The inconsistencies remain and public education leaves us in a constant dilemma.

 

We say we want to prevent dropouts, for example. We have a goal in the Longview schools to reduce the number of dropouts to under 10% by 1995.    In my opinion, the goal is unattainable  because of inflexible scheduling and a lack of an alternative program for disruptive students.

​

Superintendent of Public Instruction Judith Billings writes, "...our schools are one of the last bastions of hope and stability for many children, especially for disturbing numbers of children whose family and community cireumstances leave them homeless, abused, addicted, neglected, impoverished, imprisoned."

​

Ellen Wolf, Superintendent of the Walla Walla public schools, says, "...the public schools are responsibile for educating all children living in the community who choose to attend. The more than 6,000 children in the Walla Walla public schools are poor, rich, chronically disruptive, average, severely handicapped, clean, short, drug/alcohol damaged, happy, bright, abused, tall, mentally ill, talented, loved, poorly mannered, well-mannered, angry, protected. The school did not create these children; they are being sent to us from homes in our community."

​

For many years we have continued our critical lament on American education. "A Nation at Risk" decried "a rising tide of mediocrity" and recommended sweeping reforms eleven years ago. An article in the April issue of "Reader's Digest by Edwin Kiester, Jr., points to "teenage pregnancies rising, violence in the streets and guns in the schools."

​

Virtually every state in the union has educational reform at the top of the legislative list. Performance based education, mastery learning and other efforts to improve the state of education are being proposed. Teachers, ever conscientious in their desire to do a better job are listening, being re-trained, and are often fighting for their own stability as they hear the criticism and face their daunting task.

​

Teachers are trained to be proactive, taking the responsibility for what goes on in the classroom. We tend to be idealistic, holding out the hope that in some way every child can be "reached" and elevated to new heights. Not one, deep within, wants to give up on a child. A kind of "second chance" mentality prevails. We are sensitive to the horror stories of destroyed self-esteem in children. Teachers often do genuinely love their students. To them these kids really are "wonderful" and "special."

​

"What is so bad about all of this?," one might ask. After all, schools are merely a slice of society. Kids must learn to live in society as it is today. Dealing with the foibles, intrigues, harshness, disruptions, crime, threats, and even the violence in the schools simply reflects life as it is in 1994. Perhaps we're being too hard on schools. It would be magical, a virtual miracle to expect public schools to produce scholars and  first-rate citizens. Why expect the SATs to be high now, when 25 to 50 percent of a teacher's time is spent dealing with disciplinary matters. There are probably plenty of teachers who would say, "Back off, I'm doing the best I can. In fact, a heck of a job, considering the circumstances." I rather concur, but something can be done, if we have the guts to break out of our paradigms.

​

So, where are the inconsistencies mentioned in the opening sentences? 

​

The first may be that we can continue through all of a child's years in school to stay in lock-step. We've know for a long time that mental abilities don't develop at precisely the same age for all children. 

​

I started school in rural Arkansas as a first grader barely having turned five years old. After moving to SW Washington I was placed in the third grade at the age of seven. It came as a shock to me get a "C" in Algebra class at the age of 13 in the ninth grade. I had always done well in arithmetic, but somehow algebra rather flew right past me. Whether my experience is a good example, I don't know, but I'd like to think that my difficulty with algebraic concepts was simply because my brain was not quite ready for it. I later discovered that such notions were not so hard after all, but not before I had already reached the conclusion that "advanced math" was something to be dreaded and that I was obviously poor at dealing with it. My teacher, Tiz Miller, knew his subject and many of those students sailed through well. Could I have handled it better later, as a junior in high school? I don't know, but taking "9th grade algebra" as an 11th grader would have been embarassing.

​

Great flexibility in scheduling needs to be allowed. We probably need to examine the whole concept of grade levels. Maybe the whole notion of graduation with "your" class needs to revisited. Why should high school automatically take four years. Why not three, five, or six? Further, maybe it's time to blur even further the distinction between high school and community colleges. Make it possible for students to even drop out (for whatever reasons) and return to school to pick up where he or she left off. No stigma attached whatsoever for not "graduating" with one's "class."

​

We must be innovative with the schedule in our schools. The traditional 8 a.m.  to 3 p.m. high school has to become a thing of the past. So does the typical nine month school year. It's a relic from agrarian days.

​

Innovations, as in performance-based education and other current re-structuring being attempted may do little to improve education unless it is accompanied by other, even more important changes. It comes down to the hard fact that we cannot allow disruptive students to prevent teachers from teaching. Not only is teaching thwarted, the very atmosphere in the room is one of tension, hostility, and suspicion when a teacher is powerlesss to remove the disruptor. A second chance, maybe. A third chance, not this year. You can return next year only with a written contract spelling out your responsibilities as a student in an orderly classroom.

​

What about the self esteem of those who can't graduate with "their class?" What are we doing to the self-confidence of the kid who's told he's out because he's no longer allowed to disrupt a class? We're doing nothing! Self-esteem doesn't come from just getting by, just being told "you're great." Self-confidence and self-esteem are the products of facing challenges and doing what must be done. Pay the price and feel how good it is when you've worked hard and mastered the challenges. 

​

We must not "dumb down" classes. Raising expectations is the answer. Kids will rise to the challenge. It's been proven over and over again.

​

The very definition of a teacher is "one who points the way." Learning, ultimately, is the student's responsibility. I cannot make him or her learn. We have it backwards here. Somehow, it is inadequate schools which cause kids to be unable to read, write, equate, or score well on the SATs. I've even heard of schools that have been sued because somebody's Johnny couldn't read. Strangely, somebody's Jimmy, across the aisle from Johnny for twelve years, learned to read very well. I submit to you that we have to find a way to make it the responsibility of all the Jimmys, the Johnnys, and Janes to learn. The schools accept their responsibility. It's time parents, society, the legal system, all of us make it clear to kids that they bear the chief burden for their education. "You want to feel good about yourself, do the work!"

​

From the Kiester article mentioned earlier, "Parents undermine schools by backing kids regardless of behavior or performance, says Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers." "When I was a kid and got into trouble in school, I got into more trouble at home. 'Don't blame the teacher, don't blame your friends, it's your fault, you should be in control of your own life,' my parents would say. Today, the parent is down at the school in fifteen minutes to defend the child's 'rights"---in court, if necessary."

​

Yes, the public schools of Longview have a responsibility to that long list of kinds of kids that Ellen Wolf, the Walla Walla superintendent, mentioned. Our list is the same. I suppose it's part of the dilemma mentioned at the beginning of this article, but we cannot and should not get rid of students who don't want to learn anymore because an adolescent's decision to give up on himself cannot be treated in the same way we might treat an adult. On the other hand, the average high school classroom cannot be poisoned by a few who thwart the education of rule-abiding students. Under no circumstances can we allow violence, threats, and disruption. Alternative programs, run by people who are trained to deal with the troubled and the troublemaker is the only answer. I speculate that at some age, 14 or 15 perhaps, you become totally responsible for your behavior. Maybe some should drop out...and districts not worry so much about graduation rates...so, drop out if you must. Come back when you are ready to learn. The school's doors remain open and/or (with carefully laid plans as between public schools and the community colleges, free classes should be available to young men and women (or even older men and women) who decide they want to learn after all.

​

​

​

​