Small
Schools + Local Control =
A Winning Combination
by
Linda
Schrock Taylor
by Linda Schrock Taylor
The
plans and laws aimed at school reform have become exercises in futility
because, like Cyclops, the vision, thought, and goals of the do-gooders
are narrow and limited. This paradigm of failure, of throwing good
money after bad, of cheating yet another generation of children – has
come about because all but a very few of us insist on factoring
large centralized governmental control into any and every schooling
equation. The reformers will surely fail, no matter which test,
which curriculum, which guideline, which child they determine not
to leave behind. The reformers will fail because they, like the
Cyclops, are feeling the backs of the sheep while the answers are
hidden in places they are incapable of considering, or places that
they simply refuse to consider.
The
small rural schools of yesteryear worked, and worked well. The mail
that arrived in response to my two articles on one-room schools,
attests to that fact. Those who attended such schools remember them
fondly and credit them with providing each student with a strong
academic start. Families with children still attending the few one-room
schools that are left in America, report that they must stay ever
vigilant and ready to fight to keep their small, local schools.
Colin
Colenso described his experience with such programming: "I
write to you today to share my own experience with One-room
Schooling, which I believe is quite unusual but provides strong
support for your opinions on the superiority of One-room Schooling.
In 1974, as a third grader in Geelong, Australia, I was chosen
for an experimental Rural School Project, 12 students, 2 from
each grade 1 through 6 took part in this one-room, one-teacher
rural school, placed in a separate small house, within the confines
of a typical Primary School of about 400 students.
That
year shines in my memory, while the years before and after are
vague and uninspiring. In that year, we played sports and sang
songs everyday, and for another few hours we worked on lessons.
We were able to progress at our own pace. I remember that before
the end of that year I had progressed through all the mathematical
requirements of a 6th grader. I was disappointed
that I could not be given more knowledge at that point.
The
following year the project was cancelled (I do not know the
reason), and so I was sent back to the dark and boring world
of a typical Grade 4. That year and the next two years seemed
like a coma of repeating what I already knew. I grew to dislike
school and distrust teachers. I never again was inspired in
school as I was that year in a One-room School. My own experience
confirms to me very clearly the negative effects of being confined
to classrooms where the learning rate is set." (Email, June
28, 2004, quoted with permission.)
Colin's
experiences describe what the rest of us gained from one-room schooling,
as well as what we suffered upon leaving such personal and local
programming and moving to large consolidated schools. In the small
schools the curriculum and expectations were rigid but open-ended.
The teachers taught reading, – you may recall the statistics
from Regna Lee Wood – that of WW-II recruits, only .004 percent
were illiterate – most had been educated in rural schools and
with phonics; that of Korean War recruits, 17% were illiterate –
many had been schooled during the era of Look-Say whole language
and consolidations. Rural teachers also taught penmanship, English
grammar with parsing and diagramming of sentences, writing, mathematics
(through pre-algebra), U.S. History, geography and physiology. The
teachers were committed to teach all of these subjects, but they
wisely allowed each student to learn as much as they could absorb
and to move ahead at their own pace. The strategy paid off for those
who attended such schools.
Small
schools focus more specifically on building a foundation of skills
and knowledge that will serve the children for the remainder of
their lives. Big schools? I recently attended a school board meeting
at the district we support with our property taxes. I heard the
elementary principal inform the board of education that the goal
for next year is to "have 30% of the children score at least 50%
accuracy on the MEAP test." They were discussing the stronger students!
The unspoken message was clearly that it would be satisfactory for
the other 70% to only score 49% or lower on the test! What kind
of academic focus; what kind of standard, does such a goal set for
the future of the children in that district?
Discipline
is another area that must be considered in the equation for small
schools. In the rural schools the teacher was free to handle discipline
so as to maintain a quiet, calm, productive atmosphere for learning.
Some will recall that I learned to be quiet in school by being made
to color all letters with circles on a page of small print. That
was discipline, not punishment. It taught me to stay on task and
not disturb the learning of others. Had I rebelled, my family would
have been called, or the teacher would have made a home visit. My
parents would have taken strong measures to correct my behavior.
Such was the power of small schools.
Recently,
Charles R. Lewis wrote an article entitled "How
Teaching Has Been Rendered Impossible in Government Schools."
He discusses how "the discipline of arithmetic…had…been about
90% eliminated from the curriculum." He points out that "Arithmetic
was not the only institution that had gone by the wayside…The remaining
class time had to be devoted to a combination of 'touchy-feely'
techniques, politically correct propaganda, and 'activities'."
In
discussing unruly behaviors that interfere with learning, Lewis
says, Additionally,
teachers had been de-fanged. For one thing, one could no longer
eject disruptive pupils. This was particularly vexing to me,
for a pair of reasons. First, I recalled that in my student
days the abject fear of the consequences of a hypothetical ejection
had been enough to keep my classmates and me perpetually in
line. Second, by 1987, government school students were, as a
rule, completely devoid of personal responsibility when it came
to behavior…Any teacher who put students out of class…became
branded with the indelible stigma of having poor social director
skills. Lewis'
closing is classic, "You do not have to accept that there is an
organized conspiracy to keep our kids ignorant to get the picture.
