The Educated Society

Part 1 of this 5-part series addressed the importance of four interdependent components in building a culture of education in the United States: School; Parents/Family; Government; and Community. Today, Part 2 focuses on parents and family.

Public discussion of education overwhelmingly focuses on teachers — finding and keeping the good ones, firing the bad ones, or generally making them more accountable. The problem is that this perspective neglects a more important factor, that of the role of parents and the family. This is not a new perspective, so why are all reform policies aimed squarely at schools and teachers? The broader picture is being missed.

Especially in major metropolitan areas as New York and Washington, DC, the debate has recently emphasized merit pay, where teacher salaries and bonuses are tied to student achievement. How did this come to be? In essence, substantial research had found that teacher quality was the single biggest school-based influence on student achievement, which implied that student scores would naturally go up if schools were filled with great teachers. This belief became one of the major initiatives for the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), where public schools had to work towards having 100% of their teachers certified. Though this development is admirable, the bigger elephant in the room is the one rarely addressed — the accountability of parents.

The importance of family and parent involvement in their child’s education has been documented just as extensively, but so far, solutions in the public forum are few and far between. For a child, the family is the smallest and, arguably, the most influential unit. The seminal 1966 Coleman Report, which was the largest social science study ever conducted on education and achievement, concluded that no other variable – not classroom size, nor the amount of school resources and money, nor culture — significantly impacts a student’s achievement more than family life and its processes, which include parental participation in education, creating an intellectually stimulating environment, and support. The results of that report stirred political and social controversy precisely because of the implications: that minorities, with their various social pathologies, needed to look within their own families as the source of educational deficiency — something no amount of schooling can overcome. It has always been easier to focus reform efforts on the institution of school or on teachers, as opposed to the family.

Based on the current trend, it appears that teachers will bear the brunt of the responsibility for academic improvement, but not if the powerful New York teacher’s union have anything to say about it. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT) has steadfastly refused to reveal its teachers’ grades to the public. One the one hand, shouldn’t parents be aware of the quality of their child’s teacher? Yes, but it’s not that simple. Part of this reticence stems from a bigger issue: that although teachers are accountable for student learning and achievement, parents are not put under a similar spotlight. Put differently, what would happen if parents were publicly graded? Would they be so quick to reveal their scores to the public? Understandably there is an issue of privacy, but children growth in learning and achievement is as much the province of parents as teachers, if not more. Character development, attitude, persistence, and self control are inner qualities that highly influence learning and achievement, and are mostly developed within the confines of the family. This is the fundamental problem that is ignored in public discourse, and by critics of teacher’s unions. Politicians can help to eliminate inadequate teachers and union bureaucracy as a way to strengthen quality education, but focusing on teacher accountability exclusively is not addressing the underlying problem of student deficiency.

How many teachers have had children from broken homes put into their classroom, with little support provided? How many of these teachers have had to chase after neglectful parents to come to parent-teacher conferences, because their child has not turned in one homework? How many parents simply do not provide a stable and rich environment? Unlike parents, public school teachers average more than 25 students in a class; should they have the Herculean responsibility of raising every students’ score? At best, a difficult challenge; at worst, an insuperable task, depending on the students they inherit. It’s no wonder one-third of new teachers quit after three years and almost half after five years, with even more in high poverty areas. Such high turnover, coupled with their provisional status as students are promoted year after year, do not allow for any reliable measure of improvement.

When educators, reformers, and politicians begin to realize and address the family as the root of educational pathology or success, then they will have made a difficult first step towards understanding how to improve student learning and achievement. Only when reform expands outside of schooling to include family support (as well as government and community support), can there be a culture of education in the United States.

Next Time (Part 3): Does the American Culture Support or Undermine Public Education?

Election year is always a good time to ponder the kind of leader that is most suited for any position, whether it be the current senate elections, the presidency, or even a CEO. With  72% of responses about the federal government negative (according to the September 20-21st, 2010 USA Today/Gallup poll), the public appears divided, with many feeling that government is too big and involved (58%), while others believe it should have a more comprehensive role (almost 6 in 10 people believe that government should make sure that all Americans have adequate health care). With so many diverse and conflicting values, three qualities should be universal to any leader: wisdom, benevolence and integrity. America and the world still struggles to produce leaders with all of them, if the polls are any indication.

