HS Principal

It is a shame that education in the 21st century still looks a lot like education in the 19th century. We may have 21st century gadgets and other modern conveniences, but many of the premises and assumptions about education that held true at the inception of public education have continued largely unchallenged and unchanged.

Although there is no area of education or educational practice that has not been studied and scrutinized, and although there is a wealth of research to support change, most schools do little from year to year except update the handbook and change an elective or two. Schools roughly follow the same calendar from year to year:  mid to late August to early June. The core subjects are the same, the requirements the same, and the grade reporting the same.  After spending a few days examining the basics and essentials of most schools, one could safely conclude that school does not much resemble the real world.

In the real world, information is integrated. In schools, each subject is taught as a discrete and independent discipline. In the real world, teams of employees collaborate on projects and work together to solve problems. In schools, we call that cheating. In the real world, you are able to use all available resources to find answers, solve problems, and be creative. In schools you are expected to memorize isolated facts and then are evaluated based on your ability to recall those facts. The list goes on.

These are not new or insightful observations, and they are also gross generalizations. Obviously, some progress and change has occurred. Nevertheless, even in an independent, highly-respected college prep school such as CDS one cannot find evidence for the kinds of systemic changes that identify a school as progressive. CDS has put itself on the map as an innovative school to be sure. I don’t think there are any schools in AASCA that can say teachers at every grade level, preK to 12, have teachers using technology in the classroom. CDS is the only one.But the kind of change I am talking about is revolutionary, systemic change that acknowledges the need to educate students for college and careers in the 21st century.

There is ample research and evidence that we should change, not because we should imitate the real world, but because our current practices have very little to do with how children and adults learn and a lot to do with tradition. We are not adequately preparing our students for the 21st century. We are preparing them to do well on the SAT, an instrument of measuring student readiness for college that has proven to be flawed and ineffective. Yet, the SAT is a billion dollar industry that depends upon the efficacy of standardized testing. The SAT is not afraid to change. In fact they recognize that their days are numbered and each year they frantically tweak and alter and even overhaul the tests and procedures in order to appear relevant. Meanwhile, colleges are slowly moving away from the SAT’s, and gradually acknowledging that it unfairly benefits a small group of applicants. But until it is discredited and abandoned by colleges completely, high schools will continue to pretend that standardized test scores keep them from real, genuine, systemic innovation and change. But I pity the school that waits until that day comes because they will be so significantly behind the educational curve that I fear the number of changes they will need to make will cause that school to implode.

It is ironic that schools, places of learning and places where we supposedly teach kids to think critically, evaluate evidence and synthesize information in order to made thoughtful and educated choices, cannot apply itself to a problem that will ultimately determine its survival. We are so comfortable with how we currently do things that we blind ourselves to all of the contradictory evidence and summon our own evidence to support our unwillingness to change: we’ve always done it this way; I learned it this way; we have always taught this way and our kids get into the best colleges; the AP scores and SAT scores are proof enough that we are doing it right. If we rely on anecdotal evidence to support our unwillingness to change we are doomed to failure.

To understand how deeply committed we are to not changing, look at it from every point of view: the principal doesn’t want change because he doesn’t want to answer the questions or face the challenges of anxious parents, especially of the high achievers. The highest achievers at a school have the most invested in the current system. They will get the requisite test scores and grades to get into college. Ironically, even if change does occur–and the high achievers will definitely lead the fight against change–the highest achievers will always be recognized and always be rewarded. Their fears are irrational, but in their narrowness they recognize the advantages of the status quo. The current system reassures them of their place in the hierarchy and serves as their ticket to the competitive colleges. Even though, in the long run, those stakeholders will not be affected, there is no way to prove that and reassure them when the changes are first implemented. The parents and students must trust the administrator. It is a battle the principal must be supremely confident about. He must believe that the delivery of the changes, through his teachers, will be effective, and he must believe that those above him completely support him as they move forward. Those uncertainties make cowards out of most principals.

Unless they are teachers themselves, the parents only know the way things have always been done. Almost every parent has a reason to be suspicious of change. As I said above, if their child is a high achiever, the current system clearly works for them. Why change it? If their child is in the middle, they probably recognize that much of their child’s successes and failures has as much to do with the system as it does with actual learning. And change means they have to learn a new system! Very risky. What they don’t realize is real change is not about the institution and its rules, it’s about authentic learning and authentic ways of knowing and assessing. Progressive change in education is an acknowledgment of the current needs of the society and culture and an attempt to stay current. No profession can boast the kind of resistance to real change that education can boast. Can you imagine if medicine decided that change in medical practices was anathema to the profession? And finally, the low achieving student would seem to have little at stake in whether the system is changed or not, and might actually embrace the change. But what self-respecting principal or educator is going to advertise the parental support of the “bottom third” as reasons for accepting change? As much as the low achieving students might embrace change or benefit from change, the rest of the parents are not interested in how school-wide systemic change is going to benefit the lowest achievers in the school.

Teachers mostly fear change because it means a lot of work combined with the uncertainty of risk, and the potential for failure. These all go hand in hand. Do not isolate these fears and unfairly brand teachers, even though they are equally culpable in this resistance. Teachers are very diligent and do not fear working hard. In fact they work as hard if not harder than most professionals. They get chided for getting summers off, but not many professionals take home the amount of work teachers do and are also expected to contribute beyond what they were trained to do by coaching sports, advising and coaching academic teams, teaching electives, and so forth. Can you imagine being hired to work in a bank and then being told, oh, and by the way, we expect you to coach our co-ed softball team. Practices are 5 times per week (after work) and our games are on Saturdays. Mostly teachers resist change because they know how much work it takes to do what they currently do. They also know how much preparation and time it took to get to where they are. Change requires they learn new ways of doing things. It means spending the same or more time re-learning how to do what they feel they already do really well (which is why the blinders go on). What teachers don’t want to acknowledge is what they do well is run kids through a system that benefits a few and handicaps others. But once again, the irony can only make us shake our heads.

And believe it or not, students resist change. Kids know or learn very quickly that schools are institutions and that they have predictable patterns and ways of doing things. Like all systems, they can be learned, mastered, manipulated, and gotten around. Some students are excellent at memorizing and regurgitating. Some kids have mastered the art of school. Others know how to get by or get around in order to survive or excel. So change for them is as challenging as it is for teachers.

In part II of this piece I will examine a secret cult I belong to called the Progressive Order of Principals (not a real organization, so don’t bother Googling it or wondering why there is no hyperlink), and I will discuss some changes that schools should embrace in the next few years.