"The education-reform debate as we have known it for a generation is creaking to a halt. No new way of thinking has emerged to displace those that have preoccupied reformers for a quarter- century — but the defining ideas of our current wave of reform ( standards, testing, and choice), and the conceptual framework built around them, are clearly outliving their usefulness.
The problem is not that these ideas are misguided. Rather, they are just not powerful enough to force the rusty infrastructure of American primary and secondary education to undergo meaningful change. They have failed at bringing about the reformers' most important goal: dramatically improved student achievement.
The next wave of education policy will therefore need to direct itself toward even more fundamental questions, challenging long-held assumptions about how education is managed, funded, designed, and overseen."
I have two questions (you could answer both in the same comment, answer one and ignore the other, or write two separate comments). The first is: Do you agree with Checker Finn's statement that the primary external reforms of the last quarter-century (standards, testing, and reform) have outlived their usefulness? Why or why not?
The second question is: What external reform do you think will have the largest impact on public education over the next quarter-century? Why?
54 comments:
(Question 1) I think I do agree with Finn. In the article, "The end of the education debate," it said that much improvement has not been made in the school outcomes such as graduation rates, international rankings and test scores - that they have just remained flat. I also think that standards-reform is promoting competition between teachers, schools as well as states. So much focus on scores is not promoting collaboration, which is what we have been talking so much about. Also, if after all this time has passed and it's not helping with improvement, then another type of reform must be created.
I do not believe the current education reforms have outlived their usefulness. Researchers continue to uncover new data and develop more precise tools that seem to enable greater student achievement while generating heightened accountability measures. Politics aside, the philosophical and psychological underpinings of "accountability" measures generally appear to lead to greater productivity and heightened results. Opportunities still remain for greater analysis, discovery, and implementation of current reform initaitives.
The next impact or series of impacts , on public education will be a battle of ideologies, along the lines of the political polarization we are experiencing today.
On the one hand, there is rising support for the Reform efforts that begin the 1980s. spearheaded by Reagan’s A Nation at Risk, and E.D. Hirsch focus on"cultural literacy". Advocates of this reform, emphasis a “ back to the basics” aproach.
On the other hand, we have the Outcome-based education: “ a student-centered learning philosophy that focuses on empirically measuring student performance, which are called outcomes”. Advocates of this reform emphasis the importance of accountability for all ( students and teachers ).
So I wonder: “ why can’t we be friends?” why not a hybrid model? We will always have divergent ideologies as long as we are in a democracy. But, no, I am afraid this is going to be a “change war’ as one proponent demonizes the other, and the masses get caught in the middle. However, what might be the “tipping point”, is the impact of China, India and the emerging economies ( Brazil, finland) in the world’s economy. Once we realize not that we may be falling behind, but that we are . . . pretty far behind ( see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZnSG6gg1vs&feature=player_embedded#!)
Then might become less polarized in our views and more proactive in our educational aims.
Finn’s statement brings some debate to the table. I do agree to a certain extent, that past and current education-reform has outlived its usefulness. Yet, there are some levels of reform we currently have with potential to be useful with proper tweaking. While saying this, I also believe that as long as there’s a political arena housing any reform, progress will continue to be hindered. Politically inclined humans are not always your best problem solvers as their motives are not always in the best of all children.
Presently, when most think of education-reform, they generally end up concentrating primarily assessment or measurement component, rather than the effectiveness or appropriateness of the curriculum pieces that are to be assessed, thus the pit-falls, inconsistencies and gaps. I am not sure of how America might achieve true education-reform. But one thing is for sure, it is not happening anytime soon.
Question 1: While the end goal has not been achieved, I do not think that these reforms have outlived there usefulness. Improving student achievement dramatically is such a subjective concept that improving on student achievement will have different meanings to different sets of individuals. I almost feel that had the reforms of the past quarter century not been standards, testing, and choice, we still would be searching for the answer to improving student achievement. When it comes to education, improving student achievement is always the end goal, but is there ever a right way to get there. Even if we try to address fundamental issues in education, will we ever be satisfied with the resulting student achievement? Now I do feel that the reforms of the last quarter century do leave more to be desired but they do not mean they cannot be useful to help improve student achievement.
Any thoughts on the next external reform that might have a big impact on K-12 education?
Dr. G
I completely agree with what Trea said that the focus on standards, choice and testing has helped us towards the end goal --> student achievement. We still have a lot of work to do.
Coming from the younger elementary perspective, one of my biggest concerns has always been what David mentioned: the effectiveness and appropriateness of curriculum. we focus so much on standards, and levels but no one stops to think how appropriate some of the standards are to the children we are teaching. For example, Kindergartners are on such different levels and everything that I have learned, been taught, and researched about says that we develop our letter knowledge and literacy type of things at varying ages. This is not to say that we should not push our children or not all be around the same levels at some point but some of the expectations are too high, and valued too high for some standards. Just because a K student can not read by the end of the year does not mean this child has not been successful. There are many areas in which this same child could develop other skills at their pace. If we stepped aside and looked at the curriculum, and relieved the teachers of some pressure that all children must be able to do certain things (Specifically for PK-1), then children's willingness to learn and engage might increase which then may result in better student achievement. If this K student is pushed and pushed, then frustration may ensue (Once again, not saying we should not push our students to the best of their ability). Evaluating curriculum for appropriateness and effectiveness is important.
Before answering the questions, I thought about the way we see schools. Do we look at them as firms or do we see them as bureaucracies? Depending on the way you see the organization, your answers to the questions could be different. For me, I see school as a bureaucracy. According to Weber, German sociologist, there are six characteristics of bureaucracies. In my opinion, schools are organized in this way. Because of this, we will not see great change in a short period of time. Bureaucracies are designed to be that way. Change occurs slowly; for the benefit of the organization. Therefore, I disagree with Finn. New reform initiatives will only halt the incremental changes being made up to this point.
As Arpita stated: evaluating curriculum for appropriateness and effectiveness is important. It is critical for educators and administrators to examine the “ effectiveness” piece. How what we “learn” will equip our students to be successful.
There is growing awareness amongst Americans that our focus on standardized testing, is depleting our ability to produce analytical thinkers. Arianna Huffington in her book “ Third World America” states: “ our all-out embrace of testing has given us the standardization of education, the destruction of critical thinking and the categorization of millions of our children as failure.”
When I visited the lab of a friend who is the head of the biochemistry department at a University, I was surprised to see that all his doctoral students were from around the globe India, China, Korea, Iran. . . none from the United States. I asked him, why such phenomenon and he stated: “ American student today cannot function without a set of choices, our foreign students have learned in their countries how to create choices from nothing.”
In our current two-tier educational system, I agree with Finn that current reforms such as increased standards and testing have done little to produce meaningful change for struggling schools and students other than to expose and highlight the various achievement gaps. However, in low-income communities, I do believe that school choice in the form of charter, magnet and specialized schools has allowed a growing number of vested parents the ability to group with similar-minded parents in offering their children better individual educational opportunities than available at the neighborhood school, albeit further isolating the children who remain behind (Arne Duncan’s 5%). I think the more essential reform is for American schools to figure-out (?) how to once again motivate all students and their families into believing that an education is actually of significant value and should be of top priority. As for the most important reform of the next 25 years, I believe economists will force a monetary shift of emphasis from high school to pre-K/early elementary and that, rightly or wrongly, urban areas, with the support of philanthropists, will begin to emulate the neighborhood, wrap-around model of The Children’s Zone in Harlem.
I definitely agree that standardization and testing have outlived their usefulness.
Districts go overboard in their attempts to align and standardize curriculums to the point of stifling teachers' abilities to create and inspire. An experienced teacher may feel his/her passion for the job compromised by the rote nature of 21st century instruction, compared to when they started their career. Worse, new teachers have no basis for comparison (they were not around during the time when teachers enjoyed more autonomy) and are beginning careers that may be viewed from the outset as even more unfulfilling than teaching has stereotypically been viewed, possibly leading to greater rates of attrition for new teachers than before.
Testing has become so frequent and commonplace that, as Finn illuminates in his article, students and parents are dizzy from test frequency, apathetic toward test preparation and increasingly more wary of the validity of the results. Such fatigue and apathy will not improve test results but will lead to a greater "who cares" attitude by students and parents. There is likely a certain "boy cries wolf" reaction growing in families toward modern standardized testing-"here we go again, the 10th test this year, they can't all be THAT important, can they?" To combat this negative attitude, school executives now must employ theatrics with dogs and ponies to ensure attendance on test days- I have worked in schools that allowed students to violate the dress code and wear hats ("thinking caps") on test days, or bribed students with special snacks. If we have to make test day more important to students than instructional days, as an educator, I myself am suspicious of the over-all validity of the test results.
I do not believe that reforms have outlived their usefulness. I agree with many points David brought up in his post, specifically that "certain reforms have potential to be useful with tweaking". Take the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Although I believe that the 2014 goal that every child will test on grade level in reading and math is unrealistic, data shows that the implementation of NCLB has resulted in a rise in student achievement in many schools. Like all reforms this act has pros and cons, it is because of organizations like the National Education Association that the "tweaking" occurs. According to their website the NEA lobbyists continue to meet with congress to show them the impact NCLB has on our schools. This is the type of attitude we need in order to improve current reforms, in turn slowly improving America's educational system.
#1, I do feel that testing and stardards have the right intentions, but are misguided. When Schools under preform they are sanctioned and broken up. These schools have to pay for studets to get extra tutoring instead of getting extra funding to help what is happening presently in the school. Testing and standards are good if the follow up is more effective.
I feel the largest external reform will be very external. The globalization that is going on is leaving our students behind. In everything I have read about the way the world economy is going all says that the US's only contribution will be as inovators. Our schools need to reflect this. Students and teachers need to be rewarded for creativity and exploration. We are one of the the only first world nation that does not track our students. If we do not want to be caught in the race to the bottom we need to teach innovation and adaptability in schools.
I agree with David, too often people are concerned with standards and specific results. What we need is to study how effective teaching styles are. Effectiveness is over looked all too often. Who cares if you can make the best buggy whip when the world wants flying cars.
The external reform that I think will have the largest impact on K-12 education is Race to the Top. The first impact I believe it will have is dependant on whether a state chose to participate in the process. Some states, such as Texas, decided that they "would not place their children's future in the hands of politicians in Washington"(Press Release by Governor Perry) Other states, such as North Carolina, who scored 414 out of 500 points during the first round revised their application and were selected during the second round with 441.6 points, immediately implemented changes to meet the expectations of the grant. By not having all states involved we already begin this "reform" without an even playing field and buy in. Along with the changes made in various states that will impact curriculum, standards, data systems and assessments, the biggest impact I believe will come from teacher accountability. One of the components was to explain how the state would improve teacher and principal effectiveness, directly correlating this to student performance. This past April Florida legislators passed a bill linking teacher pay to student performance. This bill, passed at 2:30am, was later vetoed by Governor Crist after hearing the voices of teachers all across the state. Performance based pay has been a hot topic lately, and I believe this will continue to be the focus in the years to come.
From the readings and personal opinion, there seems to be a general understanding that our public education system is broken. Logic says if something is broken, fix it. After going through the readings, I get a sense that, all the suggestions to the problem evade the problem itself; having said that, any new reform must take into account the diversity of public education itself. I do agree with Finn, in his criticism of the “one best system” of public education. Reforms today tend to be generalized to all because of the politicalization of education. Once education becomes polarized and political the individual problems of individual education systems are fed generalized solutions that can not solve the problem. Now what would the next external reforms be; I agree with Will in that I think they will be monetary tied to incorporation of the local community. Hopefully, in this case, any reforms that happen at the local level will be able to emphasize the individuality of problems and their specific solutions.
In response to question one, I have to agree with what has been said regarding the usefulness of primary external reforms with some alterations. I think that the problem is not necessarily in the execution of the reform, but instead in the way we are interpreting the reform data. If instead of focusing on the number of students who are "proficient," we used a growth model to examine student improvement over time, reform data would look very different. Additionally, we have to consider the changing face of education as we look to evaluate the effectiveness of external reforms. Students are faced with different challenges than we were even ten years ago, changes that should be taken into account when looking at reform. Like others, I don't think that standardization and testing are the be-all-end-all and that there are certainly aspects of these reforms that need to be reviewed and adjusted, however I think they are steps in the right direction. It is also important to keep in mind that change does not happen over night and that it is a gradual process. NCLB forced extensive testing from the get-go where it should have been more gradually introduced for maximum effectiveness. Future reforms should look to initiate smaller changes over time and allow for evaluation of these components in order to work towards the most effective reforms.
I feel I may need to explain my earlier post a little further. After reading it, I realized, my comments on evading the problems of our broken public education system was a result of my reaction to the article/ debate between Enlow and Mathews over the issues of school choice. Personally, I feel the issue of school choice is the reform that has outlived its usefulness. The reason I say this is because the debate of school choice, focuses not on fundamental issues of schools and learning but on movement of students. In a sense I felt both Enlow and Mathews offered no solutions to fix our broken education system but instead found ways around it. I think it is this defeatist attitude that prevents essential change from happening. If people feel there is no point in fixing the problem, then nothing will be done and only lip service will be provided to the issue. I still feel that other reforms such as standardization and testing provide items we can build on and should be not completely rejected. Trying to improve student achievement requires patience and mistakes.
Heidi brought up a great point when she wrote "Future reforms should look to initiate smaller changes over time and allow for evaluation of these components in order to work towards the most effective reforms". After reading the press release on Governor Purdue's website about NC adopting Common Core State Standards I spent time reading through the common core's website. Although I knew that state's had adopted these standards I was not aware of the timeline they had in place. This reform is one example of what Heidi stated, the standards are expected to roll out in the fall of 2012. Often programs are begun without full understanding of its trajectory and plan for implementation, causing it to fail. I'm hopeful that the team working on the Common Core State Standards will be prepared to implement an effective program for all states involved.
A reform initiative that will have a large impact on K-12 public education will be multiple re-authorizations of ESEA in the next twenty-five years. The consistent cycle of disfaction theory will continue based on the assumption that added funding will lead to heightened student achievement.Greater student achievement data linked to teacher accountability mechanisms may cause teacher quality to re-eemerge as the dominant "issue of necessary change."
As far as future reforms are concerned, I think that Paul raises an excellent point about looking at effectiveness. Despite of the changing face of education that I mentioned in my earlier post, we need to be sure that we are doing the most with what we have. This brings me back to the importance of moving to a growth model. How can we expect children who have recently arrived in the country, speaking little to no English and having never read a word in their lives, to achieve at the same level as children who grew up reading, writing, and speaking English? Similarly, how can we expect a child who is learning disabled to achieve at that same level? While we sit and talk about the importance of differentiation, our education system is inherently flawed in that we fail to take into account the that different students start at different places. Honestly, I don't know that any of these reforms are going to "fix" the state of education in the US. I think a lot of what we are doing is trying to put a band-aid on a gaping wound, which has been (and will continue to be) ineffective. We try to implement all of these new, revolutionary reforms as soon as they come on the market without putting the time and effort into researching their effectiveness. Additionally, one single reform will not be the cure-all; it is going to take different agencies working together to implement a comprehensive plan to ultimately change the state of education in the US.
Looking back at other posts, I wanted to agree with Maria with regard to Race To The Top, a program which promises a lot and might deliver much-needed support to our beleaguered and cash-strapped public school system, but is rife with potentially inherent inequities. I hope that Race To The Top money is able to partner with genuine need instead of widening the gap between have's and have-not's.
I am conflicted with the second issue raised by Maria with regard to teacher accountability and merit-based pay. I agree with teachers who are wary of pay increases based on student performance, especially those teachers employed in historically low performing, low income districts. The odds of their students achieving minimum competency are much higher than the odds of students in a district like Chapel Hill-Carrboro. This is a premise rife with potential inequity, varying by school and district, and such a system will also discourage talented teachers from working in lower performing schools.
I do believe however that many arm-chair quarterbacks (like my favorite commentator Bill Maher)who are fond of cricizing public education have a point with regard to substandard, tenured teachers. Principals and Superintendents are expected to be "transparent" but weak teachers often act as if they have much to hide and protect.
I don't believe in merit-based pay but I also don't believe it is fair to question public education until we begin to compensate educators as we do with most other college-educated professionals. It will be much easier to recruit and retain the best possible teachers and weed out those who are unworthy to teach our students when we pay more competitively. The standard pay scales and district supplements must increase dramatically before it is fair to bury teachers in criticism. As a reform, teacher pay won't have the opportunity to have the largest impact on public education because it likely won't occur but it would be a powerful tool to justify increased accountability and reform our schools.
Merit-based pay for teachers has been the source of much heated debate. In fact, some districts have implemented merit-based pay systems, however, in most cases; it was found that it made minimal impact upon teacher performance and student outcomes. One of teh cited reasons why the system may not have worked was the small percentage increases offered to teachers. That said, it would be interesting to see if monies, such as those earmarked for grant competitions such as Race to the Top, were used for salary increases as a means to infuse greater competition within already beleaguered teacher labor markets.
I'm reading a lot of comments mentioning teacher evaluations and tying them in some way to student achievement (which was part of many of the RTtT grant applications). We will talk about this more in our classes on data-driven decision making and HR practices, but I agree that it is a reform that could have some interesting consequences.
Courtnee makes an interesting point about bureaucracies and their inherent inability to change or improve quickly. I think Checker Finn would agree with that point, and use it as an argument that any new sets of reforms may need to change the underlying structure of schools in order to be truly effective.
Do you all agree or disagree? Are schools bureaucracies that, by their very nature, will resist outside reforms and figure out ways to maintain the status quo? Is improvement in K-12 education only going to really occur when the basic notion of schools and schooling changes?
Dr. G
I’m not sure what I believe regarding Checker Finn’s statement about reforms of the last quarter-century. People have been making interesting arguments both ways and that in itself is an interesting point. You can find statistics and research to defend any position.
I guess what I am more concerned with are the people who create the reforms and their experiences in the education field. We have mentioned the short comings of reforms and what reforms will need to look like in the future but in the articles I read I have yet to find someone who has given a systematic approach as to how to fix the “mess” (some people would say) we are in. Maybe that brings up another point: how in the world are we ever going to come to a conclusion about what is needed to improve education? Are we just going to keep going round and round with ideas we think might work?
I truly believe that schools are bureaucracies and reformers do not take that into consideration. I also think that reform initiatives do not take the human element of schools into consideration. School reform initiatives sound great ie. merit-based pay, but how can a teacher in a non-tested subject area receive this pay? That's just one question. Cookie-cutter initiatives can work in a firm; you produce the needed monies or products, you get a raise. If not, you're fired. There is no subjectivity there. In schools, most evaluations are subjective, including standardized tests (cultural, SES-biases). Schools are not able to function with the same standards as firms, but we want them to. Therefore, in order for schools to change drastically, the entire organization of schools must change.
I completely agree with Courtnee's statement that "in order for schools to change drastically, the entire organization of schools must change." We are constantly trying to change snippets of what goes on in schools by reacting to perceived problems, which thus far has proven ineffective. Without a complete overhaul of the education system, we are going to continue to run into problems with each and every reform that is attempted. With that, I agree with what Liz mentioned about having to take into consideration who is creating the reforms. As we all know from being in schools, the view from the outside-in is very different than the reverse and without seeking the input of those in the trenches, outsiders cannot possibly form a solid understanding of the issues in education. On the other hand, I don't think that everyone in education agrees on what the problems are. Without agreement on what the core issues are, how can we even begin to devise, let alone implement, a successful reform?
Question 1:
Yes, to a large extent, I agree that those "primary external reforms" have outlived their usefulness. I agree with Finn because he articulates that viewpoint fairly and comprehensively. In summary, he acknowledges that the old "ideas", at the core, are not misguided, rather as ideas alone, they have not been able to penetrate the fundamental issues impacting education in America and thus, no significant change has occurred.
His point does not attack the virtues of the "old ideas" nor those in education, and elsewhere, who still value the merit of the old debate.
Rather, both wisely and concisely, he illuminates the reality that the educational system does not exist in a vacuum and therefore cannot be "dramatically improved" by doing the same old things, the same old way.
While I can appreciate the spirit of his thought, I partly disagree with Finn's assertion that "No new way of thinking has emerged to displace those that have preoccupied reformers for a quarter-century".
There are numerous "new ways of thinking about and approaching education" that have emerged during the last 25 years.
Notably, programs like Teach for America (www.teachforamerica.org), The Algebra Project (www.algebra.org), and DonorsChoose (www.donorschoose.org) all propose 'ideas' about ways to improve education...albeit from various angles.
But, that's the entire point! It's fundamentally necessary to explore improving education "from various angles" because, as I said in my last post, the educational system in America "does not exist in a vacuum."
Therefore, solutions to improve the system won't likely come from a singular approach...right? Wrong?
-------
(Will continue this rant in the next post...)
But, I only "partly disagreed" with Finn on that last point. Here goes the rest...
The other half of me unfortunately has to acknowledge that he was correct in saying no new ideas have really "displaced" the old standards.
Whose fault is that though?
