Essay #1: On Creativity Lost

04/11/12

Since the 1960s, we’ve supported an educational regime inexorably linked to unions and their respective demands for fairness in regards to the treatment of teachers - and we continue to be dominated by it even today.  Thus the images of progressivism and democracy at work, coupled with equality and fairness have been unjustifiably emblazoned on our restrained, mute and hypocritical creativity.

At the beginning of the 20^th century, a perceived unfairness in the educational system’s treatment of teachers manifested in the advent of the Teacher’s Union, founded in 1916, and the Teacher’s Guild, formed in 1935.  During this time pensions were awarded only to retired teachers over 65 or with 35 years of service, female teachers faced two years of mandatory unpaid maternity leave after giving birth, principals could discipline or fire teachers without any oversight, and teachers drew a salary of $66 per week – the equivalent of $21,000 a year in 2005 dollars.  Creation of a single, unified body to protect them proved difficult in a system that leaned right, and being that many leaders of these original teacher’s unions were socialists, red-baiting was fairly common. 

Yet, despite the difficulty to gain traction during this time, one group, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), successfully organized itself into a robust and powerful organization both in numbers and in influence, resulting in major strikes and collective bargaining on behalf of teachers that resulted in concessions by state and local governments.  This was progressivism and creativity in their finest hour.

But twilight soon fell upon that bright day.  Creativity was carefully confined.  The multiple labor groups acting on behalf of teachers took custody of it and absorbed it into its current state of rigidity and backwardness.  On the subject of reform, silence became the rule.  The legitimate union established the law and imposed itself as the model, enforced the norm, safeguarded the truth, and reserved the right to speak credibly about the educational system, and about what was best for teachers, for students and for parents.  A single locus of truth with respect to the proper direction for our system and its students sanitized one’s speech.  Creative ideas to further student achievement carried the taint of abnormality; if one insisted on amplifying his or her ideas, he or she would be designated accordingly and would be labeled as a threat to the progressivism espoused by the movement.  Nothing that was not ordered by it could expect sanction or protection. Nor did it merit a hearing.  These ideas would be driven out, denied, and reduced to silence.  Not only did they not exist, they had no right to exist and would be made to disappear upon their least manifestation, whether in acts or in words.  Everyone knew that their policies protecting teachers resulted unquestionably in student achievement, which was why they were forbidden to talk about it, why one closed one’s eyes and stopped one’s ears whenever they came to show evidence to the contrary, and why a general silence was imposed.  This was an era of repression. 

And has our nation not suffered as a result? Since the 1970s, our students’ progress, relative to the rest of the world, has stagnated.  We have dropped significantly in rankings, from once leading the world, to now placing in the top 30 in reading and math.  Domestically, the more than 15 million children growing up in low-income communities are, on average, two to three years behind in reading skills by the time they reach fourth grade.  Half of them will not graduate high school.  This problem obfuscates racial equality, weakens the economy by costing it billions of dollars, and is inimical to fulfilling the potential of a strong democracy.

To be clear, progress has been made in cities like New York, Chicago, New Orleans, Houston, and our nation’s capitol; but with circumspection, and in other places where reform has been less evident, with a near guarantee of innocuousness and ample precaution in order to keep everything between the dinner table and discourse.   What makes the creativity seen in these cities gratifying is its defiance in the face of hypocrisy.  After all, the relationship between power and creativity in terms of repression is not a new phenomenon.  At one point it adversely affected those who now find themselves defining our educational system’s norms.  In their brightest days, labor groups at the beginning of the 20th century were repressed, that is, condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence.  It is ironic that those who fought for their coming freedom at that time now fight against those who are labeled subversive today.  These new “reformers” ardently conjure away the present and appeal to the future as organized labor did in the past. It seems as though some of the ancient functions of prophecy are reactivated therein.  Tomorrow, creativity will be good again.     

But could change come any differently? We know that repression has indeed been the fundamental link between power and creativity since the 1960s; it stands to reason that we will not be able to free ourselves from it without considerable cost – nothing less than a lifting of arcane laws, an irruption of speech, a reinstating of what reason says actually serves the system best, and a whole new economy in the mechanisms of power will be required.  After all, the truth is currently conditioned by an influx of lobbying dollars into the political sphere.  Hence, one cannot hope to obtain the desired result simply from a theoretical discourse, however rigorously pursued.  The current state of affairs is historically and politically protected.  We must not be surprised, then, if the effects of creativity vis-à-vis this repressive power are so slow to manifest themselves; the effort to speak freely and without fear of castigation is so inimical to the status quo, that it is bound to make little headway for a long time before succeeding in its mission. 

It is true that we have a stronger foundation than ever before for this work in the “reform” arena, and because of it, we are seeing an increasing in the pace of change.  Within the past 10 years in urban and rural education, we have learned and accomplished a great deal.  Not only do we have many more examples of success, there is evidence that replicating success is feasible. We now attempt to cultivate talent at both colleges of education and within school districts.  We are increasing diversity in the talent pipeline. We are fostering effective political leadership.  And finally, we are building advocacy infrastructure at the state and local levels.  Perhaps more importantly, the partisan battle between left and right, blue and red, is coming to an end.  Those who consider themselves Democrats are sparking this new wave of creativity.  Their surprising distancing from Labor positions concerning the educational system eliminates the “us against them” rhetoric historically evident in our discourse.   These are encouraging signs of hope, and I fully anticipate that as we move ahead, more research, more data, and more people dedicated to qualifying success at all levels will bring forth the creative drive to answer the education riddle that seemingly perplexes our great nation today.