Thursday, September 20, 2012

American Education: Are we learning from our past mistakes?



Currently, our society finds itself in the midst of a debate about our public schools. We are constantly bombarded with reports about our failing educational system, evidenced by the high drop out rate and by our students’ inability to compete with the subject area competence of students from other countries, which has been rendered significantly more important by our current global economy.  This debate may sound familiar to supercentenarians, who lived through a very similar one at the turn of the 20th century. Those of us of younger generations may not realize that at that time, there was much public outcry about the direction our public schools needed to take as a response to the changing global climate created by industrialism.

As a response to this outcry, in the early 1900’s, John Dewey founded the American movement of “progressive education,” which seems to share the tenants of our modern day learner-centered ideology and scholar-academic ideology introduced by Schiro (2008).  Dewey believed that “human knowledge should be linked to practical social experience” (full text available: http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-2-life-in-schools/john-dewey-on-progressive-education) in contrast to traditional models of “book-based learning.” He advocated that schools be organized into “embryonic societies”, through which students were exposed to miniature models of our society and learned through experience rather than lecture.

This approach afforded two main educational benefits 1) learning became relevant to the students’ everyday lives and 2) units of study were presented in a functional, applicable manner. For example, students learned math through construction and cooking. Dewey believed that simply preparing students for the distant end goal of completion, as is inherent in the traditional model, does nothing to motivate them. He felt that it was more important to provide current, relevant lessons to make students more productive in society. (Kleibard 2004)

Dewey sought to use the students’ interests as springboard to delve into other areas of study. However, he was not a proponent of tailoring the curriculum to every student’s individual strengths and interests, as is prevalent in modern education today. Currently, models that are held as best practice, such as Universal Design for Learning, advocate that teachers should play up the strengths of each individual student and class in order to maximize student learning (http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent). Additionally, state law and federal regulations require that the education of students with disabilities focus on their strengths in the development of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and transition plan. In Michigan, there is also an option for students who are unable to complete the Michigan Merit Curriculum to receive a Personal Curriculum, which leads to a diploma and to equal post-secondary opportunities, or a Certificate of Completion, which will allow access to limited post-secondary opportunities.

Certainly, it holds that students will be more motivated to learn if they are successful in their education, thereby making it inherently important for students’ strengths to be highlighted in the classroom. The current educational climate forces schools to educate all students, even those who are unmotivated and do not wish to complete high school, risking punishment in the form of lost funding if all students are not successful. Therefore, it is highly important that teachers use every tool available to them, especially highlighting students’ strengths to increase success and bolster confidence.

But, it is not right that all students are forced into a curriculum that is focused on college readiness. A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post holds that the diminishing importance of high school isolates kids who are not going to college, by making them feel unsuccessful in the curriculum and “poisons the well” of education with bad attitudes and negativity. President Obama agrees that not all students should attend college, but does feel that everyone should receive some sort of post secondary training to better prepare themselves for today’s workforce and competition on a global scale (http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/college-for-all-obamas-higher-education-agenda-part-3-of-8/31832). This push is evidenced by the recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards, which “are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers.”

It is of the utmost importance that our schools successfully educate all students. In today’s economy, that does not mean that all students should attend traditional four-year colleges. But, it does mean that students should leave high school prepared for their intended career path, which is not currently being accomplished with the college readiness focus of our curriculum. The push to educate students to compete in a global society is not new, but the answers to how this should be accomplished are vastly different than were previously available.


6 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm really of two minds about this issue myself. On the one hand, people can lead happy, fulfilling lives in professions that do not require college education. So why should college readiness be the focus of secondary schooling for all students? Your discussion here supports that intuition. On the other hand, the complexity of the modern world seems to call for citizens having pretty sophisticated critical thinking and communication abilities, the sort that a liberal college education is pretty well suited to foster. And this belief always seems to get the better of me in the argument, particularly given the intrinsic rewards of higher education (exposure to literature, arts, science, etc). I wonder what weight this sort of consideration carries in your thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My response had too many characters to fit in the response box, even though it was within 750 words. Therefore, I am responding in two replies. I hope that's ok.

