I fear that the demise of public education has not been exaggerated. But, rather than mourn its loss, we should celebrate its successes, learn from its lessons, & build a brighter future upon the rubble now strewn before us.
Before anyone says "That's why I abandoned public education to go private with the fruit of my loins!" I will point out that public education still drives curricula, University entry, standardised testing, teacher training, & a whole raft of other elements. Bad public education gives no competition to the private sector, & essentially drags it down to a lower expectation. Once we get public education right, then the private sector must excel to attract its market. Right now, bad-mouthing public education is somewhat akin to shooting a school of fish in a tub of lard.
Looking forward, what do we expect of public education? It has to be more than child-care, although it has to be accepted that some percentage of the school-aged population are effectively only waiting to come of age so that they can be old enough to vote & decry the tax-based expenditure on education when they have children of their own. There still must be free access to good education - that is, an opportunity for the demographically challenged but bright to prove themselves regardless of their more conservative neighbours' expectations.
Such forward thinking requires two things often constrained by funding - an administration capable of coming up with & implementing policies to encourage learning, & a teaching cadre willing & able to back up same with effectiveness. Good teachers will tend to drift toward opportunities where they can show their excellence. It goes to reason. Good administrators, likewise, will tend to shelve any airy plans exceeding their budgets until their deathbed (as a staunch public servant) or until they can present same to perspective private employer (who may or may not implement, but at least will encourage).
In both cases, mediocrity has, & always will be, the death of progress.
Those who challenge the status quo directly threaten those with the power of veto - managers or peers. Management cannot be seen to be devoid of ideas, because "it's their job" & they have a higher social status. Peers cannot be seen to be lesser mortals - because almost all teachers are on a ludicrously equal footing.
To break this farcical situation we need to do something quite radical - step outside of the public service structure that anoints on the basis of seniority & toadying (as opposed ability), & reward innovation & excellence directly (whilst avoiding the Peter Principle). A good teacher more often than not makes a poor administrator.
We need better teachers. We also need to be able to designate those teachers as having achieved something by being better - pay them more than their peers. We need to attract potentially better teachers into University courses for teaching. Strangely, this first step has been in place for some time, with scholarships. However, these scholarships are used to punish the bright stars by sending them to the places where the entrenched teachers refuse to go - the disadvantaged areas. Those who survive such a baptism of fire should think of themselves as tough enough & skilled enough to do anything, but they are thereafter lumped in with the ordinary teachers at the same pay rate, unless they attempt to jump ship & join the private sector with their hard-won experience in places no-one wants to teach.
Teachers should be rewarded for being good at teaching. That's not such a silly idea. The question is how to develop the reward system, & how to measure the worthiness of the recipients in such a way that it remains meaningful. Mediocrity would creep in with cronyism. Expectations slide without constant vigilance regardless. Perhaps therein lies the future - constant (that is, annual) verification that a teacher who has been marked as an Exponent of Quality is worthy of the badge & the privileges attendant thereon.
Quality must be determined by specialisation. I am not an education administrator, but I can imagine that, say, a Music teacher would be expected to stay actively musical, contributing to the curriculum, playing instruments, organising bands & musicals & choirs & such within the school & without - effectively, being a beacon of musicality within the school & the broader society. Their ability to teach effectively would not be quite as important as their basic skillset - that which makes them a music teacher above all else. Similarly an art teacher.
An IT teacher, on the other hand, would need the basic skills & understanding for that area, but would need to be constantly up to date with the general industry & technology movements, so as to be most relevant to their students. They can't teach the same thing every year. Input & adherence to changing curricula would be very important. Their ability to inspire students would come through their love & understanding of the subject area, more so than their ability to teach.
Traditionally, English teachers bear the brunt of communications skills - whether it's understanding the written word, analysing it for deeper meaning, or expressing an opinion thereon. They must love their vocation - the use of language - but they also must inspire their students with a lot less love. English remains the only compulsory subject, & is often seen by students as the most burdensome. English teachers should be measured by their ability to lift the content into the hearts of their charges & leave behind something more than a sense of relief when it's all over.
From these three examples, it can be seen that the variation in what makes a good teacher is beyond a mere administrator's box-ticking capability to comprehend. It needs assessment by peers. Not ordinary peers, but those who strive for excellence in themselves. Such Quality Leaders would be the ultimate goal of teachers who becomes Quality Exponents. Although administrative, the role must be steeped in teaching above all else.
Quality Exponents should be recognised by being paid appropriately (through higher wages or bonuses is irrelevant), being given predominantly more challenging classes, openly competing with each other on a professional basis (with no benefit to undermining a peer), & above all else should share their learnings with those who would follow them - who would want to improve themselves. I can imagine a self-administering guild structure with a collegiate approach to decisions on how one guild could progress its members, & an over-arching teaching guild that takes representatives from these to the betterment of the education system. This is independent of unionism, which I see as a side-effect of teachers being public servants, & therefore having nothing to do with teaching.
Let the Education Phoenix rise stronger than before. We, as a society, can only benefit from the flames so fanned.
