Years ago I served as a parent representative on my son’s middle school planning team, and after a full day of work on setting goals and objectives, I left there with serious concerns. The problem was encapsulated for me in a conversation held during a round table breakout session in which my son’s assistant principal defended a school policy call the ZAP Program (Zeros Aren’t Permitted). The policy doesn’t allow students to miss work, and requires them to score at least a 70% (or C) on all tests and quizzes. How does that work? How do you not "allow" students to get zeros or fail tests? Well, you give them endless chances with no real deadlines or consequences.It was clear in the course of the discussion, as they pointed to the mission statement several times, that Millard public schools was determined to "guarantee" success! The school policy and classroom application was in line with the mission statement. My problem with the policy was that it removes individual choice and accountability. It leaves no room for failure or the natural consequences that accompany it. You may be thinking, what's wrong with that? Don't we want every student to succeed? Certainly we don't want failure. I understand the response but let's dig a little deeper and use reason to understand the unintended consequences of eliminating failure.
One unintended consequence of the ZAP policy that I expressed during our planning meeting was the fact that the policy rewards laziness and impedes the development of self-mastery. This is just one of the dangerous lessons that will have serious consequences for students in the future. To explain my point of view I shared with the assistant principal my personal experience. When I was a kid I knew my grades were my responsibility and if I didn’t make good grades, I met the consequences at home and in the real world. My parents did not constantly supervise my time or ensure that I completed my homework. They left it to me and when the report card came in, if the scores were low, then I suffered their consequences.
True to human nature, there was a period of time in middle school when my grades suffered as I asserted my independence and decided school wasn’t that important to me. It may surprise some people that when this attitude presents itself in young children, it does not necessarily mean it is there to stay. By high school, I got good grades and was a responsible self-motivated teen. I learned from experience and failure that opportunities are provided but not guaranteed, and that ultimately it was my responsibility to manage my time, set goals and priorities, and take advantage of opportunities that would enrich my talents and better my life.
My son’s principal responded to this example by saying that it was just a “different world” then. He said, “That kind of education is not possible today.” In education today it is “no longer the mind set to give students opportunity,” but it has become, “I’m going to make you learn it.” His words shocked me, so I repeated his words back to him. It was evident by his reaction that even he was surprised by how flawed this idea sounds when frankly spoken. But he continued to defend the policy saying, if I let a student choose for themselves whether or not they want to learn, some children will choose to throw away their educational opportunities.
He expanded this reasoning by saying that in today’s world there are just far too many children who don’t have supportive and involved parents, and these kids receive their only discipline and motivation at school. In those cases schools have a greater responsibility to guarantee students succeed in a more direct way. Instead of providing opportunities and then leaving it to students, aided by their parents, to take hold of these opportunities, schools today must “guarantee” that their students will learn.
A persuasive argument until you apply some logic to it. Let's explore the premise, because a child receives no discipline and motivation at home we should remove from the classroom those natural facets of discipline and motivation that tend to teach children the life lessons of failure and success. What are the lessons that a student learns when schools attempt to "guarantee" that child will develop character and master knowledge?
Can you guarantee that a child will develop character, knowledge, and skill? How is it done? It is done as my principal suggested, by taking the attitude, “I’m going to make you learn.” There has always been a certain segment of society that has believed you can guarantee a certain outcome through compulsory means. Whether or not that is true in practice, I believe it is a dangerous way to be teaching American children. John Adams said that, “Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” How can we instruct them in the principles of freedom through compulsion?
I was invited to participate in an informal round table executive session of the Judiciary Committee of the Nebraska Unicameral that dealt with problems arising from Nebraska’s harsh school attendance law, which eliminated parental discretion over school attendance in order to compel near-perfect attendance across the board. At the meeting, Nebraska Education Commissioner Roger Breed confidently touted the success of this law even though it threw thousands of families into the legal system. He was proud that the law had caused school attendance rates to sharply rise but was not bothered by the use of fear of legal action to improve attendance overall.
