Back to School: Book review

Review: Back to School: Why Everyone Deserves a Second Chance at Education

Back to School: Why Everyone Deserves a Second Chance at Education. The New Press, 2012. Kindle file.

In Back to School: Why Everyone Deserves a Second Chance at Education, Mike Rose illustrates the importance of education-for-all by focusing on the students of adult educational institutions, such as community colleges and vocational schools. Increasingly, the students that occupy these institutions are non-traditional, and Rose understands that they are quickly becoming the norm. Public policy has tended to lean on the side of austerity when dealing with the educational outcome of institutions like community colleges. The burden of a higher education is put squarely on the shoulders of students: critics and educational pundits aligned with austerity measures want strict enactments for community colleges that are failing; any remedial programs that do not produce students capable of basic reading and writing skills translate into de-funding of schools. In this context, it is easy to generate a culture of indifference towards the people that actually encompass the various facets that define the non-traditional student. Rose sets out to rectify this oversight and emphasizes the wide cross-section of America that these students represent; it is this fact that animates Rose’s writing on the subject. At the heart of the argument of why obtaining an education is important is the link to the great democratic tradition of what an education represents. He does this by portraying and celebrating the achievements of students in spite of all the challenges they face in a landscape that is becoming more condemnatory of the adult student.

Rose illustrates the cultural milieu of the times by underpinning the core values that we carry about the role of individuals to be self-sufficient in society. Traditionally, we have had a romantic view of the American underdog as exemplified by the Horatio Alger character. The central myth that permeates our culture, as Rose points out, is the unflawed ability of social mobility to be the great equalizer of society, so that regardless of what your socio-economic background is, you can be successful by sheer determination and grit. This kind of worldview is a popular talking point on the Right and influences the stigma that tends to pervade the rhetoric when describing second-chance institutions. Right-wing ideology has been the driving force in calls for stricter policies towards second-chance institutions; any attempt to try to increase funding for adult education institutions is seen as big-government overspending, getting too involved. Worse there is an unspoken assumption that the students that are a significant population of these institutions, remedial students, are inherently deprived of the mental capabilities needed to excel in a traditional liberal arts setting. This prejudice creates an attitude of bigotry towards the non-traditional student that hinders progress.

Rose clearly sees the pernicious effects of this kind of toxic rhetoric in government policy discussions. At the heart of the discussion of second-chance institutions is challenging the assumptions that conservatives have had on social mobility. This rosy model of social mobility does not take into the account the significant obstacles that people must struggle with because of class, race or economic standing. Even worse, when these obstacles are present, it is assumed that they can easily be overcome by individual ability. This ultimately attributes the obstacles to the person and not to society. Rose sets out to challenge this paradigm that is being refuted by economists across all ideological spectrums. Economic opportunity is not equal for all and needs to be re-examined if we are going to create a society that can sustain and accommodate the specific challenges of the non-traditional student.

The model of an education linked to economic success and therefore social mobility, is hinged on the success of vocational schools to provide a pathway into the job market. Like many of his other books, a common theme of Rose is the intellectual richness of traditional blue-collar, or vocational activities. Back to School continues this discussion and offers important insight into the divide between the academic and the vocational. Many educators in the traditional vein of granting privilege to the humanities and the abstract models of thinking and creativity, lessened, or devalued the significance of vocational training, or vocational studies. Rose puts this divide in its historical context.

Historically, educators in the first decades of the twentieth century saw learning, especially reading and writing, as being mechanistic in its acquisition. In other words, the way a person learned a language, or its rules relating to grammar, phonology and meaning depended on how well one acquired its internal rules and logic. Very similar to a machine, one learned the rules of a language and all variations of these rules followed logically from one rule to the next. Therefore, if somebody were a remedial student, it simply meant that somewhere along the line they failed to internalize these rules. Educators and psychologists proceeded to create a whole list of clinical diagnoses and symptoms related to anybody that had basic reading and writing problems. A whole culture of treating remedial students like diagnosed patients emerged from this practice turning the job of a basic reading and writing teacher into that similar of a doctor.                        

