Election season is over, but we can still hear the faint, fading echo of reformers who insist that our educational system is broken and the fault lies squarely with the teachers.

On the face of it, this makes perfect sense. After all, it is the teachers who are in contact with the students while they are in school. So, if the students are not making regular gains on standardized tests, who else could possibly be to blame?

Unfortunately, this analysis of the situation, although appealing to those who wish to find a bogeyman to demonize, is too simplistic.

In what is perhaps a greater misfortune, it places the onus on a group that, in fact, has very little control over student performance and, having identified the “problem,” thereby precludes any further investigation into the situation.

Let’s be honest; in an election year, the teachers make a pretty soft target. It’s easy to say, “I’m for education,” and then promise to throw some money that way. When pressed about how to determine whether the money is being wisely spent, it is equally easy to require that schools conduct regular, standardized testing to measure student performance. Student performance on these tests is then equated with teacher effectiveness and, voila, bad teachers are then easily identified and pilloried.

It’s neat, simple and everyone goes home feeling good about themselves for having exposed a social evil.

If only it were that simple.

The primary problem with that scenario is that receiving money from the state or federal government (or private sources for that matter) always comes with strings. It’s those strings that turn schools into puppets that now have to comply with a variety of requirements to continue to be eligible for those handouts.

The result of state and federal government intervention in education, and the accompanying regulations, is the creation of an us/them dichotomy between teachers and administration without adequately addressing the underlying issue of education.

When a government, be it state or federal, enacts a rule it is, by necessity, one-size-fits-all. In the case of rules governing educational policy, assumptions are made about students based on generalities and may, thereby, create unrealistic demands on those students and their teachers, as well.

Too often, the result is that the students and teachers give up and leave.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a teacher. In 2007 I chose to begin a second career as a special education teacher. As a teacher, I am put in the position of serving two masters. The first is to help students understand certain benchmark concepts. The second is to ensure that my students develop a mastery and fluency of particular skills.

Mastery and fluency can only be gained through repetition. As a teacher, I am concerned that students, in both the special education and regular education settings, will be buried under a sea of concepts and standards. By necessity, teachers will resort to what a colleague has referred to as the M&M method of instruction in order to cover all the bases and keep pace with a standardized curriculum. M&M stands for “mention and move,” hardly a way to develop mastery and arguably a waste of educational time and money.

A common catch-phrase in education is that “all children are capable of learning.” That is true.

A corollary is that “all children want to learn.” That is also true.

A third maxim is “children learn in different ways which will require multiple pathways to success.” As a stand-alone statement, true again.

The last statement, however, begins to break down when we attempt to standardize the definition of success.

Having a solid fluency in the four basic operations of math and the ability to confidently and accurately work with fractions may constitute success for one student, while the ability to work with partial derivatives and Lagrange multipliers may be within reach of another. Which of those students is well served by state-mandated standards that must be met before a diploma is issued? Is one successful and the other not?

Rather than denying a student a diploma for not being able to meet some state or national standard that is beyond their reach, would we not be better served by developing Maine Standards of Excellence Exams that would be optional and would result in a sort of “super diploma” for those who pass?

With all the emphasis we place on students being college ready and academically prepared to take their place in the 21st century economy, we discount those careers that do not necessarily require a college diploma.

We would be better served if, while we recognize academic excellence, we give equal recognition and encouragement to those students who, for whatever reason, have followed an alternative path to being a contributing member of our society.

Terrence Magee is currently a high school special education teacher. In the past, he has held the position of human resource director and operated his own business. He lives in Bryant Pond.