The attendance law sets the standard that students should miss fewer than five days of school in one year, allowing county attorney's to become involved at any point in addressing "absenteeism." He said that we as a community need to “re-evaluate how often we allow children to be absent from school.” He indicated that pressure on schools to guarantee that each child reach certain proficiency leaves no leeway in school attendance. Breed said that the resource of teacher time and attention must be heavily focused on the mission to guarantee success, which is measured by all students reaching an acceptable level of basic proficiency.
There we have it. The application to "guarantee success" results in the compulsory attainment of basic proficiency. Why? Because in order for a teacher to "make them learn," she must shift her focus from the intuitive art of teaching that inspires a love of learning to the intensive task of force feeding unmotivated students. The quality of education takes a nose dive under these types of mandates on teachers and all students suffer. In general every student is less inspired by their education to reach for excellence on their own, and instead the students learn to plug in the right inputs for proficiency. The unmotivated child doesn't become more motivated in this sterile educational environment either. Sadly, this paradigm shift has moved us into an era where children are not enabled to excel, and largely because they are no longer free manage their own success or to suffer the consequences of their own failures.
Another argument made by my son’s assistant principal in defense of the ZAP policy, essentially a “no failure” policy, was to say that these policies ensure that students learn the material at a time in their young lives when they often lack the character development necessary for success. Therefore, if schools and state governments intervene early and require learning, the student will not miss the critical material and skills, thus ensuring they have no “holes in their knowledge” when they’ve grown into their own maturity and character.
This brings to light other important questions about how children learn and how people develop character, receive knowledge, and apply skill. How do the character traits of responsibility and self-motivation develop without experiencing failure and true life consequences? Can any lasting life lessons be learned in a uninspired, controlled, sterile, forced environment? What about the “holes in their development” when they are grown?
These policies are just two examples of the philosophy of education in our generation. This philosophy dismiss our children as incapable of understanding the consequences of their choices, or unable to understand the value of education at a young age. I reject this idea! If these educators and politicians are right and our children are truly devoid of discretion and judgment in their youth? Are we to force them to learn? Thomas Jefferson taught that “if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”
Ensuring that every student is in their desk every day through government compulsion and that they never get a zero in the grade book, or fail a test, may achieve the result of universal C-level proficiency. But at what cost? I propose that the cost is the loss of highly motivated, self-disciplined, hard working, creative, ambitious, happy people.
If we force “learning” – which in this new philosophy means completing worksheets and projects under compulsion, turning out highly scripted writing assignments from a detailed rubric, and intensive test prep that results in successfully regurgitating information on standardized tests – we will teach children far more damaging lessons. We will teach them that they are not free. Or even worse, we will teach them that freedom is dangerous because it allows failure. We will teach them that failure is an unacceptable part of life. Therefore, freedom must also be unacceptable. This loss of freedom and failure teaches a twisted reality that confuses a nation. It removes true accountability and teaches children they are not responsible for themselves because others will guarantee their success. In this paradigm, we raise lazy, entitled children who are unsatisfied with themselves and others, are anxious and depressed under the demands of real life, and are far more likely to fail in the real world and be unable to recover from it.
My son’s principal would probably dispute this assertion and point to the excellent students at their school, their academic success and maturity. To this I would say simply that the effects of these dangerous lessons are likely to be far more prevalent among children who get their only training and discipline at school. Therefore the students for which he justifies the need for such philosophies will be the ones to suffer most because of them.
Our principal seems to believe that some portion of his students would throw away their educational opportunities if they were free to do so, and that their parents are content to let them fail. It is far more likely that some parents are simply willing to allow their children to learn in the school of life. They are comfortable with the concept that school provides opportunities, and that it is our responsibility to seize them. Granted, parents like that may be fewer today, however common they were in the past.
Educators are becoming increasingly willing to strip children and parents of freedom in education to pursue a guaranteed outcome through an equality of inputs. To do this, they must have total control over students and deny parents their natural rights to direct their child’s education and form their child’s values. I don’t believe they do these things maliciously. I believe that they have good intent. But as Milton Friedman said, “There's nothing that does so much harm as good intentions.” Good intentions that view freedom as the barrier to achievement of high aims are the most dangerous of all.
