October 16, 2007--Failing Schools

The clock is ticking on what to do about failing public schools. At the end of this academic year, because of provisos in the No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB), schools that are deemed not have made adequate academic progress are to be reconstituted or the children enrolled are to be allowed to switch into others that have proven to be more effective. If there were just a handful of these schools we would not be facing a crisis. But in California, where there are 9,500 public schools, at least 1,000 are in danger of being designated “chronically failing.” And there is no way they can be fixed in time for next fall nor are there sufficient places in the remaining 8,500 to absorb the hundreds of thousands of students who are stuck in them. (See NY Times story linked below.) I’ve been writing about this for years and this looming problem has been known about for longer than that. There are some schools and even districts where there has been some measure of success, but as in California, after decades of reforms, things are getting worse. Compared to the healthcare crises, even worse is the situation in our public schools. And, heretically, perhaps more important. If we can’t adequately educate the next generation what will our future be like? Our aspiring candidates for the presidency all have elaborate proposals to “solve” the healthcare problem and the specifics of each of their plans have been comparatively examined in the press and in their debates. But can you tell me what any of the candidates have to say about fixing education? At most, they take potshots at NCLB. Most experts claim that the most important thing to do is assure that “a qualified teacher” be assigned to every class. NCLB itself calls for that. This has spawned a new certification industry among state departments of education and colleges of education. Their solution—require all potential teachers to major in the subject they seek to teach. Mathematics if they aspire to teach math in middle school; history if they plan to teach it in high school. Intuitively, this makes sense. Before you turn someone loose in front of a science class shouldn’t he/she have a strong academic background in science? Perhaps yes; maybe no. There is no consistent, credible evidence based on practice (as opposed to intuition or theory) that shows there is a correlation between these kinds of higher standards for teacher preparation and effectiveness in the classroom. In fact, a recent study conducted in the New York City schools by Thomas Kane of Harvard shows that non-credentialed teachers (including Teach for America teachers) performed as well in the classroom as those who are fully certified. But, by insisting that all teachers must now be traditionally certified we are driving away from teaching thousands who would like to teach who could potentially be effective. Very little attention has been paid to Dr. Kane’s research. It has not been reported in the press and isn’t part of our political discourse, such as it is. And thus the credentialing industry rolls on and more and more schools fail. The truest of clichés is that our children are our future. It’s more than about time that we treat them as if that were true.