Listen, Then Lead - America's education system as viewed by an Oxford grad.
This piece was contributed by Justin Kiczek (Mansfield 2002)
At I.S. 77 in Ridgewood, Queens, Principal Joe Miller’s voice booms throughout the school, welcoming a new morning and congratulating the students on a particularly good day of attendance. Clad in their sports jerseys and name brand clothes, chatting before class begins, the students resemble any average sixth grade class. However, for Ms. Quinn, their language arts teacher, instructing them presents extraordinary challenges. Situated in the most diverse county in the world, Queens schools, and by extension all of New York City schools, continually force teachers like Ms. Quinn to confront the question: how to best educate an incredibly diverse populace? With students arriving to school each day with vastly different language skills, levels of preparedness, and cultural difference, teachers are asked to do more than ever. Yet, many reforms in education are seeking to alleviate these difficulties through institutional change and curriculum redesign. Most agree that modern education in America needs constant, continual reevaluation and restructuring. It’s just what kind of reform that causes such spirited debate.
As an American who has studied at Oxford and now works and teaches in a parochial high school, I’ve enjoyed the privilege of witnessing two very different types of education. My time in Oxford allowed me to see what are both the positive and negative aspects of the educational experience in the United States. One thing most Oxonians thoroughly enjoyed about the tutorial experience was the unmatched level of attention afforded to each pupil. Clearly, such a system would be impossible to institute into the nation’s already stretched thin system. However, since John Dewey, progressive educational thinkers have been emphasizing the student-oriented teaching method, where ideally, in a way not dissimilar to a tutorial, the student will lead the teacher, unfolding his or her strengths and weaknesses as the lessons progress. The reform away from “rote learning” has certainly been well appreciated by both students and teachers, however, schools often disagree about the best approach to institutionalizing change. Should a central bureaucracy develop new teaching methods, or should each local community be free to design its own curriculum?
These questions are at the heart of the debate over charter schools and school vouchers. Charter schools are run much like privatized businesses: principals are forced to meet a “bottom line” in order to be granted state funding. They are socially accountable in way most public schools are not; however, their independence from bureaucratic strictures allows them to encourage creative curriculum design and make nimble changes when necessary. Administrators’ emotional and financial investment in the school’s future attracts talented, well-educated faculty and helps to deeply involve the parents of each child. The recently passed “No Child Left Behind” bill aims to bring many of these qualities of charter schools to the public realm; increased parental participation, stricter faculty qualifications, accountability, and greater flexibility are just a few of the objectives of the bill. If wholly funded, its success would surely help schools adapt to changing environments while ensuring the educational quality continues to improve.
I don’t believe these goals are unattainable. With greater school flexibility, motivated teachers and students, and quality administrators, the independent spirit of study that marks Oxford academic life can unquestionably be fostered and grown in our city’s schools. Education is undoubtedly a huge issue for our city and our country, and its questions and controversies seem to never leave our national conversation. It will surely play an important part in our upcoming election. Whether in a elementary classroom in Ridgewood, Queens or book-lined tutor’s study in Oxford, England, we must remember that education still aims for the same goal: to inspire a love of learning and to make better citizens of our children. As a teacher, I constantly try to remind myself that my principal purpose is not to talk and hope my students follow; rather, it is to do what many of our Oxford tutors did best: listen, and then lead.