Ohio is phasing in a new A-F school grading system. When it is implemented, most schools and districts will receive a lower grade than what their evaluation in the current system would indicate. Now, 52% of Ohio schools are deemed “Excellent” or “Excellent with Distinction,” but in the new system only a few schools will be deemed worthy of a grade of “A”. Most schools will have a grade of “C” or less.

The point of the new system is to “raise the bar” with a tougher curriculum and harder tests and in so doing push students and schools to greater success. Here is what area educational leaders, Kevin Kelly and Frank DePalma, recently wrote in a DDN opinion article: “Ohio has raised its standards in bold and important ways for our children. When demands increase, it always takes time to adjust. The lower grades are an inescapable part of the process of asking our schools, teachers and children to aim higher.”

Yes, I agree that public education must be guided by higher aims and bolder purposes. But, really, the thought that the aims of public education can be distilled into objective tests of discrete academic curriculum is mind boggling. What is easily measurable has become most important to school evaluations and those elements of education that through the ages have always been considered most important — though difficult or impossible to measure — are being largely ignored.

The theory supporting this new grading system is that the merit of a school can be determined by analyzing the educational progress of its students — as measured in objective tests. The educational program itself — the use of school time and resources, the ethos of the school, the attitude of teachers and students toward the love of learning, the degree to which the school promotes a culture of thoughtfulness, empathy, respect, and the degree that its students and teachers practice good citizenship — according to this theory, should be simply ignored.

The philosophy of education that supports this new grading system is that the purpose of education is to transmit a a defined curriculum. It sees children as deficient — lacking in knowledge — and it sees the purpose of the school to correct that deficiency and to fill up the heads of kids with curriculum and other stuff, like “thinking skills.” This point of view asserts that objective tests can reliably assess how much knowledge the student has accumulated — the more the better — and when he or she has accumulated a sufficient quantity of this measurable knowledge, the student then is considered “educated.”

Flowing from this philosophy is the notion that a great teacher is anyone who can raise test scores and a great school is any organization that succeeds in getting most of its students to get acceptable test scores.

This guiding philosophy would have us believe that a child isolated at home or in an institution with a computer as his or her teacher has the same chance for a good education as a child within a loving school community and with a teacher who is his or her mentor. If the child makes acceptable scores, then his or her educational experience, by definition, was a success. This philosophy would have us believe that a school could be operated with a ruthless oppression worthy of North Korea — homogenizing children into non-thinking test taking automatons, brainwashing children into the acceptance of arbitrary authoritarianism and systematically crushing any independent thought by teachers or students — and, if the school’s test scores met the state’s criteria, the school could be deemed an “A+” school.

What is happening to public education seems so bizarre that anyone who thinks in terms of conspiracies has to wonder if the unstated, but underlying, aim of building a school evaluation system based on such a goofy and dangerous philosophy is, in fact, to destroy our system of public education and to replace it with something more business friendly. When we have diminished our understanding of what the purpose of public education actually is, then public schools can be given to the profiteers who will know how produce good test scores by using low-cost computers and by degrading the role of teachers to the status of low-paid blue collar workers.

We had a ten+ year experiment testing the philosophy that the way to make public education successful for students and communities is to center the whole system around transmitting a standardized curriculum and establishing accountability via the relentless giving of objective tests. The idea behind this experiment is that, if public policy is established that demands good test scores from schools and, if there are enough rewards and punishments, then, somehow, from this will emerge a good education. The results are in. It is clear that this approach to improving public education hasn’t worked and there is no reason to suppose giving harder tests and lower grades will make the results much better. While demanding more and grading harder may raise more students and schools to a level of minimum accomplishment, it seems clear that gearing up more and more pressure will not result in the explosion of quality that public education actually needs.

