ABOUT EDUCATION; Low-Cost Improvement
By FRED M. HECHINGER
Published: September 1, 1987
WHEN Theodore Sizer addressed 3,000 teachers on school reform recently, this is what he said: ''The only thing that matters is what it does for the kids.''
Mr. Sizer, a former dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Education and the author of ''Horace's Compromise,'' a book many consider a blueprint for school reform, kept coming back to the theme: reforms must give children a better break.
But, as millions of youngsters return to school, many parents and educators are wondering whether three years of talk about better schools have made a difference in the way children are taught. For most youngsters this fall, things will be much as they were last year, or 10 years ago. There will be some exceptions, including the dozen or so schools moving toward change under Mr. Sizer's guidance. But, in general, little is different. Although there are many good schools, in too many others children are failing, largely because the schools are failing them.
Educational change has always come slowly. It will take time to improve the education of teachers, and it will be at least three more years before the widely hailed plan for the certification of teachers by a national board of standards can get under way. Lack of money is also a problem.
Yet many experts, including Mr. Sizer, insist that much could be done quickly, even without extra money. Some changes could still be made as this new school year begins, or at least in the course of the year.
What are some of the changes that might help children right now?
* New teachers could be given one or two daily periods fewer than the standard five- or six-period teaching load. This would give them a chance to spend some time learning from assistant principals and experienced colleagues. To avoid the expense of having to hire extra staff, older pupils might do some independent work, such as reading and writing, under the supervision and with the help of bright students from nearby high schools. These students could get credit for this and, if money is available, modest stipends. Another way to make up for the lost classroom time would be to require principals and other supervisors to spend some time teaching.
* From kindergarten through second grade, teachers could set up writing laboratories. They could combine at least two periods a day to give children time to discuss what they want to write about and then let them begin in their own way, even if they must ''invent'' their spelling. Enough has been written about successful experiments along these lines for teachers to give them a try. (Among the available literature: ''The Art of Teaching Writing,'' by Lucy Calkins; ''When Writers Read,'' by Jane Hansen, and ''Write From the Start,'' by Donald Graves and Virginia Stuart.)
* Teachers could try to let children learn to read with the help of real books that are fun instead of with readers that are not. On a more advanced level, Nancie Atwell, a junior high school teacher in Maine, turns eighth graders into avid readers by encouraging them to write letters about the books to one another and to the teacher, who regularly responds to them.
* If foreign-language teachers are available, some schools might take half of each day for the better part of a month and concentrate on teaching students to speak that language, without paying attention at that point to grammar.
* In schools where teachers must hand in weekly lesson plans to their supervisors, the practice could be abolished at no cost. Since the suggestion is likely to be met by angry protests from many school administrators, it should be made clear that abolishing the lesson plan would not spell an end to planning. On the contrary, rigid and inhibiting lesson plans would be replaced by professional planning sessions to let teachers and administrators plan ahead together. Inexperienced teachers would get the benefit of veterans' wisdom. This could tear down the wall that isolates teachers from one another and from their superiors. It would let long-term planning take the place of the staitjacket that impedes teachers' spontaneity.
* One way to create a sense of community and civility is to involve all pupils in the maintenance of their schools. This suggestion, which could save rather than cost money, may run into opposition from organized custodians. But, to invoke Mr. Sizer's concept of school reform, schools should be run for the benefit of the children, not the adults.
* Perhaps the most important change that could be brought about quickly would be the abolition of large schools, which stand as a legacy of the mistaken, factory-inspired belief that bigness is cost effective. Since nothing can be done about the existing elephantine buildings, the solution is in subdividing them into self-contained small schools.
This is not a new idea. Years ago, administrators at a few suburban high schools divided them into ''houses,'' and some urban schools established minischools. But such subdivisions often lack sufficient independence to turn themselves into truly small schools.
The guiding question would be: Will the school be small enough for every youngster to be known by name to the adults in charge? A rough guess is that more than 400 students is too big.
To create instant small schools, without extra cost, out of schools built for thousands, each ''house'' would be run by an experienced head teacher. The principal and his or her aides would still administer the total enterprise, but the smaller units would develop their own style. Athletic and performing arts programs, libraries and laboratories would continue to serve the entire school.
Youngsters would no longer suffer from the anonymity of large institutions. People, young and old, behave at their worst when they are not known in the community, and to serve children well a school should be a community. Many experts believe that the anonymity in large schools is responsible for vandalism and other antisocial behavior.
None of these changes are revolutionary. They will not solve all the schools' problems. But they could prepare the way for other, possibly costly, reforms.
They could begin to do what Mr. Sizer asked for: help the kids.