EDUCATION

Aside from social spending, Education is one of the more costly endeavors of state and local government. Rhode Islanders are generous in the amount of taxation that goes to educating our youth. Yet, while we consistently spend liberally on education, we find that our education dollars are not purchasing the education we expect.

I always approach education issues from the point of view of socio-demographics. As a licensed teacher, holding my first Masters degree in Education (Boston University) and having done my Ph.D course work (Columbia University) in the field of Comparative Education, along with my years of service as the Chairperson of the Warren School Committee, I feel fairly well versed in education issues.

What my training and experiences have taught me is that all education relates to the socio-demographics, end of story.

If a child is from an affluent two parent family that values education, the child’s likelihood of success is almost absolutely certain. There is a stable education program for the child. The family values an education and intellectual achievement. There is no concern related to finances (health care, food, housing). There is a positive peer group among the other school children. Affluent parents tend to have a more extensive vocabulary, are less reliant upon television as a means of amusement, and have expendable wealth for cultural enhancements.

A child from less fortunate circumstances presents greater challenges to educators. This does not mean that this child is unable to attain an education, but it does mean that the system needs to look at the child and make appropriate adjustments to make education a success.

American education’s history presents itself as being the smoking gun as to how we got to where we are today. Worldwide, education systems vary, but are generally categorized along two distinct lines: the American style system and the French style system.

The American system allows for greater freedom granted to the instructor as to lesson plans and classroom management. The French system is designed to have every classroom in the entire system to be on the same page on the same day. The latter does not allow for the “creative” and “variety” enjoyed by American style instruction methods.

As is often the case in education, there is no right or wrong answers, but that does not mean that the issue avoids analysis. Later, these two distinct styles will be explored as to their relevance to Rhode Island education, but for now it is sufficient to realize the difference.

American education, largely under the guidance of social innovators such as Henry Barnard and others, was designed to be a public school system. This concept was furthered by John Dewey’s views on education in post-World War II America. Dewey had argued for pragmatic education. America embraced this and started various programs of education to allow for such innovations as guidance counseling and industrial/vocational education.

These concepts, however, were somewhat perverted in their application. The labor unions, reluctant to relinquish control over the ancient apprentice system, crippled much of these efforts related to vocational training. Additionally, the need to have every student to be “college bound” has made a mockery of such alternative education programs.

To approach education from a perspective that everyone will be an eventual college graduate is a misdirected effort. As such, education efforts with a single track focus have done a great disservice to education and to those funding education. It is both incapable of success and difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

Since the 1950’s the suburbs have attracted the more affluent families in their flight from the cities. This leaves the urban areas to struggle with the problems related to the less fortunate, and as such, relates directly to the urban education system.

For purpose of example, let’s consider a typical urban student in relation to a typical suburban student from a statistical perspective. The child is likely from a family at or below poverty level. The child is more likely to be from a single parent family. There is a greater likelihood of having more siblings than his or her suburban counterpart. There is a far greater likelihood of school movement due to the rental nature of the family. There is less likelihood that his or her parent(s) has advanced education degrees. There is far less of a support system available to this child.

Affluent families are likely to have advanced degrees. As such, they speak proper English and correct their children when they speak improperly. These children also avail themselves to the benefit of a peer group that comes from a similar background. I usually offer this as an example: When I was a child, I grew up in a blue collar/factory worker family. I did not know the distinction between the proper use of “good” and “well” until I went off to college. A similar child from an affluent family would not be allowed to say “He did good”, but that type of language goes unchallenged in a less educated household.

What difference does this make?, you may ask. The answer is that when it comes time to test for basic language ability, to the one that has been forced to speak properly, the answer comes naturally. To the uncorrected speaker, to get the proper answer requires a thought process to choose the correct answer. Multiply this a few thousand-fold and you can understand the greater difficulty that faces those on the lower levels of the socio-demographis scale.

The one true predictor of education success throughout the world is the education level of the father (in the U.S. it is of the parents due to the enhanced role of women in the society). It is not brain surgery and it is not one hundred percent reliable, but I would venture to guess it is probably 95% reliable.

Armed with this knowledge, how can anyone justify the Rhode Island system of education and expect that it would successfully serve its residents? Instead of attempting to ignore the socio-economic differences in an attempt to implement an egalitarian “feel-good” we are all equal policy, Rhode Island should focus on applying this acquired knowledge to create a positive education environment.

There are some simple solutions. Why should the Rhode Island Department of Education allow for an American style curriculum to be taught in urban areas? Since children in urban systems frequently move from one school to another, usually within the urban areas, why not use a French style curriculum in the urban centers? If a child moves to another school, the lesson is consistent with the one he or she just left behind. Not only is it logical, it is a change that would require little or no funding increase, yet it could provide significant improvement in the school performance of our urban youth.

Education has frequently been misused to implement social policy. We do not value academic excellence, but instead we reward the mediocre. We somehow feel that we need to abandon education goals that reward scholarship and use the system toward a more egalitarian end. If you abandon logic and reason, you are educating for “feelings” and not for “intelligence”.

By confusing these we blur the mission of education. Realistically, if the government were to call what passes for education today “indoctrination”, it would be far more accurate.

Our government leaders have realized that the school system is the easiest method to tap every member of the society. Most have a minimal contact with the schools, and therefore, it became the foundation to implement social policy in place of academics.

Schools serve breakfasts and lunches. They provide psychological counseling. They teach sex education. They provide suicide prevention services. The schools are centers for health programs. They provide after-school daycare services.

In short, schools have absorbed the role of the parent. The state is now the family. American’s criticized this exact behavior of the Soviet communist state a mere fifty years earlier and yet they pushed headlong into adopting this model for itself. This has done little other than entrench the reach of the state but has also accelerated the decline in the family and social support systems.

All this education philosophy aside, Rhode Island also faces a problem related to the funding of this system of so-called “education”. Rhode Island relies on property taxation for the greater part of the funding of suburban schools. Through state taxation, these suburbanites also fund the bulk of the education efforts in the urban areas. This system is both unfair and illogical.

I have advocated on many occasions to have a statewide teacher and education labor contract, negotiated by the General Assembly before adjournment on election years. This system would also shift the burden (90%) to income taxation and away from the property taxation that plagues the state.

In the future I will discuss the relationship between education and taxation, but in order to understand the financial aspects of education, we first have to understand the rationale behind our education efforts and that is why we start here.

In the future I will articulate some education aims that are obtainable through small changes in the system. I will also discuss the role of organized labor in the education process.

In the future I will also define a plan to make Rhode Island’s education system perform to a level that both services the population and meets the needs of the society in terms of economic development and taxation.