have had over 25 cousins and siblings.

    You can get parents involved, but not all of them. And sometimes, they are more of a pain in the ass than not having them. Ask any AP teacher about the parent who calls to complain about the grade that his/her stellar scholar recieved. This might be the kid who can barely make it around corners and through open doors. Parent is upset about the B recieved instead of an A. Arrrggggh!!!

    OK off the soap box. Sorry the rant was so long.

  • Schools where parents are very involved inevitably do beeter overall than schools with little parental involvement. yet this sam lack of involvement isalso attributable to economic facters, i.e need to work several jobs, etc. even bussing is problematice here due to a reverse (and unintended conseuential) lack of involvment by the parents of students being bussed as they tend to be less economically able to participate in the PTA, etc. or are at work, working multiple jobs, etc. I don’t know the answer except that I know my child having a computer in her room at age 3, the newest software for the computer, 400 books, and more have all affected my child’s ability to learn. How do we begin to equalize that? Head Start was a good beginning but the current occupant decided it was not a priority asd cut the funding.

  • I don’t think that the education problem is strictly limited to public schools. I think many people in this country only give lip service to the idea of education. Sure they want their kids to be able to read and write, but beyond that I just don’t know. How else do explain Bush being president and his getting brownie points for he self confessed dislike or disinterst in reading. Most Americans want education up to a point, but after that you just some elitist snob and get knocked/mocked.

    If education and public education were truly valued by the citizens as a whole, would we have let the public education get to the depths it has? Would we continue to fund it in a way guaranteed to make it worse by not funding it adequate? Would we have not forced accountability with more oversigh?

    While I think education is important to many individual family, in general I don’t think most see it as all that important no matter where they move to take advantage of the school system and no matter what they say.

    • Comments are closed.