Education Reform:
Drawing to an Inside Straight
By Nom D. Pedagog
Author's note: Names, dates, locations, and other data
which might serve to identify either the author or
anyone else have been changed. As will be obvious to
those reading this article, this is out of a desire on the
writer's part to continue in education for several more
years. All other information is factual. All events,
except where noted, were observed directly by the
author, and while the author would not represent them
as being common occurences in all schools, nearly thirty
years in education as a teacher and administrator and
close association with a large number of people in the
teaching profession would lead her to believe they are
more prevalent than not.
If the signs are correct, it looks like we are in
for another round of educational reform, and,
while the experts debate what exact form the
reform should take, one thing is certain; little
will actually change.
Some would say that pronouncement makes me
a cynic. Nope, I am merely a realist. I have seen
mastery learning, outcome based education,
teaching to objectives, tracking, eliminating
tracking, instructional theory into practice,
flexible scheduling, the open concept, team
teaching, schools within schools, increasing
electives, decreasing electives, making content
relevant, schools without failure, alternative
assessment, and cooperative learning come and
go, leaving little behind except a smattering of
new jargon.
If a horse finishes last ten races in a row,
please, do not ask me to bet my home on it in the
next race.
There is one basic reason why education
changes so little, but before going to that point, I
wish to clarify a misconception; that is that
education has been on a down-hill slide ever
since 1960. This perception is based on SAT
scores and a generic belief expressed by every
generation that things were "better in the good
old days." What is usually not taken into account
is that the population of people taking the SAT
has changed radically since 1960. At one time
taking the SAT was almost exclusively in the
domain of those in the top half of their class and
largely of those in the top-fifth. Today,
proportionately fewer taking the SAT are in
these ranges, while more are in the bottom fifty
percent of their classes. When this is figured
into the equation, we find that SAT scores have
changed very little.
This is not to say that nothing is wrong with
education, but the sky is not falling, and
exaggerating problems is as bad as brushing
them aside.
The truth is that traditional education in
public schpols does not do as well as it could
because most people in education have become
institutionalized in their thinking in the same
way that Congress has become institutionalized
in its thinking. This is a survival trait for
teachers and administrators. It avoids the pain
of feeling like hypocrites every time a decision
is made based on conflict-avoidance rather than
educational concerns.
Ask administrators to rank classes offered in
their schools in order of value to students. Most
non-educators, when given this task, would
think awhile and then start listing, making
occasional adjustments. On the other hand, most
principals would not even get started. They
would freeze. Instead, they would tell you about
how all classes are of value. Producing such a
list would imply that more time and resources
should be devoted to some classes than to others.
In public education, every course is a valuable
course. Anything else would cause conflict.
As a favor to a friend, I once attempted to find
out why two of our junior high schools required
only one class of vocational exploration while
the third required two. I first went to the
principal. I thought I had known him long
enough that he would give a straight answer. I
was wrong. He went into a five minute
monologue on how good the class was and how
students benefited from taking it. I thanked him
for his time. I did not bother to point out that my
question had nothing to do with the quality of
the class but the discrepancy in requirements
between programs.
I took my query to another person who has
since left administration. This second
administrator had a reputation for bluntness that
was rumored to have prevented his further
advancement within the district. He told me that
building "X" was over-staffed with vocationally
certified teachers and that if they were used to
teach regular classes, math for example, then the
building would net draw extra funds that
vocational classes generated. I was chagrined
not to have seen the obvious myself. The answer
was financial, not educational.
Administrators do not like to make value
judgements; these are almost always conflict
producing. They would rather follow the path
of least resistance." A high school I know of
changed from a six to a four period day, with
two-semester classes becoming two-trimester
classes. Not everyone was happy with the
decision, but after several faculty meetings
devoted to extolling the virtues of the four period
day, the faculty could read the handwriting on
the wall and "voted" to try the new schedule.
Two departments in particular remained
adamantly opposed to this - music and foreign
language. They both pointed out that
continuous, sequential programs, requiring
much drill for mastery, would be cut into
segments with three month gaps in instruction.
(This argument could be made for many other
classes as well, but never mind.)
As a result, music was allowed to split several
classes with English. The exact mechanics of this
is unimportant, but it involved shorter classes
taught before and after the regular school day.
