Here’s another prophet on academic freedom: Martin Luther King Jr.
“My days in college were very exciting ones. There was a free atmosphere at Morehouse, and it was there I had my first frank discussion on race. The professors were not caught up in the clutches of state funds and could teach what they wanted with academic freedom. They encouraged us in a positive quest for a solution to racial ills. I realized that nobody there was afraid. Important people came in to discuss the race problem rationally with us.“
Federal funds to public schools represents a small percentage of monies spent; yet the requirements to comply with them take up a substantial bandwidth of resources. It is hard to believe the benefits outweigh the costs from either a quantitative or qualitative perspective. I would love to see an analysis at the district and state levels.
Nice description of the problem. I have watched this problem from a sidelines observer status. Or investigative journalist or politician. Bad policy needs to be ended.
No child left behind because they are harassed into dropping out instead. Huge turnover rate for teachers. Reduction in teaching requirements.
Totally agree. Along with the "stupider" comment about her supervisors. When my son was born, I read A LOT on child development, including Peter Gray's books. By the time he was school age, I realized current traditional schooling is NOT conducive to normal healthy human development. In fact, it goes completely against it! But many of the preschool and elementary teachers were at least a decade younger than me and most decidedly did not read the same books I've read, nor had children themselves yet! Why would I entrust a "stupider" person to lead my child in his most formative years?
In my state, homeschoolers can get $$ in scholarship form from the state for home education/ school choice. Many homeschoolers (especially new ones) apply for it and use it. It is quite a lot of money and can be used on various educational materials and sports/club materials. The catch - you must either have an official "diagnosis" for a learning disability OR submit to their yearly testing/evaluations.
So far, I have chosen not to apply for it. I fear it would dictate my teaching style and stress me out to "teach to the test" all the time. If my son had a LD, I still wouldn't apply because I wouldn't want him thinking he is stuck with that label forever. Even if my son was "genius," I still wouldn't want to get him tested - it's still a label to uphold. Kids boxing themselves in a certain category limits their thinking, their development, and their choices.
It's a weird world where some parents go doctor shopping to get their kid some sort of diagnosis, so they can get special considerations in the standard school, or, I would guess in your state, so they can get state money for homeschooling.
I agree that the federal government getting into the education game in a big way did not work out well for children, but in "Insult to Intelligence: The Bureaucratic Invasion of Our Classrooms," Frank Smith locates that development earlier, in the late 1950s, in the nation's response to Sputnik and the panic around math and science education. It's a persuasive book, and the only one I've encountered that really understands the transition in our public schools from a more holistic approach (for example, reading whole works of literature) to the brain-dead programmatic method we see everywhere today. I would never say anything nice about No Child Left Behind, but from what I can tell, the school curriculum was dumbed-down and made one-size-fits-all long before George Bush came to office. (Indeed I remember being made to put down my challenging library book in 5th grade in the 1970s to work through IBM's SRA, which was certainly an insult to my intelligence. This was long before high stakes testing, mind you.)
Thank you, Megan, for this addition. I should know well the effects of Sputnik, as I was a middle schooler then. Among other things, there was Federal support for math and physics courses and a push, especially toward boys like me, to become engineers. Interestingly, by the time I was in graduate school (in biology, not physics or engineering) we had such a glut of engineers that they couldn't get jobs.
I'm not sure where I heard about "Insult to Intelligence," but it seems a really important contribution to understanding the schools we have. (Sadly it's out of print but I'm sure a copy can be found.) For those born after the 1950s it explains the critical change from more natural learning methods (I understand kids used to build serious projects in shop classes) to the programmatic approach (exemplified by the "R_bbit" exercise) that's so alienating to kids today, and so ineffective. I've often told kids your story that there were two hours of down time in a much shorter school day in the 1950s, and they're amazed; I imagine that the WAY you learned made such a relaxed day possible. Would you consider writing a piece about HOW you learned in elementary and middle school so that folks who came of age later can be aware of the stark difference? Doris Kearns Goodwin's autobiography showed me how much richer the curriculum in her Long Island schools was in those days, and how much better educated her teachers, than mine were just 20 years later, and of course she became a respected historian with just a public education. Many Americans who hate the Republicans and their agenda are convinced that every problem with our schools is a conservative plot, but this is way too simplistic, IMO. Personal stories like yours and Goodwin's can go a long way toward educating people about how much things have changed in a relatively short span of time and how creating a greater role for the federal government in education, however well-intentioned, was basically a disaster.
