David Gamberg is an experienced educator who marches to a different drummer, not to federal mandates or the lure of Reformer money. He has a clear vision of what is best for students, teachers, staff, families, and the community. He does not worship at the shrine of test scores. He is superintendent of two small, contiguous districts on Long Island in New York. He understands the organic relation between communities and schools and knows that neither stands alone.
He wrote about his philosophy in Education Week.
Forget the title. This article is about what education should be, if only we had leaders with thoughtfulness, mindfulness, love of children, love of learning, and vision. Such people exist. Gamberg is one of them.
I am convinced that the foundation of a good education is about the concept of building—building a school, building a community, building relationships, and building a sense of self. School works for many students to provide a pathway into the future. It offers a foundation of rich experiences that inspire and form the basis of students’ life stories. Education and schools, however, can never be fully responsible for the outcomes that our students achieve. We cannot blame schools and teachers for the very complex mix of factors that result in any one person’s success in life.
I’ve been thinking recently about how we can alter the school experience for students and staff to better meet the needs of our learning communities. Some of the very structures and experiences that harken back to an earlier era in education may in fact be part of the future of teaching and learning. While it may be counterintuitive in our sophisticated high-tech world, building, manipulating, and creating inside the physical spaces of our school environment are essential in future learning….
1) Create a culture and environment that attends to the authentic learning experiences of the students.
There are many ways to engage students and teachers in authentic learning experiences. Tending a garden offers students a chance to shape their environment and participate in the natural transformation of seed to plant. Putting on a theater production shapes their experience of others, turning the audience into an integral part of learning. Students might create a gallery or museum display in a real process of honoring history and art. They might build a robot, which encompasses a wide range of design and scientific principles. The list of possibilities for school communities to come together and build something is as universal as it is unlimited.
2) Focus on building community; it matters more than raising test scores.
Our students face a growing list of pressures both real and imagined. School boards and superintendents, in particular, should take note of mental-health and substance-abuse issues and concerns. These are reaching crisis levels across the country. Students of all ages need a compelling experience that engages them in their respective learning communities. Sorting students by test scores will never answer the call for safer and healthier learning communities. Establishing deep and abiding personal relationships and building a sense of community will, and it’s urgently needed.
3) Reshape schools; don’t seek to reform them…
4) Engage stakeholders in re-envisioning the schoolhouse.
If the future is ever more unpredictable, then is keeping things basically the same still an option? Whether it is the students, teachers, policymakers, or families in any learning community, we must look at which tools we keep and which tools we should discard to help us build our schools…
Schools of the future may require a new vision for how they are structured, built, and financed. Let us not forget that no matter how schools are set up, it is the relationship between child and adult that stands at its center. From that center, we can work together to impart lessons, build understanding, and build capacity.
5) Don’t see school improvement as a technological fix.
We can have Smart Boards in every room but fail to update the pedagogy used 30 years ago. This is not a criticism of how we engaged our students in the past. In fact, I would argue that a way to engage students that is more than 2,400 years old still applies—even more so today. I am referring, of course, to the Socratic method…
Let’s make the process of learning and what takes place in school so compelling that it cannot be replaced by an algorithm. Let us ensure that our students continue to be great problem-solvers, fearless learners, courageous citizens, and creative thinkers who contribute greatly to the world around them.
If students become engaged in solving real-world problems, then wouldn’t they be better prepared to build their future? If they had permission to alter the physical space in their school, wouldn’t they alter their view of school in the process? I believe that with each passing generation, we inherit a space, with a covenant to uphold the values and principles of those who have come before us. We have an opportunity to build on their contributions while we forge our own. Is it not true that at all times we stand on the shoulders of others? Let us work together to build on the opportunity that has been given to us.

I think considering the needs of families and children within the community is crucial to the success of any educational system. An educational system that is inclusive and teaches in a non-biased and accurate manner history and literature that are relevant to the community might engage students.
LikeLike
School districts that seek to make lasting efforts to improve evolve; they do not “reform.” Meaningful change comes from within, from working with stakeholders, from working together and building consensus. It involves creating an environment of trust in which all members can express views and share ideas. My district worked on an improvement plan that involved creating this type of shared vision. It was effective because so many members of the school community committed to make positive changes. The result was a culture shift that continues to this day.
Today education is being driven by the vision of business and special interest groups, not practitioners or even parents. Technology is being sold as a cure all because wealthy interest groups promote its use, despite the fact there is no evidence to support either blended or personalized learning. Technology is a useful tool, but it should not be the central component as it has its limitations. Real change comes from within; it’s a process, and it starts with putting the needs of students first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
EXCELLENT PHRASING: “School districts that seek to make lasting efforts to improve evolve; they do not “reform.”
