AN EDUCATION PROPOSAL: LET THE LOSERS LOSE by Tim Siggia

AN EDUCATION PROPOSAL: LET THE LOSERS LOSE

By Tim Siggia

March 05, 2007

According to the 2006-2007 report released by the Department of Education, Connecticut's students are now third-smartest in the nation, after first-place Vermont and second-place Massachusetts. But before we start celebrating, let us first realize that this ranking is in fact a demotion: Last year we were ranked second. This, of course, is going to be fixed by Governor M. Jodi Rell's new budget, which "addresses" the concern of education in typical liberal, tax-and-spend, Connecticut fashion: by throwing money at it. Now James B. Conant I am not, nor do I make any claim to being an education professional (though I might have ended up being one had I not bombed out on student teaching back in 1967, but that's another story). The reason it took me so long to weigh in on this subject is that I realize that while anyone can be a critic, few of us critics actually offer solutions. In this, my latest column, I am offering just that, unqualified and unprofessional though it may be. To me, it is simply a matter of common sense.

Most Connecticut taxpayers, according to a poll taken shortly after the governor's announcement last month, are in agreement with me that we don't really need to dump more money into education. We already have the highest-paid public school teachers in the nation, and few of our schools are actually that wanting in terms of teachers, books and materials. So if not more money, then what?

First, a rhetorical question: Who among us, if he had the means to do so, would not send his son or daughter to a private school? Is this not what even the champions of public education do? Lest there be any doubt, check up on our leaders in the Congress and find out how many of their children either go or went to public schools. Not many if any, I would venture to say.

Why, then, do those who can do so opt for the private schools? Obviously, the answer is that the kids who go to them get a better quality of education than do those who attend public schools. But why? Is it because their teachers are better paid? No, not really. In fact, public school teachers, on the average, are paid significantly more than those who teach in private schools. So what is it that private schools do that public schools don't. There may be several answers to this: smaller classes (though class size in fact has little to do with the quality of what is being taught) and more individual attention may contribute, but there is one more thing they do that you will never find cited by the NEA or any of the so-called experts: they recognize losers as such -- and let them lose.

In order to more fully appreciate this concept, let us first address a commonly-held misconception among education professionals, as well as well-meaning parents and others: that our children have a right to education. This canard obviously arises out of a confusion over the difference between rights and privileges. Rights are God-given. Life, for example, is a right. We all have them, courtesy of our Creator, regardless of age, income, education level, or any other variable factors. Since they are literally God's gifts to us, we do not need to earn them. Privileges, on the other hand, are man-given, and come with certain conditions. Driving an automobile, for example, is a privilege. In order to have this privilege, one must be at least 16 years of age, in most states, obtain a driver's license, and obey traffic laws while operating the motor vehicle. Breaking traffic laws can result in either suspension or revoking of driving privileges. With these differences in mind, then, let me state in bold, unmistakable terms: Education is a privilege, not a right. Pause for a moment. Let that sink in before continuing, and lest there be any misunderstanding, let me repeat it one more time. Education is a privilege, not a right.

So now, back to the matter of private schools. A good part of the reason why private schools have such a good record of success compared to public schools is that private schools simply do not suffer losers. So what is a loser? Is it someone with learning disabilities? No, such people can be taught with special education. Is it somebody who cannot learn? No again, for those who are having difficulty have the option of getting help from their teachers after school, or, if necessary, from tutors. No, a loser is one who, of his own free will, chooses to lose -- not one who cannot learn, but rather, one who will not learn, who refuses to learn.

Private schools have no confusion about rights and privileges in this regard. Their administrators know that education at their institutions is a privilege, and, as such, has certain requirements. First, that education must be paid for. Second, students must adhere to established rules and codes of dress and behavior. And third, they must maintain or exceed an established minimum grade-point average in order to continue study at the institution in question. If they fail in any of these criteria, they are gone, pure and simple, and it doesn't matter how rich or influential their parents happen to be. Students realize early on that it is they, not their parents, who must perform according to expectations, and that if they flunk out, it is they who must explain to their rich and influential parents why this happened. Troublemakers and non--performers are not tolerated in private schools. Private schools will not waste their time and resources on such people. Rather, they will weed them out in order to concentrate on the winners.

Naturally, private schools have an advantage over public schools in that they can choose their students. Public schools, by definition, must accept all who come their way, and that includes the losers. Because laws in every state mandate school attendance until the age of 16, a student can be expelled from a public school only for the most serious of infractions. However, in that age of 16, there is a point at which public schools can become more like their competitors in the private sector.

My proposal is threefold. First, let's make a change after the sophomore year of high school, the year in which most students will turn 16. Upon entry into the junior year, the students will be told as follows: It's now up to you if you want to continue. Your education is a privilege, afforded you by the taxpayers of this community. To keep that privilege, you must maintain a minimum grade-point average of 2.0, or "C". Failure to maintain that average during one semester will result in a warning, and, if continued to a second semester, will result in dismissal from the school. If you need help, help is available, but you have to ask for it.

Second, let us reintroduced an old, 19th-Century concept into our schools called discipline. Upon ringing of the appropriate bell, students will be in their seats and quiet. The teacher is in charge at all times. If uniforms are not the order of the day, then the clothing worn will be neat and conservative in nature, and in good repair: boys will wear shirts with collars, appropriate trousers, and shoes (not sneakers or sandals); girls will wear either skirts or pant-suits, and present a relatively businesslike appearance: no makeup, piercings, or unnecessarily exposed body parts. Clothing will be worn neatly and tucked in. Teachers and students alike, while in class, will be addressed as either Mr. or Miss (Mrs. in the case of married women teachers), and no student will speak unless called upon by the teacher to do so.

Third, with regard to teachers, let us phase out tenure. Tenure is a union-inspired concept with only one real purpose: to keep non-productive teachers employed and in the classroom, where they do no real service to anyone, least of all those in their charge. Keep tenure for those teachers who already have it, and for those who were promised it as part of their contract. End it beginning with the new crop of teachers coming in.

Letting losers lose is not heartless. It is simply realistic. A "student" who does nothing but take up space in a classroom is not learning. Awarding him a high school diploma will not in itself infuse learning in him. A diploma not truly earned is worthless. "Social promotions" are equally worthless, and in the end do a disservice to those who receive them. A student who has not mastered the requirements of his current grade in school should not be promoted to the next for "social" or any other reason. If we simply let the losers lose, in the end we will have far fewer of them. Once students realize that their education is, in fact, a privilege, and not simply an entitlement, they will, in most cases, be more protective of what they know can be lost without sustained effort on their part to keep it.

Making suggestions like this is, of course, easier than realizing them. Such proposals would meet with stiff resistance from the NEA, the American Federation of Teachers, the ACLU, the Democratic Party, and others more concerned with the entitlements of special interests than the welfare of our country as a whole. But with enough insistence from enough people, even the seemingly impossible can be made to happen. After the election of 1964, few people thought that anyone who sounded like Barry Goldwater would have any chance of becoming president. Sixteen years later, Ronald Reagan did.

It's worth a try.