Being Educated
“Teaching? Why don’t you choose something that will pay better?” This was my father’s advice when I expressed my interest in teaching as a career. While he respected the field, he wanted something that offered me a better chance of financial success. That was twenty five years ago, yet those words echoed in my mind as I left the business world four years ago to finally pursue my original desire. Education is still getting a bad rap, and my timing, it appears, is impeccable…NOT! According to Eggers, Calegari, and Moulthrop, “Teachers are highly educated professionals, but they are often treated as a strange hybrid of babysitter and civil servant…” (3). As it turns out, Americans simply don’t know what they want from their education system. In the public’s desire to fix our education system, teachers have been on the receiving end of the hammer. Scrutinized, blamed, and berated, many educators are limping back to their classrooms carrying the bruises and wounds inflicted by policy makers and politicians. Does any of it actually fix public education? Hardly. In fact, the continuing debate only incites anger, disagreement, and bad feelings rather than address the real issues in education. Theories abound on what the problems are and the trendy solutions rise and fall in response. Despite this hubbub, one essential question remains unanswered: what exactly do we mean by “educated?” If we define what it means to be educated in our 21st century global environment, we may provide the foundation for building a lasting and dynamic system that responds to the needs of those it serves. Perhaps this will allow us to discern answers and solutions rather than maintain our quick fix mentality.
At its very roots, the public education system was not seen as a “quick fix,” but rather as a way to maintain our democratic society. Thomas Jefferson upheld that “a democratic society could not be sustained unless free, public education was available to the citizenry at large” (Rockler 26). It would take over a century and a half before our modern system took shape, but this premise held as states grappled with the purpose of free education. So why are we still struggling today? It turns out that like so many American ideals, our education system was built on a myth. “The Great School Legend,” as it is called, refers to the belief that our public schools act as “the great equalizing force in U.S. culture” (Provenza 33). They would provide the less fortunate with the opportunity to climb the socio-economic ladder. It turns out that this legend, as most legends are revealed to be, is more hype than reality. Of course, leave it to America to replace one hype with another. The inequalities that run rampant in our education system are still a focal point of discussion today. The failure of the system to teach and support all students has found a new home under the title of the ever widening “achievement gap.” But is that all there is to it?
While the widening achievement gap is garnering all the attention these days, should we not be concerned with what we’re missing? Any educator will tell you that no two students achieve the same results. Classrooms, even when homogenously grouped, do not result in every student ranking the same scores, rather they fall differently along a continuum. Is it not reasonable to say that a natural achievement gap should be present in any given class or school, based on students’ abilities and efforts? This does not mean that other factors that affect achievement aren’t present and worth battling. However, with all the publicity surrounding this gap, Americans are, once again, distracted from the key issues. Yes, some schools along with their students are more favored than others. Yes, those schools are predominantly suburban “white” schools. Yes, those schools are in neighborhoods and towns with higher socio-economic status and means. Yes, we should make every attempt to equalize the quality of education in urban inner-city and rural schools. Will that solve the problem? Uh, no. Quality in education, it turns out, is related to the quality of available resources. Poor resources often equate to less quality. While policy makers haggle over teacher competency, standardized testing results, and privatization of our public schools, no one appears to address the rampant inequality, classism, and poverty that affect and influence our student outcomes. Perhaps if all schools had access to the same sufficient resources, and provided the same teacher-student ratio, we would then have the means to decisively look at the quality of a teacher’s efforts. The question now raised is: how do we do that?
