"Lamenting that millions of American children receive “a third world education,” Mitt Romney on Wednesday called for poor and disabled students to be able to use federal funds to attend any public, private or online school they choose." – New York Times article posted on May 23, 2012.
First of all, third world countries wouldn't put up with the behavior kids perform in our schools. They kick them out. Secondly, the problem isn’t the schools. It isn’t the teachers. It isn’t the parents. It isn’t the students. It’s the law. It's the "blueberry" principle.
Teachers know about the "blueberry principle." One time a man who ran a prosperous ice cream company was speaking at an assembly of teachers berating them for not doing things in a businesslike manner. The man noted his blueberry ice cream was judged the finest in the land.
After the ranting and raving, one teacher quietly raised her hand and asked what the ice cream person did with blueberries that didn't meet his standards? At that moment he realized that public schools had to take everyone, no matter what quality they were. He formed a foundation to support public education.
Now people my age can look back with thoughts that getting in trouble meant smoking in the bathroom or chewing gum in class. We were taught manners in kindergarten and were expected to use them. Our schools had dress codes and we had to wear uniforms for gym. If we weren’t passing our schoolwork, we couldn’t participate in sports and other activities. And Lord help you if you skipped school.
We felt safe. We knew there were troublemakers and knuckleheads in the school, but we never seemed to be in the same class.
But the law changed that. The concept of equal rights and opportunity has become so much out of control that we are indeed in a third world educational system.
Let’s look at some of these laws. The main offender is what might appear to be a seemingly innocent change in the policy for special education students. Before 2000, the law stated that they were to be placed in the “most appropriate” environment. But then the law changed. It now reads they should be in the “least restrictive” environment.
Let’s translate that in cold hard facts: In 2000-2001 school year, I taught in a public school in the South Bronx. The overwhelming majority of the special ed students were classified as emotionally disabled. This comes from parents who were both drug and child abusers. In every case of children classified in this category, those who had problems like ADHD had drug-using parents during pregnancy. What’s more, the parents refused to put children on medications to calm them down. It is both a denial that they caused the problem and a cultural issue in the community.
Now these students were placed in either classes of 12 or 6, depending on the extent of their problems. And along with each teacher, there was an aide. The children could be handled and learn to some extent because the teachers understood problems the children faced. For example, a child with ADHD has difficulty trying to understand what is being taught. If the teacher moves on to the next statement, he remains on the previous one. He becomes frustrated and angry. Teachers are trained to spot this and go back and ask the student what they understand.
Fast forward to the 2001-2002 school year. The year starts out much the same as every year. But then 9-11 happens and there is a great deal of trauma. In the meantime, a court – a judge – decides that the new policy isn’t being implemented and demands the school change immediately – and he tells the schools how to do it.
And so they moved nearly all of the students into a mainstream class. The concept of this class is that two teachers work together to provide both groups of students with proper instruction. It just doesn’t work. Classes are “dumbed down” to permit the special ed students to learn, but the constant attention given in a 12-student class with an aide to help isn’t possible in a 32-student class with half the students having special needs. And the students continue to fall behind, as they are unable to process at the speed of even the “dumbed down” course of study. And so they begin to act out. The regular-ed students are easily distracted and classes became places of entertainment, not learning.
Now there is also another issue here. There aren’t anywhere near enough special education students to go around. It takes a certain mentality to teach special ed and many teachers did not want to teach these students. The state education department wisely decided to include special ed courses in order to obtain teacher certification. But most of the teachers were tenured for decades with permanent teaching licenses. They don’t have the training and won’t be required to get it.
And the fact is they just don’t like teaching under this new system. But when one has decades invested in a job, it is nearly impossible to leave. Many teachers were offered “buy outs” of as much as four years of salary, but many refused it because of the way it would affect pension benefits.
Law number two is also one of chaos. Throughout our country, there are millions of illegal immigrants. By law, their children must be educated. The law assumes that many of these children were born in the United States and are therefore citizens of this country. And they are entitled to the benefits accorded a citizen including an education.
But they don’t speak English. And their parents don’t speak English. In case you haven’t noticed it, the law demands most products now have a bilingual label. So unlike immigrants of years ago, there is far less pressure to assimilate. Thus, the law requires that we have bilingual education for those who need it.
This is an absolute necessity. However, there are many problems that go with this. One of the most frustrating cases was with Jose, whom I taught in both 7th and 8th grades. Jose was the son of two hard-working immigrants. The father worked two jobs in kitchens for 16 hours a day. The mother cleaned offices. But their education from their homeland, in this case the Dominican Republic, was practically non-existent.
Jose never attended school in his homeland. He was placed in a bi-lingual class and quickly learned enough English to function. But here at a middle school level, he was expected to perform middle school tasks. He could add and subtract single digits by using his fingers. But that was all the math he had. He was unable to perform simple tasks like handling money. He could not read in either language and did not have the ability to study more advanced work.
This kid was bright. He could learn. But there was nothing the system could do to help him. And when administrators realized he had learned enough English, he was moved to an all-English class.
All this reinforces Mr. Romney’s contention. But what do we do about it. “No Child Left Behind” was an absolute failure because of Jose and the mainstreaming of special ed students. These are not issues of passing tests, nor is it of teaching. They are societal issues. It won’t matter what school you go to if you are handcuffed by these laws. Romney says private schools should be included. But what private school wants to have emotionally-disturbed students and if they accept regular students under any this kind of program, that probably means they would have to accept all students. Thus the brightest children in public school will have to remain there.
So what must be done to solve this? I haven’t a clue. I don’t think it will be solved in our lifetime. But I do have an idea. It’s an old one. It’s called “states rights”.
Why are there so many federal statutes about education? The answer is that for many decades in the last century, states in the South spent way less educating their children than in the rest of the country and the result was the court and federal government intervention. The only way I see of straightening out this mess is to tear it down and start again. What I think might – I repeat might – work is for an amendment to the constitution to be passed that states: “The responsibility for the education of children shall be entirely the province of state governments.”
That way, state governments could once again formulate policy. The issues of education in the state of New York are entirely different from that of South Dakota because the social dynamics are entirely different. States need to formulate solutions for their own needs, not conform to federal demands, which, by the way, usually come without the funding to implement them.
The last time anyone tried to amend the constitution was in the 1970s, and the women's rights amendment was never ratified by enough states. It would be impossible to pass one involving education.
So my only point to this collection of around 1500 words is that I sincerely hope that my son and his wife have enough wisdom to know how to educate the world’s most beautiful and brilliant child.
