Whither the Schools

“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.” Who can argue with the logic of that?
Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln spoke those words in 1858 in his famous “House Divided” speech, going on to address the issue of slavery in territories. Pundits aplenty have made this same point since, often with far less eloquence but no less imperative. “If you don’t have a goal,” Yogi Berra is reputed to have said, “you’ll never get there.”
Clarity of purpose. Focus on mission. “Keeping the main thing the main thing,” as the pastor at St. Andrew likes to say. If we let ourselves get caught up with the urgent, we may miss the important. Too often, we do what we think we have to do, rather than what we should do.
These thoughts come to mind as we’ve watched the local school board start to look squarely at this question of mission. What is the purpose of public education? How do we know if we’re fulfilling that purpose?
With looming money problems (ok, it’s a “crisis”), the danger is taking attention away from the main thing. Under the direction of board president Dan Gustafson, this had become a specific assignment. The phrasing he used at the recent board retreat was as concise as any: “What would great schools look like here?” Turns out that’s not so easy for some folks to answer, as the board seems far still from adopting an answer, from stating in measurable terms just what our schools are to accomplish.
The high school has adopted a new definition of “academic rigor,” it was announced to the school board on Tuesday, as part of the school’s efforts to implement recommendations from its 2008 accreditation review. Some 99 percent of the staff at the high school supported the new definition. What is that definition? Well, no one at the board meeting quite knew. We can hear Lincoln now (“If we could first know … whither we are tending …”).
Another thing that makes us shudder is the excitement about the 80 percent pass rate for high school sophomores taking the California State High School Exit Exam, required for graduation. It was reported that the test covers 6th and 7th grade material. This reflects how low our expectations are – for the schools, for the students, and eventually for society as a whole.
We believe that the board needs to answer the fundamental question of mission, if all of the district’s efforts around high school restructuring, curriculum planning, and budget cuts are to have ultimate purpose.
We loved President Obama’s speech to the nation’s students on Tuesday. Available on-line at whitehouse.gov, it is full of strong messages about the value of education and the hard work it takes to succeed.
One point in particular: Obama told the students, “Never give up on yourself.” But when our schools expect only a 6th or 7th grade competency among graduating high school seniors, haven’t we given up on them? When our schools promote students on to the next grade when they cannot do work at their own grade level, haven’t WE given up on THEM? How then can they not give up on themselves?
We’ve suggested that not promoting students who haven’t mastered the grade-level material would solve the perennial problem of low test scores. By definition. But the idea is not that huge numbers of students are to be held back. The point is that adopting such a policy focuses the necessary attention on those students at most risk; the declaration makes clear the essential points that every student can succeed and that the schools are committed to doing what it takes to help them succeed.
During Tuesday night’s meeting, trustee Gary De Smet mentioned that the Seattle City Schools did this very thing 10 years ago, with tremendous results that continue to fuel high achievement in those schools.
So why not adopt that policy here? In our view, it’s still a good idea.