Everybody in this country went to school for at least some
period of time, and because they all have experience with the school system,
everybody feels qualified to critique teachers and schools. It
is generally not the case that all people who have school experience are
experts on curriculum design. However, this assertion does not feel as
ridiculous as others made on the same premise might feel. For example, having
been a patient in the hospital does not make one an expert on medical
administration, nor on medicine itself. Likewise, simply because one has
experienced being charged with a crime and tried in the court system does not
make one a legal expert. While these may seem like extreme comparisons, the
fact remains that having experience with one side of a process does not make
one an expert on all matters relating to the aforementioned process. So, why,
in the current climate of our country, is it acceptable for politicians to set
guidelines for curriculum design and the measurement of school progress?
Our current system uses student performance on standardized
tests to measure the effectiveness of a school. Schools can be labeled as “failing”
simply because students do not make an appropriate increase in test scores that
is determined by their state government. Any educator will tell you that test
scores are simply not an adequate measurement of school performance. In a 2001
article for the Phi Delta Kappan, Eisner correctly states that “what test scores
predict best are other test scores.” So why are we so worried about how
students will perform on later tests? The fact of the matter is really that we
shouldn’t be focused on this area. “The function of schooling is not to enable
students to do better in school. The function of schooling is to enable
students to do better in life.” (Eisner, 2001).
Several movements have been started in inner city, urban
neighborhoods (e.g., Harlem) that attempt to improve education for the students
in these areas. One example, Central Park East Secondary School (CPESS), was
founded in 1985 by Deb Meier and based on the work of Ted Sizer. In this
school, they removed traditional grading and graduation expectations and
instead implemented a graduation portfolio system in which a committee reviews
evidence of work accomplished and knowledge acquired through the curriculum. The
school environment was that of cooperation between students, faculty and
administration and the staff were able to make curricular and pacing decisions
based on student needs and interest. A set of five questions of inquiry, called
the Habits of Mind was used to guide learning. This model was successful and
has data to back it up. For example, in 1995, the school boasted a dropout rate
of less than 5%, compared with a citywide completion rate of 50%. However,
since that time and several changes in administration later, the changes caused
by high stakes reform pressure have ultimately had a significantly negative
effect on the school.
So, what changed? The school is now driven administratively and
the culture shifted away from that which Meier originally intended. The
students are no longer guided by the “Habits of Mind” and
the staff no longer enjoys the freedom they were previously given. I would
argue that the biggest change is the fact that the school is no longer student
centered. In a graduation speech addressed to the Kenyon College class of 2005,
David Foster Wallace asserts that the goal of education should be to teach
students what to think about and how to think about it. I would tend to agree
with him. This can only be accomplished by encouraging students to be tenacious
and thoughtfully engaged in their work. In order to be successful later in
life, students will need to be self-motivated learners who are critically
engaged in their work withink curriculum. The Common
Core State Standards are a step in the right direction, as they encourage
the development of critical thinking and reasoning skills in all subject areas.
However, the characteristics of quality education cannot necessarily be
measured empirically. Politicians will not be able to obtain statistics related
to student engagement and the development of critical thinking skills. This is
okay, because really, as Eisner suggests, one cannot appropriately compare test
scores across communities with so many uncontrollable historical variables
(e.g., student home background, teaching methods, etc.) contributing to them. We, as a country, will have to become okay with listening to our educators as experts and metaphorically chuck the inappropriate progress monitoring tools out the window.
Meier, D. 2002. Chapter 3. The Power of their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Eisner, E. 2001. What does it mean to say a school is doing well? Phi Delta Kappan 82(5): 367-72.
http://www.corestandards.org
http://www.i-learnt.com/Thinking_Habits_Mind.html
http://www.essentialschools.org/resources/521
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/education/education-secretary-overstated-failing-schools-under-no-child-left-behind-study-says.html
Sources
Meier, D. 2002. Chapter 3. The Power of their Ideas: Lessons for America from a Small School in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Eisner, E. 2001. What does it mean to say a school is doing well? Phi Delta Kappan 82(5): 367-72.
http://www.corestandards.org
http://www.i-learnt.com/Thinking_Habits_Mind.html
http://www.essentialschools.org/resources/521
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/education/education-secretary-overstated-failing-schools-under-no-child-left-behind-study-says.html