LikeLike
I agree.
LikeLike
Overall can’t necessarily disagree too much with what Gamberg says. The concept of community that he describes/develops is very similar to the Catholic communities in which I grew up wherein catholic, yes with a small c, has the concept of a universal community at its heart of being. And as a rural small town teacher I have seen that concept of community as very much built into the public schools that welcome, accept and educate ALL students. And that I saw in a suburban St. Louis district wherein the public schools were very much a part of the community.
But a few things caught my eye:
“If the future is ever more unpredictable, then is keeping things basically the same still an option?”
Yes, it is an option. As Gamberg’s example of the Socratic Method indicates we have to keep much of what occurs in public schools, actually the vast majority of it as the “tried and true” usually works. Change for change’s sake, or “creative destruction” is not necessarily a good thing without a compelling reason to change. And then that change should be initiated at the school/classroom level by those closest to the teaching and learning process. Top down mandates are bound to not be “carried out with fidelity”.
“If students become engaged in solving real-world problems, then wouldn’t they be better prepared to build their future?”
Out of all the nonsense that I hear/read about the teaching and learning process is the falsehood that is the “real world” and/or “real world problems”. Having lived and worked in that supposed “real world” for 33 years and having taught for 21 years, I can say that there is absolutely no difference between that supposed “real world” and the supposed “unreal or irreal world of the schools. For the children, schools are the real world. They don’t recognize schools as anything other than “real world”. To suggest otherwise is just parroting an idiotic meme.
Why, oh why do educators succumb to that false “real world” meme?
“Schools of the future may require a new vision for how they are structured, built, and financed. Let us not forget that no matter how schools are set up, it is the relationship between child and adult that stands at its center. From that center, we can work together to impart lessons, build understanding, and build capacity.”
Exactly what the edudeformers want Americans to believe. While no doubt the teaching and learning setting the teacher/student relationship is of utmost importance, worrying about the “future” when there is so much to get “right” in the present seems ludicrous. The fact is that this superintendent could be getting more things “right” by ethically standing up for the children and not implementing the malpractices so dominant today.
Overall, I see the piece as an example of excellent adminimal doublespeak, certainly honed from being a practicing adminimal all the years-playing the supposed center and supposedly being the voice of reasonable commentary-gotta keep all constituents happy. Why not address the myriad problems currently in place that bastardize the teaching and learning process and harm all the children in the meantime? Why not some action on his part to eliminate those malpractices? Why worry about the future when so many innnocents are being harmed now?
LikeLike
“”Change for change’s sake, or “creative destruction” is not necessarily a good thing without a compelling reason to change. ”
Gamberg also says, though, that change should happen slowly, as in evolution, not as a reform.
The “real world” reference is right on, Duane. The real world for reformers is mostly the billionaires economy. Not our world.
LikeLike
The question at the heart of most human struggles: To which real world are we referring?
LikeLike
I agree, Gamberg’s ideas are stated in generalizations that make them easy to agree with, but they don’t express specific solutions. I very much like your questioning of certain current terms and cliches, specifically the need for “change”, and the use of “real world” experiences in schools. As we should all be familiar with today in our government, economy, and society, change for the sake of change sometimes results in going from the frying pan into the fire. Even change that looks like growth in one way, for example in production, if it ignores its effects on other aspects of our lives such as the environment or fair pay, might not be a change we should want. Technology has its place but it cannot be a substitute for human interaction when it comes to learning the social skills necessary for collaboration and human understanding in all parts of our lives. In fact, as we see not only in schools but in the larger society, technology can sometimes be an obstacle to learning and practicing these skills. Also, as you suggest, change should not be throwing out all from the past, but should be modifying or adding to ideas that have worked, sometimes for centuries. That is how humans have made real progress by, as Newton wrote “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Especially when dealing with people, ways of relating to and communicating ideas and information have been tested over centuries. Effective methods such as passing on values and ideas through stories, or critical thinking through Socratic questioning should not be dismissed just because they were used in the past. Your critique of the phrase “real world” as it relates to education is an interesting example of the Socratic questioning of terms, which is where both he and Confucius, two of the greatest teachers, thought we should begin. Thinking about it, its odd that we accept the idea that schools and their purposes are not part of this real world. Yet, for the past 400 years schools have been an essential part of building the modern world. Up until about 40 years ago in this country the purported purpose of schools was to prepare young people to be responsible and successful members of our democracy, our economy, and our society. Those goals, however unevenly they were implemented have gradually been replaced so that now with the implementation of Common Core the stated goal is to prepare students to be “college and career ready” only. What might have been only a facade of a liberal education has been dropped entirely in place of training for our roles in the corporate machines. Yet, current events have shown that the need for learning research and critical thinking skills to create informed and thoughtful citizens and voters, for learning about human feelings, desires, and needs and the effects of social structures through studying literature and history, for learning the real facts about our natural world from science and math, and learning about beauty and other non-economic values through the arts, have never been more needed than at the present time. Our “real world” has been reduced to work and economic interests and the result has been a diminishing of our lives and a surrender of our rights and power to change this. Schools can be the last bastion of defense for a liberal democratic and humane society. This, and the opportunity to make millions in profit is why billionaires have poured so much into taking apart our public education system. It is also why not only educators but all the public need to do whatever is necessary to preserve this essential part of our real world, and to never forget its larger goals as we design the schools for the future.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s odd to use Gamberg’s article to critique the Common Core and preparation for the workforce, which are unrelated to his child-centered view of education.
