Interview: The Rigorous, Not-Easily-Defined Education Reform Philosophy of Harvard’s Jal Mehta
Jal Mehta is an expert in unsuccessful attempts at school reform. He is highly knowledgeable about the subject. In his book "The Allure of Order" published in 2013, Mehta convincingly explains the ongoing challenges faced in improving the American education system. He argues that past reform efforts failed because they relied too heavily on management solutions as the primary means to enhance student performance. This flawed approach stemmed from the ideas of superintendents in the early 20th century, who were influenced by labor efficiency theories. By reorganizing one-room schoolhouses into a more centralized system, they envisioned education as an economic pursuit that could be easily measured. However, Mehta believes that education should not solely focus on economic outcomes but also encompass broader improvements in instruction and engagement.
Through his extensive research on past reform movements, Mehta has developed a unique philosophy of improvement that places significant emphasis on teaching. This can be seen in "The Allure of Order" as well as his contributions to "The Futures of School Reform" and his forthcoming study on the effectiveness of different approaches in high schools, especially for disadvantaged students.
Mehta highlights the unfortunate position that teachers held in the hierarchical structure established by the early visionaries. They were considered the lowest rung and were primarily responsible for implementing ideas created by others. Unlike professions such as law or medicine, teaching was seen as a "semiprofession" lacking in lengthy training, specialized knowledge, rigorous standards, and the ability to exclude unqualified practitioners. While unions helped to improve teachers’ pay and protect them from external pressures, Mehta believes that unionization has also perpetuated the perception that teaching is less professional compared to other fields like medicine and law.
Mehta’s perspectives are particularly relevant in the current educational landscape, where the Gates Foundation is shifting its support to school networks, the teacher evaluation movement based on tests and compensation has failed to significantly improve teacher quality, and most reform efforts are now focused on improving and expanding charter schools.
Throughout the interview, Mehta discusses the reasons behind the low social status of teaching in the United States. He explains that professions are typically characterized by certain attributes, including specialized knowledge, certification processes, apprenticeship components, mechanisms for excluding or disqualifying individuals, and corresponding status, pay, and respect. While teaching exhibits some of these characteristics, like the requirement of passing a test and obtaining some level of education, the profession lacks the rigorous training and imprinting that other professions undergo. As a result, there is a significant amount of variation among teachers.
In addition to improving teaching, Mehta believes that comprehensive training would positively impact how districts operate. If teachers were seen as well-trained and highly competent, the level of bureaucratic regulation and other aspects disliked by teachers would diminish. District leaders would be more inclined to support skilled teachers and provide them with the necessary resources.
Executing this task successfully requires a high level of expertise. In many ways, it can be argued that this job is more intricate than certain branches of medicine. Although medical professionals undergo rigorous training and possess extensive knowledge about the human body, they usually focus on a narrow range of problems within their specialty. There is a well-defined set of tasks to address the problems they encounter. In non-routine cases, specialists delve deep into their expertise, but routine cases do not require the same level of complexity. The clients are willing participants who have sought assistance, allowing professionals to concentrate on one case at a time. They have sufficient time to conduct tests and discuss the matter with colleagues, unless working in a fast-paced environment like the emergency room.
On the other hand, teaching encompasses all of this complexity and more. Educators must manage multiple students, considering their different needs and attitudes. Some students may lack interest in the subject being taught, which adds another layer of difficulty. Teachers must handle these situations on the spot with little time for reflection, planning, or similar activities. Those who excel in this field are truly remarkable individuals. However, the teaching profession could potentially produce more exceptional individuals if training and skill development were consistently emphasized and reinforced.
Your previous writings highlight the prevalence of an economic perspective on education that emerged after the release of "A Nation at Risk" in 1983. Do you believe that this perspective had more disadvantages than advantages?
When reviewing the pre-"Nation at Risk" statement of goals in Utah in 1982, one can’t help but be amazed. The goals focused on developing individuals capable of contemplating life, death, and the pursuit of happiness, while also fostering reflection on the qualities of their fellow human beings. However, the post-"Nation at Risk" goals in 1984, to put it in simpler terms, primarily aimed to produce economically efficient and utilitarian citizens.
Furthermore, the report placed the blame mainly on the schools themselves for the problems identified.
As with any topic, there are both positive and negative aspects. It is reasonable to believe that schools could do more to support the students in their care. However, when considering schools that cater to children from high-poverty backgrounds, it is essential to acknowledge that these students only spend approximately 10 percent of their waking hours between the ages of 0 and 18 in school. The remaining 90 percent occurs outside of the educational setting, which has a crucial impact on their development. Therefore, a more balanced perspective should have recognized this reality. Unfortunately, the report failed to do so.
Long-term trends observed in the National Assessment of Educational Progress demonstrate that the early gains seen in students’ performance do not persist into high school years. (Source: Urban Institute)
What are your thoughts on the teacher evaluation movement that emerged after the implementation of No Child Left Behind?