I'm not sure how a centralized, standardized and compulsory system of education could ever be about a "people's agenda." John Taylor Gatto never thought it possible, and he spent a lot of time unpacking the motivations of robber barons, among others, in helping found it in his book, "The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher's Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern."
Yes, prior to the 1850s, school was a local affair, and you're probably right that there was less of a political agenda attached to it back then, and even prior to the late 1950s. I stand corrected.
Lets be clear, there was a political agenda even then. Remember, "politics" is nothing more than decision making in groups. Localism is itself a policy choice. Letting kids pursue their own interests is a policy choice.
Politics out of school is not possible, the question is which politics and how.
I like Sudbury where it is democracy taken seriously, as opposed to Freire's take, that the agenda be leftist, but otherwise the basic structure is the same as government school.
Until we let go of the irrational fear of some students performing better than others, education will continue to decline. I have suggested students could be placed in a classroom of peers that are at the same level of knowledge, and the response is a hysterical reaction, and I'm accused of suggesting tracking. The amount of wasted time of both teachers and students in classrooms full of a 180-degree spectrum of abilities is egregious, imo. I subbed math, and the jumble of student abilities in the same classroom was like putting the guy who had never held a football in to practice with the star quarterback. Everyone loses. We accept differing abilities and sports and work with students where they are, but when it comes to academics, the only argument I heard was it would be terrible because it would hurt student self-esteem. Another huge problem, which is finally being addressed, is the nonstop distraction of cellphones in the classroom. Where are the adults?
Using the word "perform" to describe what's done in school is a dead giveaway that you're on board with adults calling all the shots in education, as opposed to students themselves having control of their learning. Children are supposed to learn, whereas trained seals perform. Therein lies the great divide in this debate: those of us who want kids to be in charge of their own education, versus those who take for granted that adults (ie: politicians and bureaucrats) should control the whole damn thing, start to finish. Yes, it's fine for kids to learn at different levels, but you don't go far enough. You should consider joining those of us who think this is fine because it is what inevitably happens when kids are not force-marched through a standard curriculum designed by adults and subjected to industrial methods of assessment. Pick a side and accept everything that comes with it. As for cellphones, it seems to me that making them the culprit is a very convenient way of avoiding the question: Why are teachers unable to hold kids' attention in the classroom? Young people have enormous native intelligence; if what they do in school fails to engage that intelligence, banning phones is going to be nothing more than a band-aid: it doesn't solve the problem and it falls off after a while.
Whether a student is taking a required class or an elective, like music/band, art, or a foreign language, at home or in a class with 20 other students, the result is still to develop one's knowledge and/or abilities and be able to apply what has been learned. In other words, "perform." The adults designate required courses and design curriculums because they're adults and supposedly know a thing or two about life. Cellphones absolutely destroy a classroom and banning them is much more than a band-aid, perhaps because those young brains are still malleable and developing. "Pick a side and accept everything that comes with it." That sounds like something coming from competing middle and high school cliques. I have always rejected and still reject cliques and being told what to do.
As is your right. Clearly we’re on different sides of this divide. Adults may know a thing or two about life but you wouldn’t know it from the way our schools are designed, and you would never guess they knew anything at all about children. But then, school is more about taming them than teaching them much. As for cell phones and banning them, until you restore normal childhood activities like taking risks and trying out independence and the confidence they promote, everything else we do is bound to fail. You and others don’t seem to understand what is really harming kids’ mental health, but I leave it to you to wait and watch and figure this out for yourselves. Despite the bans, “performance” will not improve and the anxiety crisis will march on.
You are "on a side," both sides of which are adult led. Since this discussion is about how children are educated, perhaps you should put children in charge of the comments since you claim that children should be in charge of their own education. I am for providing a variety of paths for children to get an education that will give them the knowledge necessary to choose a path in life, and an education on our history and how our government functions.
