Recently, a corporate leader told me schools must learn to do more with less. Those exact words were uttered last summer by a new state senator as he addressed a group of tax-cap supporters. Two senior citizen members of the Tax Watch Group complained bitterly about our proposed increase in taxes.
Do more with less. Catchy to be sure, but is it realistic? I suggest what each of them meant was do less with less.
But do less for whom? How about children who receive special education?
Will the state senator introduce legislation eliminating this important mandate? How about the children who started school not speaking, reading or writing English? Does the corporate leader believe these children should just sink or swim in a regular class?
How about remedial reading and mathematics programs for children who come to school from terrible homes? What about programs for gifted children? After all, won`t they do just fine on their own? How about the ”frills” such as art, music, drama and physical education? Can`t children learn those things at home?
What about school libraries? Can`t children get books from the local city library? What about sex education and AIDS education, and drug education and alcohol education? Can`t children learn this somewhere else?
Children, so we are told, can`t read, can`t write, can`t do basic math, don`t know history or geography, don`t understand science and have no work ethic. Although this is simply not accurate, the solution, according to President Bush, is ”a whole new generation of American schools” free from the constraints of the past which will produce ”world class students” by the year 2000.
Children will come to school ready to learn, schools will be safe and drug-free, Americans will be first in the world in science and math, the high school graduation rate will be 90 percent, all students will demonstrate competency in challenging subject matter, and every adult will be literate. And all this and more is to be accomplished with less.
Does anyone truly believe this is realistic? This is not the time to demand that we do more with less without carefully thinking through the consequences. And those who seek to redefine the role of schools had better not forget to ask the parents what they want.
To be sure, schools must be held accountable and it is clearly our responsibility to demonstrate we are doing a good job-and where we can improve, we must. No true educator feels otherwise. Those who are not willing to improve should leave-and soon.
I predict public schools will continue to serve just as they always have, and further, will be expected to assume more and more responsibilities because no one else can or will. Dedicated teachers and staff will continue to provide love, support, encouragement and care to the thousands of students who come to school each day and who do learn. Unfortunately, those with little or no knowledge of what teaching is all about will continue to use public schools as a convenient whipping post.
The corporate person was clearly voicing a company position, but the state senator and the two senior citizens whose children attended public schools and who participated in almost every program and service, seemed to be saying loud and clear that what was good enough for their children is too good for the children of today and tomorrow. Such an attitude is simply not acceptable. It is the American way that those of us who no longer have children in school must provide the necessary support to ensure that the schools of tomorrow are able to do more-not less-for every child.
