Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Public Education & Iron County

On March 22, I attended a meeting at the George Young
complex that addressed education in Michigan in a setting
similar to a focus group. The program was run by “The
Center for Michigan” with Amber Toth the facilitator for
the session. While Ms. Toth did an admirable job in
presentation and facilitation, I left with the same sense I
always experienced after participating in a focus group,
that being that the essence of the problems were never quite
touched on even when that essence was mentioned by
participants. That’s actually, in my opinion, the shortcoming
of any gathering where the agenda does not permit the
discussion, and the results, to go where the participants think
the emphasis should take the discussion. The group attending
this meeting was erudite. Given the time to expound on the
problems of public education absent specific intended
directions, the discussion might have been much broader in
scope.

In this case, the questions were narrowly construed with
the obvious intention to advise the legislature and/or the
education department about improving the education
situation here in Michigan. And, I think, the fundamental
concepts about what a public education was, is, and should
be, were glossed over with an essential misunderstanding
holding that everyone agrees about those issues. That is
not necessarily true.

To begin at the beginning, compulsory public education
in the United States was a relatively late invention,
responding to a political and economic problem created
by New England factory owners who provided a box for
child machine operators to stand on so they could reach the
controls. Child labor was cheaper than adult labor, and the
factories took advantage of the situation.

In 1852, Massachusetts passed laws compelling all
children between the ages of 5 and 16 to attend a public
school for 3 months of the year. This effectively deprived
the factory owners of inexpensive labor just long enough
that they were forced to hire adults instead. Internet
research today reveals that history revisionism has damaged
this information with many web pages avoiding these
historical realities. However, the closer one gets to the
date of the original problem when seeking source
information, the more likely one is to find the real reasons
for the compulsion of public education in the United States.
Information that is today swept under the carpet was
common knowledge and the topic of ordinary grammar
school textbooks on the topic in the 1950’s when I first
became aware of the information. Even 20 years ago,
internet web pages discussed these matters more openly
than one can find it today.

How did the philosophy what a public education should
provide evolve from those beginnings into what people
today seem to think it should provide? Well perhaps it
hasn’t evolved quite so much as one would hope.

American educator and philosopher John Dewey
promoted the idea that the purpose of a public
education is to “create good citizens.” Would the matter
be resolved so easily, because even what is meant by “good
citizen” depends significantly on who is defining that term.
The American Education Association appears to continue to
hold Mr. Dewey’s teachings in high regard today. Here and
there I’ve been able, over the years, to see that Dewey’s
ideas regarding the purpose has leaked through just enough
to assure me of its continuing validity.

For those who hold with Dewey’s understanding, it doesn’t
matter what level of education any child achieves, or even
whether the child graduates from high school. The premise,
in those circumstances, can be considered as being met if the
child becomes a “good citizen,” whatever that might mean. I
suppose if that child doesn’t end up in jail, the purpose could
be said to have been fulfilled, and the compulsory education
systems has achieved its goal even if the child becomes
dependent on the state for a lifetime of complete financial
support!

On the other hand, I believe I am representative of most
Americans today who believe that the compulsory education
system is supposed to provide such benefits as are the result
of the maximum achievement level possible for each
individual student. Does that mean that a child of 14 or 15,
if they are intellectually ready for college, should be able to
attend a university? I don’t believe so, because it is the
whole child we should be educating, not just the intellect.
Children mature at their own, individual, rate. My children,
for example, achieved lousy grades in high school, but
became ready for a college education somewhat later, and
saw to completing their education then.

So it appears, at the outset, that there is a disconnect where
it comes to what various categories of people believe a
compulsory public education should, or must, provide. To
begin at a new beginning, we should probably formally
decide, and legally define, a set of goals for public education,
and get everyone on the same page.

Some time back, a wise aunt told me that a child’s education
begins, under the parents’ tutelage, the day the child arrives
home from the hospital. After that, IMO, it is a lifelong
process, with every interaction between a parent and child an
opportunity. Even playtime is learning time for a young child.
In the modern western world, that interaction becomes reduced
to the time a family can usually share the evening meal, making
dinner the most important time spent together, a time when
values are instilled. And please make no mistake, a strong,
effective, personal value system ranks very high among
educational goals while providing all individuals with the keys
to happiness and success.

I refer the reader to a Michigan Department of Education
web page that discusses parental involvement in terms that
make a lot of sense.

http://tinyurl.com/9p9jj

Because some time ago the Lindwalls had written a letter to
the Iron County Reporter commending the West Iron School
District for the excellent job done with their child, while
preparing to write this article, I sought out Sylvia Lindwall
to have a brief conversation about the topic. Primarily I
wanted to ask her about how much interaction the parents
had with that child. It turned out that she and her husband
had significant involvement with their child’s education. In
fact, Sylvia reported that she had been a home economics
teacher, and that subject had been dropped by most school
systems across the country, thus she mirrored a comment made
at the March 22 meeting by Sara Jane Basso (Sara and Ron
were responsible for organizing the session, a belated thanks
to you both). Sara commented twice on the importance of
nutrition as an aspect that has an effect on the success of
education.

