This blog has often made the claim that of all the problems
attached to schooling in America, especially those emanating from public
schools, the bulk of the blame should not be placed on the teacher corps. This is the case for two reasons: one, it is not true teachers, in general, are
responsible for the problems; they constitute part of the victimhood. They are subjected, along with students and
parents and other community members, to the social forces that are to blame.
Two, there is
the very practical problem with solely blaming teachers: there are too many teachers out there and
placing the bulk of the blame on them just about makes reform impossible. Limiting one’s effort to resolving the
“teacher problem” would call for solutions that are impractical and unwieldy. One can say comfortably, that the nation is
lucky these problems are not, in the main, the fault of teachers.
Can one say
the nation is blessed with an exceptionally fine teacher corps? No.
That would also not be true. The
nation has an adequate teacher corps; one that can improve, for sure, but not
one that must revamp itself to get satisfactory results from our school
system. Teachers are not the enemy. By and large, they are people that want to do
a better job, but face forces way beyond their control to do so.
This posting
briefly addresses this concern. It, more
than anything, helps set the stage for this issue. In future postings, the issue will be addressed
again. This is more of an
introduction. As with many of the issues
this blog looks at, this one has to do with equality and, indirectly, liberty,
two instrumental values in the federalist moral code this blog has offered (and
the writer has had published in the academia literature[1]).
This posting will establish this same
claim with the help of a recently published work.[2] Dana Goldstein, the author of that work, first,
mentions how economically segregated the nation’s schools have become. Within their walls, they are places in which,
unlike the past, student bodies mostly come from households of one
socio-economic class.
There are schools where rich kids go
to; there are other schools where not so rich kids go to; and there are yet
other schools were poor kids go to. Therefore,
they, the schools, have lost their function as “mixers” where young students
are exposed to the realities of others – especially when it comes to an
otherness defined by income and wealth.
Of course, this has consequences.
One immediate
statistic reflecting this segregation is graduation rates. In 2005, for example, the graduation rate of
the top fifty city systems was 53 percent.
This is a stark difference from the that of the suburbs that comes in at
71 percent. And as just cited in this
blog, with its treatment of foreign trade over the last series of postings,
Americans are doing poorly in comparisons with other nations when it comes to
educating the young – a more recent development over the last several decades.
More to the
point:
International assessments conducted
by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, show
American schools are producing young adults who are less able than our
counterparts in other developed nations to write coherently, read with
understanding, and use numbers in day-to-day life. Even our most educated citizens, those with
graduate degrees, are below world averages in math and computer literacy
(though above average in reading). I do
not believe schools are good enough the way they are. Nor do I believe that poverty and ethnic
diversity prevent the United States from doing better educationally. Teachers and schools alone cannot solve our
crisis of inequality and long-term unemployment, yet we know from experience of
nations like Poland that we don’t have to eradicate economic insecurity to
improve our schools.[3]
This writer believes this more
extended quote from Goldstein captures the problem and a sense that things can
be better without casting blame on the teacher corps or others who run the
nation’s schools. The schools are among
the victims. Yes, they need to change
and, this writer believes, will change when broader social conditions are
addressed.
As Goldstein goes on to argue, the
answer does not lie in testing teachers and ranking them. Instead, the question should be: how can states and communities around the
country make teaching a more attractive career choice? If that question is addressed and becomes the
center of the collective concern of the nation, higher qualified entrants into
the profession can be secured.
She cites Jonah Rockoff and his call
for “moving the big middle” of the teaching profession.[4] This education thing can be better – a lot
better – assuming the true factors are identified. Perhaps, civics students can draw some of
their attention to how well this public place, their school, is meeting its
responsibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment