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
Erica,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your beginning, explaining that just because you have experience in school does NOT mean you are an expert. Far too many people feel they have a right to make decisions about education without truly understanding what goes on in a classroom and what makes kids succeed. After reading about the unique framework and curriculum CPESS offers, I felt encouraged that there are administrators and teachers making a difference where it counts. It’s unfortunate that the school wasn’t able to keep true to its form due to outside influences and pressures. You argue that the biggest change is because the school is no longer student centered. I agree because people, who have never been educators themselves, influence some of the changes being made. It is very hard to quantify all a child knows using a standardized test. Basing a school’s success on a test does not take into consideration the different types of knowledge a student can have and doesn’t give room for educators to promote students’ abilities that don’t align with tests. As Meier reminds us, “we understand that we cannot treat any two human beings identically, but must take into account their special interest and styles even as we hold all to high and rigorous standards” (p. 49). I would argue further that each school has its own special identity with its own unique set of characteristics. A classroom is a living breathing entity that should not be shaped into a single mold. What works in one classroom may not work for another.
You bring up a good point that the Common Core Standards are beneficial since they encourage critical thinking and reasoning skills. In building a curriculum I think that the Common Core Standards are also valuable because they provide a foundation for educators to build from. While schools should have enough flexibility to create their own curriculum there should also be some consistency throughout our country in what students are expected to be able to do.
Creating a curriculum to meet the needs of all students is not an easy task. There are many factors that go into it like the type of teachers, students, administrators, parents and the community as a whole. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to start trusting and listening to our educators to make the right decisions when it comes to creating and implementing a curriculum. Furthermore, Meier adds that students should play a role in governing their own school. The goal of education reform is to create successful schools like CPESS, but in order to do that schools need the power to create a framework that has the students at the center and a curriculum that engages the students to become the life long leaders, thinkers, innovators, and leaders of tomorrow.
Erica,
ReplyDeleteI became really engaged with your first sentence because I could hear myself say, "Yes! That's exactly it!" It lead me to keep on reading and truly understand your viewpoints in your post. In such a concise way you posted about things that do not work in this educational point in American schools and then you turn it around and say, "Here's what does work". I agree with you completely on your last paragraph on the Common Core standards. These standards are the first step where we can begin shifting our view on how we teach. For instance, in Michigan, we will not have to teach towards what could possibly be on the next MEAP test, but we can teach students to be arguers, to cite evidence, to make them not just memorizers of facts.
In my opinion, I agree with your last paragraph entirely. Since the shift is slowly going to be turning away from knowing the content in and out to rather being able to use subject content in a meaningful way means worlds of a difference to how we will begin teaching in the next few years. We will begin teaching the strategies to become well-adjusted learners like Foster-Wallace states in his speech, This is Water. The focus on assessment will not be content questions but rather writing and defending opinions and citing text evidence to do so. These really are the strategies students will need in the future to analyze the world around them and to make informed decisions. Hopefully, without the negativity spread from politicians as we are seeing day in and day out in the world news that our hopes will become realities in the realm of education.
I'm tempted to agree that CPESS is a model for what constitutes a workable curriculum. But I'm a bit unsure since I'm unsure of exactly what its core features are. You seem to suggest here they include teacher control, portfolio type assessment, a cooperative environment, and a focus on core skills like critical thinking across the curriculum. Is that about right? If so, what might be the place of some of the other things we've explored like care, character education, and democratic education? Some things to consider!
ReplyDelete