At 02:37 PM 3/2/00 -0500, you wrote:
Richard:

I confess that I haven't read your entire web site, but enough to sense that your experience and thoughts on the educational system, and life in general, has more than a modicum of depth. I'm writing a book about "teachers," and their affect on students. The chapter I'm currently working on is more philosophical than practical. I have two questions. Is our educational system salvageable? Have any educators in your past been responsible for shaping your world view in any remarkable ways?
If you have a minute or two, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Thanks...
Chuck McGann

      Dear Chuck,

      You cannot speak about "our" educational system -- for in America the schools are amazingly diverse. For example, there are schools like in the LAUSD that hardly deserve to called "schools." On the other hand, I work in a college prep school right now that is OUTSTANDING and my students most promising. I was aghast at my illiterate students (mostly immigrant laborers from Latin America) in the former job, and now I am in awe of my students (sons of lawyers, doctors, college professors, etc.) right now. The one thing that is certain: the sociological level of parents very often directly influences the educational success of their children. If the vast disparity between my past teaching positions has taught me anything, it has taught me that.

      We Americans are very idealistic about being able to educate everyone in our society to the point where there is equality of outcome (the reality is otherwise). Kids are all so different in terms of their native talents, motivation, and family background that equality is impossible. A teacher who teaches kids whose families don't value education and who come from houses destitute of any semblance of literature or education are going to be difficult charges for even the best teacher; and even an experienced teachers who are superb can work their asses off and still yield meager results. Conversely, even a mediocre teacher can have success with focused and well prepared students whose academic careers already have momentum. A devoted, competent teacher is of course always a boon to any student; but teachers and schools only make up half the equation -- the other half are the students themselves and their families. Better schools need to be built, they need to be well stocked with books and computers, and the teachers that teach inside them need to be treated and paid like professionals, sure enough. But more importantly, attitudes need to change and education needs to be more highly valued in the larger culture -- as opposed to athletic excellence or financial gain, for example. Americans will idealize a college basketball player and praise him to the skies, for example, without caring much if he even goes to class or learns anything. The fact that many star college athletes are functionally illiterate and "students" in name only does not trouble most people. This example tells a lot about the United States, in my opinion.

      But the "system," as you call it, is not monolithic. If the American educational system is falling apart in some areas, in others it is the envy of the world. If you don't believe me, look at the Nobel Prize awards every year and you will see at least a few (if not most!) of the winner coming from American universities. There are legions of quasi-brilliant young 18-year olds starting college every fall in prestigious universities all over the United States. Conversely, you go to a place like Cal State Los Angeles and you will see tons of mediocre to worse students who will graduate from college with what is effectively a glorified high school diploma. And then in high schools everywhere you will encounter students who are almost illiterate and dumb as a door knob. There is a lot of diversity, in other words.

      It is not dissimilar in the other industrialized countries. And it is much worse in Third World countries such as Mexico where something like 75% of the population never passed the 7th grade, or "country x" in Africa where the majority of the people are illiterate. But the United States is unique in that, according to its democratic ethos, it tries to educate all its people. In France you need to pass certain tests at 15 to be able to go on to college -- no ifs, ands, or buts. And if you are the son of a grocer, you most likely will never be anything other than the son of a grocer. The French don't trouble themselves that Algerian immigrants don't do as well in on college entrance tests as do the native-born French. But Americans would like to believe that the son of immigrants from Oaxaca or Michoacan can pull himself (and his family) up by the bootstraps from centuries of feudal squalor to earn admittance into UCLA by competing with other young people from very much more academically enriched families. The average kid ain't going to pull that off -- and the average kid is only average, after all.