LikeLike
Steven Perez,
With David Gamberg, the proof of his convictions is in the schools where he is superintendent. They have art, music, robotics, jazz band, a school garden, orchestra, dramatics. The production of “Les Miserables” was chosen as the best school dramatic performance in the state. The cast included kids from high school and middle school. He supports parents who opt out of state testing.
If you consider that vague generalizations, what evidence do you want? He is indeed a visionary.
LikeLike
Thanks Steven. One of the most impressive, well thought out replies that I have encountered since the beginning of this blog and there have been many. I hope you continue to comment as we need more educators (even if you’re not one, your thinking certainly qualifies you as such) to understand what you have written. Please feel free to contact me at duaneswacker@gmail.com to further discuss what you have written. Again, thanks for the excellent commentary!
LikeLike
Diane,
We’ll have to agree to disagree with whether or not Gamberg is a “visionary”. Anyone who knowingly implements educational malpractices is not a “visionary” in my thinking.
All those things that you mention that his district does are things that have been going on in many districts for many years. That is not visionary. Visionary is being able to see the harms caused by the malpractices that one is supposedly required to implement and then to refuse to implement such malpractices would indeed be visionary. . . and taking a stand by actually doing something, leading his district to refuse to participate in said malpractices. And no, just having parents opt out their children is not enough as that puts the burden on the parents/children and takes it off those who actually are responsible for implementing the malpractices and harms caused to students.
Until a supe adminimal actually refuses his/her district in participating in those malpractices they are not visionary, they are covering their own asses and salaries, albeit by providing a learning environment that should be a given and not the exceptions. None, not a single supe adminimal that I know of has put their own ass and salary on the line by leading the district in refusing to implement harmful practices. Not one!
When will there be a “true educational visionary”?
LikeLike
Duane,
I have seen Gamberg’s schools. You have not. Frankly, you are discrediting yourself with your comments about an outstanding educator who is not in the grip of test score mania.
LikeLike
You never hesitate to let the perfect be the enemy of the very very good.
LikeLike
Duane,
Please name the public school leaders who have refused to give the federally mandated tests.
I want to congratulate them. How many are there?
I assume you believe every superintendent, every principal, and every teacher who gives the tests is a failure. Yes?
LikeLike
“Until a supe adminimal actually refuses his/her district in participating in those malpractices they are not visionary, they are covering their own asses and salaries, albeit by providing a learning environment that should be a given and not the exceptions. ”
Duane, refusing to participate in state mandated programs is probably professional suicide and leads to the firing of the “visionary” without any visible result.
My feeling is, individual actions are limited.
LikeLike
You are correct. However as we’ve seen with the massive teacher strikes, were the supe adminimals to join together and say “No, we are not instituting malpractices that harm the students”, what the hell is the state going to do? Fire em all?
But you know an adminimal position pays quite well, especially in relation to teacher pay and heaven forbid that an adminimal might have to go back and actually teach in a classroom for less salary. I certainly don’t expect the adminimals to do anything other that implement the malpractices, lilly livered chickenshits lacking cojones that they are.
LikeLike
Duane,
Where’s that list of bold Superintendents who refused to give the test?
How about one name?
LikeLike
That’s my point! Exactly, there are none!
LikeLike
Here is a subtle point:
There is a difference between Superintendents who punish children who opt out of testing and Superintendents who inform parents of their right to opt out and respect their decision.