The problem is, the flawed and dangerous philosophy behind this experiment is so dominant it cannot be replaced unless a sufficiently compelling point of view and an inspiring model of public education takes its place. Communities must find a way to exert local control and must give a lot more thought into what makes a good school. Educators must create new school models that will show how the role of teachers can be elevated to a new level of professionalism. Through a vitalization of their local democracy, communities should work to define and implement a philosophy of education that will inspire students and teachers to do the hard work needed to achieve educational excellence.

Dayton businessman, Russ Gottesman, this morning announced that he is seeking to be the Democratic Party’s candidate to represent Ohio’s 10th Congressional District. The event was held at the Patterson Homestead on Brown Street.

Gottesman’s message is that as an entrepreneur who at an early age started his own successful company, he understands how to bring jobs to the community. He said, “Jobs — it is what it is all about.”  

It appears that Gottesman is about 35 years old — I can’t find his age. He is married with one child and has another child that will soon be born. This is his first attempt to gain elected office.

Gottesman started Commuter Advertising — a business which provides audio advertising on city busses and returns part of the advertising revenue to the bus companies. So far, city transportation companies have gained over $1 million through his business.

Republican Mike Turner currently represents Ohio’s 10th District and has been elected to that position six times. The 10th District includes all of Montgomery and Greene Counties and until the 2010 reapportionment, when Ohio lost two congressional seats, this region was designated as Ohio’s 3rd District. After reapportionment, the Dayton region became the 10th District and now it is considered one of the more competitive districts in the state. In the 2012 election, however, Turner won almost 60% of the vote, while the Democratic candidate, Sharen Neuhardt, received 37% and a Libertarian candidate received 3%.

Regardless that Gottesman’s literature promises “a campaign of ideas,” at this launch of his campaign, I failed to hear anything other than the usual boilerplate that any challenger might be expected to include — jobs, reaching across the isle, innovation, inclusiveness, building bridges, new voice, new leadership, etc.

After the speech, as I was eating one of the campaign’s pastry treats, one of Gottesman’s campaign workers asked what I thought about the speech. I told him that regardless that Gottesman projects a good spirit and a confident attitude, to me, Gottesman’s promise about creating jobs is simply unbelievable. I said, in fact, I couldn’t imagine anyone will be much impressed with his promise of creating jobs and that if he persists on making jobs his main message, he will be wasting a lot of effort that could be put to better use. I said, to my ear, Gottesman’s speech advanced a point of view that might be called “Republican Lite” — and that Gottesman failed to say anything that would make anyone think that he has any empathy or compassion for the plight of ordinary citizens. The speech, for my taste, was much too business-like and lacked heart. I explained to the campaign worker that, in my view, Gottesman’s speech failed to communicate passion and conviction and that I didn’t hear Gottesman say anything that would motivate the Democratic base to do the hard work that will be needed if he, or any Democrat, is to have any hope for victory. I said, if he is to have a chance, he needs to find the words that will communicate emotions that were missing in this initial effort.

Impressive today was the setting and overall organization of the event. About 50 people were in attendance. It appears that Gottesman has already put together an experienced team, and that, evidently, he has money to spend. Also impressive was the turn-out of much of the Montgomery County Democratic Party establishment. In each of the previous campaigns against Turner, this is the first time, in my memory, there has been such an early launch with a lot of the party establishment in attendance. Endorsed Democratic candidate for the Mayor of Dayton, Nan Whaley, introduced Gottesman and on the stage showing their support was Mark Owens, chair of the party, along with County Treasurer, Caroline Rice; County Commissioner, Dan Foley; County Recorder, Willis Blackshear; and State Representative, Fred Strahorn.

I’m wondering if this support by party leaders signals that there will be a push by the Montgomery County Democratic Party establishment to officially endorse Mr. Gottesman for the nomination — a push, as in the mayoral race and Ohio House races, to discourage unchosen Democrats from participating in the Democratic Primary.

Notably absent from this gathering was the Democratic candidate for Dayton mayor, A. J. Wagner — the candidate that failed to get the MCDP endorsement — and also absent were Wagner supporters, County Commissioners, Debbie Lieberman and Judy Dodge.

