My family growing up used to joke that we were so accustomed to living with few excesses that if the numbers came out right, we'd be the only lotto winners in history to use the money to buy a nicer trailer instead of a mansion.
That memory came to mind, for some reason, when the SFS bloggers were asked to write about what they would do to fix education if money was not an issue. We're used to operating within humble means in the public schools, so I figure that the changes would be small but meaningful. If public education were not bound by dollars or entrenched paradigms, we could fix the system by simply following through on our promises.
Almost of these suggestions have been attempted to some degree. But alas, as soon as resistance is met or budgets grow tight, these important reforms are usually abandoned or simply do not go far enough.
1. Focus on the bottom of the hierarchy of student needs: food and shelter. Schools should provide reduced cost (or free) breakfast and lunch to all students. We cannot change their home lives, but we know that learning on a satisfied belly takes better than learning over the growls of an aching tummy. We should also invest in the brick-and-mortar infrastructure to make sure the physical structure is not only safe but also inspiring of pride. If we're going with the corporate template, I bet if you showed a CEO through the halls of many schools, one of the first things they would do would be to "spruce them up" so the employees (students) would engage better. Many studies in the business world show direct connections between the environment in which work is done and the quality and efficiency of that work. This may seem like a petty idea to put at the top of my list, but it pays huge dividends.
2. Eliminate social promotion: use grades or end-of-course assessments to advance students. This would help for two reasons: First, we live in a capitalist society where work…especially work that is not our passion…is only engaged in when there is a clear end reward such as a paycheck. Even at a young age, kids can understand that to "get what they want" they need to do the work. My four-year-old has been getting paid to do chores since he was old enough to talk, and he understands the importance of "saving up" for a goal by working now. If nothing else, moving on with your peers can be powerful motivation; the end result toward which to work. Second, social promotion is the reason kids come unprepared into subsequent classrooms. This is obvious. We can blame ineffective teaching, or a myriad of other issues, but if they did not get the skills or content they needed, they ought to be given the opportunity to try again.
3. Institute year-round school (with two to three week breaks between grading periods). Though I enjoy my summers to be a dad with my own kids, and though I grew up on a real farm and understand why this calendar was originally in place, fewer than 2% of Americans live on farms nowadays. Plus, continuity of student exposure to practice in skills and content is a no-brainer. It boggles my mind that we still have not shifted to this model in the United States. It would benefit students, parents, teachers, businesses–why have we not done this already? ('cause it's the way it has always been…)
4. Reduce teacher workloads at all levels: In elementary this would mean smaller class sizes and/or more prep and collaboration time where kids are with PE, music, art specialists; in high school, this would mean at least 1/5 of the workday is planning/prep/collaboration time. Arguments about whether class size really impacts student achievement have been raging for decades. I'm in the camp that any professional, if given the opportunity to focus his or her craft, will excel. Just as a surgeon will be a better surgeon if tasked with one or two surgeries per day rather than eight, or an artist will likely produce a better product by creating one painting rather than dividing attention between a dozen, a teacher can be a more effective practitioner if given the time and environment where the craft of impacting student learning can be the focus.
5. My last suggestion is not necessarily what you'd expect when imagining "how to fix schools if money was no object." Prepare the firing squads for this one. Eliminate all non-Academic programming from public secondary schools. This includes athletics, student-body programming, prom, homecoming, pep rallies… That should be the community's responsibility through intramurals or other activities. Co-curricular activities such as Professional Technical Student Organizations (DECA, FBLA, FFA) or clubs such as Science Olympiad would stay, since those reinforce academics, promote vocations and leadership and raise their own funds (usually). Music, the arts, PE, and related clubs would stay. Field trips and enrichment would stay, as those directly impact student learning. I have been a coach and was a varsity athlete for four years, so I understand the importance and value of athletics–but intramurals can fill that role and provide more opportunities for kids who might otherwise be cut. I was elected to student leadership year after year and was on prom court, so I'm not speaking as some jilted also-ran. But, like the agrarian calendar, many of these non-Academic school traditions are antiquated. Despite arguments for "school spirit," these devices only serve to reinforce artificial social structures, drain away valuable classroom time, and have no clear benefit to student learning.