The problem is that one-size-fits-all schooling is highly ineffective, so kids get a very poor education along with their 13 years of powerlessness. When it's suggested that kids be given a meaningful measure of control over their own education--or anything, for that matter--the response is always a muted kind of outrage, such as in your response. "Oh well, why don't you let them stay up all night? Why don't you let them eat candy all day?!" So unfamiliar with giving young people any autonomy at all have the American people become in the last 35 years that they immediately envision anarchy if you suggest that kids perhaps shouldn't be treated as inert and empty vessels into which boundless adult wisdom must be poured non-stop for 18 years. It's very telling, and really all you need to know about this country today. We could never in a million years have a revolution with the population of the U.S. today like we did against the British. We're simply too infatuated with control of some people by others. For the record, no one's suggesting that adults be cut out of the picture where education is concerned or anything else, only that we stop imposing a dry-as-dust curriculum on kids that kills their curiosity and creativity. Adults and kids should be partners in education, with kids' innate drive to learn and explore being the main driver. It's a terrible shame that this is seen as a radical and even dangerous notion in 2024.
My colleague at a self-directed education center (a former high school English teacher) wrote a series of blog posts about what she called common sense standards. As I opened your post, I thought of her series because she used the same image for her intro post 😉). Thought you'd enjoy checking out her suggestions on what should matter in school, but sadly doesn't.
Excellent article with history that more people need to know about. Do you consider Colorado to be one of the states that hasn't quite fallen in lock step? I'm referring to the state-acceptance of and influence of the S-CAP (Student-Centered Accountability Project) pioneered by Lisa Yates of the Buena Vista School District and others. It looks at measures way beyond test scores, including the educational environment.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I knew nothing about it. I wonder what your thoughts are about the program. Is it a novel way of accepting the Federal money while maintaining more local control and not falling into the trap of academic testing as the only measure of school success?
What is your opinion of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 signed into law by Bill Clinton? It seems to have concentrated more power and control into the hands of the federal government.
Scott, thank you for bringing this to our attention. It did not all start with NCLB. This act had similar consequences of putting more control of schools in the hands of the federal government in exchange for federal financial support.
Here’s another prophet on academic freedom: Martin Luther King Jr.
“My days in college were very exciting ones. There was a free atmosphere at Morehouse, and it was there I had my first frank discussion on race. The professors were not caught up in the clutches of state funds and could teach what they wanted with academic freedom. They encouraged us in a positive quest for a solution to racial ills. I realized that nobody there was afraid. Important people came in to discuss the race problem rationally with us.“
https://scottgibb.substack.com/p/mlk-jr-on-academic-freedom
Federal funds to public schools represents a small percentage of monies spent; yet the requirements to comply with them take up a substantial bandwidth of resources. It is hard to believe the benefits outweigh the costs from either a quantitative or qualitative perspective. I would love to see an analysis at the district and state levels.
Nice description of the problem. I have watched this problem from a sidelines observer status. Or investigative journalist or politician. Bad policy needs to be ended.
No child left behind because they are harassed into dropping out instead. Huge turnover rate for teachers. Reduction in teaching requirements.
Totally agree. Along with the "stupider" comment about her supervisors. When my son was born, I read A LOT on child development, including Peter Gray's books. By the time he was school age, I realized current traditional schooling is NOT conducive to normal healthy human development. In fact, it goes completely against it! But many of the preschool and elementary teachers were at least a decade younger than me and most decidedly did not read the same books I've read, nor had children themselves yet! Why would I entrust a "stupider" person to lead my child in his most formative years?
In my state, homeschoolers can get $$ in scholarship form from the state for home education/ school choice. Many homeschoolers (especially new ones) apply for it and use it. It is quite a lot of money and can be used on various educational materials and sports/club materials. The catch - you must either have an official "diagnosis" for a learning disability OR submit to their yearly testing/evaluations.
So far, I have chosen not to apply for it. I fear it would dictate my teaching style and stress me out to "teach to the test" all the time. If my son had a LD, I still wouldn't apply because I wouldn't want him thinking he is stuck with that label forever. Even if my son was "genius," I still wouldn't want to get him tested - it's still a label to uphold. Kids boxing themselves in a certain category limits their thinking, their development, and their choices.
It's a weird world where some parents go doctor shopping to get their kid some sort of diagnosis, so they can get special considerations in the standard school, or, I would guess in your state, so they can get state money for homeschooling.