In my opinion, it was an incorrect strategy. I strongly believe that it was definitively the wrong approach. The movement focused on the scientifically supported fact that there is variation in the value-added scores among different teachers (Teacher A compared to Teacher B). It is true that a succession of high value-added teachers can potentially catapult a student significantly ahead in reading or math, as opposed to a series of low value-added teachers. This is essentially quantifying common sense, and it is something that we can agree upon. However, from that point onwards, the idea of developing intricate and convoluted teacher evaluation systems to measure teachers and then utilizing that data either to terminate them or enhance teaching did not have a solid foundation at that time.
Many individuals, including myself, warned numerous people against making this the primary lever of change. Our understanding of schools suggests that good educational institutions are collaborative environments where trust among colleagues is essential. Teachers do not appreciate being pitted against one another, whether it be for negative consequences or bonuses. Moreover, as we transitioned to the Common Core curriculum, teachers were being asked to adopt numerous complex strategies with which they were previously unfamiliar. In such cases, it is crucial to provide them with a grace period to experiment with new methods without the fear of retribution. The combination of this strategy with the current landscape simply did not make sense.
What is your opinion regarding the decision by New York’s charter authorizer to permit charter schools to train their own teachers?
You mentioned that the top charter networks possess significant strengths, but they also have notable weaknesses. Can you elaborate on what you consider to be these significant weaknesses?
In order to address the weaknesses, it is important to understand the strengths within the framework. Generally, American schools operate as loosely coupled systems, where each teacher teaches based on their own understanding and experience. However, certain no-excuses charter schools have managed to break away from this approach. They have developed a clear understanding of what effective teaching looks like and implemented multiple rounds of feedback to ensure their teachers follow these practices. This cohesiveness and alignment may be perceived as standardized by some, but it also comes with tangible benefits, such as providing students with consistent experiences across classes.
Nevertheless, there are downsides to this approach. Charter schools emerged roughly between 1994 and 2005-2006, with many schools being established during that period. During this time, there was significant emphasis on developing basic math and reading skills. As a result, charter schools designed their systems around helping students excel in these areas. They divided their class periods into smaller segments and closely monitored every minute to prevent students from falling behind.
While this approach has its advantages, the drawbacks become apparent when students transition to college, where they encounter more open-ended learning environments and are expected to take charge of their own education. Charter school students, who were accustomed to a highly structured learning environment, often struggle with this transition. Initially, charter networks assessed their success based on the percentage of graduates who enrolled in college. However, as the movement matured, they started tracking the percentage of students who successfully completed college. They realized that many of their students faced difficulties in higher education, but it was not necessarily due to academic unpreparedness. Instead, they lacked the social and emotional skills needed to navigate college life.
In response, some charter networks focused on intensifying support by introducing college counselors who provided guidance and assistance to students during their college years. These counselors would send care packages and engage in follow-up discussions, educating students on how to make the most of resources like office hours. However, they soon realized that this level of support was insufficient. They needed to reevaluate certain aspects of their high school approach. For instance, the practice of completing graphic organizers or adhering to rigid time schedules had to be reconsidered in order to prepare students for college seminars and independent time management. The challenge was striking a balance between maintaining the structures that had led to their success, including high scores that attracted external funding and recognition, and incorporating new methods that would help students progress to the next level.
Regarding the changes needed in American education, do you feel more or less hopeful about the potential for improvement in 2017 compared to when you published The Allure of Order in 2013? Or do you feel the same?
On the fundamental level, my sentiments remain largely unchanged. The political sphere has placed value on the absence of expertise and has fostered skepticism towards science, reason, and other important attributes for schools.
More specifically, I envision these changes to occur primarily at the state and district levels, rather than on a federal level. It is the states and districts who have the power to support initiatives such as the residency idea, the training of more principals as instructional leaders, and the development of systems that involve master teachers. These changes are too complex to be implemented uniformly.
However, I believe there is potential for scalability through state-to-state replication. If a state were to prioritize teaching and learning and offer certification as master teachers with a $130,000 annual salary to 10 percent of their educators after five or ten years, it could create inspiration for other states to follow suit. Not every teacher would qualify for this, but it would provide an opportunity for those willing to take on additional responsibilities. Over time, these high-performing educators could become influential decision-makers in the field and profession.
Unfortunately, I do not see this positive cycle beginning at the federal level.
Furthermore, there are noteworthy trends in learning that occur outside of traditional schools.
Can you provide examples?
Certainly! Nowadays, if you have a desire to learn something and some financial resources to invest in that pursuit, there is no scarcity of opportunities to acquire knowledge. This was not always the case. I believe that over time, the rigid structure of traditional schooling will become more flexible. Students will no longer be confined to a classroom with 25 peers, while decisions on standards and curriculum are made by boards, principals, and teachers. Instead, the entire realm of biology, for instance, can be accessed through a student’s smartphone.
I anticipate that these changes will take time to unfold, and their effects will be uneven due to the lack of a standardized system. However, if we observe the long-term trajectory, we will undoubtedly witness a shift.
To illustrate, if we were to go back a hundred years, we would find schools where physical punishment was used on students. Today, except for a few states in the South, such practices are illegal. Schools are a reflection of society, and as society becomes more open, dynamic, and receptive to various forms of expertise, we can expect similar transformations to take place in schools.
