Democratic Education Blog

Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times op-ed columnist who has powerfully highlighted lesser-known fights for justice, including the conflicts in Sudan and the trafficking of girls and women around the world, has recently entered the national dialogue on education with some op-eds.  Kristof’s points are important for those in the democratic education world to consider, not only because of the platform he has as a columnist for the Times, but also because the arguments he makes reflect commonly-held assumptions about what is “good” education.  As Melia Dicker has written recently (thanks for the inspiration, Melia), we do our cause a huge disservice by responding with anger or dismissiveness rather than listening and understanding others’ perspectives, followed by responding with empathy, personal stories, and respectful questions and dialogue.

In his most recent column in today’s Times, Kristof speaks about education as the nation’s most crucial issue, and celebrates the influx of education funding that will result from the newly-passed $787 billion stimulus bill, of which $100 billion or more will go to education.  I agree with him that additional funding can do wonders: we need more funding in order to improve the awful conditions in so many schools that Jonathan Kozol and others have unearthed, as well as to prevent the firing of teachers and the increasing of class sizes (not to mention one of the most important funding aid needed in education, that of equitable funding for students in all districts so that communities with lower property tax intake can receive additional support – though that is highly controversial and not part of this spending bill).

But it is Kristof’s suggestions to solve the education crisis that I want to address.  He focuses on the need for better teachers, saying, “good teachers matter more than anything; they are astonishingly important.”  It would be hard for me to disagree, in that it surely matters a great deal what kind of adults are with our young people each day.  And from my own experiences, he does have a point that many of “America’s best teachers overwhelmingly teach America’s most privileged students.”  While I take issue with that generalization and know that many wonderful and committed teachers work with disadvantaged students, I also personally know a great many inspiring, passionate, and dedicated people who either work in private schools or have fled teaching altogether.

However, what Kristof may not have considered is that some of these dedicated educators have fled to less restrictive schools or from the teaching profession completely not because they lack a sense of duty to those less privileged, but because the standardization of the learning process and the high-stakes element of assessment – that is, the anti-learning, anxiety-provoking system of rewards and punishments doled out to teachers, students, and schools based largely on the multiple-choice test scores of students – that are required of public schools drives such creative and inspiring people away.  It seems entirely understandable that “good” teachers, even those deeply committed to social justice, who want to bring in their own personality and passions and to inspire the curiosity and independence of young people, would choose to work in a school that supports such personalization and flexibility in learning.  Or simply leave education.

Which makes me think that perhaps what is needed are not necessarily or only “good” teachers, but also a critical look at the impacts that the standardization and high-stakes testing movement is having on student motivation for learning and teacher motivation to teach.

And going even deeper, I’d like to talk to Kristof about how we determine what is a “good” teacher, or what it means to be a “successful” student or school.  I have seen some amazing teachers.  I think of one great teacher who would always take whatever time was necessary to have extensive conversations with each of her students about the students’ interests and help them determine the next steps they should take to pursue those interests, be they genetic engineering, music composing and performing, or computer programming (her school allowed for such open conversation during the school day).  And I think of an incredibly successful high school where students can teach classes to other students, choose from an exciting array of relevant classes, pursue independent study in topics of interest, take internships with businesses or artists in the neighborhood, and participate equally with teachers in the decision-making processes of the school.  [Some of these schools are listed here, and there are many other great schools and teachers doing similar great work around the country].

So when I think of “good” or “great” in education, I immediately think of such things as support for curiosity and individual interest, deep intellectual engagement, community participation in the governing of the school, and the development of strong relationships among students and adults.  And I find it odd that so many people, including progressive social justice fighters such as Kristof, look immediately for results on multiple-choice test scores to determine “success.”  Where in that determination is the individuality, the heart, the intellectual engagement, and the social sense that we want most for ourselves, for others, and supposedly for our children?

To be clear, I do believe that the development of reading and writing and math and other academic skills are important for success in life.  But, the question I’d like to respectfully ask those who make comments such as those by Kristof is, “At what cost?”  At what cost to young people do we focus on improving test scores?  What is the cost of adding more and more high-stakes tests?  Of longer school days filled with more test prep (such as that at the KIPP schools Kristof and others have been talking about lately)?  Of standardization in learning where individual interest must be put aside in favor of the same curriculum for all students?  Isn’t it possible to build environments that support young people to develop those academic skills while also developing self-determination, compassion for others, and deep critical thinking? At the very least, we need to consider answers to these questions.

Since the overwhelming majority of us went to traditional, conventional schools and currently send our children to such schools, we have long been immersed in the conventional wisdom about education, e.g. that high test scores = “good,” that rewards and punishments are beneficial, that everyone needs to learn the same thing at the same time.  So it is not a surprise to me that most people support such traditional ideas.  In fact, in high school I was as high-achieving, test-cramming of a student as you’d ever meet.  It was not until late college that I heard about other approaches to teaching and learning and realized that perhaps I had been wrong all along: that the stress and pressure from the school and from myself only hurt me and stifled my own sense of discovery about who I was and what I wanted to do with my life.

So my hope now is that we can help people like Nicholas Kristof and the many others out there who believe in freedom, personal responsibility, shared decision-making, and social justice, to bring those deeply-held democratic values into the education sphere and give young people the chance to develop as complete human beings, to find their spark and niche in this world, and to help build a more productive, sustainable, and peaceful society.

***

I crafted these thoughts here as a response to Kristof and his op-ed, but I wrote it in part to think about how we talk with others about democratic education, especially those who seem to reflect common assumptions that we find questionable.  In my response here I’ve tried to do follow a few principles:

• Be empathetic: acknowledge the others’ perspective, let them know you are listening to them

• Identify points of agreement

• Bring in one’s own self and personal stories about education

• Respectfully question and start a dialogue regarding commonly-held assumptions and points of difference. One thing to remember about this is to not dismiss the opinion with which you disagree, but to mention that you understand how and why they may hold such a belief (e.g. they went through conventional schooling themself).   Otherwise you run the risk of coming off as arrogant and may make the other person dislike you or simply stop listening.

• Frame your position within a larger societal vision and grounded in democratic values. This deeper framework can connect with people when educational terminology such as student-directed learning and democratic decision-making may be too abstract or different from the norm to capture their attention and interest. Plus, it shows that democratic education exists within a long and broad fight for human freedom and that it has great potential to positively impact the direction that our society takes in the future.

• Humor.  (Actually, I didn’t bring in this element – I focus so much on ideas that I find myself forgetting to bring in humor.  It’s something I want to work on and that I think can be a great part of discussing these often intense issues).

***

Well, that’s a start on this topic of how we talk to others about education.  I’ll write more here on this as time goes on, and would love to hear what others think.

…By the way, I want to salute Nicholas Kristof for his own respectful entry into the education arena, acknowledging in an online post his own lack of experience with this topic.  Which brings to mind another key element to bring to the dialogue: humility.  Thanks, Nicholas.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm and is filed under Democratic Education, Education Advocacy, Education Policy, Framing and Public Outreach, General Education News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.