In 1983 when the National Commission on Excellence in
Education released A Nation at Risk,
I was thirteen years old and preparing to enter high school. That report established my generation as the
first to suffer failing schools. It was
a call for action and change, and it forewarned of a coming national crisis. Yet, thirty years later, even as the nation
has survived several cycles of boom and bust, the public education system
remains largely intact. Even as the world has been reinvented through radical
growth in information technology, public education looks much as it has since
its inception. However, change is
incremental, and bringing innovation and progress to public education requires
informed, passionate, and prudent leadership, as well as a degree of patience
and commitment.
Certainly, the last thirty years have seen growth and
development in education policy, especially with the rise of charter schools
and various experiments in school choice.
Yet, despite numerous reform movements, not the least of which is the No
Child Left Behind Act, the system remains virtually unchanged. At times, that sort of intransigence can be
disheartening to reformers. However, it
shouldn’t be. There is much to praise
about American education, and there is also great potential for change. Margaret Mead said, “Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed citizens to
change the world. Indeed, it has never been done otherwise.” As an educator and leader in my community, I
seek to be one of those committed citizens.
The current K-16 model of a one-size-fits-all education
system is both outdated and inefficient for a nation as productive and
progressive as the United States. The
system is not at all representative of American society, a culture built on
diversity, innovation, and progress. Change
will come from the foundation of the American Dream – the notion of
opportunity. The greatest strength of
American society and American education is the notion of “access granted.” In Colorado, that idea is enshrined in the
state constitution, which calls for a “thorough and uniform education
system.” At the most basic level that
means equal opportunity for all students to access as much education as they
require and desire. As an educational
leader, I seek to promote the strengths of American education while modifying
its weak points, and my ultimate goal is summed up in the words of Washington
Post education writer Jay Matthews who believes “The best education for the
best is the best education for all.”
Having taught in Taiwan and in the United States, in both public
and private schools, in the city of Chicago as well as several suburbs, my
educational experience is diverse and informed. Ultimately, as an educational leader, I seek
to synthesize the best components of all systems into an exemplary system in
the United States. In the area of
educational leadership, I have established a strong voice through a career
dedicated to professional growth. In
twenty years of teaching classes ranging for ELA to developmental English to
college prep and AP English, I have seen it all. However, beyond the classroom, education policy has been a hobby of mine for years, and I
consider myself a bit of a policy geek. My
desire to become an educational leader and reformer came during a staff
development class on literacy when I discovered Chris Tovani’s book I Read It But I Don’t Get It. That exposure kicked off a reading revolution
in my classroom, and by the following year, my principal had purchased Tovani’s
book for the entire department. It was
about this time that I began contributing to the world of educational
commentary. Following the publication of
my first op-ed commentary on education – a piece for the Denver Post in which I
challenged Sean Hannity’s assertion that the public education system was in a
state of “ruin” – I discovered the world of education blogging, and truly began
to develop a mindset for education reform and leadership.
As a reformer in education I firmly believe in “whatever
works.” For example, in terms of charter schools, I’d consider the plan in Mark
Miller's book The 2% Solution, which
should appeal to both liberals and conservatives, because while it is focused
on achievement, it addresses the concerns of unions, which are made up of many
passionate and committed teachers. I’m also intrigued by reforms in the Adams
50 district, which challenge the tradition of “seat time” and “grade level.”
Any program that produces results should be supported and replicated.
Additionally, I would like for Colorado to take a sincere look at the
reforms in New Hampshire, which is moving toward a high school graduation at
sixteen for students entering associate degree programs and trade schools.
Students who stay in school for years 11 and 12 will take a rigorous AP/IB
college prep curriculum that seriously prepares them for the work of a
four-year college. This would radically cut down on the number of students
requiring remedial courses in college or the half who quit without earning a
degree. The reforms are adapted from the “Tough Choices, Tough Times”
report released by a coalition of education leaders and business professionals,
and it draws on the Asian and European models that are so often cited by
critics of the current system.
Ultimately,
America’s system of education has a strong tradition and foundation that can be
developed and return the United States to the status of having the premier
education system in the world. The most
important component of change, however, is open and honest dialogue that is
grounded in the realities of the problems.
As long as Americans are committed to education, reformers can build on
the strengths of innovation that are inherent in the character of the American
people.
