Now that we have a new president, George W. Bush, and Sen. Ted Kennedy’s face has returned to a more normal shade of crimson, the promised bipartisan nirvana surely must be at hand.
And what issue could be more compliant to bipartisan kneading than education? Everyone is for it. Everyone thinks American education stinks. Everyone thinks it should be changed. Never mind that without Washington’s money or meddling for almost two centuries, locally run schools helped America to become the most successful democracy, most technically advanced society and most powerful nation in the world.
Of course all that has changed because, I gather, some people ardently believe that the school system that brought us to such heights is a failure, requiring a complete makeover. Never mind that some innocents, such as me, might see a relationship between “reform” pedagogies that have been imposed by “educrats” on local schools and the supposed failures of the school system.
Even Bush has submitted to the logic that local schools can’t achieve unless they’re jacked around by the federal government. Bush would “reform” the federal Title I program that sends $9 billion a year to public school districts that have high proportions of low-income families. (Yes, that’s $9 billion, contrary to the campaign rhetoric that Washington is doing nothing for impoverished schools.)
Anyway, Bush would leverage this $9 billion by bonking substandard schools over the head. The schools would have three years to improve student test scores and if they didn’t the Title I money would go directly to parents (about $1,500 a year) to use for tutoring or to help pay tuition at a private or parochial school of their choice. Sounds fine to me, because it gives parents more control and responsibility. Of course, Democrats–kissing up to the teachers unions and the education establishment–don’t like the idea. They believe it’s too “polarizing” and in the spirit of bipartisanship, Bush must give it up.
Leaving what?
Dennis Byrne’s modest proposal for school reform, which would consume virtually no more money, raise no constitutional issues, endanger no teacher’s “tenure” or threaten no school bureaucracy. Of course, it isn’t as sophisticated as what comes out of the colleges of education, where academics know what they’re talking about, and where all those good ideas are generated like the way to teach math is not to teach math.
My proposal came to me while I was thinking about the complaint that good students should not have to put up with the rowdiness, disorder, apathy and even violence that afflicts so many poorly performing schools. Some kids just want to get an education, and they should be allowed to do so.
So, in high schools at least, students should be divided into classes by their level of interest and cooperation. Those who want to learn will be in good-kid classes. To properly impress educators, I’ll call them Effectuation classes. The entire day there will be devoted to learning for those students who are eager, committed and curious. And compliant. These would be centers of intellectual curiosity and effort. Of striving and working in an atmosphere conducive to learning. The only qualification for entry will be: Try your hardest. Test scores won’t count and you won’t be kicked out for low grades as long as you’re working hard and are not disruptive. Parents who have all the clout in the world couldn’t get their kids in if they are disinterested, lazy, malcontents or punks.
The way out of the class is to show less interest–to come to class unprepared, without homework, to not raise your hand to answer questions, to speak out without permission, to crack wise, to be disruptive, to skip class. Do it and you’re gone. To the Losers class. Yep, that’s exactly what it would be called. “Jerry, you’ve disturbed our class once too much with your antics. Get your books and go to the Losers.” There could be different level of Losers, such as Losers I and Losers II, kind of like there is purgatory and hell. Movement is possible in both directions between the Losers and Winners classes.
Isn’t this too harsh and elitist?
Not at all. You don’t have to wealthy, smart or connected to the good old boy network to get out of Losers. All you need is to try. You need not worry about Effectuation classes being filled up; as more and more kids tire of being Losers, more Effectuation classes will be created. Teachers burdened with the job of teaching Losers also will be motivated to get the kids motivated, and on their way up.
Sure it won’t solve everything. Some kids will wear being in the Losers class as a badge of honor. They’ll be left behind but let’s make it clear: It will be the consequence of their own actions and choice, not ours. Other kids still will come to school unprepared because of the absence of fathers, family disintegration, poverty and child abuse. But they, too, will be eligible for Effectuation classes–all they’ve got to do is try. That’s not too much to ask of anyone.
Here’s a partial solution so simple and doable at the local level that the experts will immediately dismiss it. Which makes it all the more attractive.
———-
E-mail: dbyrne@interaccess.com
