U.S. education series

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

By the early 1900s the idea that every American child had the right to an education had gained mass adoption. Even students destined for a life in the mines, or on the railroads, deserved basic spelling, arithmetic and science lessons. Public schools were a place to absorb the common learning priorities that other students were also absorbing throughout the country. This view of public schools gave all children (at least the white ones) an equitable start in life, at least when it came to actual curriculum presented. School as a national pastime was established with the sole purpose of giving students base knowledge. From there, the students were free to carve out the lives they wanted, or follow in a predetermined path based on family or geographic limitations.

Just after the start of the 20^th century, a new public education ideology began to emerge that hinted that schools should be utilized as more than spots to memorize facts. According to reformers like University of Chicago professor John Dewey, public schools needed to serve a greater good – for the individual and the country. Dewey was a figurehead of the Progressive Movement that insisted schools be socially conscious places where more than book learning took place.

While Dewey’s theories were widely known and discussed, they did not see much realization in the height of his popularity. Much like the public school districts of today, Dewey faced bureaucratic red tape at every turn and an unfriendly approach to change. In the eyes of educators, schools were established for learning what was written in a textbook, not for any other purposes, particularly ones that could easily be duplicated in homes.

Though slow to gain adoption in his own time, Dewey’s theories of public schools as socializers, and agents of change for the better, are certainly evident in school systems today. Consider public awareness campaigns, like First Lady Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” initiative that infiltrated schools in the 1980s, or the emphasis on Earth Day every April in public schools throughout the nation, or First Lady Michelle Obama’s current Let’s Move campaign that offers specific health awareness programs to schools. In the U.S., schools are the front lines for initiating change in behaviors as a nation and telling (more so than showing) students what is “right” or “wrong” in cultural terms.

Along with the base, common knowledge that accompanies the facts in textbooks, K-12 students in America are expected to know a set parameter of life truths before they graduate, or decide to drop out, like: smoking will kill you, drugs will kill you, obesity will kill you, taking care of the environment is not an option, stealing is bad, going to jail is bad, lying is bad, and cheating is bad too. Though not religious institutions, public schools have transformed in the past century from agents of factual information to ethics-infused entities. It is not enough for students to pass a test at the end of each grade and at the end of a K-12 career; to be true contributors to society, they must have moral compasses and understand the responsibilities of citizenship.

Of course some schools are better at this than others. In areas impacted by high poverty and crime rates, it is more difficult to graduate students who rise above their circumstances. Even middle- and upper-class school districts have their own bad apples. Still, these students are certainly aware of the right and wrong ways to live their lives, at least in theory, though they may not truly believe those truths themselves. Dewey would certainly be proud of the approach of public schools when it comes to socially conscious behaviors, if not disappointed by the outcomes of such efforts.

Though his theories were not particularly political, Dewey’s ethically-minded approach fed into the nation’s thirst for patriotism. Part of contributing to society was loving it and all its symbolism too. Consider the morning ritual of every public school in the nation since the early 1920s: reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In his young adult fiction novel Nothing But the Truth, author Avi challenges patriotic rituals in public schools through the character of a young man who refuses to quietly listen as “The Star-Spangled Banner” plays in his classroom. The boy becomes a national celebrity, with both supporters and detractors. The supporters believe he was trying to sing along and should be celebrated for that fact. The detractors say he didn’t show enough respect for the song by refusing to stay silent as it played. On the final page of the book, the boy is asked to sing the National Anthem on a radio talk show and he admits he doesn’t know the words. The point then of the novel is that much of what students learn, at least when it comes to patriotism, is not based on an intrinsic loyalty but on one that is imposed.

The same can be said of the other ethics-based lessons that are part of American public schools today. The principles that constitute being a good citizen are just that: suggestions for living, not commands. Students are still guided by their own free will, though aware of the consequences. The idea, however, that schools should at least be presenting a socially conscious agenda started in the early-to-mid 20^th century and still permeates K-12 public school classrooms today. Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

The first attempt at regulating exactly what American students were learning in those schoolhouses came in 1837 from now-famed education reformer Horace Mann. When he took over the role of Secretary of Education in Massachusetts, he set out to create a common way of teaching educational content, particularly to elementary students. He borrowed his idea from a Prussian model that also stressed training for educators.