Three English teachers volunteered for this
schedule. At the end of the first trimester, all
three English teachers said that the schedule had
hurt their classes, the absenteeism had
increased, that tardiness had become a chronic
problem, and that students often seemed fatigued.
They felt that this was reflected in poor student
performance.
Now, the point of this is that the split schedule
continued. None of the three English teachers
was willing to teach the schedule a second time,
but administration goodwill and additional pay
insured that there were people who would carry
on with the split. Why did this continue when it
seemed to hurt a basic program like English?
One; no administator was willing to say that
English is more important than music. Two;
English did not put on concerts which are viewed
as public relation devices by administrators.
Three; English did not have a parent booster club
willing to call and complain. The classes
continued not because they are good for students
but because they avoid conflict for
administrators.
It might be noted that these reasons explain
why a split schedule was not attempted with
foreign language even though this class is
either a requirement or recommendation for
most colleges. In public schools, academics often
sit at the back of the bus.
Another area where priorities are often
inverted in order for administrators to avoid
conflict is in hiring. Generally, administrators
go out of their way to insure getting a qualified
staff. After all, it is in their best interest as well
as the school's; however, there is one situation
where this concern is, if not tossed out the
window, at least shoved close to an outside wall.
This is when a head-coach is needed for a major
sport.
As soon as the word "coach" is mentioned,
many will accuse me of stereotyping. Well, it is
my observation that too often the stereotype fits.
I know of several people who went into teaching
in order to be coaches. I have never met anyone
who went into coaching in order to teach. I have
seen many coaches work on game plays during
classes. I have never seen a coach work on
lesson plans during a game. I know it is possible
for a good coach to be a good teacher; I just do not
think it is probable.
I once argued this point with a principal. I
didn't want to hire a math teacher who was a
head football coach, but that was the academic
position we had open at the time. My principal
said we would hire a person who could do both
well. I attempted to point out that by requiring
our next math hire also be a head football coach,
we probably eliminated over ninety percent of
the pool of qualified math teachers. The
principal told me I was being unrealistic. I
suppose I was - in the world of education.
Somehow, I doubt that Bill Gates makes playing
on the company softball team a requirement for
working at Microsoft.
Some districts do not bother to rationalize their
hiring practices but list such positions as
"Wanted: head football coach, teaching duties to
be assigned later." The message here is pretty
clear about what comes first. The fact is,
coaches, especially if on a winning streak, get
special consideration on extra duty assignments,
attendance at various meetings, preparation
periods, and special classes. I even know of one
coach who was hired by a district after he
stipulated he would take the job only if his
present assistant coach also be hired by the
district. Try pulling off that sort of power-play
if you are only a physics teacher.
If you think athletic considerations do not win
out over academic concerns almost every time,
you have not kicked around in the American
public school system very much. I have never
seen a school-board chairperson sit in on the
hiring of a mere teacher and seldom on the
hiring of a vice-principal, but when a head
coaching position is up for grabs, it is entirely
another matter.
Administrators also have an inability to make
objective educational decisions when athletics is
not involved. For example, they do not like to
admit even partial failure, a real conflict
producer. As a result, programs are evaluated in
a shoddy manner at best. Take the earlier
mentioned change to a four period day. After a
three month trial (hardly long enough for even
a well-structured evaluation), the principal of
the school involved declared the change a
success, noting that the median GPA had been
raised from the previous year by seven-tenths of
a percent. Ignoring the fact that this change
might be accounted for by other factors such as
the increased drop-out rate or an increase in the
number of lower level classes in proportion to
higher level classes, the figure proves nothing.
No one computed the level of significance for the
change. This is necessary when comparing
figures, otherwise we do not know if a
fluctuation is within normal variation. I asked
why the median had been used instead of the
mean. My answer was that it was easier to find.
This hardly spoke of rigorous academic research
principles.
Despite the dubious nature of the results and
the lack of long term experience with the
program, the four period day is now being touted
as an education panacea. I have been told the
principal is being invited to speak at other
schools as an expert on this particular
innovation. In some cases, he is being flown to
other parts of the country. This is typical of the
education community. Try the latest fad, cook up
some statistics, declare a revelation in teaching,
and go on tour (it is much more fun than dealing
with the daily problems of running a school).
