A response to David Tyack's "Seeking Common Ground"

Unity

"Our schools of learning, by producing one general, and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous, and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government." - Benjamin Rush, 1798.

In the earliest days of our republic, Benjamin Rush concisely stated what has become a persistent theme in American public education--the desire for unity and homogeneity among the people; the desire to create "good citizens". In the late 18th century, this desire stemmed from concern over the various countries of origin found in the citizens of the United States (and Pennsylvania specifically); a half-century later, Rush's sentiment can be felt in Calvin Stowe's call for a "national assimilation" of recent immigrants; a call repeated once again following waves of early twentieth century immigration, postwar periods, and other eras of cultural change.

Unity, or homogeneity, may be a recurring theme in public education, but as American society has grown more diverse, beliefs about what the "common denominator" of public education should be have shifted. What still remains today is a sense of the importance of teaching "common core moral values", such as honesty, punctuality, and industriousness, alongside a reluctance to engage with controversial or divisive topics. (Tyack, p. 36)

I disagree with Benjamin Rush's stated intentions towards public education. His concerns were about ensuring the loyalty of this nation's citizens: a concern which is no longer of such prime importance. Taken too far, homogeneity in education can have a chilling effect on the intellectual and psychological lives of students.

Disagreement and debate are central to the stories of history, to the functioning of government, and to scientific discovery! Avoiding controversy can too often mean distilling fascinating subjects down into nothing more than collections of rote facts.

Students may be taught history as little more than a list of wars, kingdoms, and dates, and never be exposed to the interconnected narratives of humanity; students may be taught mathematics and the sciences as a series of facts and formulas to be memorized, never seeing firsthand the living, breathing fields of study that lead to our rich body of knowledge! One of the most revealing lessons I took from James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me is how bored savvy students can become with the whitewashed, tamed narratives of their history textbooks, intent on telling one particular story of American progress and supremacy.

Homogenization of curriculum and pedagogy can affect not only the intellectual development of young learners, but their psyche as well. Children from some ethnic or religious groups may be saturated with role models and other personal connections with their educational material, while others may come out of school believing that no one who thinks like them or believes like them has ever contributed anything to human progress. Children who do not learn well in traditional ways will suffer if teaching methods are too homogeneous. Children who best demonstrate their knowledge in less traditional ways will suffer if assessment methods are too homogeneous.

I feel that "Unity" would be a more relevant theme in modern education if it were restated as "Community". Communities consist of people that have commonalities, but not of people who are essentially the same. Schools can provide an environment in which "common core" moral values are shaped, but at the same time ought to value intellectual, philosophical, and psychological diversity. Students should know that it is in the crucibles of debate and differences where society is made, and where knowledge is discovered.

Diversity

"Some activists saw that curricular change could go well beyond the addition of a few 'contributions'; knowledge of how the group was unjustly treated and a better understanding of how to achieve equality could motivate members of groups to overcome subordination." - Tyack, p. 82

The treatment of non-white races and non-European heritage as second-class or "inferior" is a tragic part of American history; prejudices against people of color have created vicious cycles. A belief in the intellectual inferiority of black Americans leads to discrimination, which leads to stark socioeconomic differences, which lead to differences in academic performance and scores on culturally biased IQ tests, which lead to a reinforcement of the initial belief. While overtly racist practices are far less prevalent in the modern era, this institutionalized racism remains. Black Americans and other minority students often lag behind their white peers.

This achievement gap is of central concern in urban school districts like Philadelphia, where the majority of the population are members of a minority group. Answering the question of how to close this gap is paramount. Some teacher training organizations and "no excuses" charter schools believe that the academic disadvantages faced by minority students from poor communities can be overcome primarily in the schoolhouse.

While I share their hope that highly-qualified and engaged teachers and well-designed curriculum can make a significant difference, I don't share their optimism that the persistent challenges of poverty can be fully met in the classroom. Economically disadvantaged students must overcome an unfair number of obstacles in order to reach parity with their middle-class counterparts, and I believe that a permanent fix for this unfairness will not come until society prioritizes the welfare of its poorest citizens. A comprehensive solution to the insidious problems of poverty would erase much of the modern academic performance gap.

In cities like Philadelphia, where race and socioeconomic status are so closely linked, teachers must be aware of the backgrounds and needs of their students. It is never appropriate to believe a student to be inferior based on the color of his or her skin; nor is it appropriate to teach with blinders on, as though there is no difference between the educational needs of the least affluent and the most affluent. Curriculum ought to be shaped in a way that sets the same high standards for all students, but should also be sensitive to the different needs, interests, and priorities of different learners and groups of learners. This sensitivity must be more than lip service; replacing "John" with "Juan" in an algebra word problem is not sufficient.

