SEVEN YEARS AGO, I graduated from a Louisiana public high school. I completed high school one year after the massacre at Columbine. The entire system was grappling with “school violence,” and in Louisiana, many schools reacted by imposing stricter discipline policies, often at the expense of individual rights and the “free and open exchange of ideas.”
Here in Rapides Parish, the School Board implemented a number of expensive and superfluous policies: identification badges, increased discipline, and cumbersome protocols. A few years after I finished high school, voters approved a half-cent tax to fund the School Resource Officer program, $2.5 million a year earmarked to place a deputy in every single school in the parish, including private schools and elementary schools. On average, SRO deputies make nearly $10,000 a year more than the “average” teacher. Each school is assigned one deputy, regardless of their student population, which means a K-5 school with less than 500 students is treated the same as a high school with over 1,000 students.
I am not entirely opposed to the SRO program, but its creation and implementation are illustrative of our own misplaced priorities. We allocate more than $100 per student per year in order to place armed deputies at elementary schools, yet our schools still compete over finite resources to pay for textbooks, learning materials, and computer equipment.
The pathetic state of our public education system is well-documented:
- 2005 Census estimates indicate that nearly 20% of Louisiana’s adult population lack a high school diploma, and not surprisingly, we have one of the highest drop-out rates in the nation.
- We are also failing to meet basic educational standards. Only 4 schools in the entire State of Louisiana were ranked as academically “excellent.” 77.3% of Louisiana’s public schools are “Approaching Basic” (40%), Below Basic (30%), or Academically Unacceptable (7.3%). And these numbers do not even include the 226 schools affected by the hurricanes.
- Only 2.3% of students qualify for Advanced Placement courses, the worst in the nation.
- 34% of Louisiana’s Graduating Class of 2002 dropped out of high school.
To learn more about Louisiana’s public education system, download this report from the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL).
If we truly want to build a successful public education system, then we must address our academic performance and our spending priorities. We must also recognize Louisiana’s role in the “knowledge-based” economy.
Congressman Bobby Jindal recently published his 21-point plan for reforming education in Louisiana, and although some of his points are valid, most of his plan seems to anticipate the de-funding of public education (in favor of vouchers and “efficient” spending), the increase of “discipline” (which includes the creation and expansion of “alternative schools” for children with chronic behavioral problems), “merit-based” teacher raises (which will undoubtedly disproportionately reward teachers in high-performing districts, perpetuating the neglect of under-performing districts), and additional “accountability” tests based on Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. Ironically, despite Louisiana’s terrible academic performance, we are still ranked first in the nation in “school accountability,” which essentially means that Louisiana is adept at following the failed policy of No Child Left Behind. Our number one ranking has done absolutely nothing to improve the quality of our educational system. Any expansion of “school accountability” should be read as increasing our commitment to the No Child Left Behind Act, which, despite its Orwellian name, has left tens of thousands of children “behind” in Louisiana.
Jindal would like to give communities and families “alternatives to failing schools.” This plan would likely erode funding opportunities and perpetuate failure by reallocating money to send the brightest children to private and charter schools. It is hard to understand how this policy could, in any way, increase (or even sustain) the quality of public education.
Candidate John Georges believes we should place a laptop on the desk of every single student in our public education system. To those who understand the needs and demands of the “knowledge-based economy,” this policy is sensible, proactive, and progressive. When addressing technology in our schools, Jindal calls for school districts to “court and partner with private entities to pursue investments in technology and donated technical maintenance.” In Jindal’s plan, the quality of our public education system and our capacity to address fundamental changes in the global economy are left in the hands of “private entities,” while we pour taxpayer money into “alternative” schools, vouchers, and tax credits that benefit private and charter school education at the expense of failing schools, schools that can only prove their worth by scoring well on a slew of “accountability” tests built around the No Child Left Behind Act.
During the first gubernatorial debate, Foster Campbell also addressed educational reform. Campbell is against vouchers and merit-based raises, and he believes that one of the best ways to address our school system’s problems is by “starting early.” He would like to implement a comprehensive summer school program for elementary school students. Similar policies have been successfully implemented in places like Chicago, Illinois. Campbell also believes Louisiana should increase the availability of night or “PM” schools, which would allow people who dropped out of school the opportunity to complete their degree without sacrificing their day job.
Unlike Jindal, I did not attend an award-winning Blue Ribbon magnet school, yet my high school still produced a prolific number of award-winning students.
How can anyone legitimately expect to build a quality public education system by de-investing from that very system and incentivizing private and charter school education for public school students who excel? How can our schools possibly compete?
Why should we leave school technology to the private sector? How can our students compete for jobs in today’s workplace without an adequate proficiency in computer technology? Are we simply hoping to perpetuate a system centered on producing “skilled” workers to fill manufacturing jobs?
If we are to reform our educational system, then we should set the bar as high as possible. We should recognize and adapt to the demands of the knowledge-based economy. Our students should be prepared to negotiate a very different workplace than their parents encountered.
