Thoughts on Ways to Improve the US Education System

It was in 1981 that my first child entered kindergarten. Since then I have not had a year when I did not have a child in one school or another (and I only have three children). Over the years I've spent a substantial amount of time thinking about ways to improve the education system. While, as a parent and someone who has never worked in the education system, I reserve the right to be completely wrong, here is what I propose:

CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT (Dress, Behavior, and Building)

While I would not necessarily recommend returning to having an environment that made children feel as if they were in prison, I believe that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Many school environments today resemble a circus, and I don't believe that sends children the right message about education. The term, "free-for-all," comes to mind.

A Standard of Dress:

Each school should have a reasonable dress code. It doesn't have to be a rigid one. There is a reasonable middle ground between showing up at school, looking like a slob or a street-walker, and showing up, looking neat, clean, and appropriately dressed. How we dress can affect how we feel about ourselves and the situation. School is supposed to prepare students for society as well. Sending the message that school is school, and school is important, is sending a valuable message. Reminding kids that there are certain codes of attire in different situations makes sense.

Student Behavior:

While it may not be good to return to the old ways of treating children as if they aren't human, today's school are often too lax when it comes to a minimal standard of behavior. Administrators will say they won't tolerate bad behavior, but what they say and what they do are often two different things. Sometimes the problem is that administrators are not aware of some behaviors. At other times the threshold of what is considered, "bad behavior," is just too high.

Expecting civilized behavior is a reasonable expectation. My elementary school's recess policy was essentially (I'll paraphrase), "Play but don't run around like maniacs. That kind of play is for after school." That resulted in school yards full of kids playing games at recess or else talking.

Having regular discussions about things like bullying, teasing other children, the dynamics of in-crowds in schools and why most students don't belong to the in-crowd, could promote better understanding and behavior among students. Establishing that there will be no tolerance for teasing other students or making fun of them, encouraging children to report infractions, and establishing a process for handling such infractions, would let students know that such behavior would not be tolerated. Explaining why this type of behavior cannot be tolerated would help children and teens understand the serious impact it can have on victims of it.

Each school needs a three-strikes policy. Many children who are generally decent kids may say something mean at some point. There are those times when a generally good kid will think throwing a snowball at another kid will be funny. Adults need to understand that. Still, most parents know how there can be one kid who is always doing something to other kids. A write-up system that keeps track of incidents would reveal those kids who were problems. Children who are regularly aggressive or cruel to other children have emotional problems. Schools need to identify those children, address the issues with parents, recommend counseling, and identify whether or not protective services should be called.

A school principle once told me that about 10% of students don't behave well in school. About 90% behave perfectly well. Having separate schools or separate sections of schools aimed at addressing the behavior issues of that 10% of students, and structured in a way that would that 1) attempt to identify root causes of that behavior and 2) use teaching methods that would be more effective with those students would help. That would leave the 90% of students in a setting that could be aimed at them and only them.

Improving the overall behavior would help most students feel less stressed. Stress leads to difficulty concentrating, and trouble concentrating leads to trouble learning.

The Building:

Many new schools have beautiful environments. Not all schools do. While it isn't necessary to have the finest rugs and curtains in schools, the walls in schools should be painted in colors similar to those in buildings where concentration is important. Natural lighting, natural wood, and plants are better for concentrating than fluorescent lights and orange walls. An attractive environment that encourages the right mood doesn't need to be expensive and fancy - just generally neat, clean, and fresh.

In addition to other benefits (creating an atmosphere, encouraging concentration and a pleasant mood), this could reduce stress as well.

CHANGE THE TEACHERS

There are too many teachers who should not be teachers. Some lack the type of intellectual ability required to be a good teacher (even if they don't lack intellectual ability in areas not related to being a good teacher). There are different areas of intelligence, and the areas of intelligence required for teachers include having a well above average degree of understanding human nature and a well above average level of reasoning ability/common sense, among other skills and personality traits. Since schools often overlook these abilities when assessing the potential of students, many students who would make good teachers are overlooked and even neglected long before high school graduation. Being particularly skilled in understanding human nature and in reasoning ability can make a student more likely to become an underachiever. As a result, students who thrive in the school environment and get good grades are often not necessarily those who would be the most gifted teachers.

