As schools reopen, a small number will be trying to make some major changes. Most will continue to do what they did last year and for years before. Why? Because very few school people recognize just how bad the outcomes of our schooling system really are.
I've had a good deal of criticism because I've been saying that any reasonable person looking over the student assessment information we have would be forced to conclude that we are educating only a very small proportion of our students. And even this small proportion is not reaching any standard that could be called" intellectual."
When I say these things, other educational groups often say, "Al Shanker should be telling the public that our schools are good, instead of dumping on them. He's giving us bad public relations." Even many members of the AFT have said or written to me something like, "Gee, you used to be known as 'Big Al, the teachers' pal.' Don't you realize that what you're saying now will get teachers the blame?"
But to cite poor school results is not a criticism of teachers, but of the way schools are organized. Teachers are victims of a system in which they are forced to do things they don't want to do and that they know will not work. They're told what to do, and if they didn't follow orders they'd be in deep trouble. Teachers are no more responsible for overall school performance than auto workers are responsible for the plight of their industry. Auto workers did what they were told to do. They didn't design the products, nor were they responsible for quality control. But, ultimately, the auto worker has had to pay the price for management failures.
Also, when I talk about how few kids are getting an education, I am not saying that the schools have gotten worse, that once upon a time there was a Golden Age when everyone sat in school and read Shakespeare and the Federalists Papers and studied probability theory and calculus, and then along came John Dewey, teacher unions and TV, and students stopped learning. That's nonsense. Our Golden Age were periods when 20-30 percent of students remained in school while the rest dropped out. We're doing better than we ever did before for most students. They stay longer and they learn more. But we're still in trouble because, in earlier eras, when the kids dropped out, they dropped into a world where there were many good jobs in industry. When they drop out today, even with a better education than before, they have trouble getting a job.
It's also dead wrong for school people to think that giving the public a true but bleak picture in the public turning against us. Prof Seymour Samson of Yale has suggested the very opposite. The medical profession maintains high public support even though doctors and researchers have not cured cancer, the common cold or AIDS. Doctors are honest with us. They say that these are tough problems that will take a long time to solve, but they're working as hard as they can.
Educators, too, would be much better off by honestly telling the public what our problems are and how difficult it is to find solutions. Instead, they worry about public relations. The American auto industry did the same thing. They thought that if they had big advertising campaigns, the public wouldn't realize that Japanese cars were cheaper and better. Unfortunately, the ads did not get the American people to buy American cars. The same holds true for education. The public's view of our schools will depend on how good the schools really are and not on clever public relations.
So, my response to my critics who don't want me to talk about the shortcomings of our school system is that we should stop kidding ourselves into believing that the public can ( or should) be fooled. The public will know whether I tell them or not.
It's also the case that if the public finds out from sources other than us, they will believe that schools are doing poorly because teachers are not teaching well or planning their lessons right or working enough days or hours or that we don't have high expectations for our students. They'll see us as the problem, not as part of the solution.
The poor result of schooling are not because of what we're doing. We work hard and are the first to be disappointed when kids don't learn. We knew we wouldn't be paid much when we took the job, but we hoped for the rewards that come from helping kids learn. We're not saying this to dodge responsibility. Sure, we could do a little better. But the basic problem is not in what we're doing, our efforts or expectations. The problem for us and for our students lies in the way schools are organized.
The auto industry had a similar structural problem. It was not that workers were lazy or inept. It was the old-fashioned factory system, the assembly line and the poor design of the production process and car. Many of the same "bad" auto workers are now turning out excellent, competitive cars - in differently managed and structured plants.
So what is the bad news that bothers my critics? I've represented it before and will again in greater detail - my main source in the National Assessment of Educational Progress - but here's a quick review: only 6 percent of in-school 17-year-olds (dropouts aren't counted) can do high school math; only 19.4 percent can write an adequate letter applying for a summer job; only 38 percent can write an adequate piece of narrative prose; and only 4.9 percent can handle the kind ofreading material needed for college or business. If you're real lenient, you might say we're educating 40 percent of our students.
If you're real strict, maybe 10-20 percent. But no one could soberly claim that we're educating more than 50 percent. Rather than argue over the extent of our failure, couldn't we agree that without basic structural changes in our schools we'll never get those figures up to the 85-90 percent they need to be?