Let’s start with wisdom: Being smart is clearly not enough. Witty Time columnist Joel Stein was not incorrect when he wrote about the upside of elitism in his article: “I went to a better college than you did. That does not make me a better person than you. It does, however, make me smarter, more knowledgeable, more curious and more ambitious. So, in a lot of ways, better.” However, for positions of leadership and power, it is utterly inadequate. How many of our political representatives have gone to elite academic schools? Probably most of them, but how many have used their good judgement or experience to galvanize their constituents towards progress? President Obama, clearly an intelligent man, has so far shown his lack of experience and good judgement in corralling a divided nation. Hopefully with time, that will change.

What about benevolence? Historically, national progress has tended towards humanism (i.e., the understanding of the value of human potential), from women’s right to vote to the current attempt to ban the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for gays serving in the military. The kindness and openness that children learn early in life lead to institutional improvements in a democratic nation — an open society. Without the value of benevolence as an anchor, intelligent leaders can rule unilaterally to shape a society as he sees fit, as Adolph Hitler did before World War II.

The third quality, integrity, is one acutely lacking among many leaders as well. That moral uprightness and the ability to make such decisions prevent the corruption seen in so many nations and industries. How many Americans were bilked out of their life savings by financier Bernie Madoff or ruined because of predatory lenders who downplayed the risks of subprime housing loans during the housing crisis in 2008? How many African citizens have been denied receiving public goods such as healthcare and education by corrupt public servants? Integrity is more important, in many ways, than wisdom. A feckless but morally principled leader stagnates national progress, but a highly intelligent but corrupt one will disastrously reverse it.

People in positions of authority — leaders — must be cultivated and vetted for all three of these qualities, as opposed to other current measures of productivity. Such upfront analysis would save taxpayers from paying the price in the end. Evaluating a person based on their wisdom, benevolence, and integrity should be the focus of an educated society. How does your current favorite candidate measure up?

Summary:

Good Leader = Wisdom + Benevolence + Integrity

Wisdom = Intelligence + Experience/Good judgement

Benevolence = Kindness + Openness

Integrity = Inner values + Action

With the increased polarization in modern politics, perhaps it is time to revisit the solution of bringing in a strong third party to represent the balanced perspective of most Americans. Despite the media’s proclivity towards reporting the extreme, the majority of Americans and global citizens are looking to build consensus and maintain moderation in solving issues. It is the reason why Independents are the largest group of voters — 37% of registered voters, compared with 34% Democrats and 29% Republicans, according to the most recent Pew Research Center poll (August 26th-September 5th, 2010). In fact, a growing frustration with government seemed to have fueled the increased Independent engagement this election, with the party in power — the Democrats — falling out of favor.

Though this moderate voting bloc is a welcome sign of a stable and thriving democracy, portrayals of the Right or Left by the opposition indicate the perennial irresponsibility and selfishness of the media as well as an increasingly ignorant public. Growing fundamentalism usually stems from one of two ways: an ignorance of the public or a distrust of society’s leaders. Decline in American intellectualism, coupled with a growing wariness of the American government are reasons why fringe groups as the Tea Party have become more politically robust. (Any yes, they are a fringe group, not a third party.)

Both sides have valid arguments, but both parties fail to remember history. Democrats, for example, realize the importance of government’s role to help all citizens, but neglect to remember America’s “Protestant work ethic” foundation that made the 20th century the American Century. This rugged individualism has allowed it to become the global economic, political, and cultural titan, and the only thing that gives U.S. the innovative edge. As a result, welfare and other government spending programs that consistently drain taxpayers have only increased with little to show for, and continue to rankle hard working Americans. Republicans, similarly afflicted with historical amnesia, currently rush to denounce government intervention in the health care and financial industry, yet refuse to allow federally-funded Medicare to be touched. If you remember, its inception was similarly denounced 45 years ago (as was Social Security 30 years prior in 1935) as inevitably leading to socialism. Sound familiar? Both programs are considered inalienable rights for all Americans now. (As a side note, it was interesting to see all the controversy regarding New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg enacting a similarly “socialist” smoking ban policy in all bars — and a current one for public parks — but now receiving wide praise for such foresight.)

