Part I    |    Part II    |    Part III    |    Part IV    |    Part V

Part 1
by John C. Lundt

Learning Should Be Taken out of the Hands of Antiquated School Systems and Put into the Hands of Learners, Argues a Professor and Education Consultant.

Education is leaving the schoolhouse. The communications and instructional technologies necessary to make education an anytime anywhere activity rather than a place-bound schoolhouse event have been rapidly evolving for several years. The only step remaining in the United States is to end the public-school monopoly on funding so that learners can leave schools and find the education of their choice.

As a means of educating students, schools have always had their limitations. As early as the seventeenth century, educational reformer John Amos Comenius described schools as "the slaughterhouses of the mind." Charles Dickens referred to school methodologies as "childhood with its beauty gone, and only its helplessness remaining." There were, however, times when schools did seem to meet the needs of the societies they served.

American schools in 1900 appeared, to many, to be just what the country needed. At the turn of the century, America was experiencing the rapid growth of post-Civil War industry. In 1913, Henry Ford developed the production line to maximize factory efficiency, and schools eagerly adopted the model to train students who would someday work on those lines. Some curriculum writers of the day even wrote of schools in terms of factory production, referring to the students as the "raw material" and educated adults as the "final product." The school year remained based on the old agrarian calendar, so students could help out on farms. To many people, American schools seemed to be models of efficiency. So how did schools get from that point to the crisis they are experiencing today?

The American public-school system began declining before the end of the nineteenth century, as the larger society and economy shifted and as proposed reforms fell woefully short of what was needed. As early as the 1880s, future-thinking individuals were calling for changes in the educational paradigm. A complete redesign of the educational system was warranted as society transitioned from an agricultural base to an industrial base. Corresponding and appropriate changes in education were not forthcoming. Instead of developing their own paradigm of operation, schools used a variation of the model employed in business and industry. If the United States had stopped developing around 1900, it might still have the best educational system in the world. However, the twentieth century marked the beginning of a time of exponential growth.

Ironically, it was the evaluation of schools from a business/industrial perspective that allowed the decline of schools to go almost unnoticed. For nearly 50 years, enrollments skyrocketed, school buildings were constructed, millions of teachers were trained, and public tax contributions steadily rose. From the perspective of the business model, things looked great. Unfortunately, few if any of the schools were ready for the amount or speed of the impending changes. Not only did schools miss the transition from an agriculture-based economy to one based on industry, they also ignored America's rapid transition to an information/service-based economy.

Education's Unchanged Paradigm

Despite constantly accelerating social and technological change, the paradigm for education has remained essentially static. The basic format of teachers speaking while students listen has remained intact since ancient times. Socrates, whose method of teaching by asking questions is still reverently taught in schools of education, would feel right at home in most current secondary schools. Twentieth-century America simply combined his time-honored teaching method with a factory-like setting, all the time ignoring the onslaught of changing conditions.

But despite its progress and development, the United States faces the rigors of the twenty-first century relying on a citizenry armed with an education designed for the conditions of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As management expert Peter Senge has stated, "The industrial age assembly-line model for education has shaped our schools more than we can imagine--producing generations of 'knowers,' not lifelong-learners, people beautifully prepared for a world that no longer exists."

Back to Top



Continued Part II

Time for Change

If critics have been calling for educational reform since the late 1800s, what makes the present crisis any different from others that have preceded it? For the first time, a critical mass of fiscal, social, and technological factors have converged that present a real push for significant change in the educational paradigm.

* Public-school costs make present facilities unsustainable. The most obvious factor contributing to the present crisis is the prohibitive cost of maintaining the existing school building infrastructure. The National Education Association 2001 study Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It Cost? estimated that to repair, renovate, and build needed schools and equip them with modern technology would cost approximately $322 billion. This is three times what previous government estimates have been and roughly 10 times as much as the states are currently spending to fix or build schools. Many states are finding their present levels of educational funding difficult to maintain. Without question, raising the levels of spending to those suggested in the NEA study would be impossible. In their present brick-and-mortar form, educational institutions represent a monetary black hole. So the walls must come down.

* Ever-increasing numbers of social and religious factions are expressing dissatisfaction with public schools. More and more American parents are finding the core activities and values presented in schools to be inconsistent with the educational needs that they identify for their children. Concerns range from the scandalous treatment of gifted students (who are assigned to help their less-talented classmates and prohibited from reading ahead on their own) to the confusing schoolhouse efforts to separate church and state (Christmas is out and Kwanzaa is in).

