This is interesting to read, coming from an animal science and education backgrounds. I actually got into of education largely because of observed difference in public perception versus the reality of doing the work. A very clear and relevant example is there is no such thing as factory farming- farms churning out livestock by treating them all the same in the most minimal but effective way that not only negates the individual needs of each animal but also does it with as little human interaction as possible - implying a cold detached push of products through the system to maximize profits at the expense of everything else. That simply doesn't exist; there is a network of people working together to meet standardized mass production needs- sure- but its very much a hands on process that contains way more interaction and relationships between people and animals than the general person assumes.
Thing is -its infuriating, from an agricultural standpoint, to hear people lament about factory farms when they have zero idea what actually goes into producing their foods.
But the people complaining about the factory model of education have actually been through an education, and likely know someone currently going through the educational system. The problem isn't so much that schooling doesn't look like factory production in some way or another (because it really doesn't)- its that people come out of the system *feeling* like a product and like their education was simply something applied indiscriminately to everyone so they can be that product. The feeling of being churned out doesn't change with people's historic understanding of education, and is the far more important aspect of the term, in my opinion.
*the term factory here is ill-suited, as the goal of factories doesn't involve one-size-fits-all methodology and therefore turn all input into the same output; the goal is to find the most effective and efficient method for completing each step of the process, so the whole process comes together in the most efficient and effective way
I think your point about how people *feel* is so important. That drives a lot of public perception of schooling. Some people felt good about their schooling, so they view schools positively. Some people felt mistreated or ignored, and that drives their perception. I would love schools to do more work to help all students *feel* like we care about them as individuals.
The points you make are fair, but there's still very much a mass-production feel about schooling. If we took education more seriously, there'd be better teacher training and remuneration; fewer cries of "there's no money" (a statement of values rather than of economics); fewer children ground into failure and misery by a system in which they're a square peg in a round hole. Despite all you've said, I still regard mass education as a second best option to small-group or 1:1 learning where there can be a truer connection between teacher and pupil.
I agree there's a mass production feel, but schooling is a mass production effort. Tens of millions of students, millions of teachers, I don't think there's a way to do it that feels personalized. I have trouble imagining a small group or 1:1 learning option that doesn't devolve into high-quality education for the rich and leftovers for the poor.
I'm not saying education is perfect, but I think the basic structure of the system we have is pretty decent, and we are better off working within those constraints than trying to invent something new.
Ralph, I agree that we should train teachers better (started a nonprofit org to do that very thing). I also agree that we should increase teacher pay (substantially), and better fund education generally.
But whether we should prefer small group or 1:1 learning to the so-called "traditional" school model depends on what values we hold most dear. Imagine a system, similar to what the Greeks had with 'pedagogues' (enslaved tutors), where every single student has their own personal tutor, and that these tutors were extraordinary at teaching. Under such a system, would kids learn more things? When it comes to academic content knowledge, surely. Yet, think about all the things they *wouldn't* learn -- interacting with large groups, being challenged by peers, socializing with other kids who do not look like them, the list goes on and on.
America has always held a tension between our love of individualism and our common national character. We've managed that tension by forging our self-culture in our public schools. With personalized learning and vouchers and the like, we are chipping away (if not sandblasting) the foundation of what's kept us together. I fear for what may come next.
I share your concerns. The state of our public schools should be of public concern. I encourage you to listen to this conversation between Doug Lemov and Robert Pondiscio -- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/school-choice-for-parents-with-robert-pondiscio/id1667373657?i=1000641958514 I. At least listen to that last bit, starting at minute 26:00 or so. They talk about the role of the public school in helping to forge a united nation, and the problems we face due to declining trust in institutions, not just the public schools.
Just listened to some of it. Declining trust is something I hadn't thought about. I would add to declining trust a broad desire to find easy ways out of hard problems. I see that in politics and technology right now -- if we could only do this, or when we have this, life will be better... We often take that idea to schools, if we could only... And I find all of that very shortsighted.
