Why do we have public schools? Prior to the pervasive growth and ubiquity of the internet, it was easy to answer that question because a school’s objectives were clear and rarely questioned: 1) teach, 2) socialize and 3) provide custodial care. Today, two of the three do not apply, and that means big trouble. Let me address them in order.
Providing access to knowledge is one of three historical justifications for schools. Basically, parents had to send their children to schools because the knowledge was stored there, in textbooks and in the heads of teachers. However, today’s young people swim in a sea of information, 24/7. Of course, children need teachers to help them learn to read and master numbers, but, beyond that, a new approach is required. Young people must learn how to deal with the flood of information that surrounds them. They need guidance separating wheat from chaff. They need help formulating questions, and they need to develop the habit of seeking answers, not regurgitating them. They should be going to schools where they are expected and encouraged to discover, build and cooperate. Instead, most of them endure what I call ‘regurgitation education’ in institutions that expect them to memorize the periodic table, the names of 50 state capitals and the major rivers of the United States. These “What? questions must be replaced by “Why?” and “How?” lines of inquiry. After all, the answers to “What” questions like “What is the longest river in the world?” are on everyone’s tech device. Schools must teach skepticism and encourage curiosity.
Socialization is the second historical justification for sending children to schools. Public school was where boys and girls expanded their worlds beyond family and where young people generally learned about each other. But socialization too has been turned on its head by technology. Today there’s an App for just about everything, including ways to communicate with friends and strangers. Today’s kids don’t need school for socialization in the usual sense of interacting with their peers, because there are literally hundreds of online places for that. ‘Socialization’ takes on new meanings when kids routinely text with ‘friends they’ve never met’ across the continent or an ocean. Again, schools must adapt to this new reality and help young people understand two fundamental messages: digital is forever; and that new friend who claims to be your age and gender may be a sick stalker or worse. Schools must harness technology to help young people create knowledge out of the flood of information that now surrounds them.
Because technology also isolates, schools need to harness its powers for group activities and projects. They should also create technology-free times that provide opportunities for old fashioned (and essential) face-to-face interaction.
Only custodial care, the third reason we send kids to schools, remains unchanged. Parents still need places to send their children during the work day to keep them safe. So does the larger society, which has long since rejected child labor and does not want kids on the streets. But when schools provide only custodial care and a marginal education that denies technology’s reach and power, young people–many of whom already battle overwhelming life challenges–walk away, as at least 6,000 do every school day, for an annual dropout total of over 1 million.
Tragically, those who remain in marginal schools may find themselves in danger, because the youthful energy that ought to be devoted to meaningful learning is inevitably released, somewhere. Often it comes out in bullying, cyberbullying and other forms of child abuse by children. Marginal education that values compliance, sorting and test scores above all else generally produces dangerous schools. Smart bored kids may–and often do–go after vulnerable children, sometimes with horrifying results. Bullying is widespread. Boys who are bullied past their breaking point may try to hurt others, while girls are likely to try to hurt themselves.
Unfortunately, those in charge of public education have not been paying attention to these seismic changes. Instead they are warring over teacher competence, test scores, merit pay and union rules, issues that are fundamentally irrelevant to the world children live in.
And the longer this battle rages and the longer we postpone addressing the real issues, the greater the damage to children and, ultimately, our social structure. The drug of (phony and superficial) “School Reform” is preventing us from addressing the real issue: we send our children to schools that are inappropriate for the 21st Century. That is the problem that must be faced head on–and solved.