I agree that the federal government getting into the education game in a big way did not work out well for children, but in "Insult to Intelligence: The Bureaucratic Invasion of Our Classrooms," Frank Smith locates that development earlier, in the late 1950s, in the nation's response to Sputnik and the panic around math and science education. It's a persuasive book, and the only one I've encountered that really understands the transition in our public schools from a more holistic approach (for example, reading whole works of literature) to the brain-dead programmatic method we see everywhere today. I would never say anything nice about No Child Left Behind, but from what I can tell, the school curriculum was dumbed-down and made one-size-fits-all long before George Bush came to office. (Indeed I remember being made to put down my challenging library book in 5th grade in the 1970s to work through IBM's SRA, which was certainly an insult to my intelligence. This was long before high stakes testing, mind you.)
Thank you, Megan, for this addition. I should know well the effects of Sputnik, as I was a middle schooler then. Among other things, there was Federal support for math and physics courses and a push, especially toward boys like me, to become engineers. Interestingly, by the time I was in graduate school (in biology, not physics or engineering) we had such a glut of engineers that they couldn't get jobs.
I'm not sure where I heard about "Insult to Intelligence," but it seems a really important contribution to understanding the schools we have. (Sadly it's out of print but I'm sure a copy can be found.) For those born after the 1950s it explains the critical change from more natural learning methods (I understand kids used to build serious projects in shop classes) to the programmatic approach (exemplified by the "R_bbit" exercise) that's so alienating to kids today, and so ineffective. I've often told kids your story that there were two hours of down time in a much shorter school day in the 1950s, and they're amazed; I imagine that the WAY you learned made such a relaxed day possible. Would you consider writing a piece about HOW you learned in elementary and middle school so that folks who came of age later can be aware of the stark difference? Doris Kearns Goodwin's autobiography showed me how much richer the curriculum in her Long Island schools was in those days, and how much better educated her teachers, than mine were just 20 years later, and of course she became a respected historian with just a public education. Many Americans who hate the Republicans and their agenda are convinced that every problem with our schools is a conservative plot, but this is way too simplistic, IMO. Personal stories like yours and Goodwin's can go a long way toward educating people about how much things have changed in a relatively short span of time and how creating a greater role for the federal government in education, however well-intentioned, was basically a disaster.
Education is always a political act, and once the government began seizing education, it stopped being about the people's agenda.
That's what a curriculum is, somebody else's agenda for you. State propaganda takes many forms and curriculum itself is one of them.
I'm not sure how a centralized, standardized and compulsory system of education could ever be about a "people's agenda." John Taylor Gatto never thought it possible, and he spent a lot of time unpacking the motivations of robber barons, among others, in helping found it in his book, "The Underground History of American Education: A School Teacher's Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern."
Read my comment carefully. There was a time before the government seized education
Yes, prior to the 1850s, school was a local affair, and you're probably right that there was less of a political agenda attached to it back then, and even prior to the late 1950s. I stand corrected.
Lets be clear, there was a political agenda even then. Remember, "politics" is nothing more than decision making in groups. Localism is itself a policy choice. Letting kids pursue their own interests is a policy choice.
Politics out of school is not possible, the question is which politics and how.
I like Sudbury where it is democracy taken seriously, as opposed to Freire's take, that the agenda be leftist, but otherwise the basic structure is the same as government school.
Until we let go of the irrational fear of some students performing better than others, education will continue to decline. I have suggested students could be placed in a classroom of peers that are at the same level of knowledge, and the response is a hysterical reaction, and I'm accused of suggesting tracking. The amount of wasted time of both teachers and students in classrooms full of a 180-degree spectrum of abilities is egregious, imo. I subbed math, and the jumble of student abilities in the same classroom was like putting the guy who had never held a football in to practice with the star quarterback. Everyone loses. We accept differing abilities and sports and work with students where they are, but when it comes to academics, the only argument I heard was it would be terrible because it would hurt student self-esteem. Another huge problem, which is finally being addressed, is the nonstop distraction of cellphones in the classroom. Where are the adults?
Using the word "perform" to describe what's done in school is a dead giveaway that you're on board with adults calling all the shots in education, as opposed to students themselves having control of their learning. Children are supposed to learn, whereas trained seals perform. Therein lies the great divide in this debate: those of us who want kids to be in charge of their own education, versus those who take for granted that adults (ie: politicians and bureaucrats) should control the whole damn thing, start to finish. Yes, it's fine for kids to learn at different levels, but you don't go far enough. You should consider joining those of us who think this is fine because it is what inevitably happens when kids are not force-marched through a standard curriculum designed by adults and subjected to industrial methods of assessment. Pick a side and accept everything that comes with it. As for cellphones, it seems to me that making them the culprit is a very convenient way of avoiding the question: Why are teachers unable to hold kids' attention in the classroom? Young people have enormous native intelligence; if what they do in school fails to engage that intelligence, banning phones is going to be nothing more than a band-aid: it doesn't solve the problem and it falls off after a while.