Agreed. The "guru" of declining trust in U.S. institutions is Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone. Check him out. Bowling Alone is a long book, but he's got other shorter books and tons of interviews and articles.
Yes, that socializing issue is a valid one. I've noticed that a lot of home schoolers do gather into networks where children come together to do things in common, like participate in sports, put on stage productions etc. One advantage of a less centralized system like this is it allows for more choice to pick and choose learning environments. I doubt that kids themselves would choose these environments based on socio-economic or cultural factors, although their parents might. There is sometimes a choice of what schools to attend, but it is often a frypan-to-fire scenario for a lot of kids, and a school tends to be and all-or-nothing option, where you have to take all the bad with all the good.
"a school tends to be and all-or-nothing option, where you have to take all the bad with all the good."-- kind of like life, right? I don't mean to be flippant, but I'm looking at your first comment about how "if we took education more seriously." That's the fundamental problem; education is NOT a top priority.
If education was our top priority, what would we do differently? My argument is that we would put those resources into improving schools within the framework we have now. I'm not saying everything has to stay the same but I'm skeptical of efforts to reinvent schools, and I think we waste a lot of resources heading in that direction.
I agree with you--the reply you gave to Tricia's comment below was fantastic. Instead of thinking about how to revolutionize and reinvent everything, maybe we need to just double down on what teachers and students do in classrooms. That's what I've always done -- lots of late nights and early mornings, but time that hopefully led to genuine learning for my students.
Dylan - love your perspective as always and appreciate your call out for different forces and motives that may have shaped the US education system, but this likely where we look at the puzzle/system and come away with different conclusions.
I agree parent forces are in play, and if anything now I think the most pernicious effect is actually the zero sum game of elite college admissions and the job to be done of spending as much as I can to get my kid into an elite college. For some, it’s legitimately trying to improve their opportunities. For some it’s about cracking a certain elite group and basically artificially raising the floor and ceiling of your child’s life forever just because they were along the select few who got lucky to get into an Ivy League. It’s optimization. Along with a whole set of fears an entire parent industrial complex industry has grown to prey on from pregnancy and early childhood.
And I think we need to have people who have your experience and perspective which deeply appreciate of trying to strengthen/improve current interconnected yet also independent systems that make up the ‘ US education system ‘ as well as those who try to reimagine education. (I just think people misuse that and also have different value systems around why and what reimagining looks like.)
Definitely think we need to elevate your voice (and voices of those like you) for those working to improve existing systems. Districts and leaders who prioritize this with a good balanced approach of accountability and support (aligned autonomy), along with nonprofits like Leading Educators or the org Shawn Rubin leads that used to be called Highlander (forget what it got rebranded to) that support teachers as leaders and agents of change.
Also a thought, I don’t know that I agree with the all the things you mentioned in your district, but I do wonder if they’re aimed more at raising the floor and enforcing more accountability vs what’s done for support, and also they’re probably not aimed at teachers like you.
I think a different thesis for this post might be "education is complicated and there are no easy fixes." Makes me think of Gall's law: all complex systems that work evolved from simpler systems that worked. Since schooling is so complex, trying to reinvent it in large ways is unlikely to work. Instead, building on the parts of the system we like and strengthening the parts that don't work well is a better approach.
re: accountability, aligned autonomy: I don't know. I'm in favor of effective accountability and aligned autonomy. But I'm not just talking about my district, I'm talking about more and more anecdotes I hear from teachers all over the place. I worry there's something about schools, where because leaders have so little contact with actual classrooms they inevitably try to exert control in ways that aren't healthy. Even if they aren't aimed at teachers like me, I'm skeptical. I would love for the center of school improvement to be teacher improvement: how can we help teachers do better? That often doesn't feel like the purpose of accountability.