      James Madison claimed in his famous assessment of his great friend and mentor, Thomas Jefferson: "He believes all men are equal not because he feels it in his heart, but because he reasons it must be so." So thinketh many Americans. Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wanted a republic based on freedom supported by the general education of the populace. In his first address to Congress, no less an American than President George Washington called education "the surest basis of public happiness." Claimed James Madison, "Learned Institutions ought to be favorite objects with every free people. They throw that light over the public mind which is the best security against crafty & dangerous encroachments on the public liberty." Thomas Jefferson prohpesied, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." Very much the idealist, Jefferson and the others set the bar very high -- but of course Jefferson never spent a day in his life trying to teach a poor back country white farmer to read in his native Virginia. The United States has so far shown that the republic and its "liberty" can withstand inequalities in education; and happily the American polis has never been better educated than it is today. The genius of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton has never been excelled, that is true. But rank illiteracy was very common at the end of the 19th century among the citizenry, and today it would be a thing of great shame for an American to admit as to being unable to read or write. This much is reason to pause and look at the bright side. At the time of the Civil War, a college degree was out of reach for all but the best, brightest, and most affluent. Today a college education is affordable and attainable to all but the poorest, dumbest, and most improvident. Some 30% of all Americans today are college educated, while at the turn of the 20th century is very much lower.

      But college (and school in general!) is not for everyone (no should it be!), although if you look at the standards the politicians are pushing on high schools you almost need to be on college prep tracks just to graduate. But then to place students on different "tracks" can be a prejudicial practice ipso facto for many Americans, since it implies there are better and worse students, smarter and dumber kids, motivation or laziness in a young person. This is the reality, but it is still controversial to say that out loud in education circles. In fact, to say it so bluntly would be to paint yourself almost persona non grata. You would be an "elitist." Equality is the enemy of excellence, as noted by de Toqueville and many others -- and you have to choose how much you want to sacrifice the one for the other. I am looked at in horror by other teachers when I tell people I think it is wrong how much money is spent on special education students in American public schools. I don't argue that no money should be spent on special education, mind you, only that an equal amount should be spent on gifted college track students. As it is now, much more money is spent on kids with learning disabilities than on those able to excel in their studies. Many would say smart kids don't need any help, as they already are enjoying success in school -- it is those that it costs sweat merely to read a newspaper article that need help, runs the argument. I see gifted students deserving just as many resources and involvement as do students with learning disabilities. I support the effort to education a special education student as much as I would any other student, but I do not favor investing much more just to try (vainly, failingly, most of the time) to bring them up to par with others. To put it bluntly: I prize more the Advanced Placement (AP) students and their ability to analyze deeply and insightfully Renaissance art or Greek philosophy than I do the special education students who sweat to learn to be able read the menu. And I think it a travesty that we spend so incredibly much more money on the special education than on AP students.

      In my experience, most people in the American "educational establishment" share the socialist orientation that the point of human life (and school) should be the satisfaction of needs or the actualization of potential. This is subtly but importantly contrasted another view that life (and school!) should be a test or a challenge, and that it is when we are tested and challenged that we truly achieve. There is a strong feminine "nurturing" influence in the former view, underlined by the strong female presence in teaching; and the latter opinion is more masculine, to generalize hugely. As a teacher, I always try to set very high standards for my students thereby challenging them. After I work my fingers to the bone teaching a unit as best I can, I enjoy watching my students sweat, bleed, and cry to try to meet high expectations; but some teachers (the "socialist" minded) claim that I crush the less talented and unmotivated by setting the academic bar too high. Most teachers, including me, are going to try to operate somewhere in the middle between equality and competitive excellence; but it is instructive to see how far the spectrum is tilted towards equality (and "dumbing down" the curriculum) in the American educational system. In fact, if I were to speak this candidly in a teacher meeting or at a conference held by some education department somewhere, I would probably be considered beyond the pale. They would stare at me like a recreant to the faith.

      You were looking for "philosophical"? This e-mail might just be the fit.

      I trust this message finds you well.

      Very Truly Yours,

      Rich Geib

P.S. You also might find interesting my professional website at: http://www.mchschool.org/~rgeib/ As for my history as a student, you might check out these two pages: http://www.mchschool.org/~rgeib/about-me.html http://www.rjgeib.com/biography/places/summer-1998/summer-truth-1998.html