Does Our Education System Need Reform?
By
Robert J. Fischer
Whether we need to reform education– and if so, how– are questions that have been asked for decades. While education reform has been a focus of many educators and some of our leading politicians, it is worth noting that the reforms have not all been for the best. The following opinions are mine based on my own early educational experiences, my work in higher education, my advanced educational work, and my experience on a school board. While there are few concrete answers, there are general observations and trends that all Americans should consider.
A Brief History
While it would be instructive and interesting to begin with a history of colonial America and follow the development of education through time, the task would be too cumbersome. So let us begin in the late 1800s, when the one-room school dominated much of the education in America. Along with newer systems, this system survived, particularly in rural America, until the 1950s. The teachers had a wide range of students, all under the same roof. Ages generally ranged from five through the late teens. Learning abilities were also diverse. The method of instruction used in these one room schools was known as “mutual instruction.” Older children were often involved in teaching younger students. These older and abler students became the teacher’s helpers, teaching the other students what they themselves had already learned.
The biggest concern with this system of instruction was that each teacher taught whatever they believed was needed. Thus, there became a perceived need for some type of consistent curriculum throughout the country. This concept was first introduced by Horace Mann, who based his idea of common schools on a Prussian model that focused on providing the same content to all students. Mann’s approach not only created common content, but also created the grade by age system. However, at issue here was that age superseded ability. In other words, students were expected to achieve certain proficiency levels based on age rather than on ability. Another difference from the one room school system was the focus on teacher lecture rather than active learning or teaching others. While providing consistent content, the lecture approach took the children out of the active learning experience. While the common school approach was gradually adopted in many larger communities, the one room school system remained dominant in rural America until the late 1940s and early 50s.
An outgrowth of Mann’s system was the need for teachers who had the same educational preparation. And thus, Normal Schools to educate teachers were developed.
By 1900, many communities had adopted the common school system, and 34 states had made education through age 14 mandatory. It is estimated that roughly 75% of children were enrolled in school. By 1920, all states required that students complete elementary school. However, given the rural makeup of America, well over 50% still attended one room schools.
Along with compulsory education came a concern over indoctrination. As a result, a number of major religions built their own parochial schools, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. These schools taught about their religion as well as associated cultures. Mainstream America responded by forbidding tax money for parochial schools, and eventually challenged whether they met mandatory education standards. But in 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students who attend private schools were in compliance with compulsory education laws. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925) However, parochial/private schools were still not to be funded through tax dollars.
While the one room system continued in rural America, the common school system of towns and cities expanded to include “high school” for continued education. By 1940, approximately 50% of young Americans had a high school diploma. While providing an expanded education, the growth also spawned a bureaucratic “apolitical” school system in cities, as compared to local political school board control in rural areas. While both systems mandated the teaching of basic skills of literacy, the bureaucratic system introduced longer hours and vocational instruction.
Throughout the post-World War years, change continued as opportunities for college education increased. The high school, while continuing its broad basic skills and vocational instruction, also started focusing on college preparation. Utilitarian studies started to replace the classics, as John Dewey and other Progressives focused on the need for better teacher preparation.
The educational experience of the 20th Century was designed to provide leadership skills and good citizenship, among other literacy skills. Vocational specialization was gradually moved to trade schools. General and widely applicable skills were emphasized in high school and college. Skills needed to be portable. With the liberal focus of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the Higher Education Act of 1965 created the federal scholarship program and low interest loans. Thus, a college education became a possibility for all Americans.
By the 1980s, many educators were questioning the level of academic rigor in the nation’s school system. Social promotions had created a system which many believed had been dummied down. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released its report, A Nation at Risk. Our once world dominance in education was being challenged by other nations. Many students were not competitive with graduates from other countries. Engineers, doctors, and scientists were frequently not native born Americans. In order to solve the perceived problems, the report encouraged longer days, more school days per year, and higher test standards. The states addressed these issues by setting higher standards.
However, by 2000, critics pointed out that the increased rigor was only a facade. As a result, in 2002, the “No Child Left Behind” initiative was created. States would need to measure progress, and underachieving schools would face federal aid cuts. Standardized state tests became prominent. The goal was to have 100% of the student body proficient in basic skills and general knowledge by 2014. But by 2012, it was apparent that the goal would not be reached, since almost 50% of the states were already asking for waivers. In 2015, Congress stripped the No Child Left Behind provisions, turning the program over to states.
The federal No Child Left Behind initiative has now been replaced by the Twenty-first Century Skills initiative. This initiative focuses on skills believed necessary to compete in the twenty-first century. These skills include analytic reasoning, complex problem solving, and teamwork.
How Are We Doing?
Depending on what goals you view as appropriate for an education, we are doing anywhere from great to failing miserably! The problem is that there is little agreement on what the goals should be. While few would not exclude basic skills like reading, writing, and math, there is less agreement on the arts, music, history, geography, social studies, and civics. The foundation of early education based on the classics has been jettisoned. However, what may be lost on many critics is that the classics promoted critical thinking, complex problem solving, and teamwork. The Socratic Method used by many college and university professors relies on all three of these skills. Discussion of classic literature allows for critical thinking and the need for an open mind. Our founding fathers valued classical education as a means of insuring critical thinking, a skill that would lead to good decisions by the new democracy’s citizens. In addition to the classics, Jefferson and Adams advocated for curricula to promote good citizenship and decision making through an understanding of civics and history.
Does Education Need to be Reformed, and if so, How?
Our educational system needs continual review. What has likely not happened in decades is a zero base study of what an education should include. This approach starts with a clean slate. It asks what appear to be simple questions. What does a person need to learn in order to function in our society today and in the near future? What can society afford to teach in a given time frame with limited fiscal and human resources?
While the questions look easy, the answers are not. The decision on what to teach depends on a person’s point of view. The things we were taught in grade school are likely to be firm candidates for inclusion. But how about cursive writing, or even spelling? There appears to be little need for cursive writing. Spelling can be checked easily if a person has access to the internet, so why bother? How about computer skills? Is simple math necessary, or can the computer replace these skills?
How much money can a school district spend? It often depends on the schools district’s size and fiscal resources. Should there be smaller schools which may allow for better social interactions, or is there an overriding value in conserving resources by creating larger districts? Perhaps a blend of both, with smaller classes in the grade school and larger consolidated classes in high school, would be appropriate.
There are no easy answers! However discussions of the issues mentioned above, and others, must occur if American education is to reclaim educational credibility. One final, but very important point, our teachers cannot be expected to be solely responsible for our children’s performance. It is also every parent’s responsibility to be engaged in their children’s education!
Thoughts from the Middle by Robert J. Fischer 