Local Opinion: Make learning consensual again

Re: the July 17 article “Doubling down on classroom discipline.”

If Superintendent Tom Horne and Associate Superintendent Sid Bailey had their way, they would squash all of that pesky social-emotional foolishness by reinstituting “traditional” classroom management techniques. The former promotes “tough discipline,” including suspensions and expulsions, and, as noted in a recent Arizona Daily Star article, the latter suggests that the power struggle begins when students step out of line.

While shameless appeals to the authoritative furrowed brow shouldn’t be a surprise coming from types like Horne and Bailey, the extent to which they think this tokenistic “solution” will correct public schools’ systemic dysfunction is eye-rolling.

Many of us educators who have spent decades in the trenches — especially at the middle/high school levels — know the power struggle began long before “students step out of line.” It began when schooling stopped being a conversation — where young people have agency and input — and started being a coercive tool that rewards compliance, employs one-size-fits-all high-stakes testing to “raise standards,” labels kids as “falling far behind” and then, as the saying goes, continues the beatings until morale improves.

Don’t get me wrong. We do need to raise standards, just not in the way we’re used to thinking about it. In 1776, there was no formal education system — young people accessed and absorbed information based on survival, relevance, and intrinsic interest. And 10 of our country’s Founding Parents were middle/high school age when the Declaration of Independence was signed. How did we get from that level of trust in our youth to our current state of affairs, where students have to ask for permission just to use the bathroom?

I propose that the solution to our schooling crisis isn’t via coercion — as Horne and Bailey suggest — but by shifting to a system based on empowerment, trust and consent.

What does that look like? Right now, approximately two-thirds of the credits necessary for high school graduation are predetermined, required classes. Eradicate that. Let the students pick what they want to learn. If a student doesn’t want to learn how to solve a system of equations in three variables, they don’t have to. If they would rather study social media literacy than Homer’s “The Odyssey,” they can. If they decide they don’t like a particular class, they can drop it. If they learn by doing, they can access experiential education opportunities. If they’re college-bound, emphasize research writing; if not, don’t. If sitting 6.5 hours per day is taxing on their attention span, they can choose a break length of their choice to play basketball or walk their dog.

The world is a vast and complex place filled with billions of unique learners. Why on earth would we force-feed the same sliver of knowledge to all of them in the same way?

Well, you may say, everyone should have basic knowledge. But who is “everyone”? And what constitutes “basic knowledge”? I personally know a phenomenal Advanced Placement English teacher who never would have graduated high school (and therefore become that phenomenal teacher) if she had had to pass a math standardized test, a plumber making six figures who hasn’t read a book cover-to-cover in 35 years, a highly competent psychotherapist who couldn’t tell you what seven times four is. At this juncture, the last message we should be telling our young humans is that they need to learn exactly what everyone else is — and we’ll “double down” and strong-arm them if they refuse.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that heavy-handed disciplinary strategies are a fast track to frustration. Instead, to fix education, allow kids to have agency over their learning. Trust their input. And empower teachers to cultivate that agency. In short, make learning consensual again.