It's so interesting and helpful to know about the history of education. It seems neglected. Do schools of education even cover it? Do education journalists and policymakers know it? If there was more familiarity, it might even stem the tide of tired tropes and the constant churn of old wine in new bottles. I've been reading Diane Ravitch, Lawrence Cremin, and Jonathan Zimmerman. I haven't read Labaree, so thanks for the recommendation. One thing I learned recently: It's not quite accurate to say the main goal of the Common Schools movement was to "strengthen the young country's democratic institutions". It was in large part motivated by the influx of Catholic immigrants and the desire to withhold state support for Catholic institutions. The first common schools had a clear Protestant orientation.
Interesting! I didn't know about the Catholic/Protestant piece, though it makes a lot of sense. I'm not an expert at education history, I've learned a lot more recently, and Labaree and Cuban have been big influences. Not surprised I have holes in my knowledge.
Based on my knowledge, schools of education do cover education history but often don't do a great job, or struggle to connect the history to the practical realities of schools. But that's really hard, I would argue it's hard to teach education history to someone who hasn't worked full-time in education. In general, journalists and policymakers don't know much about ed history.
I agree that the intentions of the common schooling movement in the US were not to create interchangeable workers or another factory type goal, but the model we used was the Prussian one, which explicitly was to feed the military-industrial needs of the state. That is the concern.
I think that's an oversimplification -- the Prussian model was an influence on the common schooling movement, but we adapted it with very different goals. You're right that there's a connection, but I don't see how that warrants the rhetoric I sometimes hear where because we have a factory model we need to tear the whole system down.
I understand your frustration with the rhetoric surrounding the use of "factory models of education" as a dismissive, unchallengeable phrase but I do not agree with your suggestion that it not true that there are forces impacting on education that are not in the best interest of students.
There are real, tangible discourses about education that impact not only on how education and schooling is understood, but also what it is to do and what it is for that at times go against our very hopes for our young people.
In Australia, we use the final year of secondary schooling to literally sort students from "best" to "worst" and recently, it has been suggested that Australia is experiencing a "maths crisis" because the industry needs a "strong pipeline of students to meet current and future need" for engineering and science fields.
These have real effects upon how education is perceived and how we approach educational "problems", which may in fact go against want might be best for our students.
I would be interested in how you see this play out in the US from your perspective and whether you feel it has the same effect?
I agree that those forces exist. I haven't attended or worked at a school that ranks students the way you describe but that does exist here. There's plenty of rhetoric about the STEM pipeline, and here we have a bunch of tech billionaires who like to throw money at personalized learning.
I would say that in general (with exceptions of some specific schools) those forces haven't played a huge role in shaping the everyday structure of schools. Maybe there's a new engineering or computer science class offered - not a bad thing! - or a new piece of software adopted. But what I've found in practice, and what I've learned from studying education history, is that our schools are really sites of a huge amount of compromise. Compromise between what parents want, which is often a very practical education, as well as social mobility for their kids, a lot of progressive rhetoric at the leadership level, democratic values and practices, and more. Something that's often underrated is how much influence parents have on the system because there is no large national parents organization, yet parents can have an important influence on their kids' schools.
So my takeaway is that those forces you describe do exist, but I'm skeptical that in the US they have that much influence compared to the other forces shaping the school system. I think it's pretty cool that we have an education system that tries to educate all students, and there will inevitably be a mass-production feel to it because of that size. But I think that's a good thing, that we education so many students in one large system. And I think the best way to improve the system is to zoom in to the classroom level, and focus on the quality of classroom teaching and learning, not to try and redesign the system from the top down.
Very interesting to hear your thoughts and experiences. Yes, schools have the protective factor (in my opinion) of often being able to resist the forces trying to change what they do.
Sadly, it seems that in Australia policy is becoming increasingly characterised by control of what the school and teachers can do, which I believe is reducing this ability to "compromise" as you have named it.
Maybe it is the way that schools are structured in the US, where there is (as far as I'm aware) a lot less ability to standardise due to the state control over education, in Australia it is quite different I would say and moving towards more of the "top down" approach to improving "quality" of classroom teaching.