By not losing the students who are most gifted in understanding human nature, and by encouraging them to become teachers, schools would eventually have a sufficient number of the most gifted teachers. This would result, in turn, in better recognition of the most talented students in the future.

Colleges and universities should consider requiring personality testing and/or psychological evaluations as part of the admissions picture. Raising the requirements for admission to teaching programs would, I think, help improve the prestige of teaching. As a result, the most talented students (and society in general) may come to see teaching as a more appealing profession. While there is much talk about how much we value and respect teachers, and while in our day-to-day lives most of us do value and respect the profession, the reality is that teaching is not a prestigious profession. It needs to be turned into one, and then the pay needs to reflect that.

CHANGE THE CURRICULUM

Children today are brighter than schools seem to realize they are. While there are children who do have learning problems and lag behind in class, the reason is often not related to the child's general intelligence level. There are also those children who do not have the general level of capability that most children do, but they are in a minority and their needs should be addressed separately. The majority of children are capable of learning far more than schools seem to realize. Many, many, children lose motivation as a result of lack of challenge, and as a result of feeling that teachers don't know how capable they are. When students realize that teachers don't know how capable they are the students come to see the teachers as not being as intelligent as they need to be, and they stop listening.

I believe schools could do a more effective job of structuring curriculum if they offered a basic, simpler, level of all subjects earlier than they do. In essence, a "shrunken down" version of high school, or even college, curriculum (within reason, of course). They do it to some degree with math today, although I think they could adjust the math to include more of what is now taught at the next grade level. With subjects like history and science schools often leave the "meat" of the subject until children are in middle school and high school, and at that point kids are at a stage of development they are may not be all that interested in being introduced to subjects like these.

Little kids tend to be interested in everything. If they got a good enough, basic, introduction to all subjects right from the beginning it could increase their chances of having a much more solid grasp of those subjects by the time they get to middle school and high school. Then, at the time when they are dealing with adolescence and all its issues, they would not being asked to become interested in new subjects that, to many students that age, just aren't interesting. Capitalizing on the interest, receptiveness, and potential of the youngest students would not only make school more interesting, challenging, and "life-like" to them, but it would offer them the solid foundation needed to build on subjects later (rather than be introduced to them for the first time). Any time people already know something about a subject it is easier to learn more than it is to get interested.

Here are examples of what I mean: Secondary school students benefit from learning business math, even if they plan to go to college. Start by simply talking to the first graders about how a bank keeps people's money for them. A short introduction to a "bank game" that students play one day would give introduce them to banks. Second graders could have a brief lesson on the difference between a savings account and a checking account. A similar thing could be done on all subjects. Most primary school children are told about Christopher Columbus as Columbus Day approaches. They may be told about Christopher Columbus year after year, but they may not hear about the other explorers until middle school, at which time they may be expected to take everything in all at once (and be interested). Some quick talks about each explorer earlier would prepare children for learning more details later.

In other words, using either secondary-school curriculum, areas of life, or even departments of a giant discount store are the framework, offer children small, simple, doses of everything earlier; and then build on those.

What this would also do would be offer substance to children who may have some trouble with one subject, such as math. The child who has trouble grasping grade-level math may easily be able to excel in first-grade-level history and science. Since talking would be the best way to teach these basics, children with difficulty reading could still take in the information. End of the year report cards that had good grades in more subjects would give these children a different picture of themselves and would increase the chances that they could remain motivated later. Such an approach to curriculum would keep bright children interested, and bright children are also sometimes those who do have trouble with concentrating on reading or math.

Keeping information easy to understand would also allow children of below average intellectual ability to take in important information too.

When children live with exposure to a variety of interests or subjects they grow up more likely to have a natural interest in them. In addition, exposure to more subjects gives children more opportunity to discover their own interest in some subjects earlier.

CHANGE THE THINKING OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS

When a child has difficulty in school parents often blame the school, and school officials often blame the parents. Usually, though, all adults involved decide that identifying the cause of the problem cannot be done. Instead, all adults involved focus on what's wrong with the child.

