JudyG finds it highly distressing to
see the educational problems she wrote about decades earlier not only remain unsolved but also treated
as if they were brand new. Educational "reform," therefore, is as static as ever, seriously endangering our continuing
as a free society.
"Education is the origin, the source--the very roots--of a nation's
character and therefore its potential. The schools hold the key to determining what kind of nation we will be and what kind
of people. We can be taught the meaning of democracy and learn to live in freedom. Or we can be taught the meaning of totalitarianism
and learn to live enslaved. Any battle over a nation's schools, therefore, is a battle for its soul."
ISBN 0-9624020-1
Teacher's Notebook
by
Judith Gelber
This paragraph appeared on the back cover of my book on
education, published in 1990. The book was based on and contained many examples of my education column which ran
in the local newspaper from 1970 to 1998. I started writing when the no-holds-barred battle to gain control of the
public schools by various political factions began in deadly earnest. That paragraph, therefore, was at the
heart of my anguish over and hopes for public education throughout my teaching career and well beyond.
I feel no different today even though public education is no longer my "beat." Indeed,
the schools today, with their unrelenting emphasis on computer skills as opposed to the far more important
content-rich curriculum, are a foreign territory. Like the world of my youth, the schools I knew as a student
and high school teacher no longer exist.
One of the first clues to what would happen in the schools was in an article
published in the late 1960's by a professor at the prestigious and highly influencial Teachers College, Columbia University,
in New York City. She insisted that how we teach is much more important than what we teach.
Methods of teaching, therefore, became more important than the subject matter itself. This, I believe, was an opening
leading to the "dumbing down" of teachers to mere technicians and monitors who relied more on teaching
aids than the knowledge in their own minds.
A famous college professor once delivered a long, stunning lecture on ancient Greece. Afterward, a student, overwhelmed
by the brilliance of the lecture, came up to him and asked if he could get a copy of his notes. The professor pointed
to his plan book where there was one word: "Zeus."
Contrast that with today when the computer could be the teacher's leading crutch in setting up the day's
lessons and where the students will do most of their work. Further, instead of text, the computer screen will be "interactive"
and contain lots of animation to amuse the students enough to learn something. We live in a "visual" world, we are told,
implying that there's no point in learning to read with comprehension. Our schools have succeeded brilliantly at this, judging
by the poor reading and verbal skills of children today. Have you ever, like, you know, listened in on the conversations
of kids today--if you can get past the foul-mouthed obscenities that substitute for real knowledge, a decent vocabulary, and
ordinary emotions?
Another important clue was the publication of the book Joy in the Classroom. I wrote about
it in my column of January 21, 1971.
While discussing the "crisis" in the public schools
on a television talk show recently, three education experts claimed that getting an education is a "grim, joyless" affair.
They felt that forcing the students to remain quiet for long periods of time, establishing "insane rules," and neglecting
a child's emotional needs and intellectual capacities in the learning process destroy a child's "natural desire to learn."
Without disputing the need to involve the child in his own education (hardly a new philosophy in teaching
institutions), I couldn't help wishing that the three men had talked about the other side of the coin of knowledge: self-discipline.
The overwhelming emphasis in the discussion was on the desirability of lifting as many restrictions
from the students as possible so that education could be "fun." But in their eagerness to make a point, they failed to clarify
a crucial detail. Achievement in any subject or skill sooner or later involves many hours of pure drudgery. And any student
who is led to believe otherwise is being deceived.
Schools are not meant to be "grim." Nor are they meant to be playrooms for those beyond the age when
playing is learning. Acquiring a formal education involves a large amount of individual effort. And it stands to reason that
the greater the amount of energy exerted by the student in obtaining an education, the sounder that education will be.
Every teacher can point to the doubtful results of the numerous attempts to make the educational process
painless. There are the students who won't follow through on assignments because doing so would take time away from personal
pursuits. There are the students who will do only the minimum requested, or the under-achievers satisfied with getting by
rather than accomplishing something substantial. There are the students with the "so-what" attitude when reminded that they
are failing. And there are the students who feel put-upon if the teacher suggests an extensive project requiring some effort.
Educators have known for a long time that the more a student enjoys what he is doing, the more he will
be motivated to learn. But if the student quits at that moment when he has to make a genuine effort, then he hasn't learned
a fundamental truth: Achievement comes through sustained effort.
Progress in the educational process will not come from demanding less and less of students. Rather,
students must learn that the ability to stay with it, especially when the going gets rough, means more than the ability to
get by.
**********
Thus was the age of permissiveness born in our schools. Further, the
Intrtoduction to my book put some historical perspective on
what was happening in the classroom.
The radicalism of the sixties and seventies created a flip-flop of attitudes
toward personal responsibility and a rejection of professionalism that proved incredibly damaging to our public schools. Plain
folks who knew nothing about education were suddenly exalted and shoved into positions of authority to fulfill the latest
political slogan, "Power to the People!"
So why do we now act surprised that our schools are often poorly administered and sometimes tainted
with corruption? What did we expect from our spineless appeasement of the self-serving politicians in their newly assumed
roles as arbiters and architects of public education? Why weren't we, instead, helping the schools maintain their former academic
standards and integrity, and giving our children a helping hand out of the scholastic pit dug by our own cowardice?