I find all this quite fascinating, as Australia loves to borrow policy from the US and you don't hear about what you're talking about here.
All the more reason to do a little more research into it all 🤔
I think I might see some of what you're describing -- I wrote a few weeks ago about "soulless teaching," which sounds like it might have some things in common with what you see in Australia. https://fivetwelvethirteen.substack.com/p/soulless-teaching
Less top-down control of schools in the US definitely makes a difference. Individual school districts have a ton of autonomy, and then states have some influence, while the federal government has almost none. Most of the issues I see start at the local level, which is very different from what you're describing.
Labaree is great on this. If you want another good book on this topic, I recommend Democracy's Schools, by Johann Neem. Among other things Neem explores how education in public schools cultivates "self culture," one that "sees young people as lamps, not mirrors--as subjects who must shed their own light upon the world." What's more, this self-culture must be shared; "the common is the most precious," said Rev. William Channing in 1838, a major education influencer at the time. We are losing sight of this, if we haven't lost it already.
I will check out Democracy's Schools! And I agree -- I think the trend toward personalization and differentiation is another symptom of the way we've lost sight of the shared culture schools should be striving for.
I was delighted to read this discussion. The notion that more traditional forms of education are based on a factory model became a thoughtlessly repeated cliche many years ago. I'm glad Dylan took the time to speak against it. As his account shows, it is simply inaccurate, no matter how congenial it is to those who are constantly looking to "reinvent" education. A great deal of work is necessary, but it should be grounded in a clear-eyed look at the thinking and history behind the current state of affairs.
Thanks for sharing these highlights in the history of education. As an educator and parent who sees the widespread disengagement of students, including my own children, I have often criticized the machine of public education as a factory. When teacher after teacher hands out packets students can fill in the blanks to with almost no friction and teaches the same way, same content for 20+ years , it does feel like we could be doing better. I see the false equivalency at play here, but wonder if there isn't something better we can offer that keeps pace with the ecosystem this generation of students is a part of. I too champion the gift of public education but its application varies so much from region to region that there have to be some models that are educating more efficiently than others.
I agree that what you're describing sounds uninspiring. I've seen it, I know it's real. But every other way of organizing schools that I've seen feels like a step backwards, especially when we think about equity for all students. Speaking about my district, we have a whirlwind of initiatives to change the bell schedule, infuse "career-connected learning," change our course offerings, improve the attendance of our chronically absent students, and more. But classroom teaching is an afterthought. I hear similar things from other teachers. I think we spend so much of our effort trying to reinvent education that we forget that classrooms and classroom teaching is what students experience for most of their school day, and the biggest impacts might be from improving classroom teaching rather than trying to reinvent the surrounding ecosystem.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts Tricia. What you're describing, however, is not something particularly endemic to public education in so-called traditional schools. I will never forget visiting a Summit Public School charter school in CA. This system of schools had been touted as one of the best personalized learning approaches in the country; Mark Zuckerberg would eventually give them many millions and try to pump their model into other schools.
Anyway, during my visit to this school, I was amazed to observe teachers handing out worksheets to students and then just kicking back at their desk, doing nothing, no teaching. That same day, I watched a student rolling her marble back and forth on her keyboard for several minutes as a teacher browsed the Internet. I asked the student, "what are you doing right now?" and she told me, "taking charge of my learning." It was a complete farce.
My point ultimately is that education is hard, everywhere. There is no magic model. Some schools are definitely better than others, although often the real variance is between teachers more so than anything the school is doing. This is why I've long advocated for strengthening the capacity of the adults charged with teaching kids. That's not a silver bullet either, there are no silver bullets, but it's the clearest path I see.
