When is treatment lethal?

The new Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has an interesting idea. He recently suggested having schools "be open" six or even seven days a week for as many as eleven months a year. The rationale is that the U.S. needs to be able to compete with other nations that are currently vaporizing us on the education front (think Japan and Finland). While I applaud Secretary Duncan's acknowledgement that a problem exists, I must question his methodology. Firstly, though, we must evaluate the problems he intends to solve and contrast them against the problems that actually exist.

Implementing longer school weeks and years would theoretically afford more opportunities for learning. This presupposes two issues:

Firstly, this assumes that not enough opportunities are available. I beg to differ. The American Legion Oratorical Contest rivals any government course in terms of what students can learn, but less than a hundred students attempt it in Indiana each year. Debate affords the chance to become an expert (and I mean an expert) on almost any issue, but show me the public school where the debate team is larger than the football squad. Opportunities exist, Secretary Duncan, it's just that kids aren't taking them.

Secondly, this assumes that time spent off school (on weekends and over the summer) is being wasted. There is some truth to this. Many Americans (especially teens and preteens) go home from school and switch on the Xbox. But many also have jobs. Many younger kids play sports, or read recreationally. Some (gasp) have solid relationships with their parents and do things as a family. I'm homeschooled, but even so half of what I learned I learned on my own time. More time locked in a classroom may not balance less time spent working at Wendy's (and thus developing life skills) or reading A Critique of Pure Reason (which I can almost guarantee is not being taught in schools) or even just spending some time as a family.

I suspect that Secretary Duncan has missed the real issues. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, but I'll target the three most obvious to me:

1. Students

I just made a lot of people really mad, but hear me out. I spent a week at Hoosier Boys' State, an American Legion-run civics program last summer. Many very intelligent, social, fun students attended. Many singularly unpleasant students attended. I remember staring in amazement as a few of these students analyzed the contrasting abilities and styles of a dozen obscene (and, to me, indistinguishable) rap artists. The intelligence was there. But these same students gave me blank looks when I tried to discuss economics or politics or even science fiction books that hadn't been made into movies. No effort had been made by most of these guys to learn on their own. Why do we expect them learn in classrooms? Students can be lazy and no amount of additional time will cure this malady. Some students excel in public schools. Far more squeak by. Many fail. Same schools. Different students. Same schools. Different degrees of success. I think the success rate could be higher, but the sooner we accept that some or even many students just self-destruct the better the schools will be. The lowest common denominator is not an acceptable standard for education and cannot be the group to which schools primarily cater. Most importantly, the failure of students is not justification for the reformation of programs under all circumstances.

2. Parents

I just made even more people mad. Pop quiz for parents: who is responsible for your kids' education? If you answered "the state," please go read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. If you answered "me," then pat yourself on the back and move on to the next section, because you already know what I'm about to say. The state does not care about your kids. Never has, never will. Some people in government might, but the state generally exists to perpetuate itself. If that means providing education, fine. But it will consistently provide the least educational quality it can get away with. Who lets it slide? All too often, parents. Parents need to be willing to call schools on the carpet, help improve the quality of education, and, most importantly, just be willing to pull their kids out if necessary. Don't just pack 'em off at the age of six and expect the state to teach them. I am not a parent, and thus I am completely unqualified, but I do know this: the state would be fine with stamping you son or daughter with a barcode and having them subsist behind a desk for thirteen (under Obama, twenty-two) years of their lives. You love your kids. The state can't and won't. Step up to the plate. Help teach. Teach ethics. Teach sportsmanship. Teach personal finance. Impart character, that mysterious quality so tragically lacking in my generation. Until parents retake responsibility for raising kids, the schools cannot perform their function because of confusion over what this function even is.

3. Dewey

Good ol' John Dewey thought that education could cure society's ills and that this education could be universally applied. His views have been adopted, either quietly or overtly, by the states and by the feds. This results in two curious views. Students must be turned into clones molded to function in our Utopian, pluralistic society and the way to do this is through massive testing. This may seem disconnected, but follow me for a moment through the thought process. Under the ideas of Dewey, the goal of education is less to equip students to learn than it is to repair the harm done by their parents and to impart all the information and attitudes needed to be plugged into the world. Thus education changes from an open-ended, flexible process to an assembly line with a clear origin, terminus, and objective. How do we know if our little clones are up to snuff? We test 'em. Standardized tests determine which students have been correctly programmed and which ones need to visit Room 101 (Read 1984, too). Schools are awarded that elixir of life, federal funding, based on how many students pass. This idea that a good education consists of meeting criteria A, B, and C is at the heart of many of today's issues. Understanding matters less to Dewey than knowing. Knowing can be measured cheaply, understanding can't, at least not by the government.

Well, that's all I have to say for now on the problems. There are more, of course, but I'd have to designate a separate blog. What should be done? Well, Secretary, I think you can fix the third problem quite easily. Talk Obama into doing what Reagan threatened two decades ago: eliminate the Department of Education. It has no right to exist. It derives power from no Constitutional mandate. It inflicts more harms than it brings benefits. The idea that the federal government has either power over or vested interest in education is more than just incorrect; I find it downright frightening. Let me be clear. I am not on the lunatic fringe. I think that we landed on the moon and that the Warren Report is at least not a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. But government, and federal government in particular, education is another nail in the coffin of a free society. Think about it. We tell kids, starting at birth if Obama gets his way, that the government is responsible for their upbringing. That it should feed them breakfast. That the school is to blame if they fail a test. That the school should value their esteem. And then we expect them to lead independent lives? Expect them not to turn to the government for support at every opportunity? Expect them to regard the government with caution? Expect them to value initiative and personal responsibility and accountability and family and self-reliance and faith and hard work and vision and freedom? Because I can guarantee you this: none of these foundations of a virtuous society are taught in today's public schools. Will six days a week, eleven months a year of this make the situation better?

What do you think, reader?

What do you think, Mr. Duncan?