What we should be doing is preparing the young for continued learning later in life, by cultivating in them the love of learning and the skills to achieve their own ambitions. William Butler Yeats described beautifully what the purpose of education is when he said, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” These reforms are bringing our education system to a “fill the pail” paradigm, and run a very serious risk of extinguishing much of the fire which drives creativity and the pursuit of unique individual achievement.
Abraham Lincoln wrote, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” If we want to raise the next greatest generation of Americans – independent, creative, hardworking, self-reliant, disciplined, responsible, and empowered to build a strong free America – then we can no longer sit idle and allow these changes to be implemented unchallenged. We must become aware of how these “reforms” will impact our children and nation today and in the future, and fight to preserve in our public school system the qualities of education that build strong character: freedom, opportunity, and personal accountability.
My son’s principal responded to this example by saying that it was just a “different world” then. He said, “That kind of education is not possible today.” In education today it is “no longer the mind set to give students opportunity,” but it has become, “I’m going to make you learn it.” His words shocked me, so I repeated his words back to him. It was evident by his reaction that even he was surprised by how flawed this idea sounds when frankly spoken. But he continued to defend the policy saying, if I let a student choose for themselves whether or not they want to learn, some children will choose to throw away their educational opportunities.
He expanded this reasoning by saying that in today’s world there are just far too many children who don’t have supportive and involved parents, and these kids receive their only discipline and motivation at school. In those cases schools have a greater responsibility to guarantee students succeed in a more direct way. Instead of providing opportunities and then leaving it to students, aided by their parents, to take hold of these opportunities, schools today must “guarantee” that their students will learn.
A persuasive argument until you apply some logic to it. Let's explore the premise, because a child receives no discipline and motivation at home we should remove from the classroom those natural facets of discipline and motivation that tend to teach children the life lessons of failure and success. What are the lessons that a student learns when schools attempt to "guarantee" that child will develop character and master knowledge?
Can you guarantee that a child will develop character, knowledge, and skill? How is it done? It is done as my principal suggested, by taking the attitude, “I’m going to make you learn.” There has always been a certain segment of society that has believed you can guarantee a certain outcome through compulsory means. Whether or not that is true in practice, I believe it is a dangerous way to be teaching American children. John Adams said that, “Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.” How can we instruct them in the principles of freedom through compulsion?
I was invited to participate in an informal round table executive session of the Judiciary Committee of the Nebraska Unicameral that dealt with problems arising from Nebraska’s harsh school attendance law, which eliminated parental discretion over school attendance in order to compel near-perfect attendance across the board. At the meeting, Nebraska Education Commissioner Roger Breed confidently touted the success of this law even though it threw thousands of families into the legal system. He was proud that the law had caused school attendance rates to sharply rise but was not bothered by the use of fear of legal action to improve attendance overall.
The attendance law sets the standard that students should miss fewer than five days of school in one year, allowing county attorney's to become involved at any point in addressing "absenteeism." He said that we as a community need to “re-evaluate how often we allow children to be absent from school.” He indicated that pressure on schools to guarantee that each child reach certain proficiency leaves no leeway in school attendance. Breed said that the resource of teacher time and attention must be heavily focused on the mission to guarantee success, which is measured by all students reaching an acceptable level of basic proficiency.
There we have it. The application to "guarantee success" results in the compulsory attainment of basic proficiency. Why? Because in order for a teacher to "make them learn," she must shift her focus from the intuitive art of teaching that inspires a love of learning to the intensive task of force feeding unmotivated students. The quality of education takes a nose dive under these types of mandates on teachers and all students suffer. In general every student is less inspired by their education to reach for excellence on their own, and instead the students learn to plug in the right inputs for proficiency. The unmotivated child doesn't become more motivated in this sterile educational environment either. Sadly, this paradigm shift has moved us into an era where children are not enabled to excel, and largely because they are no longer free manage their own success or to suffer the consequences of their own failures.
