Thinking About Obsolete High Schools
I think a better way to think about this questions is how might high schools be obsolete. I am wary of blanket statements like Gate’s—since they obscure what might be working and seem to advocate for a wholesale change. Gates argues our high schools are doing what they were designed to do 50 years ago but that this is not adequate for the times—and is destructive to many students’ futures. His main argument is that all students need to be ready to enter college or some sort of post secondary education (technical or certificate program) after high school since most jobs where you can earn a living wage will require this sort of education; and he says that we underserve many students of color and from disadvantaged backgrounds (perhaps more the underserve them—actively keep them disadvantaged—whether through choice or through negligence—both equally horrendous for him).
On the other hand, he does say that our high school system is working for some students—privileged white students—he says they are some of the best educated students in the world:
Let’s be clear. Thanks to dedicated teachers and principals around the country, the best-educated kids in the United States are the best educated kids in the world. We should be proud of that. But only a fraction of our kids are getting the best education.
So, clearly some kids are learning “what they need to know today.” Even though he claims our current high schools cannot deliver this. So he seems to be making two claims: the first is that our schools do not and cannot teach students what they need for today’s world of work; and second, that our schools do teach a small fraction of kids what they need to know but woefully underprepare the rest. These are not directly contradictory but they do imply contradictory things about what high school currently do and do not do.
I suppose one way to look at what Gates is saying is as a speech—a rhetorical construction meant to inspire action in the Governors who are there to hear him—and not to make a complicated argument about what may or may not be working with high schools—after all, he is pouring millions of dollars into new schools: he wants official support and recognition for the money and time his foundation is putting into these ventures. He wants to shake things up. But not once in this speech does he really talk about what makes the new schools un-obsolete—is it a matter of smaller class/school size? A matter of technology? A matter of high expectations and rigorous curriculum? These hardly seem like revolutionary things for high schools (or any schools) to be considering—they are quite capable of being implemented in our current educational system. So, I guess I am still waiting for the real argument for why Bill Gates thinks our schools are obsolete and not just “broken, flawed, and underfunded—though a case could be made for everyone of those points.”
From my own standpoint, as a parent of high school student and with a second set to start next year, as a sometime teacher trainer & work shop leader, and as a community stake holder, I can put forth a few things within our system which are obsolete given the technology available to us and the nature of work and learning:
· The daily schedule of short classes and bells and rounds of homework
· The inflexibility of coursework and classes required to graduate
· The repetition of the curriculum—which has earned us the mile wide & inch deep phrase—and common core is not going to change this
· The incredible numbers of test, district assessments, state assessments, and performance evaluations required through out students years in school—beginning in grade school.
All of these things speak to a way of educating which focuses on one way of learning, rewards students who are good test takers and quick to learn facts and to repeat what has been presented to them. It is a system which has evolved to teach a work force where these skills were required—where these skills would lead to success in the 9-5 factory or office job. A key word in the preceding sentence is the word ”evolve”—change that lasts, change that means something for more than the term of a school board or administration, is change that takes place over time—is thought out and debated as painful as that might be; it is change which incorporates and builds on what we know instead of throwing everything out and starting over.
I think a better way to think about this questions is how might high schools be obsolete. I am wary of blanket statements like Gate’s—since they obscure what might be working and seem to advocate for a wholesale change. Gates argues our high schools are doing what they were designed to do 50 years ago but that this is not adequate for the times—and is destructive to many students’ futures. His main argument is that all students need to be ready to enter college or some sort of post secondary education (technical or certificate program) after high school since most jobs where you can earn a living wage will require this sort of education; and he says that we underserve many students of color and from disadvantaged backgrounds (perhaps more the underserve them—actively keep them disadvantaged—whether through choice or through negligence—both equally horrendous for him).
On the other hand, he does say that our high school system is working for some students—privileged white students—he says they are some of the best educated students in the world:
Let’s be clear. Thanks to dedicated teachers and principals around the country, the best-educated kids in the United States are the best educated kids in the world. We should be proud of that. But only a fraction of our kids are getting the best education.
So, clearly some kids are learning “what they need to know today.” Even though he claims our current high schools cannot deliver this. So he seems to be making two claims: the first is that our schools do not and cannot teach students what they need for today’s world of work; and second, that our schools do teach a small fraction of kids what they need to know but woefully underprepare the rest. These are not directly contradictory but they do imply contradictory things about what high school currently do and do not do.
I suppose one way to look at what Gates is saying is as a speech—a rhetorical construction meant to inspire action in the Governors who are there to hear him—and not to make a complicated argument about what may or may not be working with high schools—after all, he is pouring millions of dollars into new schools: he wants official support and recognition for the money and time his foundation is putting into these ventures. He wants to shake things up. But not once in this speech does he really talk about what makes the new schools un-obsolete—is it a matter of smaller class/school size? A matter of technology? A matter of high expectations and rigorous curriculum? These hardly seem like revolutionary things for high schools (or any schools) to be considering—they are quite capable of being implemented in our current educational system. So, I guess I am still waiting for the real argument for why Bill Gates thinks our schools are obsolete and not just “broken, flawed, and underfunded—though a case could be made for everyone of those points.”
From my own standpoint, as a parent of high school student and with a second set to start next year, as a sometime teacher trainer & work shop leader, and as a community stake holder, I can put forth a few things within our system which are obsolete given the technology available to us and the nature of work and learning:
· The daily schedule of short classes and bells and rounds of homework
· The inflexibility of coursework and classes required to graduate
· The repetition of the curriculum—which has earned us the mile wide & inch deep phrase—and common core is not going to change this
· The incredible numbers of test, district assessments, state assessments, and performance evaluations required through out students years in school—beginning in grade school.
All of these things speak to a way of educating which focuses on one way of learning, rewards students who are good test takers and quick to learn facts and to repeat what has been presented to them. It is a system which has evolved to teach a work force where these skills were required—where these skills would lead to success in the 9-5 factory or office job. A key word in the preceding sentence is the word ”evolve”—change that lasts, change that means something for more than the term of a school board or administration, is change that takes place over time—is thought out and debated as painful as that might be; it is change which incorporates and builds on what we know instead of throwing everything out and starting over.