Why Can't America's Educators Learn?

For a couple of decades now everyone inside and most everyone outside America's educational system has been wringing their hands, pointing their fingers and in general complaining about the state of America's educational system. The current focus of this angst is that American workers are no longer educated well enough to handle the high tech jobs that are being created.

The lack of qualified American workers is being used as an excuse by corporate entities for out sources jobs to foreign countries. However the real reason is often that they are sending American jobs overseas because the labor costs are lower. The dodge of there not being enough well educated American workers is also used to allow corporate entities to have lots of H visas issued to foreign workers who come here to take the jobs of Americans. Because foreign workers in the US will often work for half of what Americans were paid; the H Visa is another scam that allows domestic employers use to lower their labor costs.

There are unemployed American workers in high tech fields not because they aren't well enough educated; but because foreign workers overseas and here will do the same job for less. Virtually all these jobs being filled by foreign workers have been generated by American companies run by Americans who were educated well enough in the US a generation ago to create all these jobs. Yet the same system that educated the Gates', the Jobs', and virtually all the employees that made their companies giants in the high tech arena, it seems can no longer educate the people needed to fill the employment needs of these companies. Is it that Americans have become less intelligent? Not likely, with most American kids growing up more exposed to and knowledgeable about high tech than any previous generation.

So are the high tech companies just lying to the American worker about their lack of education just to cover up the real reason for out sourcing and hiring foreign workers; because they work cheaper? Not entirely, there is a bit of truth to the claim that America is not turning out enough of the type of well educated workers needed. But why should that be?

We used to know how to educate our students from kindergarten to PhDs well enough to have produced the inventors and entrepreneurs of the Communications Revolution. If Americans haven't become less intelligent in just one generation, and also the advantages that the computer revolution produced in terms of information availability; why aren't there plenty of well educated Americans? Maybe it's the education system that once produced more than enough well educated Americans to create American preeminence in the fields of high tech computing, medicine, aerospace, biotech and many more, that has changed. America obviously once knew how to educate its students to the highest level and abilities. Why did it we change it?

Why would we toss out something that appears to have worked very well and replaced it with something much less adequate? Well we didn't do it on purpose. Most of the people involved with the changes that seemed to have debilitated out educational systems weren't trying to make it worse. They were trying to make it better, but the approaches and methods they used seemed to have had the reverse effect. But since we once knew what to do to educated Americans well, once we saw the new ways weren't working; why didn't we just go back to what we knew worked?

Part of the answer is the commitment to the concept that "new is better" that America had been following for most of the 20th century. It may have applied to many things, but perhaps education was a notable exception. A bigger part may be that "feel good", self esteem enhancing policies are no substitute for real accomplishment. A prize for "trying" doesn't fool students into believing that trying is as good as knowing. Nothing makes a student feel better or boosts their self esteem more than getting the answer right. Not that failure should be treated in a humiliating way, or that encouragement even in the face of failure shouldn't be given; but the expectations for students shouldn't be merely making an attempt - it should be that every student is expected to succeed, albeit perhaps at different speeds.

In what could be called the "golden age" of American education 1950 to 1980, the American educational system produced the thinking, creating and innovating population that put men on the moon and built computers in garages. What was the "lost secret" that schools did then, that they apparently can't do now? Actually it wasn't a secret, although it seems to be lost by the current educational systems, political leaders and universities that educate teachers. It was an emphasis on the absolute basics of education. What used to be called the 3 R's; Reading, 'Righting & 'Rithmatic.

All the educational "enrichment" in the world won't do a student all that much good if they get out of high school functionally illiterate and unable to balance their check book. Enrichment certainly has its place in contemporary education, but it will be more appreciated and better used if it is preceded by a firm and full grasp and the ability to use effectively the written and spoken language of our country. Knowing language skills and the multiplication tables will allow American students to be able to learn all about art, culture, history, geography, science and any other subject that tickles their imagination. It will also allow them to get good jobs so they can enjoy museums, concerts, travel and all the other things that "enrich" life.