Along with shared content, Mann’s reforms brought about the first age-grade systems where students were promoted up based on age, not academic aptitude. While this led to greater concentration on subjects that increased in difficulty as students grew older, it also planted roots of American students as passive learners, as opposed to active ones. The idea that each student of a certain age should master content by a certain time, and based on set criteria that was in no way customized, was founded as a way to keep students moving through the public education system, and advancing in their studies rather than idling on topics they already knew while younger students learned them for the first time.

States around the nation rushed to duplicate Mann’s ideas in their own schools and multi-age classrooms disappeared in the coming decades. As the American population rose, it just made sense to accommodate students in a more segmented way. Age-grading was meant to improve efficiency of classrooms and the entire public education system. The more students that could be passed through the public schools, the better. It made economic sense, and in the minds of reformers like Mann, it also meant a more highly-educated public.

Though Mann’s system for age grading was introduced over 175 years ago, it is still the main form of organization in the public, and private/independent, schools in America today. While some students are retained (or held back) when they do not master the material at hand, the idea of socially promoting students based solely on their ages is more popular than you might think. It is difficult to measure exactly how many students are passed on to the next grade based more on their age, and less on their academic merit, because teachers are obviously not keen to admit it. Retaining students is simple to measure but only tells half the story. Of the students who are not retained, how many of them should be?

In the past two decades, the social faux pas associated with students who are held back a grade has begun to fade. A Public Agenda survey from 2003 found that 87 percent of parents would rather that their children be held back than promoted if they have not mastered their grade-level material. There was once a time when a student who was held back was viewed as being outside the “norm” of what we have come to expect in U.S. classrooms. That’s changing though as parents begin a push back against social promotion.

The so called “redshirting” of Kindergarteners is rising each year in popularity. Rather than having to make the decision to hold a child back (most often it happens in grades K-2), parents are just delaying the start of school instead. In the mid-1990s, just 9 percent of children entering Kindergarten were age 6 or older. According to U.S. Department of Education statistics, by 2007 that had risen to 16.4 percent. It’s reasonable to assume this rise is due at least in part to the increased demands placed on academic achievement at such a young age. Redshirting is becoming so common that Kindergartners who are 6, going on 7, are not a strange sight at all.

While it does speak to the maturity of American parents, sending children to school later does throw a wrench in the traditional age-grade system. Teachers are often ill-prepared to deal with students who are outside the age specifications in their classrooms, and in cases where both a 5 and 7 year old are in the same classroom, understandable behavior and maturity differences are evident. By adhering strictly to an age-grade system for just some, it puts a strain on the others. Teachers who hope to avoid problems for their colleagues in higher grades often take the easier route of age-grading promotion.

Despite the pitfalls of the age-grading system, the positive impact of Mann’s endeavors should not go unnoticed. Along with age-grading, he emphasized the need for mandatory attendance. Public education was not something that was a perk of American life; it was a necessity. He believed that for the nation to truly advance, its youth belonged in classrooms (not just in fields, or factories) and that states should implement attendance policies to support this view. While it took some time for his emphasis to really see mass appeal, his advocacy for mandatory public schools found some resonance. By 1900, 34 states implemented required schooling laws, 30 of which required students to stay in school until the age of 14. Ten years later, 72 percent of the children in the U.S. went to school. Just 10 years after that, every state had required attendance policies. By 1940, half of all young adults in the U.S. were high school diploma recipients. Follow my series on the progress of the U.S. educational system to learn more about where we’ve been, and where we need to go, as collective educators.

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

When the public school systems of America were first founded in in the late 1700s, they were practical places. In a growing country trying to build a stable economy on the world stage, public schools stood as the building blocks for the next generation of U.S. workers. Students did not need more than a few years to learn the basics of what they would need to propel the nation forward to its next level. Socialization and learning side skills, like manners, were perks of the public school system but not primary goals. The success of a particular education path was determined by the functionality in society of the student upon completion.