As long as you realize that things are exactly as they would be
if there were such a conspiracy, that will suffice."
Parental
involvement/local controls are yet more elements in an equation
for successful schools. The local people should set the standards
for the schools they support. They should hold accountable anyone
or anything interfering with the process of educating and learning,
whether it be unruly students, poor teaching, or governmental agencies,
at any level above the neighborhood district, attempting to overtake
and destroy successful small schools. Too many people are fooled
into believing that local school boards serve that purpose. They
do not! They are rubber-stamp groups and know little about what
really goes on inside the schools.
They
believe that they must cater to every whim coming out of the state
and federal departments of education. Despite their dearth of knowledge,
they approve anything the superintendent hands them: any strange
new scheme; any highly publicized curriculum whether praise is warranted
or not; any new intrusion by state and federal manipulators. School
boards seem to have forgotten that the superintendent works for
them; not visa versa. School boards have forgotten that state and
federal authorities should be kept out of local decisions, even
if it means that each community stands firm and refuses to accept
state and federal bribe money.
I
often think of a local family I have known of for my entire lifetime.
I have had two of the 4th generation sons in my reading
classes. The gossip in the teachers' lounge has always claimed that
the family doesn't care about education and that the father can't
read, either. (That is supposed to excuse the teachers for their
failure to interest the children in learning.) I know that the father
does not read well, for he and I have discussed it on numerous occasions,
but the youngest son has made just remarkable gains since I taught
him the phonetic/alphabetic Code for written English.
I
also questioned whether or not it were true that the family did
not value education, for the father has always been most supportive
and appreciative of my work with his children. Then one day, as
I sorted through long-kept papers at my family's farm following
the death of my father, I came across a notebook of school board
minutes from the time when the Williams School (my first home) was
in operation. The minutes were signed, and one of the board members
was the 1st generation male of this family to live in
that area. He had signed the minutes with his 'mark' so obviously
he could neither read nor write. I realized that the gentleman did
indeed care about schooling for his children, and probably all the
more so since he, himself had missed out on the chance. My young
student reports that his grandmother reads fine, and she would have
been attending the one-roomed school when her father cared enough
to serve on the Board. The next two generations were mis-educated
in the consolidated school system.
Neil
Postman, in his book Building
a Bridge to the 18th Century – How the Past Can
Improve Our Future offers many insights into the past, and
suggestions for how we can look backwards to find our way out of
these times of despair. Postman posits,
Where
shall we look for such a way? Well, of course, one turns first
to the wisdom of the sages, both near and far. Marcus Aurelius
said, "At every action, no matter by whom preferred, make it
a practice to ask yourself, 'What is his object in doing this?'
But begin with yourself; put this question to yourself first
of all." Goethe told us, "One should, each day, try to hear
a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if
possible, speak a few reasonable words." Socrates said, "The
unexamined life is not worth living." Rabbi Hillel said, "What
is hateful to thee, do not do to another." The prophet Micah:
"What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love
mercy and to walk humbly with Thy God." And our own Henry David
Thoreau said, "All our inventions are but improved means to
an unimproved end." (Page 11) Consolidation – "improved
means to an unimproved end." Sounds exactly right.
Postman
continues,
What
I am driving at is that in order to have an agreeable encounter
with the twenty-first century, we will have to take into it some
good ideas. And in order to do that, we need to look back to take
stock of the good ideas available to us. I am suspicious of people
who want us to be forward-looking. I literally do not know what
they mean when they say, "We must look ahead to see where we are
going." What is it that they wish us to look at? There is nothing
yet to see in the future. If looking ahead means anything, it
must mean finding in our past useful and humane ideals with which
to fill the future…I am referring to ideas of which we can say
they have advanced our understanding of ourselves, enlarged our
definitions of humanness…Is it not obvious that our century has
been an almost unrelieved horror? (Pages 13–14)
This
question – Where shall we look for guidance about what to
do and think in the twenty-first century…is as significant as
it is daunting, especially hard for those who are strangers to
history…I suggest that we turn our attention to the eighteenth
century. It is there, I think, that we may find ideas…I
am not suggesting that we become the eighteenth century,
only that we use it for what it is worth and for all it is worth…Let
us adopt the principles rather than the details…This is the century
which Isaiah Berlin summed up in these words: "The intellectual
power, honesty, lucidity, courage and disinterested love of the
truth of the most gifted thinkers of the eighteenth century remain
to this day without parallel. Their age is one of the best and
most hopeful episodes in the life of mankind." (Pages 17–18)
It
is important to remember that eighteenth century philosophies, ideas
and inventions came forth from individuals schooled at home or in
one-room schools. The innovations in schooling during the twentieth
and twenty-first century have not improved our culture nor our individual
lives. To look forward, we need to look back. We need to accept
that those small schools, guided by local individuals with close
ties and vested interests, did indeed make a winning combination
for all, from the individual schoolchild to the possibilities and
potential for the nation as a whole.
 July
12, 2004
Linda
Schrock Taylor [send
her mail] lives in Michigan.
She is a free-lance writer and the owner of "The Learning Clinic,"
where real reading, and real math, are taught effectively and efficiently.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
Linda
Schrock Taylor Archives
|