Whether a student is taking a required class or an elective, like music/band, art, or a foreign language, at home or in a class with 20 other students, the result is still to develop one's knowledge and/or abilities and be able to apply what has been learned. In other words, "perform." The adults designate required courses and design curriculums because they're adults and supposedly know a thing or two about life. Cellphones absolutely destroy a classroom and banning them is much more than a band-aid, perhaps because those young brains are still malleable and developing. "Pick a side and accept everything that comes with it." That sounds like something coming from competing middle and high school cliques. I have always rejected and still reject cliques and being told what to do.
As is your right. Clearly we’re on different sides of this divide. Adults may know a thing or two about life but you wouldn’t know it from the way our schools are designed, and you would never guess they knew anything at all about children. But then, school is more about taming them than teaching them much. As for cell phones and banning them, until you restore normal childhood activities like taking risks and trying out independence and the confidence they promote, everything else we do is bound to fail. You and others don’t seem to understand what is really harming kids’ mental health, but I leave it to you to wait and watch and figure this out for yourselves. Despite the bans, “performance” will not improve and the anxiety crisis will march on.
You are "on a side," both sides of which are adult led. Since this discussion is about how children are educated, perhaps you should put children in charge of the comments since you claim that children should be in charge of their own education. I am for providing a variety of paths for children to get an education that will give them the knowledge necessary to choose a path in life, and an education on our history and how our government functions.
The problem is that one-size-fits-all schooling is highly ineffective, so kids get a very poor education along with their 13 years of powerlessness. When it's suggested that kids be given a meaningful measure of control over their own education--or anything, for that matter--the response is always a muted kind of outrage, such as in your response. "Oh well, why don't you let them stay up all night? Why don't you let them eat candy all day?!" So unfamiliar with giving young people any autonomy at all have the American people become in the last 35 years that they immediately envision anarchy if you suggest that kids perhaps shouldn't be treated as inert and empty vessels into which boundless adult wisdom must be poured non-stop for 18 years. It's very telling, and really all you need to know about this country today. We could never in a million years have a revolution with the population of the U.S. today like we did against the British. We're simply too infatuated with control of some people by others. For the record, no one's suggesting that adults be cut out of the picture where education is concerned or anything else, only that we stop imposing a dry-as-dust curriculum on kids that kills their curiosity and creativity. Adults and kids should be partners in education, with kids' innate drive to learn and explore being the main driver. It's a terrible shame that this is seen as a radical and even dangerous notion in 2024.
Your entire response was to put your own rage and words in my mouth. Very authoritarian. Goodbye.
Bravo! Well said
Well said--thanks!
Diane Ravitch makes precisely this case in "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education".
Pax.
My colleague at a self-directed education center (a former high school English teacher) wrote a series of blog posts about what she called common sense standards. As I opened your post, I thought of her series because she used the same image for her intro post 😉). Thought you'd enjoy checking out her suggestions on what should matter in school, but sadly doesn't.
https://learningcooperatives.org/2017/12/29/common-sense-learning/
Excellent article with history that more people need to know about. Do you consider Colorado to be one of the states that hasn't quite fallen in lock step? I'm referring to the state-acceptance of and influence of the S-CAP (Student-Centered Accountability Project) pioneered by Lisa Yates of the Buena Vista School District and others. It looks at measures way beyond test scores, including the educational environment.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I knew nothing about it. I wonder what your thoughts are about the program. Is it a novel way of accepting the Federal money while maintaining more local control and not falling into the trap of academic testing as the only measure of school success?
Peter,
What is your opinion of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 signed into law by Bill Clinton? It seems to have concentrated more power and control into the hands of the federal government.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-04-01-mn-41043-story.html
Scott, thank you for bringing this to our attention. It did not all start with NCLB. This act had similar consequences of putting more control of schools in the hands of the federal government in exchange for federal financial support.