California's public schools may be described euphemistically as “a mixed bag.” Not every school is failing – at least by state and federal standards of failure and success. And not every school resembles a prison.
What's true across the state also is the case locally. Some schools do better than others at teaching the rudiments of reading, writing and arithmetic. Not every school district is scandal-plagued and struggling.
Nevertheless, in public schooling, as in geology, gems are rare. Lance Izumi of the Pacific Research Institute a few years ago offered a more accurate description of our public school landscape in his book: “Not as good as you think.”
Izumi, who co-authored the book and co-produced a documentary film by the same title, found that the ills afflicting public education aren't quarantined in inner-city school districts. They infect “good” suburban, middle-class schools as well. Even where students score well on state tests, they often founder in international comparisons.
His solution? Give parents more options to send their kids to schools that better serve their needs.
Izumi's work came to mind late last week, when word arrived that State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson's office unveiled a new “Blueprint for Great Schools.” This one is actually version 2.0 – a continuation of a plan Torlakson loosed upon the state to similar fanfare in 2011.
“Blueprint 2.0 is the next stage of a rocket that is propelling California into a bright future in which every child receives a world-class education,” Torlakson said in a cliché-ridden statement. “I look forward to implementing these recommendations, which will help us better prepare students for college and careers in the 21st century.”
See what I mean?
Blueprint 2.0 was the work of a committee of “29 education leaders and experts.” Among the committee's recommendations: to form a committee to develop recommendations for a new academic performance accountability system. The old system went out with the arrival of the Common Core State Standards.
Chairing the new committee are Eric Heins, president of the California Teachers Association, and Wes Smith, director of the Association of California School Administrators. Anyone care to guess how much accountability the new system will demand from teachers and school administrator union members?
Oh, and I should probably mention that Blueprint 2.0 is a five-year plan. Readers are encouraged to make any associations they wish.
Think about the blueprints, action plans, solemn vows and blood oaths that have descended from the education bureaucracy over the past 20 years. What do we have to show for them? Improved reading and math scores here and there. But better citizens?
Twenty years ago, I interviewed the great American education iconoclast John Taylor Gatto, a former New York City teacher of the year whose unusual and highly effective teaching style could not survive in the era of “accountability.” The public education system simply doesn't know what to do with successful eccentrics like him.
I asked Gatto about whatever the latest, greatest federal initiative was at the time – they all blur together after awhile – and he replied, “These things come down every few years. The principals make a show of their big binders. Then we put them on the shelf and go back to doing what we've been doing.”
Pay attention to the clichés of Torlakson and the “educracy.” They speak of preparing “a 21st-century workforce,” “world-class standards” and “critical thinking skills.” An Associated Press dispatch about Blueprint 2.0 mentions that “the plan advocates for a ‘whole child' approach in which families are engaged from early on about ways to improve the health and education of students.” Good grief, educators have been talking about the “whole child” approach for decades.
All of this, in other words, is a new gloss on very old ideas.
Next week is the beginning of the new academic year for many Inland students. Back-to-school time is always an opportunity for questions. Parents: When you hear talk of standards and blueprints, ask what they mean. Do not be satisfied with clichés, education jargon and buzzwords. Do not settle for “not as good as you think” or more binders on the shelf. Demand better.
This piece originally appeared in The Press Enterprise