A centrist third party used to represent the moderate views of most Americans would seem to hold more appeal, as long as it does not devolve into an obstructionist party bent on “refusing to help the other party.” In theory, a third party would also force cooperation among parties in order to appeal to the majority of voters, as opposed to the sharp division currently seen. Think of it in economic terms: a robust middle class stabilizes a nation and minimizes the fringe. A thriving centrist party would do the same. So, how have other nations fared with such multiparty systems? Though countries as Germany and France have more than two, it is difficult to recommend or model after, as some of these smaller parties tend to be dominated by major parties. The question is, can a moderate and dominant third party be formed successfully?

Addendum: Thomas Friedman wrote a similar article recently advocating for an independent, radical center third party called “American Elect” to cut through the trenchant politics: “[The] goal is to open up what has been an anticompetitive process to people in the middle who are unsatisfied with the choices of the two parties,” said Kahlil Byrd, the C.E.O. of Americans Elect. Read the rest here. 

Recently, a New York Times article about how a culture of poverty — the pathological cycle of sustained racism, isolation, welfare, and absentee fathers — has changed over the decades compelled me to think about the extent to which cultures shape us. But instead of looking at cultures of pathologies, I asked myself as an educator, do we have a “culture of education”? It seems like an easy answer in some ways, but the deeper I dug, the more despondent I grew.

American parents might think, of course we do! As involved parents, they know school comes first: I set a dedicated time and place for homework, I volunteer to help in my child’s school life, and my children are surrounded in an educationally rich environment. We are constantly finding ways to challenge their education and growth. They are well on their way to a top high school or Ivy League college. Congratulations, you have created a culture of education for your child. But that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about building a collective culture of education.

With the well known news that America is behind its international counterparts in math and science scores (31st out of 40 industrialized countries in science literacy and 35th in math, according to the 2006 PISA report), the perennial difficulty in bridging the achievement gap between White/Asian students and other minorities, and the dwindling of social studies, the arts, and physical education in schools, it becomes clear we do not support a culture of education. In my visit to Guangdong, China, one year ago, I asked a group of adults their perception of America. Essentially, the answers boiled down to what German foreign policy analyst Josef Joffe described in The National Interest, as “both menace and seducer, both monster and model.” In other words, people love our popular culture because of its extravagance and innovation, but at the same time resent what it stands for: imperialism and decay.

Putting politics aside, that culture is what we are known for. Being known for exporting such love/hate commodities like fast food, entertainment, and technology is great for our economy in the short term, but to sustain it in a hyper competitive global arena, education must be reinvested in. So what does it take?

Contrary to popular thinking, education reform is not relegated to just fixing schools, even though it’s the most conspicuous part. To use the more concrete example of losing weight, going on a food diet is the most obvious way to accomplish this difficult task, but it is by no means the sole solution. In fact, exercise, mental discipline, and easy access to affordable healthy foods must all be part of the answer.  Without considering the interplay of all components, success cannot be sustained. In other words, a sustainable culture of healthy living must be created by the individual AND the society.

Interestingly, these values contrast with the group-oriented mentality found in Asian countries and the public-spiritedness of European nations, many of which have ranked higher in international tests of achievement. The importance of education in Asian countries, a byproduct of a pervasive millennia-old Confucian ethic, drives a collective effort that ultimately brings about a culture of education. President Obama, in his 2009 Pacific Rim tour to China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, lauded the enthusiasm of Korean parents for their children’s education, citing a demand from parents for excellence in their schools, as well as an Asian hunger for knowledge, an insistence on excellence, a reverence for learning and for teachers – so much that their pay scales are comparable to doctors and other professionals. Talk about creating a culture of education. By no means are these countries’ education system ideal either, but that is for a future topic.