Calls for change are emanating from increasingly larger and more vocal groups. Recently, the National Southern Baptist Convention was presented with the Pinckney-Shortt Resolution, which encouraged the 13.6 million Southern Baptists to remove their children from America's public schools. Grassroots organizations such as the Alliance for the Separation of School and State and Get The Kids Out are also advocating a mass exodus from public education. At the same time, the response to the first federally funded school voucher program in Washington, D.C., is overwhelming, with more than twice as many requests for vouchers as there are funds available. Those managing the Washington, D.C., program plan to utilize a lottery system to allocate the $7,500 per year vouchers to those who seek them.

* Civil society is growing less civil and more activist. Beyond schools, a general sense of social unrest and impatience with governmental inefficiency is leading to a revived sense of citizen activism. The willingness of California voters to recall their governor is a clear indicator of citizens' determination to become much more actively involved in directing their own futures. While one-term presidencies and gubernatorial recalls could become a much more common practice, there is little doubt that Americans are demonstrating an increased willingness to actively determine their futures. Parents of an estimated 600,000 to 800,000 students have taken the politics of education into their own hands and now homeschool their children; another 6.7 million students are sent to privately funded institutions.

* Technologies are providing a means for change. When the prospect of restructuring education is considered, the starting point is usually to focus on how to fix schools. Despite the overwhelming evidence that the traditional school paradigm is both dysfunctional and cost-prohibitive, the traditional reaction to an educational crisis has been to tinker with the existing school system. This is partly because there have been no alternatives--until now. The invention of the computer and the development of the Internet provide the means to launch education into the new paradigm of learning.
The emergence of the Internet and the development of distance- learning technology represent a new and effective means of replacing the antiquated school system with a highly efficient and effective means of educating people. Thousands of colleges and universities and a growing number of K-12 institutions are providing distance- learning opportunities for students whose only requirement for connectability is access to a computer and Internet service. Universities are finding that students housed in their campus dorms are electing to take Internet-based courses rather than sitting in class. Some students choose this option to accommodate their class schedule. Others prefer the more direct one-to-one contact with their professors. Distance- learning courses are also popular with the parents of young children who can further their education from the comfort of their homes, not to mention saving the costs of child care and transportation.

A rapidly growing number of K-12 students are enjoying the same convenience where it is available. Students are able to take courses online that may not be available in their school setting. Other students who are not successful with a required course are able to retake it in the privacy of their home without the embarrassment of "repeating" a course. Students eager to progress more rapidly are taking courses online ahead of schedule, thus shortening the amount of time spent in elementary and secondary education. The only major hindrance to this technological windfall is the public schools' monopoly on educational funding.

Challenging the Funding Monopoly

America's public-school system has enjoyed a monopoly on educational funding that would be the envy of any corporate giant. While there are hundreds of alternative means of acquiring an education, it is only the public-school system that is allowed to receive public financial support. By any definition this is a monopoly and should be subject to the same type of antitrust action that reformed other major corporations.

Despite this lack of governmental support, alternatives to the public schools have been in operation for most of the 200-year history of public education. They exist in the form of home schools, democratic and free schools, folk education institutions, Montessori Schools, Open Schools, independent schools, private schools, and parochial schools. There is an ever-increasing number of alternatives to public schools that students and parents may employ to acquire an education. The problem is the issue of funding: Only one educational system in America qualifies for public support, and it is failing. There are many alternatives to public schools that people find attractive and functional, but those who choose any form of education other than the public schools are forced to finance that venture on their own. At the same time, they are taxed to support the system they seek to avoid. It is like telling consumers that they can do business with the phone company of their choice, but they must also pay AT & T for services that they do not use.

What education needs is an end to the public-school monopoly on funding. It is long overdue and entirely appropriate in a democracy for parents and students to have a significant choice in how they become educated. The primary goal of American education should be education, not schooling.
The standard response to the "threat" of real educational choice is the issue of socialization. Proponents of old-school tinkering cry, How will children learn to socialize if they don't go to school? The answer is simple: the same way they learned to socialize before they had schools. Universal education is for the most part a twentieth-century phenomenon. Untold millions of human beings who never attended a public school (or any type of formal educational setting, for that matter) learned to socialize the old-fashioned way--in society. Schools are only one of many community organizations that offer children and adults the opportunity to develop socialization skills. Others include churches, social groups, sports teams, Scouts, 4-H, and, obviously, the home. Considering the level of bullying and school violence that America has witnessed during the past decades, children might be better served seeking their socialization training elsewhere.