The child is then placed under a microscope by way of evaluations, reports to parents, group meetings, and even trips to the pediatrician. Children may be diagnosed with "learning problems", the cause of which may not necessarily be identified. Those who appear to have no learning problem may be judged as being lazy, emotionally immature, or too creative for the usual classroom situation.

Kids who act up may be believed to be "gifted" (when, in reality, gifted children often behave quite well) or spirited. Kids who never raise their hand may be seen as shy or introverted (when sometimes kids are just so fed up with what's going on they can't be bothered participating).

The simple understanding that most children are fine seems to be lost today. In a world
where completion of Master's programs is more and more common, there can be an emotional investment in a leaning toward the belief that more and more children are not fine. Schools today have plenty of specialists. People often get their degrees because they want to help children or because they think their profession will offer reward. They spend a lot time, effort, and money to get those degrees; so there can be incentive to want to have more and more children need their services.

As for parents, too many don't prepare their children for school. Too many aren't willing to supplement their child's education with activities and discussions at home. Too many are guilty of being oblivious to the fact that if all is not well with a child (at home or in school) they just can't make themselves concentrate or do homework. Too many don't read, themselves, and yet expect their children to read. Too many think their children are brighter than they really are, and too many don't realize how bright their children really are. (Bringing children for a private evaluation of abilities would help parents understand their children's abilities and education needs better.)

CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS OR PROCESS OF SELECTING SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEMBERS

While the process of putting school committee members in place varies from one town to another, too often any-old-body who wants to be a school committee member has a chance of becoming one. This isn't good enough. There needs to be some kind of standard because these are often the people who are responsible for voting in ridiculous or damaging policies that may not be right for students; education, itself, or the teachers.

CHANGE THE FACT THAT SCHOOLS SHOW NO LEADERSHIP AND EXPECT THEM TO

Schools often base policies on how things are for the majority of students. If most of the kids use bad language schools today often accept it in the halls. Since (apparently) most teenagers have sex schools based their policies on that. Since a lot of parents work the idea of full-day kindergarten has grown increasingly popular.

Many of us were raised hearing some version of, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" - and yet, schools jump off that bridge all the time, based on the idea that they are "meeting the needs" of the people they serve. I used to cover school committee meeting for an area newspaper, and I saw how decisions are made based on charts, tables, and statistics about what is - rather than what should be. Obviously, basing some policies on the present set of statistics (the way things are) is necessary, but schools seem to have lost site of the fact that there are also times when basing policies on how things should be is the only way to lead the student body toward that aim.

Teachers and other school officials are often aware of how well they know the students as a whole. It is true that teachers and school officials see larger numbers of students than parents do. Knowing "what they all do anyway", though, is not how policies and expectations should be formulated. Further, there are times when the issue isn't even one of academics; and whether or not schools should be involved with is something some people question.

One way schools could show leadership when kids "are going to do it anyway" would be to do something like send bi-weekly, monthly, or as-needed, mailings to parents. These could be short articles (from well respected sources) addressing one issue or another. They could be a simple letter that says something like, "We, at ABC Middle School, are concerned about the number of students who are being seen at the mall after 9 p.m., and who are not completing homework assignments. A commonly accepted curfew for middle school students is __, and parents are encouraged to join us and other parents in supporting this __p.m. curfew." Such efforts would not solve 100% of problems, but they could eventually, and without disregarding parental rights, offer suggested guidelines and community support. In this example, parents who already set a curfew won't mind seeing that others support them. Of those who didn't realize their child is out to late, at least some may change their own rules once they see they've been a little too lenient.

There is a strange phenomenon present with a lot of teachers, and that is that they are often more than ready to attempt to take a leadership role when it comes to believing they know better than parents. They see themselves as having training that parents haven't, disregard the possibility that parents may actually be very talented when it comes to understanding education needs, and disregard the fact that parents know their children well. Sometimes they even disregard parental rights. At the same time, teachers and school administrators often fail to show any willingness to demonstrate leadership ability when it comes to setting expectations and policy for students.