This is interesting to read, coming from an animal science and education backgrounds. I actually got into of education largely because of observed difference in public perception versus the reality of doing the work. A very clear and relevant example is there is no such thing as factory farming- farms churning out livestock by treating them all the same in the most minimal but effective way that not only negates the individual needs of each animal but also does it with as little human interaction as possible - implying a cold detached push of products through the system to maximize profits at the expense of everything else. That simply doesn't exist; there is a network of people working together to meet standardized mass production needs- sure- but its very much a hands on process that contains way more interaction and relationships between people and animals than the general person assumes.
Thing is -its infuriating, from an agricultural standpoint, to hear people lament about factory farms when they have zero idea what actually goes into producing their foods.
But the people complaining about the factory model of education have actually been through an education, and likely know someone currently going through the educational system. The problem isn't so much that schooling doesn't look like factory production in some way or another (because it really doesn't)- its that people come out of the system *feeling* like a product and like their education was simply something applied indiscriminately to everyone so they can be that product. The feeling of being churned out doesn't change with people's historic understanding of education, and is the far more important aspect of the term, in my opinion.
*the term factory here is ill-suited, as the goal of factories doesn't involve one-size-fits-all methodology and therefore turn all input into the same output; the goal is to find the most effective and efficient method for completing each step of the process, so the whole process comes together in the most efficient and effective way
I think your point about how people *feel* is so important. That drives a lot of public perception of schooling. Some people felt good about their schooling, so they view schools positively. Some people felt mistreated or ignored, and that drives their perception. I would love schools to do more work to help all students *feel* like we care about them as individuals.
The points you make are fair, but there's still very much a mass-production feel about schooling. If we took education more seriously, there'd be better teacher training and remuneration; fewer cries of "there's no money" (a statement of values rather than of economics); fewer children ground into failure and misery by a system in which they're a square peg in a round hole. Despite all you've said, I still regard mass education as a second best option to small-group or 1:1 learning where there can be a truer connection between teacher and pupil.
I agree there's a mass production feel, but schooling is a mass production effort. Tens of millions of students, millions of teachers, I don't think there's a way to do it that feels personalized. I have trouble imagining a small group or 1:1 learning option that doesn't devolve into high-quality education for the rich and leftovers for the poor.
I'm not saying education is perfect, but I think the basic structure of the system we have is pretty decent, and we are better off working within those constraints than trying to invent something new.
Ralph, I agree that we should train teachers better (started a nonprofit org to do that very thing). I also agree that we should increase teacher pay (substantially), and better fund education generally.
But whether we should prefer small group or 1:1 learning to the so-called "traditional" school model depends on what values we hold most dear. Imagine a system, similar to what the Greeks had with 'pedagogues' (enslaved tutors), where every single student has their own personal tutor, and that these tutors were extraordinary at teaching. Under such a system, would kids learn more things? When it comes to academic content knowledge, surely. Yet, think about all the things they *wouldn't* learn -- interacting with large groups, being challenged by peers, socializing with other kids who do not look like them, the list goes on and on.
America has always held a tension between our love of individualism and our common national character. We've managed that tension by forging our self-culture in our public schools. With personalized learning and vouchers and the like, we are chipping away (if not sandblasting) the foundation of what's kept us together. I fear for what may come next.
I share your concerns. The state of our public schools should be of public concern. I encourage you to listen to this conversation between Doug Lemov and Robert Pondiscio -- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/school-choice-for-parents-with-robert-pondiscio/id1667373657?i=1000641958514 I. At least listen to that last bit, starting at minute 26:00 or so. They talk about the role of the public school in helping to forge a united nation, and the problems we face due to declining trust in institutions, not just the public schools.
Just listened to some of it. Declining trust is something I hadn't thought about. I would add to declining trust a broad desire to find easy ways out of hard problems. I see that in politics and technology right now -- if we could only do this, or when we have this, life will be better... We often take that idea to schools, if we could only... And I find all of that very shortsighted.
Agreed. The "guru" of declining trust in U.S. institutions is Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone. Check him out. Bowling Alone is a long book, but he's got other shorter books and tons of interviews and articles.