CenLamar 
http://www.home-ed.vic.edu.au/2002/02/26/john-gatto-teacher-of-the-year-acceptance-speech
Let’s consider the following:
1) Our schools have gone through several decades of identity crises. First, they had to deal with integration. School boards had to figure out how to balance schools on race first, not quality in education. Then came the every child must be developed as “college” material. Again, school boards had to look at curriculum to put all kids on a tract heading towards college, even though most would never get there. And finally, came the accountability years. School boards found themselves faced with standardized test after standardized test which their schools would “compete” against other schools with in scoring to determine who was doing the best job of educating their students.
2) Discipline was taken out of the schools. I can remember my parents going to school on parents night and telling all of my teachers if I got in trouble at school they wanted to know because I was getting twice as many licks at home. NO MORE today. Teachers are battling kids who curse back, threaten to beat them up in the parking lot and even worse – parents who defend such actions claiming the teachers must have provoked such actions.
3) We know longer have tech prep. Funding has been pulled and courses dropped as a result of the “all kids must go to college mentality.” This is why we have no one prepared for work in the 21st century.
4) The knowledge economy requires an understanding of technology, but more importantly, it requires a good solid understanding of the basics – reading, writing, and math! We’re not teaching this any longer. We’re teaching kids how to pass tests. They can’t read rulers. They can’t write grammatically correct sentences. They can’t work out simple reasoning problems. All for the sake of accountability.
There use to be a time when parents were angry because “Johnny can’t read” as a result of the “graduate to get the trouble maker out of my class mentality” now it’s “you better let my child move onto the next grade or I’ll sue for discrimination of your standardized test.” No child left behind has not succeeded in bringing those truly behind in basic skills up to the level of basic.
The educational problems are not just a result of the education system, they are symptomatic of our social problems of the day. People will not accept responsiblity for their own actions nor will they accept responsiblity for their own futures. Until life skills and responsilbiity are taught, we have no hope in education our future workers.
Katie, I appreciate the link. I read the speech by Mr. Gatto and then I researched a little more into his life and pedagogical philosophy. It’s interesting stuff, and I understand why some people may find him compelling. But to me, it all seems completely unrealistic (perhaps overly idealistic) and disingenuous. Homeschooling (and/or unschooling) is simply not a realistic alternative for most American families, and however noble its virtues, the implementation of Gatto’s ideas would likely hurt millions of American children.
Bird, I agree with much of what you have said. However, I do not think “discipline was taken out of the schools.” There still may be a problem with a teacher’s ability to effectively discipline certain students. For example, I am aware of several incidents in which teachers who have tried to discipline athletes were overruled by their principal. This is a broad subject with many nuances, and it is important not to oversimplify this subject.
Still, I definitely agree that we became too consumed with the notion that ALL children are college-bound, and as a result of this and the teach-for-the-test imperative, we are not preparing students for “work in the 21st century.”
Lamar, I’m disappointed. You took this passage:
“What can be done? First we need a ferocious national debate that doesn’t quit, day after day, year after year. We need to scream and argue about this school thing until it is fixed or broken beyond repair, one or the other. If we can fix it, fine; if we cannot then the success of homeschooling shows a different road to take that has great promise. Pouring the money we now pour into family education might kill two birds with one stone, repairing families as it repairs children.”
and made the assumption that I’m advocating homeschooling for the entire population? Okay, maybe Gatto, in his later work, argued that our educational system is beyond repair. Based on my goals for my family and my idea of what “success” is, I tend to agree with him. I’m glad that my family has chosen a lifestyle which allows us to all be home together. I don’t think that school is an optimal environment for my child. But – and a big but here – I’m fully aware that there are many parents who are too busy, don’t care enough, aren’t capable enough, or just choose not to home school.
Another snippet from that speech: “Independent study, community service, adventures in experience, large doses of privacy and solitude, a thousand different apprenticeships, the one day variety or longer — these are all powerful, cheap and effective ways to start a real reform of schooling.”
Why can’t schools (along with lots of family involvement) provide that? Independent study, community service, apprenticeships? Why are students sitting in desks all day learning (or not) how to take standardized tests? Why aren’t parents more involved with their children’s education? And I don’t mean parents volunteering for carpool pickup and snack time or merely checking homework. I mean parents *really* involved in the classroom and at home. “Education” should at least be a cooperative endeavor between schools and families.