Coupled with the implications of this kind of mechanical assessment of remedial students is the cultural prejudice towards manually skilled workers. Within the American psyche there is historical prejudice towards blue-collar technical skilled workers. Rose, again offers an informed historical commentary on the roots of this kind of prejudice going back to Western thought and the seminal The Republic. The division between body and mind was cemented, and “this set of beliefs and distinctions about knowledge, work, and the social order affects the structure of educational institutions in the United States (Ch. 5)” and creates a negative stigma towards any kind of work that was removed from the mind. Consequently, this division extended into the shape and form of vocational studies. It created a distinction between students that entered college and were academically prepared, and the vocational-track students that didn’t have the cognitive skills necessary to enter a liberal arts institution. It is through this artificial divide that, Rose argues, clouds the ability of policy makers to see the richness of cognitive activity that the students actually are engaged in. Missing from the broad, sweeping assumptions of remedial, or vocational students, as not being challenged enough academically, is a closer examination of what is actually going on in the classrooms. Much of what is usually fixated on, Rose says, is the failure and hardships of students instead of their achievements. By putting the remedial student into a continuum of the historical and cultural moment, Rose illustrates how students have been unfairly placed in the category of a vocational track based on antiquated notions of learning acquisition. He emphasizes the vast research that refutes this mechanistic style of learning and urges educators, policy makers and teachers to consider this fact.

It is this history that informs the assessment of a class that he observes that has incorporated a traditional vocational trade, like welding, with academic curricula and context. The class that Rose visits offers a model of how to bridge the academic-vocational divide. Through a creative curriculum that doesn’t inhibit students’ creativity, Rose observes engagement in all forms of traditional academic subjects such as math and even art. One student that he observes, Tommy, reflects on the intricacies of welding and the automatic response of the body in acquiring a skills over time that leads to a feeling of second-nature. Another observation that Rose makes is when students appreciate the skill of a perfect weld. The intimate connection between a traditionally vocational service like welding and the aesthetic appreciation of traditional art courses is made apparent by this observation. Speaking about the cognitive richness of welding is something that Mike Rose has passionately advocated over the many years that he has observed various jobs in the service industries. Imagine, Rose posits if the automotive vocational track incorporated elements of math and history in a sensible way. A more structured curriculum, Rose argues would go a long way into making these students successful. It would open the door for other vocational programs to follow, and would give a more fruitful classroom that incorporates the practical aspects of the vocational class with a rich and meaningful academic context. Such a weaving of academic and vocational sensibilities would give students a more nuanced understanding of their craft instead of a strictly economic application of getting a job. With this analysis, he offers a compelling case for why there has been a divide between academic and vocational studies and how this is intimately connected with the way society views a remedial student.

At the heart of the book is a daunting task for educators, policy makers, teachers and students alike. In order to adequately overhaul the way these second chance institutions try to help students succeed and transition successfully there needs to be a different evaluation system that takes into account the vast number of challenges that these institutions must deal with. Rose carefully looks at the data and statistics compiled on adult education institutions and finds many flaws in their conclusions.  

One compelling piece of data is that community colleges register the amount of incoming freshman students as the bar for whether a school is successful or not. Any student that drops out of a course no matter the situation is counted as a dropout and therefore a failure in the school’s part. Looking at an example of two students who dropped out reveals that they dropped out because of other job opportunities that may have opened up for them and not because of the difficulty or lack of interest in the class. It’s also true that “60 percent of community college students attend more than one community college, so we won’t get a complete picture of their postsecondary experience by focusing on their exit from the initial college” (Introduction). This seems like a very compelling set of statistics backed up with examples of real people undergoing real difficulties. The idea of using statistics to calculate policy decisions is one that should reflect more accurately what is actually happening on the ground. Initiatives such as setting benchmarks to schools that have a high percentage of students that exit remediation classes, Rose argues “has a common-sense approach” but it will “put a floor on whom they admit, accepting only those who have a better chance of succeeding, limiting opportunity for the most vulnerable (Introduction).” Statistical models and broad, sweeping generalizations that represent testing such as the No Child Left Behind Act and Common Core Standards have at the center of much controversy in education circles. This form of testing-as-evaluation seems to be happening across the board in all forms of education policy; they are simplistic solutions for a very complex problem.