Without a national system in place to address educational issues, it fell on the shoulders of private institutions of Colonial America. Education was not mandatory and there were very few paid educators. Learning endeavors were voluntary – both on the part of the students and those who were able to teach. Knowledge did come with value attached but not as much, say, as learning the skill of a particular trade. Apprenticeships were common and “idle” learning was viewed negatively.

Much of the prescribed education during this cornerstone period of the nation’s growth happened in the home. Learning to read was often a task assigned to mothers, though without access to paper, most colonial children learned to write and trace letters using the ashes of the fireplace. When children had mastered enough to read on their own, they received a Bible in hand or another piece of British literature. As a result of this devotion to learning set forth by mothers, most children who did attend school already knew how to read when they arrived at the age of 7 or 8.

That’s an interesting thing to consider, particularly since the children entering today’s Kindergarten classrooms generally do not possess proficiency in literary skills. Kindergarten students, at least the ones considered “ready,” should know the alphabet, how to write their first and last names, and how to count to 20. From there, today’s teachers are expected to turn them into voracious readers who fall in love with literacy. By the age of 5 or 6 (more parents than ever are choosing to delay Kindergarten starts by one year for their kids), the seeds of interest have already been planted in kids’ heads. What’s more – by the age of 5, many learning opportunities have been missed. Research has found time and again that the first five years of a child’s life are the most vital to an individual’s overall knowledge base.

Waiting until Kindergarten to learn reading, math and other language concepts means a large missed window of learning opportunities. Children are hard-wired for learning but in contemporary America, the first five years of life are widely regarded as ones that belong to the “play” category. There are certainly things that are learned through play and everyday life but concentrated, organized learning tends to be reserved for years following the first half-decade of a child’s life. This was not the case when it came to Colonial families. Learning was a responsibility of home life and one that was not relegated to the few formal education systems that existed.

In the late 1700s, when children knew enough to reach their perceived potential in life, they left school to enter the workforce – whether on the family farm or in a trade outside their homes. Women used their own knowledge sets on the domestic front, and eventually to teach their own children. Very few Colonial-time students went on to college and very few really needed it. For all intents and purposes, school was for learning the practical side of life and for developing a shared sense of knowledge among the youth of the young nation.

Clearly, today’s U.S. educational system is much different — so how did we get here? Follow me in this series to learn more about the progression of education in America from those earliest days to contemporary classrooms.

This is one of a multi-part series on the progression of education policies in the U.S. from its founding. Click here to see a list of all the posts in this series. 

By Matthew Lynch

Think back on your earliest recollection of American history as it was taught to you in school. The Founding Fathers didn’t earn that moniker by following alongside all the other young men in their schools, colleges and career paths. On the contrary, these men had dreams that lived outside the Colonial box and they aimed to make them reality, no matter what the personal cost. This story form repeats itself throughout American history, too. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., women’s suffrage leader Lucy Burns – they all took the road less traveled and broke out of the mold of their times to make a positive impact on the future and move the country forward.

Every country has its folk heroes, of course, and these figure heads serve as reminders that you should always, always stick by your belief systems even if they run contrary to everyone else’s. In America, though, everyone is entitled to follow in the footsteps of these leaders – these heroes that paved the way. In large and small ways, everyday Americans shape the future of the country just by tapping into their natural talents and personal stances. It’s why we have bifocals, and fire hydrants, and swivel chairs. Without American innovators, the world would have never been able to enjoy cupcakes, or graham crackers, or baseball. Had inventors like Henry Ford, Robert Fulton and Wilbur Wright walked the line and focused on the career paths and learning options their government deemed a priority, they may have never had the mind to attach an engine here, or a motor there, or a wing up there.

Innovation is what has always driven Americans, and continues to drive us all today. It’s what has simultaneously given us the labels of crazy and genius. Frankly, it’s what makes Americans a global force to be reckoned with. Without the many Americans who have stepped outside the lines to better their own ways of life and those of their fellow citizens, this nation would not be considered the greatest on the globe.

That innovation, that creative spirit, is born in our public schools. The students who will dream up the next generation’s major inventions, and come up with plans to improve the American way of life, and fill every job in between are in our K-12 classrooms today. Despite more choices than ever when it comes to the childhood learning years, public schools remain a steadfast reminder of all that is great, and inspirational, and smart about the American way.

