The New and the Old

“…there is no new thing under the sun.” -Ecc. 1:9

One of the advantages of being old is that I can remember when new ideas were once old ideas, long since discarded. When I first graduated from Wheaton College in 1966, we learned under the traditional semester system where school started after Labor Day, semester exams were held in early January, and school let out in early June. That’s the way it was back then except we were hearing about a new model of doing school called the quarter system. It was taking root in some state schools and seemed cutting edge and revolutionary. By the time I went back for graduate school two years later, the quarter system was standard in most colleges and universities. The school year was divided into three equal quarters with a fourth quarter available in the summer. Most students liked the quarter system because of shorter class lengths and because they fit neatly between vacation times. No taking home papers and guilt over the Christmas break.

Fast forward some twenty years later, and I was in the middle of another graduate program at UT, on the quarter system. But lo and behold, all of a sudden a new wave of innovation was sweeping the nation’s universities. It was called the semester system. By the time I graduated, I had a bevy of both quarter and semester credits with higher math called in to calculate their equivalency. We all were assured, however, that the semester system was a much better educational experience with some folks actually trying to pass it off as “new.”

In my old age, I confess to be a bit numb to whatever is being bandied about as being “new” in the field of “education.” I have seen any number of fads come and go; from schools without failure to open classrooms without walls or doors. But most interesting are the old concepts that resurface from time to time as “cutting edge, innovative, reforms.” It looks like we have another one on our hands with the current renewed interest in “community schools.”

Having been raised in community schools back in the days before bussing and consolidation, it perked my interest. I have long lamented the disappearance of small community or, what we used to call, neighborhood schools. These were schools that children could walk to within their own neighborhoods. I grew up walking to school from K5 through 4th grade while living in the city. At Oakwood Elementary, we students even walked home for lunch and then returned for afternoon classes. The school was small, but neighborhood involvement was high. It was a hub for social activities as well as education. We knew and were known by others. Bullies could not hide in some faceless mob. We supported our school with newspaper drives and scout groups. It was our school.

But the neighborhood school concept was soon seen as outmoded. It was clearly shown on a piece of paper that consolidating into larger schools brought greater cost efficiency and made possible greater course offerings and more special services. Greater numbers of students had to be bussed in and student body populations soared. Coaches loved it because it gave them greater numbers to pick from for athletic teams. Administrator salaries grew proportionally. All sorts of new classes proliferated with special teachers. It was an impressive superstructure to behold. No one seemed to notice the increased anonymity that students experienced. The criminal element loved it. And good students had to claw their way to the top to gain access to student government or sports team leadership. Only one student in 2000 was able to claim the prize of being the band, drum major. PTA was a distant and amorphous activity. After-school activities were privy only to those with transportation. And the politics of control slipped away to some centralized district.

Imagine my amusement when this week’s News Sentinel featured a front page story about our superintendent visiting some “cutting-edge” new schools in Cincinnati called “community schools.” They are smaller, given over to high community involvement, and reflective of the needs and make-up of the local community or neighborhood. Guess what? Parental involvement is higher, school buildings function as a social hub, test scores are higher, and everybody seems happier. I love it. What is old is new again. But it is only politically acceptable if we re-label it as “new” and “innovative.” This new wineskin raises some questions, but if done well, it could be a very positive step in returning American schools back towards their former position of greatness. Now, I wonder how long it will be before they re-introduce the possibility of failure? What could we call it? How about “terminal re-direction”? Pardon my cynicism.

Mercy and Truth, Mr. Moe