The Red Pencil: Convictions from Experience in Education

Rating:
Summary: Prof. Sizer Has Experience But Lacks Credibility
Review: I first encountered Ted Sizer's views on education in his course on The American School at the Harvard Graduate School of Education in the Fall of 1963. The idea that most surprised me was his desire to model Harvard's role in American education after that taken by Dewey and his disciples who had trained a high number of America's superintendents during an earlier era. He told us that those of us in the M.A. in Teaching program had been selected in part because we would go on to leadership in various schools and school systems, and could effect change. We would carry the "message" of Harvard regarding our respective disciplines and about the running of the schools as a whole. This struck me then, and still does, as an essentially egotistical concept of his role in education. It was more about power than about educational vision. His role as a reformer trying to dominate and change the schools of the country has continued throughout the years.
In his writings, he usually focuses on the negative. There is something so basically flawed about the schools it must be weeded out. Yet, it is hard to pin down exactly what is wrong. Sometimes, along with Robert Coles and others, he seems to opine that there are so many youths who are alienated by the system. When I taught in Dedham High School in Massachusetts years ago, one teen declared that he was "an outlaw." He wanted to get a mobile home and a motorcycle and ride rootlessly around the country "like a rolling stone." Sometimes Sizer writes as though he wants to change the system in order not to lose youths like this one. Other times, he is concerned with the cynicism of the better students, who have learned to play the system to their advantage. They have learned to manipulate the system in order to "succeed," but a true ideal of excellence is missing from their value system, or even a true love of learning.
He is bothered by the bureaucracy, but it's not that there is just too much paperwork or too much micromanagement, or a lack of disciplinary follow through and guts in punishing the guilty. Rather, I often sense from reading Sizer's writings that the bureaucracy is a mindset he abhors. It is a mindset of mediocrity and of trying to manage or enclose an educational process that is more exciting and open-ended than is realized.
In short, he seems to feel for the past forty-plus years that education is not living up to what it could and should be. Yet, he never clearly articulates what it could and should be. Rather, he is inviting us, and all potential fellow reformers, to catch his vision that there is a dynamic and an excellence beyond what we now have, even if the parameters of that dynamic and that excellence cannot be fully enunciated. He's kind of an educated Rodney King.."if we could all just get together, then what a beautiful world it could be." But it ain't a beautiful world although there is beauty in it. A more healthy and robust philosophy is needed to adjust to the wickedness that is out there.
He does not call for implementation of a more moral world view as did Pestalozzi. He does not promote the adaptation of the individual to democracy as does Dewey. He does not promote radical freedom of the individual like the Summerhill crowd. He does not advocate integration like Martin Luther King, Jr. He does not challenge us to intensify the scientific application of psychology to learning as does Herbart. Nor, does he advocate the arts as a path to wholeness in the educational life of a growing human being like Rudolf Steiner. Since I studied with him in 1963, I do not see articulated positive goals, but only the sense that if one is smart enough and progressive enough then he or she will see how to reform and improve this or that school or school system, because the given is that they all need reform. His "new vision" really is no vision, but only the promise that if you work with him your schools will get better in all kinds of ways. They will be revitalized. In fact, if I were to give a rubric for his ideas, I would say they come under the heading of "revitalizing the schools." However, the rub is that the notion is vague and even mystical. It ultimately depends upon trusting him and those who agree with him. He has good points to make yet lacks overriding substance in terms of goals or purpose.
Lastly, it is worth noting that Sizer is not "above the fray." Though certain of his points might be considered acceptable to conservative or liberal theories of education, he is in the liberal camp. Why can't Johnny read? Answer: The schools are boring, have mediocrity as their standard, have untalented administrators and teachers, lack funding,
are mired in local values and premises that are invalid and provincial, and have arcane rules that inhibit rather than enhance educational practice. Almost every aspect of pedagogy, administration, testing, discipline, parent-school relations, curriculum, guidance, and legal structure is wrong. Why can't Johnny tell right from wrong? Answer: Pretty much the same as the answer for why Johnny can't read.
Ted Sizer sees very little that is good about education as it has evolved in America. His slant is leftward. His sense that the individual can only be fixed by reforming the whole is ill-conceived and based on many philosophical mis-assumptions.
His sense that the traditional classroom is a place of failed expectations and rampant denial is excessively negative. His hope for America based on his envisioned educational reforms is futile.