HOW DYSFUNCTIONAL?

We have an election coming up.  Oh, you noticed.  Chances are, and I might be projecting here, you can’t wait for it to be over.  I am a political junkie and I want it to be over.  Somehow, this time around, we seem to be talking about something other than what we have grown accustomed to.

I, in this blog, called Donald Trump a “black swan.”  This was not, at the time, a derogatory term; it just referred to the fact that Trump and what he promised to represent was on no one’s radar.  He was an “unknown, unknown,” at least as a presidential candidate.

          But here we are with less than a month to go and the unfolding of events has become more and more bizarre.  At first, the bizarreness was amusing; not so much anymore.  Things have become ugly.  My personal exposure to this has been what I see on social media such as Facebook and television media.

I understand the level of “unfriending” is up significantly.  People can’t just disagree politically and leave it at that.  It has gotten to the point that one sees those with whom one disagrees as less likeable or even less human.  In my case, if I were to be of such a mind, that would include family members.  This can’t be healthy.

          And what happens after the election?  Does the bipolar nature of our politics become even more so?  Will it become even more impossible for us to congregate in order to hatch out public policy?  It seems that will happen.  To the extent it is already the case, one can determine that it is probably the chief reason the Trump phenomenon occurred in the first place.

          Our political parties, one in particular, has opted for the position that it will not compromise with the other.  Ironically, that particular party boasts that it defends the original intent of our founding fathers.  And yet central to the system our founding fathers left us is one that depends on congregating, collaborating, and compromising (the three c’s).  And it is that party, for political purposes, that has refused to even be seen as compromising, much less doing it.

          But this reflects these politicians’ political situations with their constituents.  Due to the Tea Party and others, any politician who appears soft on the issues these voters think are important is subject to being ousted by a primary challenger, one who promises he/she will not compromise.  The term, “primaried” has been coined to describe the process.  So they “cannot” compromise since their number one objective is to politically survive the next election.

          What is the result?  If one is talking about Congress being unable to arrive at policy decisions, the political system becomes dysfunctional.  By the way, such a reality is a policy in itself, one of inaction.  The problem is that that policy is not what is intended or satisfying anyone.

Early in this blog, I referenced the work of Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr.[1]  They introduced a theory that described the sort of actions a political system had to accomplish in order to remain healthy and even survive.  The theory is given the name, structural-functionalism, and the things that have to be done are known as functions.  One of the functions the theory identifies is rule making and another is interest aggregation.

          When Congress does not pass laws that are perceived as needed by the electorate – or worse, an issue is not addressed, e. g., job losses due to foreign competition or non-enforcement of trade agreements – the system is not fulfilling the rule making function.  And when a portion of the electorate refuses to compromise, the interest aggregation function is also short-changed.

Here are two basic functions not being fulfilled and, a la Almond and Powell, the system seems to be in serious trouble.  This, according to the theory, can eventually lead to the system collapsing and ceasing to exist.  We’re not there yet, but does the outlook indicate healthier times ahead?  I’m afraid not.  Whoever wins, his or her party, it seems, will have to win all organs of government – the presidency and both chambers of Congress – in order to get things done.

Is it time to give up on our founding fathers’ plan and shift to another one, perhaps a parliamentary system?  If so, I, for one, would be heartbroken.  The entire federalist model, one that grew through our colonial times and was refined through the centuries – is it finally at an end?  “Say it ain’t so.” 

---

[1] Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach, (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1966).

A CHALLENGED SETTING

One area of concern relating to change is how national or local educational reform should be.  Since the 1980s, there has been a series of reports by various organizations.  The general gist of these reports has been to cast light on the deficiencies plaguing the nation’s schools.  A message many have taken from these revelations is that the way we are doing things in schools should change.  And one of those changes, perhaps, should be taking a more national approach to education.

What seems to be spurring these concerns are international testing results that continuously find American students not doing as well as students in other countries – countries that, by the way, generally have national educational systems with national curricula.

Of course in the US, we have over fifty educational systems, one for each state and then the territories and the District of Columbia.  The national government’s answer to this state of affairs is to have a core, national curriculum issued by the Federal Department of Education with states having the option to adopt it or ignore it.

Even this more modest level of nationalizing our educational effort has not been without controversy – one can hear the cries that Washington[1] is trying to interfere with a local matter.  It should be pointed out that education is not a delegated power of the central government and therefore, it is a reserved power of the states.  Yet given the degree to which the economy has globalized, there is a certain amount of pressure to nationalize the nation’s school system.

But this has not happened, and given the amount of antagonism any suggestion to nationalize engenders, this is not apt to happen soon.  It would call for a constitutional amendment and that is very difficult to accomplish.  Yet the problem remains.  American students still perform comparatively poorly. 