Historically the children that most needed a home economics
course as part of their formal education were those who lacked
the interaction with their parents who had traditionally taught
those skills. The inattention to teaching basic living skills today
appears to involve the entire socio-economic spectrum.

Historically, the very poor had never acquired any such skills,
and the middle class with increasingly two working parents, or
one divorced parent who has to work is rapidly gaining on the
same status. The very wealthy who remain busy with economic
advance sometimes have been equally guilty of neglecting
important aspects of their children’s education.

When I addressed the group, off the provided program that
The Center for Michigan plans to present to the legislature as
the result of meetings such as the one I attended, I brought up
several topics:

1) The best group of teachers I ever had were nuns teaching in
parochial grammar school. Those nuns did not have, or need,
teaching certificates. They were so good because they were
dedicated in ways you cannot legislate or in any way regulate.

2) The worse teacher I ever had in high school was the most
beloved, and continued in her career well into her 90’s. She
was, in her later years, a gifted administrator, but made a
lousy classroom teacher.

3) A child’s education begins when they are brought home
from the hospital.

4) Of all the communities where I have lived, this one, Iron
County, has the worse parent involvement in their children’s
education. Unfortunately that includes the “dinner table”
interaction that doesn’t exist for many local children.

Shortly after my comments, another participant mentioned that
he had just attended a gathering honoring the Forest Park children
who had made honor roll. He said it had been well attended by
parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. The fact that there are
parents involved, as all should be, with their children’s education,
was echoed by Sylvia who, with her husband, had recently
attended a dinner the top 10 students in both of Iron County’s
school districts.

I believe that the community interaction and rewards for
success are good for those families because success breeds
success, good going, and Godspeed. Like so many other things
with good intentions, this unfortunately leaves a disaster, an
unintended consequence, in its wake. All the relatives of the
children achieving educational success are the very same
people in a position to do something for those who are not
doing very well in school, b ut most of them appear to be
blind to those problems. In the March 22 meeting, several
mentions were made of “at risk” children and those who had
already dropped out, but no solutions were offered to improve
those situations. Those who have successful children are left
with good feelings about their own case, felt encouraged to
continue their work with their own children, but generally
become blind to the problem(s) that the less successful
children will be creating for the community as they reach
majority.

I found a published report about another meeting facilitated
by Ms. Toth at Hastings, Michigan. The published report
presents results that sound very much like the highlights of
the meeting I attended, and can be found on line at: 

http://tinyurl.com/79hc4ot

The legislature can do nothing to improve the dedication of
teachers. But the two critical aspects that would make a
significant difference to the future of education can be
addressed by lawmakers. The first is to reinstate “life skills”
courses at least as electives in high school. Those are
consumer education, home economics (for both boys and
girls,) remedial reading, and letter writing. The second is to
create, mandate, and fund a mentoring system for all
children who are not achieving at least “C” level grades
in all their courses and not reading “at grade level.” “To
provide everything essential for the successful education of
children” must be taken to heart at all official levels.

During my tenure here in Iron County, I have run across one
individual who offers to teach young illiterate people who are
out of school, either as dropouts or graduates, to read. The fact
that we have young illiterates among us in the 21st century is
disgraceful as well as unnecessary. It need not happen, and it
should never happen. But the simple fact is that it does happen.
And if they can’t read, how much of an education did they
actually receive in the public school system? How did they
manage to achieve any sort of score on the state mandated tests?

Rewards and competition at the top end of the student scale is
important. But even more important is that no child should
be left handicapped for their entire lives by an educational
system and parents who fail to provide them with essential
skills. Those are the children who, left to their own ignorant
devices, eventually engage in antisocial behavior that lands
them as guests, sometimes permanent guests, of the justice
system where they are provided an altogether different sort
of education.

It makes much better sense to the undersigned to fund such
educational mandates as will reduce the next generation of
justice system guests, to say nothing of improving the
earning capacities of all those who presently flounder for
lack of caring and concern for them.

Among those who actually graduate high school in Iron
County and undertake some sort of an advanced education,
the percentage requiring remedial coursework to bring them
up to a college ready level is, in this writer’s opinion,
abysmal. Forest Park graduates requiring further
development represent 16.1% of the graduating class of
479 (2011) while for the same period  27.8% of West Iron’s
920 graduates fell into the same category. This makes it
clear that a goodly portion of the middle, as well as the
bottom end of the student success scale, needs performance
improvement in ways not presently available.

Bill Vajk






No comments:

Blog Archive