You might want to excuse Thomas Friedman, since he's really run out of ideas in the face of an economic crisis that will likely continue unabated, but he still needed to publish a column. I mean, perhaps he can't afford not to turn in a column, what with how things are going at his place of employment.
Why not blame education? It's such an easy target. Everyone is doing it. People will chime in and say: "Bravo, Friedman! How could we possibly not have seen this before? It's as plain as day." But apparently there were enough infuriated people, in the educational realm and not. So much so that
comments are no longer being accepted. While they were, about 400 comments flooded in within a few hours. Ooops. Perhaps allowing more comments would have cost another staffer's job.
I cannot excuse the tactic, nor its execution.
There are so many things wrong with Friedman's screed (I will not dignify it by calling it an argument) that trying to keep all my thoughts on it straight in my head would make it explode. Let's set aside the fact that by definition "exceptional" is meant to exclude most people. Let's set aside that children who come into public schools at five years of age, never having had a book in their home, never having interacted with other human beings who taught them how to respect other people's needs, are not blank slates that can be filled with whatever is needed in order to "succeed" (in whatever version of success we are thinking of). Let's set aside that people who are in the same socioeconomic bracket of Mr. Friedman are also those who always refuse to see their property taxes raised because they don't want to fund public schools that they don't see fit to send their children to (so they would rather use that tax money to pay that private school tuition). Let's set aside that the qualities that he calls upon being "taught" to the new generation of American workers are not innate in everyone (I am sorry, they aren't. Fact. Takes a certain brain chemistry, and I, along with most of you, don't have the right mix). Let's set aside that sometimes those who survive corporate trims are not the best and brightest, but those who are better able to look busier (and who might then collapse under the work pressure when they actually have to inherit actual workload left behind by the departed). Let's set aside that some of the states that have experienced the greater losses have some of the most highly educated people in this country, who lost their jobs along with everyone else.*
Even setting aside all that, I can fault Friedman for his poverty of thought alone. Here's what Friedman's screed boils down to:
We need to fix these failing schools, stat, America. Everyone knows that people who display [sic] "entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity."**, have done better in this economy. We should teach everyone to be like that. This means we need to fix education.
First of all... Have we been offered a glimpse as to how this "fix" should be accomplished, exactly? No. Has he hinted at what exactly should be taught day to day in American classrooms to foster these qualities in children? No. What is the "right" education? I gather no ideas from his articles, which might mean he doesn't have any. Or god forbid, it's some arcane idea about putting chocolate sauce on top of something (preferably books?).
There are in fact people who have spent a lot of their working life trying to figure out how you best foster self-driven learners and how to get children unstuck from the mud of daily "learning" and forward into independent thinking, how to reach the children who seem to be perpetually left behind, even in the NCLB era. However, Friedman seemed unable to bother quoting any one of them, but I fail to be surprised. After all, most educational experts that I found worthwhile to read while being prepared to be an educator (such as Jonathan Kozol, Gloria Ladson-Billings, and Angela Valenzuela) argue against thinking of schooling as a one size fits all, as a means to an end, and instead of bringing back the focus of schooling to the child, and to what he or she needs in order to become a better learner. To make schools places of caring, where children feel they can belong in, rather than shut out of by a treadmill approach to never ending testing (which shuts off caring: a failing student is not a child who needs help anymore, it's what might cost me a paycheck later).
The answer is never simple, does not involve more testing, and requires complex answers and unconventional thinking. Not a pat argument that we should turn schools into molding places to fit business needs. It's been tried. It's what's been going on for decades. It doesn't work. More testing is not going to make it work, and starving public schools as if they were businesses to be run (as is the case in most public schools already, where administrators rise not because they understand the needs of the children in their schools, but because they are better beggars, borrowers, and stealers, anything to trim the budget) is not going to make it work. Thinking out of the box of "teaching as a production system" is going to make it work, true. But it's not thinking out of the box from someone who is neither focusing on the value of education to children, nor bothering to seek advice on what that entails either.
It doesn't incense me that Thomas Friedman and the like are now turning their wagging fingers to public schools, no. There are many things that are inherently wrong in public schools (I would be a fool to say otherwise, and that was part of the reason that drew me to teaching in the first place), and by all means the fact has needed to be addressed for the better part of 20-30 years.
What does incense me is that those who wag their pointers very seldom want to call for us to improve education for its own sake, and very seldom are familiar with that which they choose to criticize. They don't bother to visit the actual public schools and see how the problems pervading them are much bigger and broader than just an emphasis on testing. They don't understand that just a platitude about changing our educational system to foster "entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity" isn't going to cut it. Not when people within the system who are trying to teach "the basics" are
forced to beg in order to get the materials to do so. They really need to
educate themselves about education, before they talk about it. They won't get that kind of information from an international investor, from a lawyer, and from other pundits. They should talk to people who have looked at the sorry messes that are there, and have tried to train a new generation of educators not to fall into its traps. They should talk to the educators themselves, who are in the trenches every day trying to combat the status quo, one child at a time.
So here's what I would have told Mr. Friedman had I seen his screed sooner, and been able to have left a comment.
Mr. Friedman,
Has it just now occurred to you that maybe our educational system is flawed, in that it isn't allowed to teach consequences for shortsighted behavior? Has it ever occurred to you that the entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation you so prize and which is displayed by those who have survived in this economy is probably what caused that mess in the first place? After all, how many accounting books were creatively cooked? How many innovative ways to finance mortgages were created in the past 10 years alone? How many entrepreneurs have found themselves failing in this economy because even bigger entrepreneurs have found more and more creative and innovative ways to separate them from their money?
Has it occurred to you that the problem is that all that you ever do to get ahead in schools these days is take countless tests to prove how good you are at retaining information without truly learning what it's good for? That we have taken the human and ethical element out of learning, much like out of everything else? If so, how do you propose to bring that back?
What should children learn, in your esteemed opinion? You know, beyond labeling it "entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity"? They are such broad concepts, and most states require that broad stroke concepts are painstakingly defined before they are applied in a classroom.
I can't wait to read about all of your ideas on this matter. I mean, why would you set your sights on criticizing education, if not because you have such great ideas about teaching and learning that have never occurred to anyone before?
* Something that becomes pretty clear to you as you are trying to get your foot in the door in a public school system where the average number of applicants is 100, and where the degrees many of your competitors hold (MA or better) leave you too underqualified to be able to compete, btw.
** I sure hope they are not letting go more copywriters at NYTimes. How else to explain the lack of commas here?
Not yet. Have been too busy unpacking lots of crap (half of which I wish I had made time to... read more
on For Brooke