LikeLike
Yes, there is a difference, no doubt. Not so subtle, though. And it still doesn’t mitigate the many harms to children caused by “playing the game” of instituting educational malpractices.
LikeLike
Duane, it may not be in the children’s best interest for a superintendent to refuse to give state mandated tests in his district. The superintendent would get fired, and would be replaced by a testing zealot, and the kids would be screwed.
The time may not ripe for organizing many superintendents against testing. Then the best an individual can do is work within the system.
Under communism in Eastern Europe, the system appeared very restrictive ideologically, and people who resisted disappeared. Still, I had some fantastic teachers who found ways within the system to teach well, making us excited about the world and learning. The media (TV, radio, films) were completely controlled by the state with strong censorship. We still had great directors, actors who bypassed the restrictions in very tricky and sometimes dangerous ways.
In the 1950’s-60’s-70’s this was the best these people could do for us in Eastern Europe. There was absolutely no chance for a general uprising against the power of communist politicians.
My feeling is that as soon as teachers feel, they can organize a general resistance to the reforms and testing, they do it. See the recent teacher strikes. But in some states (like TN), such general resistance might not yet work. So great teachers stick it out, and do the best for the children within the system.
I think, it’s a mistake to think that MLK was the unique guy who had the guts to lead the Civil Rights movement. No, for him, the time was right, but there were many brave souls before him who had worked within the system, and whose activities had shifted the powers enough so that open resistance had become possible.
LikeLike
Can’t agree, Mate. When is the “right time” to stand up and fight against the holocaust of children’s minds that is the standards and testing regime. . . ?
By your response–never!
No, never is not adequate to prevent the harms.
But hey, it ain’t that bad for the kids, right?
Ay ay ay ay ay!
LikeLike
Diane @ 11:49,
Failures? Yes, if they know that the malpractices-standardized testing is harmful to the teaching and learning process and violates/harms the students. And probably 9/10 teachers and administrators with whom I’ve spoken agree that, indeed, is what those malpractices do. So in that regard, yes, they are “failing” in their ethical duty to the students, no matter what sugar coating they put on their actions in implementing those malpractices.
Self-interest should not trump ethical duty to the most innocent-the children, who have no defense whatsoever against what is done to them. And I find that self-interest (as explained by Mate Wierdl) to be appalling and abhorrent. If I may leave you with a thought from someone far wiser than me:
“Should we therefore forgo our self-interest? Of course not. But it [self-interest] must be subordinate to justice, not the other way around. . . . To take advantage of a child’s naivete. . . in order to extract from them something [test scores, personal information] that is contrary to their interests, or intentions, without their knowledge [or consent of parents] or through coercion [state mandated testing], is always and everywhere unjust even if in some places and under certain circumstances it is not illegal. . . . Justice is superior to and more valuable than well-being or efficiency; it cannot be sacrificed to them, not even for the happiness of the greatest number [quoting Rawls]. To what could justice legitimately be sacrificed, since without justice there would be no legitimacy or illegitimacy? And in the name of what, since without justice even humanity, happiness and love could have no absolute value?. . . Without justice, values would be nothing more than (self) interests or motives; they would cease to be values or would become values without worth.”—Andre Comte-Sponville from “A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues” [my additions]
LikeLike
Please do not insult everyone who does not live up to your standards of perfection
LikeLike
It’s not my “standards of perfection”. It is a statement on very everyday human interactions wherein one human causes harm to another. And in this case the “another” are innocent children. Is it that hard to understand that everyone should be appalled by such treatment?
I’m always amazed (why, by now you’d think I’d have gotten it through my thick skull) that the vast majority of people look no further than themselves in their interactions with others and refuse to think through and see the problems, harms and violations of others in their actions. But then, that is American culture and society, me, me, more me, mine, mine, more for me and to hell with everyone else.
And when one points out those harms they are considered to be pariah. Again, I’ll leave you with a thought from someone far wiser than me:
“One view of immorality is that it is behaviour that destabilises a social system [critiquing administrator behavior]. So, if playing the game is inevitable, is questioning the rules not so much dangerous as despicable, immoral to the point of being unthinkable? Is this the reason for the great silence about the enormous errors in any measure of standards [and administrator behavior]? Does this erasure from public consciousness and discourse of the obvious fact that educational standards as a thin accurate line have no empirical existence, and attempts to measure in relation to that line no instrumental reality.” Wilson in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error”. [my additions]
LikeLike
WOW!!!! Love this! It certainly encompasses my own views about education. Thanks for posting.I believe that children learn best when they think they are playing and having a good time. Stress interferes with education.
LikeLike