Another argument made by my son’s assistant principal in defense of the ZAP policy, essentially a “no failure” policy, was to say that these policies ensure that students learn the material at a time in their young lives when they often lack the character development necessary for success. Therefore, if schools and state governments intervene early and require learning, the student will not miss the critical material and skills, thus ensuring they have no “holes in their knowledge” when they’ve grown into their own maturity and character.
This brings to light other important questions about how children learn and how people develop character, receive knowledge, and apply skill. How do the character traits of responsibility and self-motivation develop without experiencing failure and true life consequences? Can any lasting life lessons be learned in a uninspired, controlled, sterile, forced environment? What about the “holes in their development” when they are grown?
These policies are just two examples of the philosophy of education in our generation. This philosophy dismiss our children as incapable of understanding the consequences of their choices, or unable to understand the value of education at a young age. I reject this idea! If these educators and politicians are right and our children are truly devoid of discretion and judgment in their youth? Are we to force them to learn? Thomas Jefferson taught that “if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”
Ensuring that every student is in their desk every day through government compulsion and that they never get a zero in the grade book, or fail a test, may achieve the result of universal C-level proficiency. But at what cost? I propose that the cost is the loss of highly motivated, self-disciplined, hard working, creative, ambitious, happy people.
If we force “learning” – which in this new philosophy means completing worksheets and projects under compulsion, turning out highly scripted writing assignments from a detailed rubric, and intensive test prep that results in successfully regurgitating information on standardized tests – we will teach children far more damaging lessons. We will teach them that they are not free. Or even worse, we will teach them that freedom is dangerous because it allows failure. We will teach them that failure is an unacceptable part of life. Therefore, freedom must also be unacceptable. This loss of freedom and failure teaches a twisted reality that confuses a nation. It removes true accountability and teaches children they are not responsible for themselves because others will guarantee their success. In this paradigm, we raise lazy, entitled children who are unsatisfied with themselves and others, are anxious and depressed under the demands of real life, and are far more likely to fail in the real world and be unable to recover from it.
My son’s principal would probably dispute this assertion and point to the excellent students at their school, their academic success and maturity. To this I would say simply that the effects of these dangerous lessons are likely to be far more prevalent among children who get their only training and discipline at school. Therefore the students for which he justifies the need for such philosophies will be the ones to suffer most because of them.
Our principal seems to believe that some portion of his students would throw away their educational opportunities if they were free to do so, and that their parents are content to let them fail. It is far more likely that some parents are simply willing to allow their children to learn in the school of life. They are comfortable with the concept that school provides opportunities, and that it is our responsibility to seize them. Granted, parents like that may be fewer today, however common they were in the past.
Educators are becoming increasingly willing to strip children and parents of freedom in education to pursue a guaranteed outcome through an equality of inputs. To do this, they must have total control over students and deny parents their natural rights to direct their child’s education and form their child’s values. I don’t believe they do these things maliciously. I believe that they have good intent. But as Milton Friedman said, “There's nothing that does so much harm as good intentions.” Good intentions that view freedom as the barrier to achievement of high aims are the most dangerous of all.
What we should be doing is preparing the young for continued learning later in life, by cultivating in them the love of learning and the skills to achieve their own ambitions. William Butler Yeats described beautifully what the purpose of education is when he said, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” These reforms are bringing our education system to a “fill the pail” paradigm, and run a very serious risk of extinguishing much of the fire which drives creativity and the pursuit of unique individual achievement.
Abraham Lincoln wrote, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” If we want to raise the next greatest generation of Americans – independent, creative, hardworking, self-reliant, disciplined, responsible, and empowered to build a strong free America – then we can no longer sit idle and allow these changes to be implemented unchallenged. We must become aware of how these “reforms” will impact our children and nation today and in the future, and fight to preserve in our public school system the qualities of education that build strong character: freedom, opportunity, and personal accountability.
Written with eloquence and clarity as usual. The "paradigm shift" over the purpose of education has been a stealthy and pervasive one. I hope your examples will help awaken more parents to the fact that the family is under attack in ways that are unprecedented in this country.
ReplyDelete