Yes, that socializing issue is a valid one. I've noticed that a lot of home schoolers do gather into networks where children come together to do things in common, like participate in sports, put on stage productions etc. One advantage of a less centralized system like this is it allows for more choice to pick and choose learning environments. I doubt that kids themselves would choose these environments based on socio-economic or cultural factors, although their parents might. There is sometimes a choice of what schools to attend, but it is often a frypan-to-fire scenario for a lot of kids, and a school tends to be and all-or-nothing option, where you have to take all the bad with all the good.
"a school tends to be and all-or-nothing option, where you have to take all the bad with all the good."-- kind of like life, right? I don't mean to be flippant, but I'm looking at your first comment about how "if we took education more seriously." That's the fundamental problem; education is NOT a top priority.
If education was our top priority, what would we do differently? My argument is that we would put those resources into improving schools within the framework we have now. I'm not saying everything has to stay the same but I'm skeptical of efforts to reinvent schools, and I think we waste a lot of resources heading in that direction.
I agree with you--the reply you gave to Tricia's comment below was fantastic. Instead of thinking about how to revolutionize and reinvent everything, maybe we need to just double down on what teachers and students do in classrooms. That's what I've always done -- lots of late nights and early mornings, but time that hopefully led to genuine learning for my students.
Dylan - love your perspective as always and appreciate your call out for different forces and motives that may have shaped the US education system, but this likely where we look at the puzzle/system and come away with different conclusions.
I agree parent forces are in play, and if anything now I think the most pernicious effect is actually the zero sum game of elite college admissions and the job to be done of spending as much as I can to get my kid into an elite college. For some, it’s legitimately trying to improve their opportunities. For some it’s about cracking a certain elite group and basically artificially raising the floor and ceiling of your child’s life forever just because they were along the select few who got lucky to get into an Ivy League. It’s optimization. Along with a whole set of fears an entire parent industrial complex industry has grown to prey on from pregnancy and early childhood.
And I think we need to have people who have your experience and perspective which deeply appreciate of trying to strengthen/improve current interconnected yet also independent systems that make up the ‘ US education system ‘ as well as those who try to reimagine education. (I just think people misuse that and also have different value systems around why and what reimagining looks like.)
Definitely think we need to elevate your voice (and voices of those like you) for those working to improve existing systems. Districts and leaders who prioritize this with a good balanced approach of accountability and support (aligned autonomy), along with nonprofits like Leading Educators or the org Shawn Rubin leads that used to be called Highlander (forget what it got rebranded to) that support teachers as leaders and agents of change.
Also a thought, I don’t know that I agree with the all the things you mentioned in your district, but I do wonder if they’re aimed more at raising the floor and enforcing more accountability vs what’s done for support, and also they’re probably not aimed at teachers like you.
I think a different thesis for this post might be "education is complicated and there are no easy fixes." Makes me think of Gall's law: all complex systems that work evolved from simpler systems that worked. Since schooling is so complex, trying to reinvent it in large ways is unlikely to work. Instead, building on the parts of the system we like and strengthening the parts that don't work well is a better approach.
re: accountability, aligned autonomy: I don't know. I'm in favor of effective accountability and aligned autonomy. But I'm not just talking about my district, I'm talking about more and more anecdotes I hear from teachers all over the place. I worry there's something about schools, where because leaders have so little contact with actual classrooms they inevitably try to exert control in ways that aren't healthy. Even if they aren't aimed at teachers like me, I'm skeptical. I would love for the center of school improvement to be teacher improvement: how can we help teachers do better? That often doesn't feel like the purpose of accountability.
It's so interesting and helpful to know about the history of education. It seems neglected. Do schools of education even cover it? Do education journalists and policymakers know it? If there was more familiarity, it might even stem the tide of tired tropes and the constant churn of old wine in new bottles. I've been reading Diane Ravitch, Lawrence Cremin, and Jonathan Zimmerman. I haven't read Labaree, so thanks for the recommendation. One thing I learned recently: It's not quite accurate to say the main goal of the Common Schools movement was to "strengthen the young country's democratic institutions". It was in large part motivated by the influx of Catholic immigrants and the desire to withhold state support for Catholic institutions. The first common schools had a clear Protestant orientation.
