In this short presentation to the South of Dayton Democratic Club, I analyze the Dayton Daily News opinion article written by Kevin Kelly, the Dean of the University of Dayton’s School of Education and Frank DePalma, the retired Superintendent of Centerville Schools, and I repeat most of what I wrote in my post: Put Away The Duct Tape, Public Education Needs To Be Rebuilt — Guided By New Principles. My point is that public education needs to transformed so that it changes direction.

In their DDN article, Drs. Kelly and DePalma defend the current system and essentially argue that we need more of the same, only with harder tests and requirements. They defend the key principles guiding the current system: 1) purpose of the current system is to transmit an established curriculum, 2) the merit of schools and teachers can be determined via the results of objective tests, and 3) to improve schools means to improve the scores on these objective tests. My point is that an education founded on such principles ignores many of the aims for education that traditionally a democratic nation has agreed is important to pursue and that reform leading to higher test scores ignores the fact that our current system is built on principles that in the big picture are inadequate. Rather than reforming schools, we need to transform them.

To reform, means to be more efficient in accomplishing the aims of the system. But if the aim of the system is wrong, then reform is not the answer. The problem is, regardless of how much the test scores improve, public education will still be failing to accomplish what it needs to accomplish. To transform, means to create a new system that will be focused on accomplishing a purpose very different from the old system.

The difference between “reforming” and “transforming” is a powerful insight. To plan for the future — Public Education In 2030 is the book I keep talking about writing— would require a compelling vision of what is possible. In my previous article, I took a stab at defining the principles of a new system, but in this short speech I didn’t develop these principles but instead simply tried to show a way of thinking that will encourage discussion about what new directions public education should be considering.

When Ohio’s new A-F school grading system is implemented in 2015, most schools will get a lower grade than what they get in the current system. Area educational leaders Kevin Kelly and Frank DePalma defend the new system, and in a DDN article give this explanation: “Ohio has raised its standards in bold and important ways for our children. … The lower grades are an inescapable part of the process of asking our schools, teachers and children to aim higher.”

The new system, according to Kelly and DePalma, will have a big pay-off.  “Going forward,” they promise, “a high school diploma will mean a graduate can succeed in college without first taking remedial classes, or is ready to join the workforce with the necessary entry-level skills.”  

The public has a right to be skeptical. Ohio’s new system is incorporates the principles of the No Child Left Behind federal law and the results of NCLB have been disappointing. In 2002, remember, promoters promised that, by 2014, NCLB would bring all children— regardless of ability or background — to “proficiency” in core knowledge and skills. As it is, 82% of schools have failed to meet their goal of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The NCLB strategy of demanding more, giving low grades and rewarding and punishing didn’t work and Kelly and DePalma give no explanation why they are confident the NCLB strategy will work as part of Ohio’s new system.

The more important observation to be made, however, is that Ohio’s new A-F system fails to correct Ohio’s foundational deficiencies. Even if test scores go up, Ohio’s system of public education will still be woefully inadequate. We now have a system that at its foundation is thoroughly corrupted with the erroneous assumptions that guided NCLB:  1) The purpose of pubic education can be accomplished via the transmission of a standard curriculum, 2) The merit of  schools and teachers can be determined by the results of objective tests of this curriculum, 3) To aim higher means to seek to improve test scores.

The important goals that traditionally inspired the creation of public schools have largely been forgotten. Public education has always sought to build a bridge to a better future when human progress and culture exceeds what we experience in the present. It is our youth who will live in that future and who must be equipped with the qualities of wisdom and leadership worthy of the challenge. Our present system of public education is inadequate to the task and tinkering, duct taping, won’t work — guided by NCLB principles, public education is headed in the wrong direction.

Public education must be rebuilt on foundational principles such as these:  1) The purpose of our system of public education is accomplished by nurturing and empowering the yearning for learning and the desire to live purposefully found in every individual 2) The merit of schools and teachers is demonstrated in preparedness of the citizens they develop to live freely and to contribute fully to the success of their representative democracy 3) To aim higher means to seek to help each citizen to more fully develop his or her potential to be a thoughtful, effective and productive citizen.

If a system of public education would forget about raising test scores and instead would allocate its energy and resources to align with such principles, it’s a fascinating question what an educational program might look like and what indicators of accountability might be used to monitor such a program.  As the motivation of students and teachers would soar, test scores, I bet, would soar as well.

As it is, we are quickly approaching the time when the current system of public education will be indefensible. We need to rebuild public education from the ground up, using foundational principles very different than the principles that guide public education today. Rather than tinkering with and duct taping the current system, educational leaders should be putting resources into making the big break-throughs that will transform public education. We need to encourage each other to be inspired by the words of Robert Kennedy — “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”