One Plant Says to Another Plant. . .

One plant says to another plant, “The nerve of that botanist know it all. He isn’t a plant, how can he know anything about what we really are or the difficulties we face?” This is the problem isn’t it? The insiders (plants) have no respect for the opinion of the outsiders (botanists). Yet, the botanist has a much more complete picture of the plant world than any plant can ever have. This is because the botanist has studied the plant kingdom in its full breadth and depth providing a context that the individual plants or even families of plants cannot match. Each plant has a narrow experience of its own environment and has adapted itself to that reality without willingly considering if changing its position with respect to the environment might improve its lot or the yield of its fruits.

You knew since this is an education blog that I would relate this little example to education. You are right. I often hear that I would have more credibility with educators if I were one. And I will concede readily that it should be true. However, I want to discuss whether it would be true and with an example that shows that even if I were an insider it wouldn’t be true. My assertion is that I have a much more accurate view of what is going on in education than educators do. They work in an environment that suppresses the truth through ubiquitous use of political correctness and Group Think. I have studied the education empire intensely for over 5 years across multiple states. Because my motive has been to understand where the opportunities to improve the service our kids and society get from the education empire I have a much more objective view of the problems and possible solutions than any educator I have met or read.

Now to the example I promised about “insider” input being ignored, criticized or both; consider Arthur Levine. Dr. Levine could have been considered the ultimate insider as the President of Columbia Teachers College. Teachers College is what E.D. Hirsch Jr. called the “parent organism” of education schools. He asserts that the other education schools are basically clones of Teachers College. Arthur worked for a group of foundations to report on education school efforts in three key areas; Educating Leaders, Teachers, and Researchers. The first report came out in March 2005, Educating School Leaders. It was very critical based on his several year study of every education school degree granting institution in the country. His conclusions were many and they were not positive. He used such terms as “they are in a race to the bottom” and “they confer masters on those who display anything but mastery and doctorates in name only” and “engage superintendents and principals in studies irrelevant to their jobs.” The report is over a hundred pages in letter size format. It is well worth reading. Did it have the kind of impact that criticism from an insider should have had? NO! It has been totally ignored except perhaps causing the education schools to dig their ruts a little deeper. The conclusion to draw is that it isn’t whether you are an insider or outsider but whether you are criticizing or praising the education system. There is no interest at all among education school deans and faculties to reform to provide a quality product. They are raking in huge sums of money with the diploma mill approach they have taken. Because the larger universities they are part of use this excess money from the education schools for other “more worthy” projects they would be in trouble if they did anything that might reduce that flow of money. Thus, the low and falling admission and graduation standards, the reduction in time to degree, etc. all are an effort to stay ahead of the competition in Levine’s observed race to the bottom.

It is not whether criticism comes from an insider or outsider, educators will not listen and especially will not admit to themselves that they are doing anything less than a great job. While many educators are well-meaning and some even know the truth and are frustrated by its suppression, they work in an environment where political correctness disallows saying anything critical out loud. Those exceptions who do speak out usually find they are informed that their contract will not be renewed for the coming year. New educators are indoctrinated from the beginning of their careers, starting in the education schools.

E.D. Hirsch Jr. in The Knowledge Deficit defines the problem well. “The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education. . . At the beginning of the twentieth century, the parent organism, Teachers College at Columbia University, exported professors and the romantic principles…resulting in an intellectual sameness across the nation’s education schools. Naturalism and Formalism are the two principles that constitute a kind of theology that is drilled into prospective teachers like a catechism. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled.”

So what can be done to break through the walls of insularity and delusion that keep the truth from penetrating the consciousness of educators?

• Competition is perhaps the best way. And that is why the education power groups fight the idea of vouchers and charter schools with a passion because they don’t want the competition which might force them to face reality and change.

• Demand that a rigorous program of retooling education leadership skill for current leaders is implemented immediately. It is the key to better performance and without it the future performance will mirror that of the past. This must not be something done by the education schools. They have proven they don’t know how to do it.

• Voting against every request for more money for educators to spend is another. They are clever at couching the argument that a vote against the money is voting against the kids but in reality it is the opposite. Voting against added money is a vote FOR the kids because it increases the pressure for better performance and reduced waste by the schools in serving our kids. Giving them more money allows them to continue ignoring the problems that must be addressed if performance is to improve.

• Voting out “rubber stamp” school boards and voting in board members who see the truth and are dedicated to making positive change in spite of the resistance.

• Using our votes to demand that the legislators specify results not process, putting in place rewards for positive results and penalties for poor results. As long as the practitioners are ethical and within the law, who cares what process they use to get improved results.

• Decouple certification from education school degrees and training, forcing the ed schools to reform or wither away.

• Of course, merit pay for educators would be great too but it can only happen well if the leaders are trained to lead more effectively. If implemented now it would be done poorly and add to the arguments against it.

Copyright © Paul Richardson 2009