Seldom do you hear of someone being invited to
speak about how a program had been tried and
failed. Administrators know how to go with the
flow, particularly a cash flow.
The trouble with such experts is that they
never give the entire picture. What people hear
from this principal is a glowing story of
unqualified success. He will ignore anything
that hints of the negative. This, too, is pretty
common. My district has spent many thousands
of dollars flying out and paying for "experts”
from back East to tell us about their particular
school. These experts assured us that their
program was virtually without failure. This
sounded almost too good to be true.
It was. After several meetings, one of the
experts let slip (over coffee) that they had a
"sister school” where students who did not fit
into their program went. Apparently seeing the
look of sudden insight on our faces, he was quick
to add they did not think this skewed their
results. Not much it didn't. Any teacher, using
any method of instruction, would have pretty
impressive results if he worked only with those
who did well in class while those who "didn't fit
it" took other classes.
When I think about it, I realize that conflict
avoidance is not just an administrative survival
trait, it is the key to advancement. A good lecture
tour is not only fun, but it also provides ample
opportunity for networking. (By the way, it is
rare, indeed, to see one of the travelling gurus
employ the teaching technique being espoused.)
Some administrators are governed by conflict
avoidance even in the area of discipline. At one
school, almost the entire teaching staff
volunteered to use part of their preparation time
to patrol halls and send students who were not in
their classes to a supervised room. It was
assumed that administration would take over
from there. This worked well for the first half of
the year, and there seemed a noticeable change
in the halls. About half as many teachers
volunteered the second semester, and practically
none volunteered the following year. Why?
Many teachers kept seeing the same students
skipping the same classes. The administration
policy was to have the students stay in a
"detention room" for the remainder of the class
period in which they were found. Little effort
was made to correct students who were repeat
offenders. After a while, students realized that
nothing would be done other than that they
would be allowed to sit out the classes they were
already skipping.
Teachers saw their efforts going for naught
and simply gave up. Administrators apparently
did not want to contact parents and deal with
conflict. I checked the files of a student who had
been given after-school detention as a result of
repeated skipping. The student failed to show up
for detention something like a dozen times.
Seemingly, the administrator dealing with the
student kept tacking on additional detentions but
never contacted a parent and asked them to get
the student to school. Suspension was an
alternative but this sometimes cause conflict.
Such avoidance is not uncommon. The same
administrator once reprimanded a teacher who
had stopped a student from throwing a snowball
by grabbing the student's arm at the elbow. A
reprimand was easier than defending the
teacher when the student complained. As a
result, the teacher told me that he would no
longer help enforce such safety policies as "no
snowball throwing." It became easier to follow a
policy of "look the other way.” Other teachers,
no doubt, followed suit when they learned of the
incident.
It would be nice to believe that the sort of
things I have written about were isolated cases.
It does not take much investigative research to
dispel this idea. The fact is that schools may talk
about academics coming first, or have slogans
like "education excellence starts here," or say
they stress student responsibility, but as long as
deeds don't match words, the words are hollow.
What does this mean as far as educational
reform? It means that what is done is more
important than what is said. It means academics
will not improve as long as it is not the priority.
It means that students will not leam
responsibility as long as administrators choose to
avoid conflict. It means that we can make all the
cosmetic changes in education we want, but, as
long as the system is dominated by the kind of
thinking that permeates it now, there is little
chance for meaningful change.
EAT
MORE
COOKIES
Cinnamon Rolls.
Pizza by the Slice.
Muffins, Espresso,
and Cookies
239 N. HEMLOCK
THE
- Ill
CAHHON BEACH
BOOK COMPANY
P.O. Box 634
132 North Hemlock
Cannon Booch. 436-1301
CUSTOM
ran
HOME
OR
BUSINESS
(503) 436-2761
u ta ia
CANNON BEACH. ON B M 1*
HILL
HOUSE
DELI X CAFE
T i u n a m i T r e n t ’» T i n y B o o k l t o p
Q u a lity Pre-Read B ool» in ike alcove at
Ocean
SiJt Eipruio
Nerth Hvy. 101
Hetalta. Or 97131
(503) 368-7933
PO. Box 217
O ccadbh L , OR 97134. U S A.
(503) 842-3192
u m LIFT EML WML m s
I
?