Interesting! I didn't know about the Catholic/Protestant piece, though it makes a lot of sense. I'm not an expert at education history, I've learned a lot more recently, and Labaree and Cuban have been big influences. Not surprised I have holes in my knowledge.
Based on my knowledge, schools of education do cover education history but often don't do a great job, or struggle to connect the history to the practical realities of schools. But that's really hard, I would argue it's hard to teach education history to someone who hasn't worked full-time in education. In general, journalists and policymakers don't know much about ed history.
I agree that the intentions of the common schooling movement in the US were not to create interchangeable workers or another factory type goal, but the model we used was the Prussian one, which explicitly was to feed the military-industrial needs of the state. That is the concern.
I think that's an oversimplification -- the Prussian model was an influence on the common schooling movement, but we adapted it with very different goals. You're right that there's a connection, but I don't see how that warrants the rhetoric I sometimes hear where because we have a factory model we need to tear the whole system down.
I understand your frustration with the rhetoric surrounding the use of "factory models of education" as a dismissive, unchallengeable phrase but I do not agree with your suggestion that it not true that there are forces impacting on education that are not in the best interest of students.
There are real, tangible discourses about education that impact not only on how education and schooling is understood, but also what it is to do and what it is for that at times go against our very hopes for our young people.
In Australia, we use the final year of secondary schooling to literally sort students from "best" to "worst" and recently, it has been suggested that Australia is experiencing a "maths crisis" because the industry needs a "strong pipeline of students to meet current and future need" for engineering and science fields.
These have real effects upon how education is perceived and how we approach educational "problems", which may in fact go against want might be best for our students.
I would be interested in how you see this play out in the US from your perspective and whether you feel it has the same effect?
I agree that those forces exist. I haven't attended or worked at a school that ranks students the way you describe but that does exist here. There's plenty of rhetoric about the STEM pipeline, and here we have a bunch of tech billionaires who like to throw money at personalized learning.
I would say that in general (with exceptions of some specific schools) those forces haven't played a huge role in shaping the everyday structure of schools. Maybe there's a new engineering or computer science class offered - not a bad thing! - or a new piece of software adopted. But what I've found in practice, and what I've learned from studying education history, is that our schools are really sites of a huge amount of compromise. Compromise between what parents want, which is often a very practical education, as well as social mobility for their kids, a lot of progressive rhetoric at the leadership level, democratic values and practices, and more. Something that's often underrated is how much influence parents have on the system because there is no large national parents organization, yet parents can have an important influence on their kids' schools.
So my takeaway is that those forces you describe do exist, but I'm skeptical that in the US they have that much influence compared to the other forces shaping the school system. I think it's pretty cool that we have an education system that tries to educate all students, and there will inevitably be a mass-production feel to it because of that size. But I think that's a good thing, that we education so many students in one large system. And I think the best way to improve the system is to zoom in to the classroom level, and focus on the quality of classroom teaching and learning, not to try and redesign the system from the top down.
Thanks for the response Dylan!
Very interesting to hear your thoughts and experiences. Yes, schools have the protective factor (in my opinion) of often being able to resist the forces trying to change what they do.
Sadly, it seems that in Australia policy is becoming increasingly characterised by control of what the school and teachers can do, which I believe is reducing this ability to "compromise" as you have named it.
Maybe it is the way that schools are structured in the US, where there is (as far as I'm aware) a lot less ability to standardise due to the state control over education, in Australia it is quite different I would say and moving towards more of the "top down" approach to improving "quality" of classroom teaching.
I find all this quite fascinating, as Australia loves to borrow policy from the US and you don't hear about what you're talking about here.
