Rigor and relationships

David Brooks is right on education. The problem though is not just lack of responsibility. The dominant ideology in education opposes precisely Brooks's two key concepts (acquiring rigorous knowledge through a relationship with an adult).

Comments

[PostPaganBaby]

I will begin with what I think is spot on about Brooks' piece, but then address the great lacuna: what is missing. He is spot on here:

"We’ve spent years working on ways to restructure schools, but what matters most is the relationship between one student and one teacher. You ask a kid who has graduated from high school to list the teachers who mattered in his life, and he will reel off names. You ask a kid who dropped out, and he will not even understand the question. Relationships like that are beyond his experience."

Just so. A minor oversight here is that relationships, while not wholly dictated by school structures, are certainly influenced by these structures. They can be more or less human. Although Brooks doesn't mention this school model by name, it sounds like he is familiar with the Big Picture model. They focus on "relevance, rigor and relationships" and are having some tremendous results.

Now for the Great Lacuna: What about our need for total meaning? Do human relationships exhaust our need for Relationship? Hell, no. Here is the problem with all reforms that don't acknowledge our existential depths: they possess an emaciated anthropology that doesn't admit of the Mystery. The teacher may possess it (and in this case, no power in the world can suppress it), but if it isn't given tacit acknowledgment, we're really just deluding ourselves and our students.

For those who howl "church-state separation," I can only reply, "So you think the First Amendment is greater than God?" You're free to practice any form of idolatry you wish, but please don't insist the U.S. Constitution requires such worship.