While many agree that American education is facing serious problems, Mike Rose’s new book, “Public Education Under Siege” (ed. with Michael B. Katz. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013) departs from more than a decade of focus on testing and accountability. Thought provoking and jargon-free essays, a number of which first appeared in Dissent Magazine, present alternative perspectives on school reform, including an eye toward some of the systemic causes of the problems with American schools.
“The people who contributed to this book have been critical of [and interested in] improving the quality of education in the schools for decades,” says Rose. “What the book tries to say is, ‘Look – you mainstream reformer types, you’ve got some things right. There are some people who shouldn’t be teaching, and some education schools are not doing as good a job as they could be, and poor kids are getting a raw deal.
“We need to address the terrible quality of education that many poor and vulnerable populations of students receive. But to achieve any level of equality for these children, we need to understand the big picture of our schools, a picture that includes reformers’ concerns about assessment, teacher quality, and teacher education, as well as the many other social and economic factors that affect a child’s performance in school.”
Rose says that the book seeks to fill in the many gaps in the mainstream view of school reform, among them, topics that are typically not addressed by government, philanthropies who invest in education, or even high-profile figures in the reform movement.
“Some of the [book’s] contributors focus on the significant inequality of funding for schools, the political and legal history of that funding inequality, and the way true school reform will be stymied until we can create new ways to frame this issue,” says Rose. “And some of the contributors focus on other kinds of inequality: on segregation, for example, and the many subtle and not-so-subtle ways that residential and educational segregation is maintained, with negative consequences for low-income children of color.
“Yet another manifestation of inequality is found in the connection between race, social class, and the criminalization of children, for there are significant disparities in the punishment—and legal ramifications—meted out to kids in poorer verses wealthier schools. These and other manifestations of inequality aren’t part of our mainstream discussion of school reform, yet they have an effect on how kids do in school.”
Rose says that with contributions by historians, experts on learning, public policy scholars, teacher educators, and political economists and sociologists, “Public Education Under Seige” provides many perspectives that are not present in mainstream discussion of the current state of education in the United States.
“A common retort from many reformers to criticism of their approach is that the critics are defenders of the status quo,” he states. “But, in fact, many of those who have concerns with mainstream reform raise legitimate concerns about the way the school curriculum has been narrowed: for example, social studies, the arts, and humanities trimmed back, the inadequacies of standardized tests to get at the full scope of learning, the functional, even punitive, nature of the education that results from such policies, and so on. Our contributors bring a number of perspectives to the current reform scene, which, we think, broadens our understanding of the limits of current reform, and, more importantly, broadens our understanding of education.”
Rose notes that the focus on economic austerity and rising national debt has resulted in attempts by political conservatives to change the definition of education from a public to a private good, in light of the current cuts to social programs.
“The notion that schooling is something that benefits all is not as clean and clear as it has been at other times in our history,” Rose says. I think that certain business elites, for example, are very much in support of education because they connect it to workforce development. Although, those same elites are people who are fighting higher taxes, minimum wage laws, and other initiatives that would affect the quality of education. Just think of what it would mean for primary grade achievement for all kids to have adequate eye and hearing care.”
Rose says that while it may be impossible to depoliticize education, the argument made by liberal, centrist, and conservative economists alike for educating the nation’s youth – and future workforce – is watertight with benefits to all sectors of society.
Rose cites the example of California, a state whose economic straits were historically preceded by an exemplary vision to educate its citizens during the post-World War II era of economic growth. During that time, he says, California was highly ranked nationwide in per pupil spending, and a state master plan was put into place to ensure a quality education from kindergarten through college.
“Part of the rationale was an understanding of the public dimension of education,” Rose says. “A robust education system has private benefit for people, but it also has a significant public benefit, both social and economic.
“Schools aren’t isolated institutions. Mainstream reform tends to view schools narrowly, considering their immediate bureaucracies, the unions that some of their teachers belong to, and the schools of education that certify those teachers. But the influences that affect schools go beyond unions and education schools. Schools exist in history, and a social and political context, and they’re powerfully affected by the economy in the communities that surround them.”
Professor Rose’s contributions to “Public Education Under Seige” include the essays, “The Mismeasure of Teaching and Learning: How Contemporary School Reform Fails the Test,” “What Is Education Reform?”(with Michael B. Katz), and “A Letter to Young Teachers: The Graduation Speech You Won’t Hear, But Should.” Tyrone C. Howard, GSE&IS professor of education and director of Center X and the Black Male Institute contributed the co-authored essay, “Sharing Responsibility: A Case for Real Parent-Student Partnerships,” with Rema Reynolds. GSE&IS alumni Janelle Scott, Joi Spencer, Tina Trujillo, and Kevin Welner are also contributing authors.