You Can’t Fix Schools By Fixing Schools

This first ran on Splice Today.
________

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, educational reformers have to recommend educational reforms. Even when educational reformers know for a surety that educational reform is not going to work, and won’t even address the problems at hand, they still have to recommend educational reform. It’s in their nature.

Kevin Drum provides a striking example of this in a post from last week. Drum is discussing M. Night Shyamalan’s recent book on education, I Got Schooled: The Unlikely Story of How a Moonlighting Movie Maker Learned the Five Keys to Closing America’s Education Gap.

As Shyamalan discovered (and as Drum reiterates), the startling truth about the problem with our school system is that there isn’t any problem with our school system. Or, at least, there’s nothing wrong with our school system for white kids. In fact, as Drum says, “If you compare American white kids to, say, Finnish or Polish or German white kids, we do just as well.” Shyamalan goes further, and says ” Our white kids are getting taught the best public-school education on the planet. ” The entire reason we score low on national comparisons is because we do such a horrible job of educating inner city minority kids.

The issue, then, is not that we don’t know how to provide good schooling, or that we have bad teachers, or that our system isn’t rigorous enough. Rather, the problem is that we practice what Shyamalan calls “educational apartheid.” For some people, we provide schooling as good as anywhere in the world. And then, for some people, we don’t.

So, what is the solution to this problem? How can we start to give the best education in the world not just to the privileged few, but to everyone? Shyamalan provides a handful of suggestions, which Drum puts in a handy bulleted list.

  • Get rid of the bottom 2-3 percent of truly terrible teachers.
  • Make the principal the chief academic and head coach. Let another person handle school operations.
  • Constant feedback to teachers and students.
  • Small schools (not small classes).
  • Increased instructional time. Extend the school day and do away with summer vacation.

Drum says that these recommendations all sound reasonable, given his reading on the subject. But he doesn’t point out the most interesting thing about Shyamalan’s 5 points, which is that none of them address the problem he’s identified in any way shape or form.

Again, that problem, as defined by Shyamalan, and agreed to by Drum, is that we practice educational apartheid. Some people get resources and some people don’t. And yet, this list says nothing, zero, zilch, about trying to reallocate resources. It doesn’t talk about segregation. It doesn’t mention racism. It’s just a list of ways to improve education across the board. Get rid of bad teachers, it says. But there are good teachers and bad teachers everywhere, while low performance only occurs in some places. Change the role of the principal, it says. But principal’s jobs are more or less the same all over; how then will this address disparate outcomes? And so on. If there’s no problem in one place, and lots of problems in another place, addressing structural reforms that apply to everyone seems like a distraction from the main issue.

That issue being, again, that we don’t have any trouble educating wealthy white kids. We have trouble educating poor minority kids. And the cause of that trouble is not that the poor minority kids have worse teachers. It’s not that their principals’ job description needs to be tweaked. The cause of that trouble is that we have created communities that are systematically segregated for the express purpose of ignoring them and the children who live in them.

To see the extent of the disconnect between Shyamalan’s diagnosis and his prescription, consider Shyamalan’s suggestion that one way to improve education is with small schools. Small schools have been tried in Chicago. One of my friends worked as a teacher in a south side neighborhood where small schools were mandated. But the city was not interested in actually building more schools in these communities; that costs money, and the whole point of segregating the city is so that you don’t have to give money to the groups you have marginalized. So instead of building more small schools, the city simply kept the same building and declared that there were four small schools inside it, each with its own principal and administration. Instead of a smaller school, you got more bureaucracy — and a balkanized student body, set up to maximize bullying, inter-school animosity and violence.

In short, you can’t fix apartheid by mandating cleaner jails. You can only fix it with freedom and equality. As long as America is okay with segregation and racism, any educational reform policy (like small schools) will founder from lack of resources and thoroughgoing indifference. Shyamalan and Drum show us that the problem with schools has nothing to do with schools. Since they’re both ostensibly writing about education, though, they’re reluctant to take the next step, and admit that the solution to the problems with schools won’t have much to do with education reform.

14 thoughts on “You Can’t Fix Schools By Fixing Schools

  1. There was a lot of evidence that bussing programs worked reasonably well. Yet most places abandoned it.

  2. Well, it worked really well for the National Catholic Educational Association in the Boston area.

  3. I’ve read the same; that busing did a lot to improve schools. But yeah, there was a *lot* of resistance and protest, so people got rid of it.

    ONe of those instances where things got worse, and haven’t gotten better since.

  4. Seriously, talking about busing is missing the point that I think Noah is making. It would be more pertinent to talk about desegregating the neighborhoods between which you want to bus the kids. Better yet to talk at the same time about economic desegregation.

  5. It’s not totally beside the point. Bussing is as close as we ever managed to get to trying to address economic and racial segregation in education in a way that was focused on social inequities rather than some sort of wonkish efficiency-based retooling.

    It was a kind of pitiful first step, admittedly. But it was quite effective. But even that little, even when it worked, was beyond us. And as for the kind of desegregation Graham’s talking about, that’s no even close to on the table.

    Which is pretty depressing.

  6. Busing kids between lower middle white neighborhoods and working class black neighborhoods is a pretty damn pitiful excuse for economic desegregation. One way to radically economically desegregate schools relative to the resident population would of course be to ban private schools.

    Implementing bad policies because the good ones are supposedly too far off the table but you still want to feel like you’re doing something is a pretty good summary of race in America after the ’60s.

  7. I don’t know that banning private schools would do a whole lot. The public school system with charters and magnets and so on does fine in sorting people.

  8. It would do something. But sure, let’s ban charters and magnets too. Or, as you previously intimated, attack the problem closer to the cause.

  9. Yeah, in line with Matt’s statement, I don’t think I can offer any serious argument for my point, but banning magnets (charters I feel less bad about getting rid of, but I don’t know anybody who goes there) is a little extreme. It is pretty clear that access to them is severely hedged by the kinds of socioeconomic disparities we are already talking about, but they do offer very specialized educational opportunities for highly qualified students. Not ALL highly qualified students, obviously, but many. Plus, even a system with only public schools will still suffer the exact same socioeconomic disparities as one with magnets (which are also, technically, public schools). I went to a high school whose district was HEAVILY gerrymandered, so that people who lived 20, maybe 30 miles away could go there in the place of some brown kids who lived much closer. Banning magnets really doesn’t help the problem here, I don’t think.

  10. Isn’t the whole funding-schools-by-local-property-taxes thing also kind of weird? Wouldn’t it make more sense to fund them through the federal government and give all of them the same per-student funding, maybe adjusted for the local cost of living?

  11. I think that would require a tacit recognition of how the government, at all levels, has ghettoized and systematically underserved certain communities for decades (or excluded them from government support outright before that). Which is why it is both a wonderful, brilliant, really-should-be-law idea, and never gonna happen.

  12. Some inner city school actually get a lot *more* money than suburban schools – for instance in New Jersey we have Abbott district funding for the poorest district. It’s still hard to improve student outcomes because a lot of students are struggling outside of school, for instance with the long-term effects of childhood poverty or an unstable home life. It’s hard to keep dedicated teaching staff around, even in schools with non-dysfunctional administration, because teachers in those schools have to put up with much more bullshit than suburban teachers. And the administration is often dysfunctional, since there’s no strong PTA presence to keep them in check.

    What I’m saying is, even with funding it’d be hard to close the gap.

Comments are closed.