out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement
ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
By John A. Ostenburg
The reform movement within the American educational system today is based on the “SSD Formula”: symptoms, scapegoats, denial.
The non-educators who are advancing reform of our public schools are focusing on the symptoms of the problem because they obviously are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to recognize the root causes.
They look to scapegoat teachers and other educational professionals as being at fault for those very problems they themselves are unable to identify.
They are in denial as regards the numerous circumstances outside of the educational system that are major contributors to the difficulties so many schoolchildren face.
A symptom is by definition an indication of something else. A student’s difficulty in reading to grade level, for example, is an indication of something that is causing the child not to be able to read effectively. That “something” very well could be the failure of the teacher to instruct properly, but then again it also could be any one (or more) of a vast number of other things.
Education professionals recognize this reality and seek to identify the specifics behind a child’s poor performance as the best avenue to correcting a deficiency. If it’s poor eyesight that is causing the problem, they will seek vision help for the child. If it’s an inability to concentrate, they will work with the child to improve concentration, perhaps even by recommending some special programs that could help. If the child has not received proper preparation at a previous grade level, or in pre-school, or at home, they will seek remedial assistance to bring the child up to speed.
All of these approaches, however, require time and careful attention to the child’s individual needs; the problem may not be remedied immediately, for several weeks, or even for a few years. Immediate gratification may not be possible, despite what many politicians and bureaucrats who make uninformed decisions about educational policy may think or desire. Furthermore, the solution to such a situation is not simply to subject the student to standardized tests. In fact, such an action can offset the proper attention the child is receiving, or should receive, by creating a loss of confidence and thus causing him or her to give up.
Education professionals have been trained to see beyond the symptoms to identify true problems. However, when teachers and other school professionals are not allowed to make important decisions relating to the needs of their students, and the most effective remedies, our educational system fails to operate to the maximum of its potential. Therefore, problems emerge. Policymakers then look for solutions but – being unaware of the true nature of the problems – come up with schemes that interfere with teaching rather than enhance it.
Enter here the scapegoating.
Because they don’t want to admit that they really don’t know the true nature of the problems within out public schools system, let alone the solutions to those problems, politicians and bureaucrats put the blame on the very folks who have the best potential for finding solutions if they only were free to do so: teachers.
In virtually every profession other than education, it’s the practitioners who decide on the course of action to be taken. That’s why they have been educated and trained to do the work before them. Doctors will examine a patient, perhaps consult with colleagues who have the proper background and experience, establish a diagnosis, and then prescribe treatment. Would you like for Congress or your state legislature to make a decision about how you should be treated for a heart ailment? Shucks, many Americans don’t even like the notion of Congress deciding that you deserve health care insurance coverage. How would they like it if Congress were deciding actual medical treatment techniques?
When laws are made as regards standards for medicine, engineering and construction, insurance and finance, etc., professionals from within the field are consulted and are key players leading to decision-making. Yet when it comes to public education, everyone except the classroom teacher is engaged in the process.
Here’s a good illustration of what I mean. The administration of President Barack Obama has shown extreme levels of pride over the fact that the current Secretary of Energy is a award-winning scientist. Dr. Steven Chu is holder of the Nobel Prize in physics. His entire career has been devoted to science, which gives him excellent background for the work he does as the Cabinet officer responsible for the nation’s energy policy.
By contrast, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has no educational background whatsoever. His claim to fame was as a professional basketball player before he was tagged by former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to be an assistant to former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas (who also was not an educator by profession). When Mr. Vallas resigned under pressure, Mayor Daley named Mr. Duncan as new CPS CEO. After that political appointment, Mr. Duncan received an even more significant political appointment when he was selected by President Obama to become the nation’s education chief. (Ironically, Mr. Obama and Mr. Duncan were acquainted because they played basketball together in neighborhood games.)
So why is professional experience and background something to be proud of in a Secretary of Energy but something to be ignored in a Secretary of Education?
I cannot help but believe it’s all part of a concerted effort to put the blame for problems in our public schools solely at the feet of teachers and other professionals within the education field. The message from politicians and bureaucrats – although never spoken aloud – is clear: “We don’t know the first thing about what’s going on in our public schools, but we can’t admit that to our constituents, so let’s look for someone to blame.”
Enter here denial.
Stop and think. When was the last time you heard a politician or bureaucrat complaining about the quality of education in a well-to-do or middle-class suburban public school district? Can you say, “Never!”
The problems always pointed to by politicians and bureaucrats are those that are present in inter-city and poorer neighborhoods and suburbs. And what’s the common denominator among the schools with problems? Can you say, “Poverty!”
Our policymakers don’t want to admit it, but the ability of children to learn in school is just as greatly affected by social conditions outside of the school as by the instructional activity taking place within the classroom. When children suffer from malnutrition at early ages, their learning capacity is affected. When children are left home alone on school nights because the only parent in a single-family household can find work only in night jobs, their performance level on homework most likely will suffer. When children live in a neighborhood where their sleep is interrupted by gunshots in the middle of the night, their attention the next day in the classroom may be lacking.
The number of college-educated parents among children in high-poverty areas is far lower than what’s found in upper and middle-class suburbs. The availability of a computer in the home in high-poverty areas is less likely than what’s found in upper and middle-class suburbs.
I am not suggesting that college-educated parents, or parents with more money in their pockets, are any better parents than are those who are found in high-poverty areas. But the ability of the former to provide for their children certainly is far greater, and as a result children in upper and middle-class neighborhoods have greater advantage than do their counterparts in high-poverty areas.
It is, therefore, fundamentally unfair for politicians and policymakers to compare the performance of students in those more comfortable areas with the performance of students from poorer areas unless they also are willing to level the playing field so all students have an equal opportunity. One very basic way to accomplish this end is to allow teachers the freedom to provide the special attention some students need in order to bring their full potential to the fore.
So, rather than addressing the symptoms of poor student performance, let’s get to the cause. We must develop methods for compensating for the endemic problems that create greater potential for poor performance by some students.
Rather than blaming teachers for the problems in our public education system, let’s recognize that they – more than anyone else – know what their children need and they know how to structure programs to meet those needs.
Rather than hiding out heads in the sand and pretending that problems outside of the classroom don’t have an effect on the performance of students, let’s look for ways to make sure every student – no matter where he or she lives – has an equal chance to achieve.
Bottom line: let’s get rid of the erroneous “SSD Formula” for public school reform in America.
John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.
Comments