Diversity as seen through the lens of academic performance is not always about race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The broader question of how to treat students of different ability is also difficult to answer. The historic response to so-called "laggards" has often been low expectations, vocational classes, and more generally, academic tracking.

I have mixed feelings on academic tracking. When students of vastly different ability/knowledge level are taught the same material in the same classroom by the same overworked teacher, nearly everyone's education suffers. Slower students are apt to struggle, while more advanced students grow bored; all the while, the students in the middle are neglected as the more personalized needs of the other two groups are addressed. My personal primary and secondary school experiences underscore the value of advanced classes and gifted programs to me--it's incredibly easy to lose all interest in a class when you're chapters ahead of the curriculum!

The dark side of tracking, though, is impossible to ignore: academic determinism. Students moved to "slower" tracks are often treated as failures, incapable of understanding more complicated ideas and subjects. Teachers expect these students to struggle, and this expectation often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This "Golem Effect" has a counterpart, though; the "Pygmalion effect" suggests that, when expectations are high, students tend to perform better.

Academic tracking can have value, but the traditional way that slower classes are seen ought to be reconsidered. Recognizing that a student is learning material more slowly should not lead to the conclusion that this student is a lost cause; instead, it should lead to the conclusion that both the teacher and student will need to work harder, and differently, to achieve their shared goals. Tracking should not be seen as destiny; schools ought to cultivate a structure that is open to students regularly moving from one track of learning to another, as they reach subjects in which they excel, or subjects in which they need more help and attention. There should be no stigma attached to "slowing down" to get something right.

 With expectations kept high and teachers truly believing in the ultimate potential of their slower learners, compensatory education can be a powerful tool in the fight for academic excellence, and in the fight against the achievement gap.

Democracy

"When people talk about improving schools, they discuss what the federal government and states should do...[w]hat's happened to local control?"

"[They] denounce centralization and bureaucracy and call for...decentralization of decision-making to the school site. Do they know nothing about the value of scientific management, economies of scale, consolidation, and coordination from the top down?"

- Tyack, (p. 153)

These rhetorical questions illustrate the changing perspectives of educational policymakers on who should control the schools, their governance, and their curriculum. Should control be local or federal? Should it be in the hands of educators, communities, or policymakers? Tyack's clear preference is to restore as much local control as possible, though he acknowledges some local districts' "sorry record in achieving racial and gender justice, in serving economic classes equitably, and in respecting religious freedom and cultural differences." (Tyack, p.155)

I support most of Tyack's claims, but I find his enthusiasm for local control to be too strong. Poorly managed populism can easily turn into mob rule, where only the desires of the majority are taken seriously. Centralized control is no better, though, as one-size-fits-all educational solutions fit no one at all, and encourage further homogenization of curriculum and students.

The solution I prefer for control of the schools is multi-tiered, similar to the federal structure of American government. A central body--the United States government--sets the broad goals American education should strive for. State and local governments interpret and expand on these goals, leaving the means for implementation in the hands of local districts, and even individual schools and classrooms. A top-down fiat for how history should be taught, or what topics should be covered, does not serve students well. A complete lack of unified academic goals or standards fails students too.

Even if Tyack's hope for (mostly) local control of schools wins out, I think a radical rethinking of school funding is necessary. Hyper-local funding is destined to perpetuate another vicious cycle, and another model is needed. Under most current models, taxes in a single community fund the schools in that community; poor communities lack the resources to provide good schooling, which leads to undereducated citizens who are unable to break out of poverty, beginning the cycle again. Medicare and Social Security are structured so the young subsidize the old; so the healthy subsidize the sick. These systems of social welfare increase the well-being of the whole community, and I hope for society to someday see the value in a similar structure for education.

Although Seeking Common Ground is a historical survey of the state of American education, I was disappointed to see such scant reference to the rest of the world. While occasional mention is made of other nations' more centralized structure, I'd be curious to know what lessons we can learn about international takes on the themes of Unity and Diversity.

Finally, I come back to Benjamin Rush's words, and Tyack's accompanying theme of Unity. I feel that the 18th-century idea of schools creating ideal American citizens now seems provincial and out-of-date. In an age of technological revolution and globalization, the old barriers between countries and cultures are not as high as they once were: the world is not flat, but it's getting there. I think that it's the obligation of a 21st century education to focus not only on sculpting good American citizens, but to consider crafting good global citizens as well.