Morning Is Dawning

One of the most effective educational experiences I ever had took place in elementary school. It was also one of the most destructive. Taught with all the best intentions, “Music Appreciation” reflected the fact that at one time we valued education in the arts and viewed it as an integral part of a rounded education. Sadly, the arts are quick to be dropped when schools suffer fiscal pressures.ⁱ But teaching about Mozart's 41^st Symphony by training young minds to forever associate it with “This is Jupiter, this is Jupiter” results in our never being able to enjoy it free of that overlay. Similarly, Peer Gynt, always accompanied by “Morning is dawning and Peer Gynt is yawning,” or Schubert's 8^th Symphony, forever remembered by the line “This is the symphony, that Schubert wrote but never finished,” may cause these classics to be imprinted in your memory, but it doesn't lead to appreciating them. Much the opposite. It turns them into meaningless themes. It takes the music out of them.

Unfortunately, our current mantra, “No Child Left Behind,” is equally likely to be counterproductive. By setting national “standards” based on standardized examinations unrelated to the interests and abilities of the students, and requiring teachers to teach to the test, we're placing too much emphasis on test-taking ability, and not enough on knowledge and understanding. We're taking the learning out of education. And we're also teaching the students the wrong message.

A large part of the problem is the belief that a student's performance is based solely on that of his teacher.ⁱⁱ No cognizance is taken of inherent ability,ⁱⁱⁱ student interest, parental involvement,^iv or the involvement of the principal, school board, union, PTA, and the community in general. All play a part in education. As do the media and the student's peers.

Other factors that affect learning are the physical plant in which the child is educated, the number and composition of students in the class,^v the texts,^vi the school's hours – which rarely take the sleep patterns of children and adolescents into consideration,^vii transportation to and from school, curriculum,^viii availability of extra-curricular activities, school taxes and the budget, and the school's philosophy of education.

That's not to suggest that the teacher is unimportant. Indeed, a really good teacher may be the difference between a dropout and a committed student.^ix There are many qualities that go into that teacher, but humor, enthusiasm, a knowledge and love of the material being taught, and the ability to teach – to engage the students – are among the most important. And the teacher must know that the student, and not the test, is the focus of his efforts. To get to this level he must be helped and, sometimes, directed. But he should not be second guessed. The first responsibility of a principal is to choose good teachers and help them along.^x And some mechanism should be found to ease inept teachers from the profession, even if they're tenured. Their salaries and pensions could be better used.^xi

How should those teachers be evaluated and chosen? The answers are not simple. Evaluation by students and their parents is certainly important in judging a teacher's effectiveness.^xii But so are the views of his principal and his peers. Test scores may play a part, but that can only be in relation to the starting point. And those scores should reflect an understanding of the subject by the students, rather than an ability to “ace” the test.^xiii

And how should the best^xiv have the opportunity to do their best in the setting they choose? One approach would be to let them choose first, and to give bonuses based on their students' real improvement.^xv (Tenure and seniority are not the best benchmarks of performance.) Bonuses should be substantial in order to induce the best to choose schools with poorly performing students, since the chance of improving their performance is better than that in a rich, middle-class school.^xvi It's inevitable that the “better” school districts would oppose this, since teachers whom they like and who are benefiting from plush conditions might leave. But that valid concern would be overcome by the benefit of improving the performance and interest of a larger group.^xvii

Perhaps there are too few really good teachers, however we define them. That doesn't necessarily mean that we can't provide good education for everyone. New technology allows a way for the best to teach all, with the remaining teachers supplementing in order to reinforce the lessons, teach other subjects and help students with questions. That technology also permits the presentation of extra material that can be viewed outside of usual hours for those motivated to use it. Although not all of that technology is desirable in a school, there is much that can be used. And as time goes by, there will be more.

Not all of the new devices are likely to contribute to the educational experience however, and it may be necessary to exclude some. Most of the hand-held devices detract from learning – whether telephones, texting devices, or gadgets with all the latest “apps.” Perhaps calculators are desirable for math classes, but the rest should be checked at the door, and returned at the end of the school day. It's likely that some students will assert infringement of their constitutional rights because of their age, especially demanding that they have free speech, but that's a phony claim. Even the courts recognize that there are constitutionally permissible age minimums for voting, military service, contract responsibilities, driving, and drinking,^xviii and since we can require school attendance up to a certain age, we can also, to a point, decide what rights students have in the mandated schools. The ability to send a message – possibly a test answer – to another student is not such a right.