    You stated in your discussion that it is not fair for all students to be forced into a curriculum which is focused on college readiness. I agree with this idea, and feel high school curriculum should incorporate a wide range of contexts that allows students to explore opportunities through their own interests. Furthermore, it is important that students receive a well-rounded education to allow for students’ interests to develop, and even change. For example, because one is not interested in mathematics by the age of ten does not mean the student should be removed from learning mathematics in school. Therefore, it becomes a combination of Dewey’s ideology of creating meaningful curriculum tailored to student interests, along with providing an exposure of all subjects.
    This leads me to question what the definition of “college readiness” is. Is college readiness about the course content, rigor, or format associated with college? Meaning students in a college readiness curriculum would be prepared because the courses they take in high school prepared them for the next level in their freshman year of college. Or does it refer to being able to take a student’s ability to problem-solve, think critically, reason, adapt, and analyze to the next level as is needed in higher education? While I agree that not all students may need to be enrolled in AP courses which will give them the readiness they need to enter into college following high school, I do not think the high school curriculum should be “dumbed down” to not include such problem solving and critical thinking skills students will need to be successful in whatever endeavors they choose in their future.
    In my blog, I discussed that having a well-rounded curriculum provides students with the means to choose, and even change, different avenues for their future. If students are not provided a curriculum rich with higher level thinking skills, and which exposes them to all subjects, this may limit them in vocational, career and even higher learning choices they can make in their future. As Kleibard (2004) states, this use of curriculum leads to a “development of the kind of intelligence that would lead to a command of the conditions of one’s life and ultimately of social process,” (p. 75).


    ReplyDelete
  4. The second part of my response:

    Also in your discussion, you mentioned that when it comes to unmotivated students, “it is highly important that teachers use every tool available to them, especially highlighting students’ strengths to increase success and bolster confidence.” I wanted to expand on this thought by providing resources which offer ideas of techniques for teachers to use in motivating students. This article from ASCD discusses giving students challenge, choice, significance, feedback, and confidence as techniques to motivate unmotivated students. Also, this article from The Ohio Resource Center provides teachers factors to consider when designing “choices that have the potential to positively influence motivation and achievement.”
    You brought up the fact that there are Individualized Education Plans (IEP) for students with disabilities, as well as tailored curriculum for unmotivated students in Michigan. I am wondering if you brought that up to suggest that others could fall under the same umbrella, where curriculum could be adjusted to meet an individual student’s needs through their abilities and interests. This led me to think, what would happen if we did this for each individual student? How would the creation of a curriculum for each student based on their needs and interests help in the unmotivated climate of today’s American education? Logistically, it is obvious that this would never work because the team required and number of times they would need to meet about each student would be unattainable. Perhaps instead of creating this for all students, a sort of individualized curriculum for students who are unmotivated, and labeled as such, would be more realistic. Maybe this would fall under a behavior plan umbrella, such as a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), only more powerful since a BIP does not involve the curriculum. In this case, the curriculum could be more tailored and focused on students’ interests and could lead to a diploma which would still prepare them and allow them to pursue higher education and vocational paths of their choice. This may seem like I took your thought on curriculum changes with IEP’s in an entirely different direction than you intended, so maybe it is just food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In our current curriculum shift, we seem to be trying to intertwine both ideologies expressed by Dewey and the ideas expressed in the article written by Kleibard. We agree that all students need to be educated and we both realize that not all students learn the same. There is mutual understanding that there should be a balance between teaching skill based curricula and college bound curricula. It seems as though the current education curriculum is working towards that goal; however I feel the tools that are needed to be successful are not fully understood or overlooked. The public school systems in America will continuously struggle with issues between its students and the curriculum because the ideology is to teach all students, with ranging abilities and copious amounts of them at the same time.
    The public school system has made it possible for everyone to receive the same education. We have made many strides within education since, Bobbitt who believed that “people should not be taught what they will never use” therefore separating the males and females because they had dissimilar future roles in society (Taylor and Francis pg. 85). I firmly agree that everyone has the right to the same education, but I struggle personally with the application of this idea. If I am teaching a lesson and it is skill based, how do I keep the attention of those students who are college bound? Is it fair that I leave the students who can learn on their own to swim for themselves so that I have more time to help those who don’t understand? How is that fair to anyone? I am constantly trying to find that balance in my own classroom. I ponder and implement multiple forms of media in my lessons in an attempt to teach all students who sit in front of me.
    Another reason why the current educational curriculum is struggling is due to the lack of funding or where the funding comes from. School funding is linked to many aspects in the educational field. Less funding increases the student teacher ratio. This increase makes it more and more difficult for the individual teacher to reach every student. It is understood by some that smaller class sizes increase student learning. Dewey’s idea of creating students that are “effective in self-direction” is a skill that should be taught and developed (Kleibard pg. 69). Being self-directed will assist students in becoming more efficient and successful in society consequently making it a great idea to let students chose and take ownership of the lessons they want to do, but I would like to see what that looks like with thirty-four students and one teacher present.
    I feel strongly that public education in America has great intensions, but fails to recognize the variables that are making it fail— funding and classes are just a few. There are reasons why private schools advertise smaller class sizes. Every student that goes to a private school is paying for their education therefore taking ownership of their learning. The ideologies discussed in the articles written by Kleibard, Taylor and Francis are great, but the factors that challenge education today should not be ignored, but intertwined just like college bound curricula and skills.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really resonate with some of what you reflect on in your post. You touch on some very important and troubling issues in education. It is fascinating that the curriculum debates our education system are presently engaged in are really nothing new, but have been repeated in the time since public school education was instituted in our country.