As a teacher, one of the first things you learn is to define the objectives of a lesson and unit. It turns out that when you can define what you want your students to achieve, you can easily map out the path they’ll need to take to get there. Imagine what would be possible if we could simply define what it means to be educated in our modern society. From that definition, we can create the parameters for what an educated person should be able to do, which then informs how we measure a student’s achievement of those parameters. Sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? Oh, wait, did we forget something? The American ideal of individuality – it turns out that the “one approach for all” solution creates mindless hordes rather than individuals. While that worked for the “old” America, it runs into problems in today’s culturally responsive America. Although no doubt that our politicians would prefer gangs of zombies that vote mindlessly, most Americans seem to desire a bit more from their education. They may not know what that is, they just know it’s more. Why doesn’t one simple definition of “educated” work? It turns out that all Americans are not the same. Shocking, right? The notion of America’s “melting pot” was tossed out with the myth of the American dream when it was discovered that there is more strength in combining our differences than in smoothing them away. America, it turns out, works better as a tapestry of interwoven layers than a bar of smooth, silky, but highly “melt-able,” white chocolate. Food and weaving metaphors aside, where does this leave us?
While a “one-for-all” solution doesn’t fix the problem, it is a starting point. If we, as a nation, can clearly define what our children need to be able to do in their new global community, then each state and school district can differentiate for its specific population. Why should we allow this? Once again, common precepts in teacher education point the way. Teachers, it is proven, need to understand “the context in which the schools they teach function. They need to understand the cultural background of their students and the ways in which their families and communities understand and organize knowledge” (Provenza 37). This is the dynamic nature of teaching; it is constantly changing, evolving, and rebounding based on the ebb and flow of students through a classroom. No two classes are the same, so what explains why policy makers and the public expect them to achieve the same results? If families and communities have different approaches to learning and knowledge, then doesn’t it stand to reason that they would have a different idea of what it means to be educated? Their definition would be different from those families and communities that enjoy socio-economic freedoms based on the higher level of education that is standard among their group. Allowing each district to differentiate a commonly held national definition to meet the cultural attitudes and norms of its “users” would result in a more satisfying and successful experience for all involved. Why don’t we do this?
It turns out that Americans like the quick fix. Got cancer? Cut it out! Tainted meat? Throw it out! Bad president? Vote him out! Feel depressed? Pop a pill! Ah, all better! A few years later, we raise our heads and discover the problem still exists. Lo and behold, it isn’t so easy to get rid of the problem and we, in response, act shocked. “I thought I beat that!” we think to ourselves. The slow fix, the one that could actually correct and alleviate the issue, is just too, well, slow. In the age of cell phones, instant messaging, and microwave dinners, who has the patience for “bake for 30 minutes then reduce heat and bake for another 60 minutes” approach? We used to be able to do this. Rome, as they say, was not conquered in a day. The Great Depression didn’t end in a year. The Nazis weren’t defeated overnight. The steadfast patience and stick-to-it-ness that helped create our country has fallen by the wayside to make way for drive-thru fast food and downloadable music. Perhaps this mentality was a result of exhaustion from the long, drawn out Vietnam conflict or a natural outgrowth of the cocaine-induced disco era. Regardless of its origins, the end of the 20th century spirited in the instant gratification era. We grow frustrated that education isn’t quick and easy as well. But then again, are the things worth having ever easy?
At the end of the day, hard work does have its own rewards. Most Americans would agree with this statement, even if they have different ideas on what “hard work” looks and feels like. That, it turns out, is precisely the point. Determine the commonly held belief and adjust it to fit the needs of the individual community. Continuously and consistently assess the results against the larger picture and tweak it as necessary. It will take time and will, most likely, remain a work in process, but that’s the nature of education. That’s what makes it fascinating. It’s the very reason I became an educator. It’s the reason I’ll remain one.
Works Cited
Eggers, Dave, NÃnive Calegari and Daniel Moulthrop. Teachers Have It Easy:
The Big Sacrifices and Small Salaries of America’s Teachers. New York:
New Press, 2005. Print.
Provenza, Eugene F. Jr. Teaching, Learning, and Schooling: A 21st Century
Perspective. Boston: Allan & Bacon, 2002. Print.
Rockler, Michael J. “The Privatization of Education: Can Public Education
Survive?” Free Inquiry 1996: 26+. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 April 2011.