I think we’re getting it wrong when we assume that children are empty vessels or blank slates ready to be filled with a certain body of knowledge. Schools that encourage curiosity and creativity instead of teaching a checklist of required information would be 100 times better for most of the population. Do you need examples of schools that are structured differently and are working for many students? (I shudder to think what you’ll say about these suggestions – hippy-dippy freethinker weirdness abounds! The horror!) Montessori schools are thriving in the US and Europe. The original Sudbury Valley school has been around for almost 40 years. There are dozens of “Sudbury schools” across the country modeled after the original. Not all of them are private schools. Some have opened as cooperative schools (where parents spend a *lot* of time assisting). The Albany Free School in New York draws half of its students from the inner city. There are newer, more creative, more inspiring models of school that are working for hundreds of thousands of children. These children grow up to lead very diverse lives – some going to college, others not. One child may become a federal judge and the other a gypsy in a traveling circus. Both of those are valid choices.
We should be striving for an entirely different model of school than the one we have now. We’ve got to stop with the band aid treatment. No Child Left Behind isn’t working. “Teaching to the test” isn’t working. Coercing children into learning isn’t working. When we can give children a lot more freedom to follow their interests and find ways for family to be more involved with the education process, we will be on the right track.
Katie, thank you for clarifying your position. I agree with you: Education should be a cooperative endeavor between students, teachers, and parents. If parents were more involved in their children’s lives, particularly early on, then the educational system would function much more effectively.
The solution is not increased institutionalization, and as you point out, this is something that many Montessori and charter schools already understand.
But instead of selling off our educational system and instead of depleting schools of their brightest students, we should be mimicking and implementing the programs and pedagogical models that have been proven effective.
I noticed that a reader copied and pasted my essay into a Houma, Louisiana forum, and someone named “fs” responded. They wrote:
“I like the plan to reallocate money to send the brightest children to private and charter schools. I will be happy for my tax money to send someone else’s child to private school if that child is a honor student. MOST parents cannot afford that and if the child is a honor student, why should they stay in public schools, failing schools, they should be able to broaden their smarts further.
“And as for Georges putting a laptop on the desk of every student, who is going to pay for that, you? And if the schools with computers today are failing, what the hell is a laptop going to do more? NOT A DAMN THING.
“My plan:
Place all honor students in charter schools. Place all failing students at the age of 15 and above who wish and who’s parents approve, place them in alternative schools not for behavioral problems, but for alternative teaching. Instead of teaching them chemistry, trigonometry, and all that, teach them job skills, money management, resume’ writing, social skills, how to cope with difficulties in life, how to survive on minimum wage, how to raise children, and let them instead of a diploma on strict state guidelines, educate them for a GED.
“Let all other students go to public school. Let those “C” average students stay in the public schools because that is who the school system is set up for. Those are the average kids who will go many different ways when they graduate, college, army, work force, etc…”
I have many objections to this person’s response. First, a laptop on every desk is not prohibitively expensive. Georges believes he can get it done for $20 million, and considering the grant opportunities and our ability to partner, on the state-level, with a company like Apple or Dell, $20 million will go a long way. It represents an initial investment of approximately $30 per student, including Pre-K and Kindergarten students. If you were to locate an 80/20 matching grant and supplement that grant with additional partnerships, the program should not be difficult to implement. I am not sure why this person does not understand that laptops are powerful educational tools. Perhaps they are just being contrarian. But they should consider that all students, even those who are preparing for a skills-based career, need to be proficient in computers.
Obviously this person’s “plan” is fundamentally flawed. There are currently more than 21,000 public school students in the Gifted and Talented program. This does not include the tens of thousands of students who enroll in “honor’s” classes. Not all schools offer the Gifted program. There are only 370 private schools in the State of Louisiana and even fewer “charter schools.” These schools are scattered throughout the State. Let’s say we sent just those students enrolled in the Gifted program. The average private school’s enrollment would increase by nearly sixty. You do not need to be “gifted” to know that this it would be an operational and logistical nightmare.
But this person does not propose sending only Gifted and Talented students; they propose sending all “honors” students. Even if honors students represent only 10% of our student population, we’re still looking at over 60,000 students to “charter schools.” Louisiana currently has 57 charter schools, 15 more than our cap. This means the average “charter school,” most of which are already at full capacity, would receive over 1,000 new students.
We should be honest about our situation. Although our educational performance numbers are terrible, we still send over 14,900 students every year to Louisiana colleges and universities. We likely send thousands more to out-of-state institutions. 14,900 students represents 2% of our entire student population, grades Pre-K-12.
More importantly, 14,900 students is approximately 40% of the average 12th grade class, which means that at least two out of five graduating students are college-bound. No, we’re not Connecticut, but it is hard to make the argument that it is impossible to receive a quality education in our public school system. I know a number of public school students who scored perfectly on the ACT and/or the SAT, and many public education school students, like Bobby Jindal, later graduate from the finest universities in the nation.
When you deplete our public schools of their brightest students, you are buying into the erroneous and (frankly) insulting supposition that public schools cannot offer a quality education. They can. But by incentivizing the abandonment of public schools, we will only hurt our schools (and the students who have been marginalized by a system that associates test scores with intelligence). When we lose our bright students, we will also likely lose many of our brightest and most qualified teachers. And then, the sustained “failure” of some of our schools becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.