As America has grown in its nearly 250 years of existence, its public school system has also adjusted with the times. Different theories on properly educating our next generations have been introduced, tested, established and thrown out. Each new evolution of the public school systems in the U.S. have built upon the lessons of the ones before – both good and bad – and have culminated to bring us to the current state of U.S. education today.

So what do our school systems look like, really? If you base your knowledge of the nation’s public schools on news headlines alone, you likely have a bleak perception of what exactly is happening in the K-12 classrooms funded by our tax dollars. A report issued from the U.S. Department of Education in April of 2014 showed that high school seniors did not show any signs of improvement in math and science scores from 2009 to 2013. When compared with other developed countries, U.S. students lag seriously behind in areas like math and science, too. The students who are bringing down the national averages are not just from underprivileged areas, either. Among students from households where at least one parent has a college degree, or the family is considered “affluent,” the U.S. ranks as number 27 on a list of 34 countries in math capabilities. A Washington Examiner report also finds that more than half of 15 year olds from homes with well-educated parents are not proficient in at least one of three areas: reading, math or science.

Despite these and numerous other reports that are similar, U.S. seniors are graduating at a record rate of 80 percent. It is a happy statistic, no doubt, and one that should be celebrated but it does leave some room for speculation: how are so many U.S. students lagging behind in so many vital academic areas, yet graduating from our schools at record rates?

The truth is complicated. Standards for exactly what students should be learning at every step of their educational journey have never been more stringent. The No Child Left Behind legislation enacted in 2001 heightened educator accountability systems and put more stringent assessment processes in place to measure the true learning outcomes of students. These requirements were not suggestions, but were (and are) tied to federal funding. So a school district doing exceptionally well based on the set-forth standards receives its federal funding while another that is struggling, and is arguably in greater need for the money, is left to flounder in its failures.

Teacher accountability was in place before NCLB, and so were state assessment tests, but the legislation thrust both on a pedestal that schools are still reeling to accommodate. By setting blanket benchmarks for the entire nation, based on limited tested materials, teachers were essentially stripped of their free will when it came to educating and were forced to begin “teaching to the test.” For many educators, NCLB was a marked end to learning for learning’s sake in classrooms, and even meant dumbing down materials to be sure all students scored well on those vital assessments.

Fast forward 12 years to the recent enactment of Common Core Standards in 44 states and the District of Columbia, and accountability and assessments have even more to contend with. Tied to President Obama’s federal funding program Race to the Top, Common Core benchmarks were determined by the National Governors Association. States could choose to opt in or out, with pressure to conform enhanced by the promise of good old fashioned American money. Like NCLB legislation (which still exists alongside Common Core requirements), the new set of initiatives seeks stronger student outcomes in areas like math, science and technology.

Which is a good thing, right? If our students are lagging in these areas then it makes sense to raise our standards when it comes to learning them, doesn’t it? In theory, Common Core Standards work. Place more focus on the subjects where American students need extra help, attach some money as an incentive and then watch the test scores rise. The true effectiveness of these standards remains to be seen, but it is hard to imagine that placing greater concentration on a narrow range of subjects, at the expense of others, will end up boding well for this generation of K-12 students.

Assessments and teacher accountability tied to funding are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the issues holding back the actual process of learning in our public schools. Issues of overcrowding, and inequality of resources, and a cultural shift towards anti-intellectualism weigh heavy on the schools within our borders.

Follow me through this U.S. Education series as we look at what is ailing our schools and how to get on a better path.

By identifying the major problems that hinder the effectiveness of the public schools of our nation, we can start a journey that will lead us toward better outcomes for future generations. It is not a task that is reserved for educators alone. To really experience the changes needed to raise the quality of what we offer our children when it comes to their educations, it will take every parent, business owner and community member. Change won’t happen overnight but with concentrated efforts and societal support, it can be enacted. It’s important first though to understand the exact history of our public schools and what has taken place over the past two centuries to bring us to where we are today. The role that our public schools have played in shaping our modern society is a large one and the importance of its influence on our future should not be underestimated. To really create the type of society we desire as Americans, we must start with our public schools and understand how they are, and always have been, an integral piece of our future patchwork.