But there are some basic questions that have not been addressed, and for which I offer no answers. They are, however, worthy of discussion, irrespective of rules already in existence:

1.     Is education a governmental responsibility?

2.   Should funding for education be given to schools – public, private and parochial – or to students?

3.    Should decisions about the content of education be national or local?

4.    Should all students, irrespective of their achievements, have a “right” to go to college?

5.    Do we have the right number of colleges? Are they appropriately selective?

6.    Are we required to provide the same education for everyone? Does one size fit all?

7.    Should funds be directed to “needed” programs (however defined) and the students who enroll in them? (This includes high school and college level programs – including “trades.”) Is it important that some disciplines might suffer (eg Philosophy and History) in comparison to hard science?

Questions without answers. And no standardized test will even be able to offer multiple choices. They're phrased as “Yes-No” questions, but that kind of a simple response misses the point entirely. It was noted that they're worthy of discussion. As is the entire subject of educating our young. It's a cliché to note that our children are our future, but it's a disservice to ignore the problems with which we're saddling them. If morning is dawning, it should be on a new educational system.

Not “Education Appreciation,” but appreciation of education.

Next episode: “ ______?” – It's ten o'clock. Do you know where your children are?

i     As we restructure education, it's critical that we find a place for art and music. Perhaps that can only be accomplished by “piping in” “good” music to lunchrooms, hallways and the like, and decorating the walls with classic art, until time and funds are available for prepared classes. But “music appreciation” is not the way.

ii    That's certainly the claim made when people are looking for a scapegoat to blame for the fact that not all students do well.

iii    The reality, whether or not people accept it, is that we're not all created equal.

iv   Perhaps offering monetary incentives to parents and students for improvement might lead to increased attention to in-school work and to homework.

v     For better or worse, boys learn differently from boys, and interested from “disruptive” students. They need different teachers and different classes. Homogeneous classes are more likely to produce good results than attempts to “main-line” all students and to reflect a heterogeneous society in every classroom. If we're looking for the few who will be the most innovative and productive members of society, they shouldn't be educated in a milieu that caters to the lowest common denominator.

vi     Which are sometimes biased in response to the biases in a school district.

vii    Perhaps sports, lunch, nap time, snack time, and other “non-intellectual” activities should be scheduled during times when the students are most likely to be sleepy and leave the “awake” periods for the academic subjects. This would allow the retention of sports – during which the students are likely to wake up – while also increasing the level of attention when the core curriculum is being taught.

viii   A long-standing debate on curriculum centers on whether it should be decided nationally or locally. National goals suggest that attention it should be able to set some overall guidelines on this issue, but there are different cultures in different pars of the country, and they cannot be ignored. In addition, even within a local area there may be different communities – religious and otherwise – which should play a part in the choice of curriculum.

ix    As a society we owe a good deal of respect to our teachers – far more than we accord them. We also owe them larger salaries. We always view teachers as those who lack other skills, and we parody Aristotle's assertion: “Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach.”

 

x     Actually, once the principal has chosen a good teacher and agreed on the material to be covered, the best approach is to get out of the way.

xi    They shouldn't have gotten to that position in the first place. But perpetuating a mistake is an even worse mistake.

xii    Grudges and biases will certainly play a part, but teachers who “connect” with students are likely to be easily recognized. The positives are sure to outweigh the negatives and be more clearly and convincingly stated.

xiii   I'll leave the construction of such an examination – and its grading – for another time. One thing is certain, however. A standardized examination, under the best of circumstances, only teaches students to take standardized examinations.

xiv    By whatever criteria are used to judge them.

xv     Methods for student evaluation are better formulated by schools of education and teachers' organizations rather than by relying on raw scores from standardized tests.

xvi     Even though the brightest students – the ones most likely to contribute to the advancement of the country – should have talented teachers, they're likely to get it, since it's likely that many good teachers will be attracted by the opportunity to teach this group even though they might be able to earn more elsewhere.

xvii   And, of course, for the teachers, by increased salaries.

xviii   Though they may vary from state to state.