In the Globe this morning there was an opinion piece that rattled me a bit. The article was written by Carlo Rotella, director of American Studies at Boston College. Recently, he had the opportunity to visit a fourth grade classroom and teach them about researching and organizing information into essay format, which is Rotella's area of expertise. As he worked with this class of ten year olds, he was struck by the thought that elementary school is the crucial ground of learning:
As we talked about the fundamental tool kit of nonfiction writing at any level — planning a project, doing the legwork, crafting narrative and analysis, revising drafts — it was driven home to me, as it always is when I visit my kids’ classrooms, that this is where the educational action is. Elementary school is school in its purest and most important form.
By the time students get to my own classroom, as undergrads or grad students, it feels as if we’re playing out the sequel of this main drama....
Rotella was unprepared for the "potent chaos of their (the students') collective thought process." He described the usual fidgeting and random question pattern of the ten year old students. He expressed concern for what he saw and the need to correct a system that does not serve its purpose,while recognizing that, " when it comes to debates about education, we know that school is vitally important, but after that fine start the clarity begins to fade."
The article ends on that note of uncertainty. Yet, the key to understanding the problem of how to fix our schools was staring him right in the face of that fourth grade classroom. He even identified it! Have you ever beheld a group of ten year olds? The physical differences among this age group can be shocking. Some are as small as eight year olds, while others have already hit puberty. Main stream educators ignore these physical differences, and operate under the assumption that there is no connection between brain developemnt (a physical organ) and the ability to learn! Instead, they group children together according to age, and place them under the unrealistic expectation that they can all acquire skills and knowledge at the same rate and level.
It is important to note that this is a problem particular to modern centralized schools with our large, age-grouped classrooms. In the early days schools were much smaller, often only one room, and classes were almost always of mixed ages, which allowed students to learn and grow at their own pace. Small mixed-age classrooms, however, offer challenges in classroom management and instruction. They require teachers who are committed to their work in a unique way. Teaching used to be a "profession", which, once upon a time, was a very special word. Today, that word has almost completely lost its meaning, and is synonymous with white-collar workers. But, long ago the word meant that you were a clergyman, a lawyer, a doctor, or a teacher. It also meant that you were devoted to your work to a level that exceeded other kinds of occupations. Often, it meant remaining unmarried. I am not suggesting that teachers today do not work hard, or that they should be single. I am just pointing out the changes that have occurred in our educational system since its inception.
There are schools that do a better job of helping children learn and grow than others. Among the alternatives are Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia schools. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these schools are private, and unaffordable for most families. Could some of the principles from these educational methods be adopted by public schools? Perhaps. But, doing so would come at a very high price in teacher training, and revising materials and learning environments. In today's economic climate it wouldn't be feasible.
And, we cannot forget that in our capitalist society education is first and foremost a business. It is more lucrative to develop and publish standardized tests and teaching materials. It is more cost efficient to warehouse children in large buildings. It costs less to teach larger classes...I have come to the conclusion that schools will not be fixed even if they can be. There is simply much more interest in making money than in children and learning--this is a societal value, not just held by policy makers. School in our culture has lost its primary focus of educating students and embraced a wider mission of providing health care, nutrition, and childcare. Parents are overworked, and too tired to fight a system that offers them this kind of support, even if this same system fails to provide their children with a sound education.