Education is the only major area of American life where the simplistic concept of "one size fits all" still seems to have some traction or credibility. We may acknowledge that different approaches may be necessary to educate different students; but we still hold on to the idea of "equal outcome" for all students. But that is something that never has or ever will be true. Some kids will become "rocket scientists", no matter what and some won't, no matter what. Many of the countries the US is unfavorably compared to in the rankings of proficiency in language, math or science have educational systems that acknowledges the differences between students and sets up different tracks or curriculum for them. In these countries they do not structure or view some of these different tracks as being inferior or superior to one another. They understand that a complex society needs both well educated brain surgeons and well educated auto mechanics. And as importantly they understand that some students would be very good at one of these skilled jobs but unsuited for the other. So without any shame or prejudice associate with it, students are steered towards the track best suited for them.

That doesn't mean they can't switch tracks if they have the desire and the ability to follow another curriculum. And this ability to move completely or partially between tracks should go both ways. A vocational track student who wants to take a course in Shakespeare or Classics should be allowed and encouraged to do so. So too should an academic student be allowed and encouraged to take a class in auto mechanics or food preparation. The vocational and the academic schools shouldn't be separate and thus creating segregation and prejudice, but all part of a one school in order to facilitate an easy and seamless ability for students to avail themselves of all of the opportunities they are interested in. By providing the most diverse educational environment the key element of student motivation is best served. When students get to try what truly interests them, in an easy, less judgmental structure, they can explore and expand their intellectual and skill set horizons beyond ever their own expectations.

The idea of public education is to first enable the students to get a basic educational skill set with the emphasis on language literacy, basic math skills along with the general educational/socially valuable information such as basic history, geography and civics. This allows them to advance academically as far as they want to and enables them to engage in social interaction successfully in the real world. If some students need a more formal classroom environment to achieve these skills; they should have it. If other students need a more "boot camp" type of learning environment; they should have it. There is no sense and a great many problems trying to stuff all students into either a form or informal setting; because it won't suit them all. And those not suited to a particular setting will not be well served and most likely be a distraction or worse as the square peg being forced into the round hole.

However, if given the right learning environment, almost any student can achieve up their full potential. And isn't that the truly overriding conceptual goal of education? Parents can be informed and "educated" as to the true benefits of a diverse and accommodating school setting. Equal may be the easily stated paradigm of modern American education; but what appears equal in theory isn't actually providing an education that is fair. Fair mean everyone getting the amount, type and content in their education that will serve them best, in the present and in the future. And it must be delivered in an environment and in a way that will best achieve the goal of actually getting the student to learn and want to learn the educational material. It is a better outcome for everyone, students, parents, teachers and the society at large when a student really learns the basic skills and as much of the more complex studies as they are capable and interested in; no less and no more than they want and can handle. In a system where a track doesn't lock a student in or out of a more diverse learning experience than they want and is appropriate; no one is penalized or forced into conflict with the system, in the present or the future.

In an educational system with more diverse opportunities; teachers would also be able to do their best. Without the problems created by students who don't belong in a particular class, teachers could spend all their time teaching versus most of their time just trying to exercise some control over a mob. And the students who were a problem in a conventional classroom or within a certain type of teaching environment, could function and learn in a different environment with a different teaching structure. School administrations would have to spend a lot less time compiling mountains of statistics proving they are trying to follow specific guidelines and put more people, time and money into real teaching in the diverse classroom settings. This diversified system would be able to deliver results rather than statistics and excuses.

Education should be available over a lifetime. An auto mechanic who wants to become a brain surgeon at 25 or 30 and has the ability to do so; should be able to go to school, part time if necessary, and learn any of the academic subjects required for admission to institutions of higher learning. The same should be true for a brain surgeon who wants to change carriers or learn new skills. The greater the educational and thus carrier opportunities for all members of society; the greater the society will be for all its citizens.

