Why Public Schools are Failing

One the fundamental presuppositions of our current educational system is that key to educating a heterogeneous population is to 'improve' (modify) the curriculum and/or teaching methods to presumably include as many children as possible.

IMHO, this is a false presumption and our current 'institutional' model of educating our children is outdated and obsolete. It is based on a one-size-fits-all, assembly line technology that was developed to enable factories to mass-produce cars, dishwashers and hamburgers in a cost-effective manner.

The first problem with this model is that Children are not one-size-fits-all. And as we place more and more academic demands on our children presumably to compete effectively in a post-industrial economy, the more children fail to succeed in this on-size-fits-all institutional model.

The second problem with the model is that the teaching model is no longer cost effective. The time, energy and money required to remediate, accommodate and otherwise ameliorate the ever-increasing academic struggles and failings of our current student population (not to mention the social cost of these failing students) is growing at a staggering rate (more that 24% of K-12 students are experiencing significant struggles in one or more areas.

If we are to move forward and deliver to our children the education that they need to succeed in the 21st century, post-industrial age, we must get the focus off the institution, and back on to the children--not as members of a group , but as unique individuals. We must acknowledge or at least consider that unless each individual child is taught to learn effectively using his or her unique combination of skills and abilities, he (or she) will never live up to his (or her) potential. Any future success will subsequently be limited.


Therefore, unless we are willing to consider a radical change and a fundamental shift in our presuppositions about what education and learning is, our educational system will, according to the current trend, continue to fail even more and more children.

What can be done? IMHO, it is not the teachers who need more skills to teach. It is the children who need the skills to learn. If the answer is so easy and obvious, then why aren't we doing this already?

I think one answer is simply that the nature of any organization or institution is to survive and grow. In our culture, that means more clients, bigger budgets and lower costs. In our institution of public education, that means more students, larger classrooms and problems that only licensed (unionized) teachers can solve.

Consider, what would happen to our schools if students could receive the same or better education by first 'learning to learn' using their natural gifts, and second, receiving individualized instruction at home and via the internet?

There is already a great deal of evidence to suggest that many students will assimilate the same information in one-half to one-quarter of the time given the skills to learn and an individualized, self-paced online curriculum.

If this model were to grow, these huge institutions called schools would no longer be needed. The teachers and administrators who 'run the factory' would be no more needed than an auto worker in Flint, Michigan (a nod to Roger More). All the publishers of the ever-changing text books would also no longer be needed.

I'm not suggesting that every parent pull their child from public school. But I am suggesting that armed with a set of 'Essential Learning Skills', virtually any child can succeed in any school, with any teacher and any curriculum.

At the NLC, we offer parents and children the opportunity to acquire those 16 Essential Learning Skills in as little as 14 days. Visit us at http://www.swish4fish.com and download our free booklet on Understanding Learning styles and Strategies.

Business Management, Tennis and Parenting

Ask a mediocre or mid-level manager what professional coaching they've received and you're likely to get a blank stare. However, talk to any self-respecting, high-powered, top-performing business executive and ask THEM what training they've done and the odds are they will give you a list of personal and professional coaching that they've received.

Similarly, if you're goal is to be a mediocre tennis player at the club level, you might be inclined to get coaching on a monthly or weekly basis. But if you're goal is to compete at the national or international level, you're looking at daily coaching. The more you want to raise your level of play, the more coaching you need. It is simply the cost of doing business.

Now, if you're goal is to simply get by as a mediocre parent, probably using your own parents or your own childhood as reference, there's really no need to receive coaching. Just wing it and do your best.

However, if your goal is to be a great parent, if you want to raise the level of your parenting, then the answer is coaching. Yes, you can read books, talk to friends, get lots of free advice on Facebook or Twitter. But the surest way to cut through the nonsense and confusion and get the right answers at the right time is to get professional coaching.

There is simply no substitute for professional coaching from someone who is specially trained; someone who has "been there, done that"; someone who can look at your issues from outside the problem, as an objective observer; someone who will often have the answers before you even ask the question.

There are very few qualifications to be a parent. And in most cases, it doesn't take that much even to be a good parent. But to be a GREAT PARENT...

Are you teaching your child to ignore you?

Many parents tell me how many times they have to repeat themselves before they can get their kids to do what they're asking. This is not healthy and could even be dangerous.

As parents, we are responsible to teach our child and keep him or her safe. We can do neither effectively if the child simply ignores us. So what can be done?

First, we must realize that our child may have a very different way of processing information. This means that we, as the parents, must find a more effective way to communicate.

Second, we should never have to repeat the same request or directive more than twice.

Our first communication should include getting the child's attention along with a clear, concise statement of the task using the communication style of the child. There should be a reasonable time frame to allow the child to transition to the new task (usually 2 minutes).

Our second communication should also include getting the child's attention, a clear restatement of the task AND the addition of the 'threat' of consequences. (Consequences, should be reasonable and appropriate.)

Finally, if the task is not begun and accomplished in the reasonable time frame, it is time to take the child and gently assist them in completing the task. At this point, the consequences must apply.

Obviously, this is just an overview. There are many variations and important subtleties to this method, including, getting to know and appreciating our child's natural communication style.

When implemented with consistency, this method should help reduce a pattern of not listening.

Oh, BTW, if you have a child who is a visually creative, outside-the-box, thinker, its almost never helpful to say, "Did you hear what I said?" or "Are you listening to me?" Try, instead to speak in short (15 second max) bursts, asking for one specific answer or task at a time, while using phrases like, "Is that clear to you?" or "Can you SEE what I'm saying?"