    You stated that “it is not right that all students are forced into a curriculum that is focused on college readiness.” Some people might argue with you that by not pushing all kids into a college readiness program we are opening the door for discrimination. Tsahai H. London Sandrock points out the risk in this type of approach in her article Social Efficiency versus Democratic Equality (http://ezinearticles.com/?Social-Efficiency-versus-Democratic-Equality&id=175582). She contends that some teachers and school counselors might have no problem steering kids into certain pathways based solely on their background or the types of jobs their parents hold. I agree that this is the risk embedded in any system that doesn’t have the same educational pathway for every student.

    Other people might agree with you, though, that college isn’t for everyone. One of my coworkers has a son that attends the same high school as my daughter. He is a great kid, but struggles with some learning disabilities. They realize that a four year college is not really an option for him, but they are at a loss of what to do. He is struggling through all the academic courses, but there are no options being presented to him by the school system and counselors for any alternatives to the college track. Maybe a parent who is good at online research could come up with some good, alternative, technical training for him once he graduates from high school, but it would sure be helpful to him and his family to have people in the school system helping him to find the options out there.

    The opinion piece you referenced from The Washington Post brings an interesting twist to this discussion. Robert J. Samuelson states, “The rap against employment-oriented schooling is that it traps the poor and minorities in low-paying, dead-end jobs. Actually, an unrealistic expectation of college often traps them into low-paying, dead-end jobs — or no job.” I would argue that college expectations often trap more than just minority students. The trap of debt that many college students, regardless of race, are accruing to receive a bachelor’s degree that results in a low-paying job is astonishing. So many majors don’t lead to good paying jobs. When students are laden down with high debt for a degree that will take decades to pay off maybe a disservice has been done to them. An interesting discussion from The Diane Rehm Show (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-16/college-right-everyone)touches on this with one guest calling college graduates with huge amounts of debt “indentured servants”.

    I agree with you that our schools need to provide a good education for all students. We need to prepare students with a solid foundation in our core subjects of math, science, social studies, and language arts. Most students will need some type of post-secondary education, but maybe more of them would be better served in a two year degree, apprenticeship or certificate program than with a four year degree. We need to stop talking as if anything less than a four year degree is a failure and provide students and families with solid information about all the careers that are available and the pathway to those careers.

    ReplyDelete