Changes in our educational system should also try to exclude an over emphasis on things that are really not part of public education per se. Things like extravagant budgets for extracurricular sports activities. Unlike American schools, which often spend a small fortune on football teams and marching bands, in most of the other countries the US competes with academically and vocationally; school "sports" consists of mostly basic physical fitness training and health education. However these other countries have excellent athletic programs through community athletic facilities. They accomplish the same things as school sports do in the US. They give students the opportunity to learn, play, be on teams and be well coached in the sports of their choice. They provide the parents the fun and pride of watching their children play these sports. And there are also community marching bands doing what US marching bands do. But the advantage of community sports facilities is that they are entirely supported by the families and other people who are interested in seeing their children play on community teams. There are also community fine arts and performing arts programs supported by parents and others interested in providing these other opportunities for students. There are also community swimming pools for both student athletes and community recreational use. In fact there are all sorts community extracurricular activities supported by the people who want these activities made available. Think of the reduction in local property taxes that could be achieved if the school system wasn't required to provide high cost sports/entertainment activities through public taxation for schools. The each person or parent or even a whole community could, by choice, fund any or all the activities that they enjoy or their child wanted to be involved in. Yes the idea of community sports facilities instead of schools providing these kind of expensive activities that we have made but aren't really part of public education would take a bit of getting used to, but we don't have a riding academy attached to every school because almost every little girl wants to have a pony to ride; why should we have an expensive football stadium for each school so some of the boys can play football? One community stadium for several schools with some less expensive practice fields centrally located would save the tax payers a bundle and still provide all the sports a community wants.

Leaving the implementation of education to the states, but having strict Federal mandates, has been shown to not work very well in any regard. Having excessive local control of the administration curriculum matters in public education has allowed special community interests to put significant restrictions on a schools ability to keep extremely troublesome students out of what could be a well functioning learning setting absent the troublemakers. It has also put extreme pressure on schools to modify the curriculum to include certain subject matter while eliminating some other matters. In some cases this curriculum juggling has lowered the academic standards to accommodate some students instead of finding creative ways to enable these students learn up to the higher standards and their ability. Short changing students by lowing the standards to make it easy enough for almost everyone to slide through a grade is not doing the students, the community or the nation a favor. In fact it robs every one of the positive results that are derived from creating the opportunity for the maximum development a student can achieve.

The various ways in which public education is funded from state to state and city to city has created a significant discrepancy among and between school systems. In general the poorer neighborhoods have older, buildings and lesser resources available than richer neighborhoods. The clear inequity is a graphic expression of a lack of concern, and this coupled with the lower quality facilities and typically less experienced staff, all add up to the diminished quality of education in these neighborhoods. The inability or reluctance to remedy these inequities is obvious to the local population and often results in resentment and even rejection of education by students in these districts. A fairer, more evenly distributed amount of resources for education is explicit in all the civil rights legislation that has been passed by the Federal government.

A more national and equal form of funding would go a long way to eliminating the handicaps that poorer Americans face and the huge disparity between what some states spend versus other states. A national funding and curriculum with local oversight to make sure the funds are well and properly spent could fix many of the problems on the cost side of the educational system. And it makes practical sense too. In 21^st century America, few people will wind up working their lives in the same community in which they grew up and were educated. Students who learn the basics well, where ever they go to school will have a much easier time finding good career opportunities anywhere they chose to live and work. However under the current system the opportunities for people who come from a state known for exceptionally low educational standards will be diminished. They will not have as good a job search experience as those who come from places with a more highly regarded educational system.

If we didn't already have systems of public education that are bound and made rigid by local economic discrepancies, social prejudice, local demands that have nothing to do with education, segregating vocational from academic students, and all the other narrow view "requirements" created by our traditional but no longer functional approaches to education; what would we do? If we had the opportunity to design a 21^st century educational system from scratch; one which would best serve our current societal needs and the needs of our current demographic structure. It sure wouldn't look like the one we now have. So why not approach nationwide public education from a clean slate point of view. Why not implement, on a nationwide basis, the same basic curriculum and more diversified structure and see over a relatively short period of time if there is merit for the US in some of the proven ideas that our worldwide competition has developed about public education. Maybe it's time to see if America's educators, those who claim the skill to teach our children, can still learn. Let's support and encourage them to at least try to learn something new to them about other systems, from other places. By raising the bar for them, we can do good for ourselves, public education, and most importantly the students.