For quite a few postings, this writer has been reviewing a list of psychological and sociological issues that have an effect on education.  There are fields of study dedicated to these issues and, of course, these postings have been cursory at best.  This posting will be the last of such efforts.

It is dedicated to reviewing some of the general concerns these aforementioned national reports have brought forward as a way to familiarize the general reader as to what the major concerns facing our schools are.

This listing is highlighted by Allan C. Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins,[2] whose work this blog has repeatedly relied on for much of the information it has brought forth regarding these related issues.  These general findings have been taken from a list of twelve reports; the two most widely noted are A Nation at Risk  and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Both of these reports were issued during conservative presidential administrations (the first, Reagan’s and the second was during George W. Bush’s time in office).  As such, they are both considered conservative documents.  Ironically, while both base their concerns on poor comparative results, they, especially the second, support local efforts and downplay the need to “nationalize” education. 

The second of these two reports is also noted for recommendations of choice and charter schools, suggestions that many see as efforts to dismantle the public school system.[3]  They also are seen as being directed against government efforts, such as in the case of public schools.  The ideological case is that private enterprise works best in providing any consumer service, and education is no exception.

Before beginning the list of issues, this writer wants to point out that he is not taking a position on any of these concerns.  He is just informing the reader that these particular issues are out there and are generating interest and advocacy either one way or the other.  If one were to attempt change in the nation’s schools, he/she would be well served to know what concerns are important to educators.

The first issue is that school curricula are drifting away from requirements that were stable fare some thirty or so years ago.  This writer sees this as evidence of what he has contended often in this blog: that over the last sixty years or so, the nation opted for the natural rights construct as its dominant view of governance and politics.

One can say a shift toward electives in schools is a way the individual can tailor his/her education to reflect personal preferences and life choices.  Instead of a core set of courses that was academic, such as foreign language, mathematics, science, English, and history, there is a slew of electives and remedial courses being offered, at least until recently. 

The experience of the writer is that while electives have been introduced, most school systems have retained four core course requirements for most years of study.  They include math, science, language arts, and social studies.  He prefers social studies to be listed first, but it usually isn’t.

Actually, in more recent years, in an attempt to address this softening, state policy has called for more testing.  Test preparation has become more prevalent and this has cut into the number of electives.  This has led to wide scale instructional plans that call for teachers teaching to the tests.  This has led to shallow, un-reflected content and teachers not being able to delve into meaningful lessons, especially on material not covered by the tests.

The second issue is grade inflation and less homework.  Grade inflation is the general trend toward handing out higher grades for proficiency levels that in the past earned lower grades.  It seems that every time a young person is mentioned in the media for doing something untoward, he/she is identified as an honor student.  The fact is that that designation is more readily handed out, at least compared to past years.

The third issue is the continued progression downward of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores up to the last reported scores in 2014.[4]  For example, the scores in verbal skills dropped about 40 points between 1963 and 1988 and 20 points in mathematics.

The fourth issue is the continuing poor performance of American students compared to students of other industrial countries.  For example, in the 1970s, they ranked last among these countries on nineteen academic tests.  The comparisons have not improved much in the ensuing years.

The fifth issue is that over 20 million Americans test to be functionally illiterate.

The sixth issue is that among the 17-year old population in the US, 13% tested illiterate and those percentages jump significantly for minority students.

The seventh issue is that between the Armed Forces and colleges and universities, millions of dollars are being spent each year to provide remedial courses in basic literacy and math courses.

And the eighth issue is that all these poor indicators cannot be attributed to short-changing the nation’s students in terms of expenditures.  Compared to other countries, the US has low student-teacher ratios and the per student expenditures are second only to Switzerland’s.  More money doesn’t seem to be the answer.

These then are the dominant issues that one must deal with or, at least, be aware of if one wants to delve into instituting change at the school site.  Much of what this writer has provided in this blog tends to point to a sense that what ails American schools is not subject to “silver bullet” solutions.  The sources of these and other problems are varied.

What is needed is a holistic approach that addresses many factors and that many of those factors are cultural in nature.  If that is true, reforming education will be a slow process.  But what this writer would suggest is that that process be done with a commitment for public education.

He fears that many of the proposed solutions have a hidden agenda.  He agrees with Diane Ravitch that the efforts seem to be geared toward undermining the viability of public schools and that, in the long term, will be a de-democratization of the nation’s schools and of its governance and politics.

---

[1] Of course, our national capital was named for the “father” of our country and first president.  The way the city is disparaged, one wonders if the designation is an honor or not.

[2] Allan Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins, Curriculum:  Foundations, Principles, and Issues, (Boston, MA:  Allyn and Bacon, 2004).

[3] Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System:  How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 2010).

[4] “Fast Facts,” National Center for Education Statistics, accessed October 11, 2016, https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 .