All the more reason to do a little more research into it all 🤔
I think I might see some of what you're describing -- I wrote a few weeks ago about "soulless teaching," which sounds like it might have some things in common with what you see in Australia. https://fivetwelvethirteen.substack.com/p/soulless-teaching
Less top-down control of schools in the US definitely makes a difference. Individual school districts have a ton of autonomy, and then states have some influence, while the federal government has almost none. Most of the issues I see start at the local level, which is very different from what you're describing.
Yes, I read that post of yours also with much interest.
Appreciate your willingness to engage with the many comments you're getting on your posts, well done 👏.
I'm sure I will be keeping your writing in mind for future to reference...
Thanks again Dylan!
Labaree is great on this. If you want another good book on this topic, I recommend Democracy's Schools, by Johann Neem. Among other things Neem explores how education in public schools cultivates "self culture," one that "sees young people as lamps, not mirrors--as subjects who must shed their own light upon the world." What's more, this self-culture must be shared; "the common is the most precious," said Rev. William Channing in 1838, a major education influencer at the time. We are losing sight of this, if we haven't lost it already.
I will check out Democracy's Schools! And I agree -- I think the trend toward personalization and differentiation is another symptom of the way we've lost sight of the shared culture schools should be striving for.
Thank you Dylan, this was a very informative read for me! I didn't know a lot of this history, so I enjoyed reading your essay. Thanks again!
I was delighted to read this discussion. The notion that more traditional forms of education are based on a factory model became a thoughtlessly repeated cliche many years ago. I'm glad Dylan took the time to speak against it. As his account shows, it is simply inaccurate, no matter how congenial it is to those who are constantly looking to "reinvent" education. A great deal of work is necessary, but it should be grounded in a clear-eyed look at the thinking and history behind the current state of affairs.
Yup. For some reason, it's hard for people outside the classroom to be clear-eyed about the realities of education.
Thanks for sharing these highlights in the history of education. As an educator and parent who sees the widespread disengagement of students, including my own children, I have often criticized the machine of public education as a factory. When teacher after teacher hands out packets students can fill in the blanks to with almost no friction and teaches the same way, same content for 20+ years , it does feel like we could be doing better. I see the false equivalency at play here, but wonder if there isn't something better we can offer that keeps pace with the ecosystem this generation of students is a part of. I too champion the gift of public education but its application varies so much from region to region that there have to be some models that are educating more efficiently than others.
I agree that what you're describing sounds uninspiring. I've seen it, I know it's real. But every other way of organizing schools that I've seen feels like a step backwards, especially when we think about equity for all students. Speaking about my district, we have a whirlwind of initiatives to change the bell schedule, infuse "career-connected learning," change our course offerings, improve the attendance of our chronically absent students, and more. But classroom teaching is an afterthought. I hear similar things from other teachers. I think we spend so much of our effort trying to reinvent education that we forget that classrooms and classroom teaching is what students experience for most of their school day, and the biggest impacts might be from improving classroom teaching rather than trying to reinvent the surrounding ecosystem.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts Tricia. What you're describing, however, is not something particularly endemic to public education in so-called traditional schools. I will never forget visiting a Summit Public School charter school in CA. This system of schools had been touted as one of the best personalized learning approaches in the country; Mark Zuckerberg would eventually give them many millions and try to pump their model into other schools.
Anyway, during my visit to this school, I was amazed to observe teachers handing out worksheets to students and then just kicking back at their desk, doing nothing, no teaching. That same day, I watched a student rolling her marble back and forth on her keyboard for several minutes as a teacher browsed the Internet. I asked the student, "what are you doing right now?" and she told me, "taking charge of my learning." It was a complete farce.
My point ultimately is that education is hard, everywhere. There is no magic model. Some schools are definitely better than others, although often the real variance is between teachers more so than anything the school is doing. This is why I've long advocated for strengthening the capacity of the adults charged with teaching kids. That's not a silver bullet either, there are no silver bullets, but it's the clearest path I see.