Prescription for the Future Of Learning

Once education is free of the school funding monopoly, the means we choose to educate our children and ourselves will look very different from the institution we called the school. A market-driven world of educational opportunities will develop, giving learners an unlimited number of educational options. Here's what we can anticipate.

* Unlimited choice will spark competition and improve performance of learning providers. Students and parents will be able to choose educational institutions based on the institution's areas of specialty as well as on its performance record. Rather than being assigned to schools in their home district, students may study anywhere they choose. As a result, education, like every other form of competitive enterprise, will be forced to perform and will be judged on the value of its product. In the case of education, one important benchmark will be the long-term success of the institution's graduates. The graduates' ability to obtain and keep good jobs as a result of their education will become a benchmark indicator of a successful education.

Back to Top



Continued Part III

A rapidly growing number of K-12 students are enjoying the same convenience where it is available. Students are able to take courses online that may not be available in their school setting. Other students who are not successful with a required course are able to retake it in the privacy of their home without the embarrassment of "repeating" a course. Students eager to progress more rapidly are taking courses online ahead of schedule, thus shortening the amount of time spent in elementary and secondary education. The only major hindrance to this technological windfall is the public schools' monopoly on educational funding.

Challenging the Funding Monopoly

America's public-school system has enjoyed a monopoly on educational funding that would be the envy of any corporate giant. While there are hundreds of alternative means of acquiring an education, it is only the public-school system that is allowed to receive public financial support. By any definition this is a monopoly and should be subject to the same type of antitrust action that reformed other major corporations.

Despite this lack of governmental support, alternatives to the public schools have been in operation for most of the 200-year history of public education. They exist in the form of home schools, democratic and free schools, folk education institutions, Montessori Schools, Open Schools, independent schools, private schools, and parochial schools. There is an ever-increasing number of alternatives to public schools that students and parents may employ to acquire an education. The problem is the issue of funding: Only one educational system in America qualifies for public support, and it is failing. There are many alternatives to public schools that people find attractive and functional, but those who choose any form of education other than the public schools are forced to finance that venture on their own. At the same time, they are taxed to support the system they seek to avoid. It is like telling consumers that they can do business with the phone company of their choice, but they must also pay AT & T for services that they do not use.

What education needs is an end to the public-school monopoly on funding. It is long overdue and entirely appropriate in a democracy for parents and students to have a significant choice in how they become educated. The primary goal of American education should be education, not schooling.
The standard response to the "threat" of real educational choice is the issue of socialization. Proponents of old-school tinkering cry, How will children learn to socialize if they don't go to school? The answer is simple: the same way they learned to socialize before they had schools. Universal education is for the most part a twentieth-century phenomenon. Untold millions of human beings who never attended a public school (or any type of formal educational setting, for that matter) learned to socialize the old-fashioned way--in society. Schools are only one of many community organizations that offer children and adults the opportunity to develop socialization skills. Others include churches, social groups, sports teams, Scouts, 4-H, and, obviously, the home. Considering the level of bullying and school violence that America has witnessed during the past decades, children might be better served seeking their socialization training elsewhere.

Prescription for the Future Of Learning

Once education is free of the school funding monopoly, the means we choose to educate our children and ourselves will look very different from the institution we called the school. A market-driven world of educational opportunities will develop, giving learners an unlimited number of educational options. Here's what we can anticipate.

* Unlimited choice will spark competition and improve performance of learning providers. Students and parents will be able to choose educational institutions based on the institution's areas of specialty as well as on its performance record. Rather than being assigned to schools in their home district, students may study anywhere they choose. As a result, education, like every other form of competitive enterprise, will be forced to perform and will be judged on the value of its product. In the case of education, one important benchmark will be the long-term success of the institution's graduates. The graduates' ability to obtain and keep good jobs as a result of their education will become a benchmark indicator of a successful education.

Back to Top



Continued Part IV

* Learning institutions will specialize. Unlike the schools that preceded them, the educational institutions of the future will not attempt to be everything to everybody. Instead, they will be forced to focus on what they do well and limit the scope of their operations. Many will even specialize in their mode of delivery. Some will be entirely online operations, and some will bring students together for common activities. Others will provide a combination of options, including individual tutoring, guided apprenticeships, and directed self-study.

* Age-based educational programming will disappear. Once the factory model of education is abandoned there will be no need to try to organize learning experiences by age. As countless one-room schoolhouses and graduate seminars amply prove, people of widely varying ages can learn together quite well. Learners will choose learning activities based on their interests and abilities and will continue this process throughout their lifelong- learning career.