Tragically, many people still can't see the connecting line between the massive school budget cuts
of the 1970's and the alarming signs of illiteracy among so many young people in the 1980's. Nor can they see the political
link between the firing of many thousands of highly qualified teachers and their replacement by low-paid, under-educated beginners
whose teaching credentials were often suspect.
**********
There were also the great internal migrations
of the post-World War ll era, such as those from the South to the North. And the people who
had earlier been ignored for generations finally found their voice. Most important, they wanted their share
of the American pie, even if it meant shouldering aside the "old guard" to create their own breathing space.
That often meant the firing of well-qualified, professional teachers
and staff and the hiring of unqualified teachers and administrators who lacked the proper teaching credentials.
Nevertheless, the practice, based most often on political concerns involving minorities, became widespread as
various groups battled for power. Another legacy of this struggle was the rise of "separatism."
**********
August 2, 1979
One of the more difficult problems facing our
schools in recent years has been the need to decide whether to help maintain ethnic, racial, and cultural differences in the
classroom, or educate all children to function in the American mainstream.
There is more to maintaining "separateness" than hiring multilingual teachers.
In many large cities, it made sense to help children make the transition to American education at maximum speed.
However, the present-day drive toward separatism has expanded well beyond narrow
transitional goals. Bilingual education that was meant to be discarded as soon as possible is now a fixture in many schools
through 12th grade, along with a curriculum that places heavy emphasis on what is essentially a foreign language, land, and
culture.
Other schools emphasize the uniqueness of various subcultures and racial groups
to the extent of using a street "language" (Black English) that is a variation of English as if it were basic English. Also,
much of the curriculum is devoted to those subjects that enhance differences between the local community and the "outside"
world. Sometimes, little room is left for the traditional curriculum that is being taught in other school districts.
One result of such educational practices has been the hiring of teachers and administrators
who are practically illiterate in English and who are otherwise completely unqualified for their tasks.
More tragic has been the failure of so many students to pass standardized tests
administered throughout the nation and meant to measure the essential verbal and math skills that are the foundation of any
formal education.
However, instead of recognizing that student failure can be due to the schools
not teaching students what they need to know, supporters of separatism attack the tests for supposed cultural and racial "bias"
and declare the tests invalid. Thus do academic standards fall even lower, and thus are innocent young people victimized by
adults who would use the schools for their own ends.
**********
I imagine there are many people
who believe that today's problems regarding bilingual and even multilingual education are of recent origin. Clearly,
they were very much in evidence in 1979 as the column indicates. Indeed, the question of how to educate today's considerable
number of immigrant children is as pressing as ever. Even the arguments for and against making special efforts, and how
long to continue those special efforts, are the same. Solutions, however, are complicated by recent national and state
tests mandated under new laws, such as "No Child Left Behind."
Should Immigrant children who have received bilingual education for
only a year, and are still sadly deficient in the English language, be made to take the tests? However, combining their
scores with those of children already proficient in English can only bring down a school's average, making it appear
as if the school is failing in its educational obligations. Excluding their scores, however, raises a school's average,
but breaks the law!
There is also no clear decision as to how long to keep
children in special educational programs before letting them into the mainstream where English is the only language. The fear
is that the children will inevitably fail if taken out of bilingual classes too soon and lose confidence in themsleves
(self-esteem) as they come up against children who have no language problems.But what is "too soon?"
In the decades before World War II when there was heavy immigration from
mainly European nations, the schools made no allowances for immigrant children or young children of immigrant parents who
spoke no English at home. The schools maintained a standard curriculum in English only for all students. This "instant
immersion" in English undoubtedly caused some children grief, but the schools' aim was to educate the children--"Americanize"
them--as quickly as possible. "Separatism" was neither condoned nor practiced, or even heard of. And if we look at the successes
of the "Greatest Generation" of the World War II era, which consisted mostly of children of immigrants, we can agree
that this method of "Americanization" of the nation's children worked!
Consider also those who believe that before we tackle
educational problems, we ought to try to do away with poverty. If we eradicate poverty, they insist, we will
automatically solve our educational ills.
October 17, 1974 (excerpt)
It is a tragic fact of life that poverty is much more than just an economic
condition. It is an entire culture, with its own language, life style, values, attitudes, goals, and symbols of success. And
the teacher who hopes to change his/her students' economic status without being able to make drastic changes in other parts
of that culture may be condemning himself and his students to failure.
In extended remarks in the book (1989), I added:
We didn't have to establish new colleges and universities...to provide
college space and diplomas for painfully undereducated students. We just trashed curriculums and academic standards of
existing public colleges and universities. City College in New York City, for example, often referred to previously as "Harvard
on the Hudson," was severely undermined academically by its open admissions policy. And the great rate of illiteracy
reached in the process was no academic solution.
Politically, however, it paid for itself by forcing open college and university doors all over the nation
not only to unprepared students but also to unprepared faculty. Failure to hire a certain minimum number of minority faculty
members is still punishable under both federal and state regulations. And once the quota approach was established, it was
extended to other groups who no longer desired to remain powerless. They formed and reformed coalitions to fight for legitimacy
in the national consciousness and for entry into the educational and governmental chambers of power. Education, in fact, both
public and private, rivals the government as an arena of political opportunism, mischief and mayhem.
**********