All the American public has heard about are specific problems and solutions mostly related to schooling: Create smaller classrooms. Develop stricter standards for teacher quality. More parent involvement. There’s not enough funding. We need national standards. More charter schools. Teacher pay should be tied to student achievement. The curriculum is too water-down and narrow. Through all this, the battle over American education has become more polarized, but more importantly, this reductionist perspective ignores the critical interrelationship among these issues. A complete and holistic perspective is needed to diagnose and improve education, one that experts have rarely considered – that we need to build a culture of education.

So, to address a national educational deficit and overall decline, a strong educational culture needs to be established in the United States and is the key to collective academic achievement and forward progress. So how do we do this?

The answer: Stop talking only about school reform. Start talking about the other integral parts of a culture of education — the child, the family, the community, and the government. The public at large never address these parts.

Next time: Part 2: Teacher or Parent Accountability?

The Obama administration has been pressured to take retaliatory action against China’s “policy” of devaluing its currency. What happens when a country devalues its currency? Simply put, Chinese exports are cheaper and more attractive when it keeps its yuan low, resulting in a trade imbalance. The less Americans sell, the worse off they are, and the more manufacturing jobs they lose to the Chinese – hence the misdirected anger.

Politicians have taken full advantage of this. No less than 29 senatorial and congressional candidates from both parties, according to a New York Times article, have variously painted their opponents as Chinese sympathizers who have exported American jobs. Ohio congressman Zack Space (D), West Virginia hopeful Spike Maynard (R), Nevada incumbent Harry Reid (D) among others have capitalized on worker frustration to gain voters.

An educated perspective demands that Americans look past the uneasy truth of their own shortcomings. “China,” as Time Editorialist Zachary Karabell pointed out, “is far from perfect and seeks its own advantage, but holding it accountable for our domestic problem is beyond anachronistic.” A similar scapegoating of Japan during the 1980s for taking away manufacturing jobs and has been a perennial way for politicians win over a credulous public.

The truth is the American economy has been deteriorating while China has been growing 10% annually over the last ten years. Long term Chinese investment in its infrastructure and education has been setting the stage for a robust economy, and now they are reaping its benefits. American students ranked 21st out of 30 industrialized nations in science literacy and 25th in math (based on the 2006 PISA report), and they lag Chinese counterparts in fortifying industrial and technological infrastructure. Would the fiercely proud Chinese have let ten years go by without rebuilding the World Trade Center? The famous innovation edge Americans hold may not last long.

One promising step has been taken by the current administration. President Obama launched an “Educate to Innovate” initiative in 2010 to improve student performance and participation in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields and invested in public/private partnerships to make it happen. A long-term investment in education can only benefit a nation in its future progress, but will it be too late? One thing is for sure: hostility towards another nation as an excuse to galvanize a nation may be politically natural, but is not an educated solution to improving the American economy.

UPDATE: The noted American policy analyst Fareed Zakaria supports the notion of shifting from American consumption to investment to improve the long term American economy in the November 1, 2010 issue of Time magazine: “[America] has managed to invest in human capital by taking smart, motivated people from around the globe, educating them…and then unleashing them in a dynamic economy.” He asserts the importance of going back to investing in education and training, research and technology, innovation and infrastructure, very similar to my original post above.

Right now, an educated society is the only kind that can help America thrive with the world. Without this cultivated public, we lack the wisdom, the benevolence, and the moral and ethical character to build a flourishing society. Without it, we fall prey to petty partisan infighting. Without it, we tend to glorify popular culture over education. Without it, we elect feckless politicians or promote greedy executives. And without it, we lose sight of what it means to be the United States of America. Right now, we don’t seem that united. For that matter, we don’t seem that educated.

With renewed vigor, this millennium has brought on an economic recession, a crisis in education, an appallingly divisive political scene, and the emergence of fundamentalist tendencies (both domestic and abroad), all accelerating the decline in American power. With rising second and third world countries crowding the global stage, how can we learn to live peacefully and productively as global citizens? This blog looks at the political, economic, philosophical, educational, and social issues that define these times by exploring the best approaches towards being an exemplary nation of well-informed citizens. The Educated Society strives to bring a distinctively holistic and balanced perspective little seen in today’s polarized climate.