Rose concludes that aggregate of data on these types of institutions do not paint a fair picture of the reality on the ground of these students. More than half aren’t even taking classes at one school exclusively, for example. He advocates for a more realistic and accurate picture that analyzes the different reasons why students go to secondary schools, why they quit, and what their long-term goals are. Any set of data that ignores the situation of students on the ground does them a disservice.

Together with these grim statistics there are structural deficits that when put together make institutions vulnerable to students losing faith in them. These little flaws can be seemingly benign, like non-sequential random number designating transfer-level English writing courses (Introduction) to the more deeper structural problems like the toss-up of qualified and dedicated instructors: some are very good and passionate about their work, others seem to just go through the motions. Counselors are too burdened with the amount of students they have to counsel, and this results in a counselor not having the time to connect with a student one-on-one intimately. These students are approaching college for the first time and need that sense of relief and comfort that a counselor can give them, but the packed schedule of many counselors just doesn’t allow for that connection. Many of these students face the challenge of trying to juggle a bunch of seemingly unconnected classes that don’t seem to match or fit each other. This problem is exacerbated by the increasing use of adjunct faculty that are juggling work in multiple campuses. These are problems that if not rectified can add more stress to a system that is already over-taxed with inadequate funding and overburdened staff.

Amidst all of these grim assessments there are examples of institutions that have implemented various reforms that have generated productive results with their students. Some schools mentioned like Hi Tech High and Big Picture Schools develop curricula that merge vocational learning with the traditional academic subjects. Rose observes that this should be done in a manner that is logical and meshes with the content and shouldn’t just be thrown into a set of curricula without any rhyme or reason. This could be done in a much more productive way if the social sciences weren’t so isolated from each other and actually contributed and shared information with each other. It is a disheartening picture when, as Rose indicates, in all of the journals in remediation research, “not one mentions the forty years of work on remedial or basic writing produced by teachers and researchers of writing (Ch. 5).” This kind of oversight is costly given the high stakes of remedial students.  

Central to Back to School is the notion of post-secondary institutions, especially community colleges, as centers of learning and places to instill civic duty and responsibility. The challenge of education-for-all must bring into question the reason of why an education is being pursued by so many students.  It is a desire deeply embedded in our most democratic spirit, ever since Horace Mann uttered the famous words of schools being a “great equalizer.” One of the main points that Rose makes is that policy makers have disproportionately focused too much time on the economic benefits of a PSE (Post-secondary education) degree. While focusing on the sole economic benefits, we forget about the more overlooked aspects of why a person chooses to get an education. This is where the heart of education-for-all comes into play and where Rose is able to humanize the students that make up these institutions. His vignettes of different people that are immersed in their school culture and really want to succeed makes the reader empathize with students and it offers a compelling reason why we shouldn’t be stigmatizing students that get a second chance through education. The students that Rose documents have worked hard and undergone family trouble, and economic hardship.

Overall Back to School is a clear and ringing evocation of the democratic ideas and values that a people’s college should live up to. Rose’s book is a valuable and much needed re-assessment of the need for education-for-all. It is a worthwhile read for policy makers, teachers, educators and the general public interested in the direction of a growing institution that will determine the country’s outlook. Much of the focus of adult education is placed solely on the economic benefits of a higher education, but Rose eloquently puts the purpose of education in its civic, intellectual and ethical sphere. The redemptive quality of many of the stories of students’ lives that Rose documents places the goal of education in a more personal way. This kind of narrative is missing in the public discourse, and hopefully more emphasis is placed on the holistic self-development of an education. Like many of his other works on adult education institutions, Rose is optimistic in his appraisal of the situation students face and focuses on what works when all of the best qualities of an institution come together. It is an important book that showcases the true potential of education-for-all and points policy makers and educators in the right direction towards a more inclusive and democratic future.