The "Attack on Public Education"

Several months ago I noted that we appeared about to re-argue an issue that for 150 years had been considered settled: whether a free public education is a public good, an essential foundation of a democratic society. Since then, it has become increasingly apparent that the “attack on public education” is not hyperbole; we are in the midst of a serious debate with enormous implications.

The root of this attack has recently become clearer to me, and it goes back at least a generation: the issue is whether or not our students should be taught how to think for themselves. 

The Texas Republican Party has helped clarify this by actually taking a stand against the teaching of critical thinking skills. From their 2012 platform: “we oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

While the Texas GOP has since tried to walk-back from their statement, it strikes me as a classic example of a political “gaff”, defined as when a politician accidentally tells the truth.  At least Rick Santorum has the courage of his convictions. He’s been very clear: he believes that exposing young minds to new ideas is dangerous.

And to be fair, he has a point. The term “sophomoric” describes the phenomenon of second-year college students, recently exposed to new ways of thinking, who suddenly think they’re smarter than everyone else. There is also a long tradition in American culture that values “small-town common sense” (epitomized by “Andy of Mayberry” – see “The Sheriff Who Gave Stature to Small-Town Smarts”) and is skeptical of the arrogance of “big-city slickers” and academics.

As one who lives in a college town, I can tell you that this skepticism is not entirely misplaced.

Of course, there’s always the risk that if you start to teach kids to think for themselves, they might come to their own conclusions. Ironically, the antidote is to have students develop some critical-thinking skills before they get to college. Then they wouldn’t be so easily swayed by every new idea that comes along. Besides, if your “truth” – whatever it is - is so powerful, you would think that it could withstand a bit of scrutiny. The problem is when the foundation of one’s belief  system is a parental “because I said so”.  That’s a house built on sand. 

The other problem with this line of thinking is that, as a practical matter, we no longer have a choice about this. In less than a generation, the routine factory jobs that required minimal thinking – but which used to support a middle-class lifestyle - have vanished.  If we fail to develop in this generation of students the capacity to be creative, critical-thinkers, they will not succeed in the new economy.  (And they’ll be in no position to subsidize our old age!)

Neither will they have the skills to be effective citizens, in which case we will have missed the point entirely. When Ben Franklin proposed establishing public schools in Pennsylvania it was for “the purpose of creating citizens who can make wise political decisions.”

At the risk of over-generalization, it seems to me that there are currently three schools of thought concerning the state of public education. 

1. Those who never liked the idea in the first place, and are looking for an excuse to dismantle it;
2. Those who want to ‘reform’ education by institutionalizing a mid-20^th century mindset that no longer works – in my opinion, the true ‘defenders of the status quo’;  and,
3. Those who think we desperately need to have a conversation about what public education should look like in the 21^st-century. Until ‘the defenders of public education’ unite around a clear articulation of that vision, we will continue to find ourselves playing defense.

Sounds reasonable…

But it’s not.

There seems to be a lot of this going around these days: ideas that seem reasonable on the surface (especially if you’re not really paying attention, which most people are not) but upon close examination are deeply counter-productive, or worse.

To cite an example I’ve used before: a change in the implementation of the Keystone exams that will allow students to take the exam in the same year they take the course, rather than making them wait until their junior or senior year.  Of course that’s reasonable! – and everyone patted themselves on the back accordingly for making the change.

But here’s my question: was what those students learned in their freshman Biology course important, or wasn’t it?  If it really is important – so important that it’s required for graduation – shouldn’t students still remember and be able to use it two years later?  Otherwise, what was the point?  This is the message we appear to be sending to students: memorize as much of this stuff as you can, regurgitate it as quickly as possible, and then forget it so you can go on to the next thing.  This is learning?

And now to the more current example: last week the PA House unanimously (!) passed compromise legislation - compromise is good, no? -  that establishes a new system for evaluating public school employees that uses student performance as a rating factor.

Sound reasonable?  Let’s look at some details. “For non-teaching professional employees, the bill requires 20% of their overall rating to be based on student performance.”

So to be clear: how well the school’s students do on their PSSAs will be 20% of the evaluation for school nurses, guidance counselors, etc.. Are you kidding me?  (Think Lewis Black as you read this.) Could they not come up with anything less relevant?

Here’s another detail: For teachers, the bill requires 50% of their rating to be based on student performance; 15% of which will be based on building level data, including things such as the PSSAs, the school’s graduation rate and AP course participation. By what shred of logic should individual teachers be evaluated based on the performance of students they have never met?

Allow me to make a point that should be obvious: teachers in schools that have the resources to offer more AP classes, and where the graduation rate is consistently in the upper 90s (such as State College) are therefore, by definition better teachers than those that teach in more challenging circumstances?

Let’s consider the unintended  (one would hope!) consequences. You’re a teacher looking for a job.  You have a choice: A) you can work in a ‘good’ school, where you are relatively well-paid, the students are relatively focused on learning, and where you are more likely to receive good evaluations – based on overall school performance - resulting in greater job security, or B) you can work in a struggling school, for less pay, where your job evaluation will be pulled down by the school’s overall test scores and you are at risk of being fired every year.  Where would you go?

Just as importantly, school A has ten applicants for every position, while school B has to take whoever they get.  Needless to say, the primary difference between school A and school B is the relative wealth of the respective communities. Under this proposal, we are institutionalizing a scheme in which the rich continue to get richer…

I haven’t even addressed the issue of statistical reliability.  (Does no one understand statistics?)  Based on the evidence so far, the use of student ‘achievement’ data results in wild fluctuations in individual teacher evaluations from year to year. We might be better off using a dartboard – at least then, the randomness would be apparent to everyone.

What will be the impact on teacher morale of this nonsense – and what will be the impact of that, on the kids?  Finally, is there anyone – anyone? – who believes the PSSAs measure more than a tiny sliver of what is important in student learning?

This proposal is either A) dumb as rocks, or B) an incredibly devious and dishonest attack on the very idea of public education. Honestly, I am somewhat torn between the two options. (As they used to say, “just because you’re paranoid…”)

p.s. One other provision of this legislation would permit non-education professionals to be school superintendents. Now, there’s a swell idea.