It’s not really in the realm of “Looking Back” to talk about what has become the dominant topic in the news around here during the last year or so. But if you read the papers regularly you will see that there has been a continuous — and long-winded — discussion going on about the school system — how it’s meeting the expectations of the “community” and how it’s not doing so. Yes, I know that all these letters and pronouncements at school board meetings (500 at a school board presentation — good grief!) may not be representative of the whole community, but there they are, and somehow they probably affect what goes on in the schools.
As one who once took a very active part in our school system, it’s hard for me to stay silent during the recent deluge of words — some of it reasonable and well intended, but a lot just palaver. Back when our WW-P system was getting started (1969), a major goal was to maintain a high academic level in our new high school, which opened in 1973.
After all, its predecessor was in Princeton and most people thought that anything associated with education in Princeton must be pretty good. Accordingly, we made sure our elementary schools reflected the need to prepare our students for what was to come in our new high school.
The school board in those days was quite representative of the community. There were business people, educators, scientists, and engineers, as well as members with PhDs, bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and no degrees at all. We had a little bit of everything on the board, and we all were able to stay focused on keeping the schools at high quality.
And since we were able to hire a staff that was highly motivated to maintain that quality, public comment was almost always supportive — at least from the dozen or so people who showed up at our meetings. When it wasn’t supportive, we were able to make adjustments that satisfied the doubters. We took low attendance at meetings as a sign of satisfaction.
In recent times, however, if what we see in the local papers is any indication, there are many in the community who have serious reservations about what is going on. Are they really upset about their kids not being challenged enough, are they concerned about there being too much “pressure,” or is it something else? Sometimes I think that if all the “hot air” that is dispensed by some of the parents at board meetings and in their letters to the editor were to be contained it would provide enough thermal energy to heat all our school buildings for the winter. I know that many parents feel they “know better” what is right for their child, even down to the details of what they are expected to learn. But it’s the teachers who are the professionals at this, not the parents. And, above all, what is taught must be in accordance with the curriculum specified for all public schools by the state of New Jersey.
It is not my intent in this column to try to address the details of what is causing the current flap. I only want to point out that there is a time when continued “badgering” produces diminishing returns. And that can happen when the badgering is on both sides of an issue. In other words, neither side is “right.” What you do then is to let the school system run the schools: school board, superintendent, principals, and teachers.
That doesn’t mean that parents should not go to board meetings or discuss progress with their children’s teachers. It simply means that “interference” has no point and is usually counterproductive. And “interference” can also include the use of special tutors or other teachers not from the school system who may be hired to “supplement” what the child is exposed to in school. Unless there is a specific diagnosed reason for the use of such special teachers, they can easily lead to confusion and end up being counterproductive.
One thing I have seen mentioned a number of times in correspondence is “stress.” So what else is new? Every kid who has ever gone to school has experienced stress to some degree. All three of mine did. But beyond what might be considered a “normal” level induced simply by having to go to school, stress is usually induced by parents. Every child has a certain tolerance for stress beyond which it may interfere with the ability to take care of what it needs to do each day. But since only a fraction of the day is spent in school, it’s obvious that much of the stress can originate at home.
What do they really mean by stress? School students have always been under stress. That’s part of what going to school is all about. Parents are the ones who should be able to show their children how to handle stress. One of the keys to doing that is to stop talking about it. There are lots of other things to talk about that don’t involve it. That really works.
I have vague recollections of what might be called “stress” from my early school days. They all involve things that happened in gym, like dropping a potential touchdown pass in touch football or bobbling an easy grounder to second base playing softball. Those were stressful moments.
I can’t recall any stressful moments in the classroom. We all just did what the teacher told us to do. If we didn’t always give the right answer to a question, so what? We would do better on the next one. If we kept giving wrong answers, the teacher might suggest that we study or practice more at home. That was a simple solution since there wasn’t any television then.
What is taught in the schools is up to the people who run them, but with the approval of the school board. What is taught must also be in accordance with state regulations and requirements. It is the state of New Jersey that determines what the core curriculum must be, not the local school district. If there are parents who don’t approve of what is being taught, they are entitled to attend school board meetings and make their feelings known to the board.
But it must be remembered that the public — including the parents — elects the school board, and the school board determines who the administrators and teachers are. But public comment by itself cannot result in a change of curriculum or methodology.
Much recent discussion seems to focus on a so-called “advanced” math curriculum. Just how advanced the word “advanced” implies I do not know. I’m assuming that it does not include partial differential equations, which used to be taught to third-year math majors at Princeton University.
I’ve also heard “calculus” mentioned. Apparently some type of calculus is now taught in our schools. For everyone? Unless you intend to be an engineer or a scientist, it would be a waste of time. A while ago, introductory calculus was taught to sophomore engineering students at Princeton.
Hopefully, third graders — advanced or not — are still doing arithmetic. Arithmetic didn’t change its name to mathematics until seventh grade when we started doing “word problems.” And then we went on to algebra, geometry, and trigonometry in high school.
I wonder how my classmates and I would have done in math that was “Accelerated and Enriched”? Sounds hard, but maybe that’s just the same old stuff with a new name that’s intended to impress parents. And how many of the critical parents can do this stuff themselves? Not many, I’ll bet.