Our monthly meeting of the South of Dayton Democratic Club is this evening at 6:00 at the Wright Library in Oakwood. On the agenda is indicated time for a brief discussion of some of the ideas in my book, Public Education 2030.  I sent this e-mail to the club members.

Dear Friends, I see our agenda for this evening includes the opportunity to briefly discuss some of the ideas in my book, Public Education 2030.  (You can get a PDF here). 

One essay (p. 30) reports on Ted Strickland’s forums on the future of Ohio’s system of public education. In these forums, Strickland challenged his listeners to imagine what a new system might look like.  He challenged his listeners to imagine: “We are an artist looking at a blank slate and asking what is the best thing we can create here.”

In my career in teaching math at West Carrollton High School, I became convinced that public education is in need of starting again with a blank slate. I was charged with transmitting a curriculum that I knew was irrelevant to what many of my students needed. I saw how the potential of students and teachers was wasted and how even top students were unmotivated to accomplish much of quality. I became convinced that if public education should have a strong future, it needed big changes.

Strickland’s effort to get forum participants to brainstorm  a new system sounded like a great idea — but the discussion went nowhere. Participants wanted to defend their personal stake in the present system — a school nurse wanted to know how nurses would be impacted, an art teacher wanted to emphasize the importance of art in the curriculum, a math teacher suggested that there should be more math requirements, and on and on.

Strickland’s effort in these forums was doomed to fail because starting with a blank slate and thinking anew is not easy and most everyone in attendance at the forums had a stake in the present system.

In the essay, “In Education, Let’s Stop Trying To Improve A Horse and Buggy System,” (p. 24), I suggest that asking someone to imagine a new system of public education would be like asking someone in the 1800‘s to envision the automobile. Most buggy makers if given the chance would have opposed transforming the horse and buggy system, but, I write,

 “Eventually some buggy makers came to grips with the reality that their future was in the personal transportation business, not the buggy business. Similarly, school boards must begin to come to grips with the reality that the future must center on authentic education, not on schooling. There are many special interests dedicated to advancing the empire of schooling that now exists, but once the public sees a system of authentic education, the current system of schooling will become obsolete. The task for educational leadership is to envision a quality system of education that will inspire voters to move from the horse and buggy age and invest in the system of the future.”

In the last thirty years there have been many efforts to reform schools — but what is needed is an effort to transform them.

• Reformation starts by focusing on the component parts of the system — curriculum, class size, teacher training, teacher evaluation, school evaluation, etc. — and seeks to make improvement in those component
• Transformation starts by focusing on the purpose of the system—and taking a big picture view of looking at the system as a whole, seeks to create a system design where all the resources of the system work to accomplish the purpose of the system.

The mission statements of schools commonly state these aims:

1. Each child will acquire the tools and experience needed to develop his or her potential, and,
2. Each child will gain the knowledge, habits, temperament, and character that will empower him or her to be an effective citizen

The problem is, such mission statements have little impact on what actually happens in schools. Kettering is spending over $13,000 per child per year. Wouldn’t it be great if the resources of the system were focused on accomplishing these high sounding aims? As it is, the actual mission of every district and every school is to get a high score in the state system of school evaluation.

The way forward is via transformation, not reformation. The place where transformation could have the biggest chance for success is within communities where schools already are deemed “excellent” — the south of Dayton suburbs of our club members. Pumping more money and more effort into the present system can only be a short-term strategy. It cannot be a long term solution. In terms of public education policy, we are moving in the wrong direction and unless there is thoughtful intervention, the long term prospect for public education actually accomplishing its stated aims is not good.

One principle that most Democrats hold dear is the importance of sustaining and strengthening our system of public education. In terms of public education, we must be forward thinking, we must be the party of ideas.  We need to be much bolder in our advocacy, much bolder in our building of community consensus about this important topic.

There is much to talk about and I look forward to our discussion. Sincerely, Mike Bock