I think my "buy a nicer trailer" mentality played into this list a little. I suppose I could have wished for a laptop for every kid, LCD projectors, fancy things and huge pay raises… but we've gotten by making the most of very little for so long, it's almost tough to dream too big.
Nancy, I think your idea about promotion is spot on, and I’d even argue that moving kids through 13 levels isn’t all that efficient (when you also consider net results…dropout rate, etc.)
While retention in the present model does pose problems, I really believe that in the end if retention were to become less a taboo and more a proactive intervention we will see greater net gains for students who are presently pushed through and underserved.
I like them all (including #5) except #2. Instead of eliminating social promotion, let’s eliminate the entire idea of “promotion.” There comes a point (earlier in some kids’ lives) when they are not motivated by jumping through somebody else’s hoops. The whole idea of kids moving lockstep through 13 levels is, on the face of it, ridiculous. It may be efficient, but it doesn’t make sense.
The last two of my students who were not promoted from 7th grade to 8th grade were not English speakers. It was impossible to explain to their parents why these children (who were both diligent) did not move on to the 8th grade. Both were beaten by their fathers (a pair of Albanian brothers) for failing. Under our criteria, they did not deserve to be promoted, having failed more than half their classes. But it was the system that failed them.
On the other hand, I think sports belong outside the school system. That’s the way it works in Europe. And they still have fine schools and universities.
I do see vocational ed as academic, I am a product of voc ed and think it is far more relevant to kids than many core requirements. I get your point about kids who only come to school to play sports–they come to stay eligible, right? Couldn’t community programs require the same grade eligibility requirements?
I agree with you on everything except number 5, and I’ll share the voice of dissent with Kristin. I have been a coach at a low-income, high-risk junior high and high school, and you’re right, I’m a big advocate for broad access to athletics, but sometimes, community sports are simply not accessible to “all kinds of kids.” It’s tough watching our kids compete with the middle class teams that can all afford community sports, while the only opportunity for my kids to compete comes at school. I have seen enough kids who succeed academically only so that they can play on a sports team. Basically, it’s the only thing that keeps them in school. I have to say the same thing for vocational programs, which could also arguable fall under “non-academic” programs. Our job is to prepare kids for year thirteen, which may be college, the military, vocational school, or employment. The more well-rounded a kid is, the better their chances of success in any of those areas. Sports and the leadership and cooperative skills that come with being on a sports team are definitely part of that well-roundedness. Personally, I hate pep assemblies and homecoming courts, but I see the positive impact they can have on school morale, which is also a key to keeping kids in school and enjoying it.
Claudia, thanks for joining the conversation. I think that some too often do forget that we are working with people, not a commodity to be passed through our rooms. If we really want our kids to do well, we must focus on those basics.
Kristin, I see what you are saying about the athletics. I think, though, if the transition between school-run athletics to community-run athletics were handled well, those populations would still be served since (not to stereotype) coaches are often the strongest advocates for broad access to athletics for all kinds of kids…which is a good thing.
Though access to intramurals or community sports is not universally good, I know that athletics are something communities seem to rally around. In tight budget times we see it loud and clear: when a district threatens to cut athletics, the parents rally and always find a way. (Sadly, threaten to cut a library from the public schools, and there may be cries of foul, but not nearly as many as when the football team is cut.)
Mark, I am with you on all of your top five. I especially think it is time for us to revisit #1 and not only provide free lunch and breakfast, but also give students adequate time to eat their meals. Most students only get 15 minutes to eat and that contributes to our “wolf it down” mentality. It is not healthy and how much do our kids truly nutritionally digest when they aren’t chewing their food adequately. I hate going into the lunch room and seeing my students biting and swallowing with little or no chewing because the next grade level is waiting to come in.