*A learner's educational career will consist of an array of ever-changing activities that will evolve to meet the needs of the subjects being taught and the developmental stage of the learner being served. Students may spend one year in a classroom setting followed by a period of hands-on training. This experience could be expanded with an apprenticeship, possibly supplemented with a series of online distance- learning classes. While the possibilities are endless, the only certainty is that education will bear little resemblance to the one-size-fits-all factory format employed in twentieth-century schools.

* Education will abandon athletics and other non-educational activities. As a part of the need for efficiency, learning institutions will elect to streamline their operations by transferring traditional, entertainment-oriented activities, such as sports teams, to the neighboring communities. Sports clubs, similar to those found in Europe, will replace the old school teams. Athletic activities will be available to any community member interested in the particular sport, thus bringing athletes of all ages together in the community, fostering lifelong opportunities for fitness. The absence of sports in learning institutions will free educational leaders to concentrate on instructional leadership rather than managing community entertainment.

* Evaluation will become more fair and accurate. Educational success will not be determined by the instructors, but by boards or bar exams that will be administered and evaluated by separate and independent agencies. In an environment of choice, the results of these exams will be valuable marketing tools for successful institutions. Institutions that "graduate" dysfunctional students will quickly be out of business, and grade inflation will be a meaningless artifact of the past.

* The "school day" will fade. With the advances of technology, education is already ceasing to be seen as a place-bound, 9-to-5 activity. Asynchronous, online learning has made it a 24/7 activity that can be conducted from any location with an Internet connection. Learning institutions will quickly abandon the traditional agrarian school calendar and serve the needs of their learners all year long.

* Teacher diversity will increase. Teachers in the new systems will come from much more diverse backgrounds in terms of both experience and training. To accommodate rapidly emerging fields of study, new standards for teachers will be established that recognize the abilities of instructors who are both formally and informally trained. Proven ability as a professional in the field will be valued as much as the teacher's record of academic preparation. Like the institutions they serve, teachers will ultimately be evaluated on the success rate of the students they serve. The ultimate measure of effectiveness will be the longitudinal record of success among their students.

* Tenure will protect academic freedom--not jobs. The present tenure system will be overhauled. Since competitive learning institutions will no longer be able to afford to retain less-competent faculty members, tenure will no longer serve as a union-based job guarantee. Instead, the tenure system will revert to its original intent of protecting the academic freedom of cutting-edge instructors while they explore new and often controversial areas of emerging interest.

Back to Top



Continued Part V

* Teacher compensation will become performance based. Unlike the present system, in which unions insist that all teachers with the same educational level and instructional experience be paid the same, the emerging model will differentiate teacher compensation based on quality of performance and demands of the marketplace. Instructors with stellar records will be in demand and will be offered compensation commensurate with their worth. Learning institutions at all levels will finally be able to compete with industry to hire the best and brightest into the teaching ranks. Many teachers will be part-time faculty members while still serving as professionals in their field. Others will work as independent contractors, simultaneously working as instructors at several virtual or online institutions.

Once education is free of the current funding monopoly, it will rapidly move forward in the age of post-school learning and develop the almost unlimited potential for growth that has been so long suppressed. Once we can leave schools, we can begin the exciting process of finding education.

FEEDBACK: Send your comments about this article to letters@wfs.org.

RELATED ARTICLE: Summary: Learning without Schools

The time has come to separate the concept of educational reform from school reform. The convergence of fiscal necessity, parental prerogative, citizen activitism, and distance- learning technology has made this the perfect time to leave school and find education. Amid the furor currently surrounding American education, several conclusions can be drawn.

* The antiquated nineteenth-century structure of today's school was designed to meet the needs of a world that no longer exists.

* Schools can successfully refuse to change because they hold the status of a monopoly in the area of educational funding.

* Growing numbers of parents find the core activities and values of the school inappropriate for their children.

* There are literally hundreds of ways for twenty-first-century students to gain an education, other than the traditional public school.

* For over 100 years, meaningful school reform has proven to be elusive. Genuine educational reform can begin with simple funding legislation.

* Parents and concerned citizens must get involved to force funding reform.

--John C. Lundt

About the Author

John C. Lundt is the founder and president of Educational Leadership Associates Inc. He is also a professor of educational leadership at the University of Montana, where he teaches courses in curriculum, leadership, and futurism. His address is Department of Educational Leadership, School of Education (MED101) 6356, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. E-mail John.Lundt@mso.umt.edu.

He is co-author, with John Wiles, of Leaving School: Finding Education (Matanzas Press, 2004), which may be ordered through the Futurist Bookshelf, www.wfs.org/bkshelf.htm.

Back to Top