Ohhh, eliminate grade levels…I like that. That is consistent with real world applications and expectations of standards.
Great ideas Mark. I know what you mean about almost being afraid to dream too big. Teachers are so good at making use (and then saving, reusing, and so on) of every little thing.
I like idea number five, about athletics. I think schools could work together with community agencies to benefit everyone and actually become more efficient.
Mark, I’m with you on #2, @4, and #5. The very best administrator I had the privilege of working with promoted athletics as clubs sponsored by the community.
In a way, secondary ed in my school does follow your suggestion already. It so happens, though, that the way many courses follow prereqs and sequences, some subjects create the grade levels anyhow.
I spoke with an interesting man who felt we should eliminate all free meals in schools, thinking this would force responsibility back on the parents. I think he lives in a perfect world, the likes of which I’ve not seen in any of the 4 schools in which I’ve worked.
I know that pep assemblies, missing 6th period for games and meets and all the hullabaloo that goes with ASB is a distraction from academics. On the other hand, I see a clear division between the kids who can afford intramural sports and kids who can’t. We can’t expect families and non-profits to even the playing field with community athletics.
If organized athletics and student government are eliminated in the public schools, there’s a whole demographic of student who might not have access to the opportunity to campaign or play organized sports.
I think these activities wouldn’t be so much of a detraction from academic quality if the academics had more momentum, which I think your 1-4 would provide.
Regarding social promotion, there would likely be some fluctuations in teacher assignments as “bubbles” of kids make their way through…kind of how there tend to be more 9th grade teachers in many high schools because of the “freshman bulge” of retentions (kids who should be 10th graders who must re-attempt 9th grade graduation requirements, and thus necessitate more folks at that assignment). Since the number of students (net) would be steady, I don’t think new hires would be necessary, but teachers would need to be willing to be flexible with their assignments from year to year (as most are anyway).
That brings up another way I’d change secondary education…eliminating “grade levels” altogether and just having required classes and sequences, not unlike an undergraduate system. That’s another post, for another day though…
Mark, I am totally with you on #5. I would like for school to be school, and have outside organizations take on the “community” aspect especially since it seems that more and more is placed on the school without budgeting resources or money to do it. It becomes the “hey, do this with what you already have” mentality.
Heck, I like all of your #s. Question, if students were not socially promoted and they were involved in year-round schools, would additional teachers be hired to take care of the “new” classes that would be created by the students who needed to improve in a subject to get credit? What is your vision for that?
I agree. As I gear up for September and plan my year, I know I must spend the month of September teaching routines and expectations, not to mention the content that’s forgotten. If our summer breaks were modeled more like they are in other parts of the world where they take a few weeks off here and there, would it take as long for us all to jump back into school mode? I think not. It’s much the laws of motion – an object in motion stays in motion until acted upon. 11 weeks is a long time to be in vacation mode. And it takes all of September to redirect and get your new group of students ready for new learning. Plus, most kids admit they’re bored anyway. If you’re lucky enough to have parents sign you up for summer camp, that’s one thing. Most aren’t so lucky.
I like your analogy with the surgeon. It’s so true that if we had less to teach and fewer to teach it to, we would all be better at our craft. We’re only human. With higher demands, something has to give. I skip teaching health and art. Weeks go by before I look at my students’ writing. I make choices. And someone always loses out – my students.
Great post, Mark. I think each of these changes would make a better school system. I especially like the idea of changing the school calendar and extending school throughout the summer, but I don’t know that I’d extend the school year for every student. I think we’re missing a golden opportunity for real differentiation. The students who didn’t get promoted (yet) would have a chance to catch up with their peers, and the students who want more enrichment could do that over the summer. That’s supposed to be what we have now, but it’s usually voluntary and subject to shifting budgetary realities.