(Example) Can anyone justifiably blame the "employee" (who has REALLY great, creative, and enthusiastic ideas for change) just because his "boss" won't allow him to implement those ideas?
No, that's absurd...in my opinion, you blame "the boss" for being too ignorant--or too selfish--to implement ideas that benefit the masses.
(In this case, the masses of children in America that are left out of the equation and still "Waiting for Superman" to save them. See http://tiny.cc/9myux)
So much of the old debate (and the subsequent stalemate) about education is due to "the boss".
"So, who is this boss you're referring to Andre?" Great question!
I'm clearly not suggesting that any single person has the power to dictate education policies at this point in time, rather that the answer to, "Who's the boss?" can be found by evaluating the full context of education in America.
(See http://tiny.cc/5mxz8)
I maintain that education in America was NEVER intended to be equal for all.
Per that basic principle...I recognize that a systematic approach has been taken to obstruct any (and all) efforts to create education equality and to hinder (as Finn suggests) the ability to "dramatically improve student achievement."
"The boss", in my opinion, is the systematic approach (itself) to hindering educational progress.
To respond to the notion that schools are generally bureaucracies, I tend to agree with this. Essentially, today’s public schools are, in a sense, bureaucracies. Our government, federal, state and local, all have their hands in forming how education is delivered. With this, reform is merely a concept that comes in cycles based upon how these entities discriminate what achievement is.
We can all agree that our educational system, in its present state, is erratic at best. Further, the tainted ideal of what education is remains somewhat constant, yet convoluted. Our short falls come with the continuous desire to reinvent the wheel due to the perception that the educational realm is broken. In essence, a true education has no set formula or any prescriptive measure. Historically, the powers that be have generally viewed education reform through "conform to the norm" lenses. As we all know, one size does always fit all.
Most issues arise with the bureaucracy laden rhetoric we get from politicians who, for the most part, have not been teachers or administrators. The common exposure most have had is from when they were in school ages ago. This disconnect lends itself to the implementation of problematic concepts like we’ve seen over the past 25 years.
I believe that standards reform has been a great tool in terms of aligning everyone with the same goals. Education is a very abstract concept and I believe that standards reform helps to apply practicality to a very abstract philosophy. In the case study article it specifically states that before the standards reform movement was applied in Washington teachers were all doing different things in their classroom. How can any collaboration occur when everyone is promoting their own agenda of education. With standards reform everyone know shares a common language where dialogue can take place.
I do agree with Paul that the problem with standards reform is usually the follow-up to standardized testing scores. When I completed my internship in Miami the follow-up to standardized testing made absolutely no sense and only furthered the achievement gap. In Miami schools would receive letter grades which were directly correlated to the school's performance on standardized testing. Best schools would be awarded an A and the worst schools would be awarded an F. The "A" schools would receive more funding and the "F" schools would face restructuring. What sense does that make?
I really liked Trea's comment about Enlow and Matthew's debate. Yes, it is true that our public education system is broken. To me it seems that Matthew's idea of vouchers and Enlow's idea about charter schools (or was it the other way around) as being solutions to fixing public school education is like placing a band-aid on a bullet hole. I applaud them for their ideas but it is going to take a lot more than just vouchers and charter schools to fix something that has been broken for a very long time. Therefore fixing public education is going to take some time and it is going to require multiple solutions.
I really enjoyed their debate because at least they are offering possible solutions just as standards reform was offered as a possible solution. I believe it is extremely important that many ideas are debated and discussed involving possible solutions to help public education.
With regards to reform, I will not be suprised to see the current core standards movement be followed by similar support for a core curriculum, as offered by Hirsch's Core Knowledge Foundation. He argues, probably correctly, that a coherent, cumulative, and content-specific curriculum can make great strides in decreasing the achievement gap between income classes. My worry is that after a core curriculum is initiated on a large-scale basis, will standardized instruction be far behind, as was proposed this past year for the second grade reading program in Durham?
If we think from all angles- ode to Andre- do we truly think teachers will be on board? There is so much backlash from the educational community when businesses try to put a foot in the door! We all know that schools are not firms, but why do some of us shudder every time we hear that businesses are in schools trying to make a difference? Many complain about the Race To the Top model. I often hear, "Schools aren't businesses, so businessmen/women do not need to run schools. They have no idea on how to do things!" Can we truly listen from all angles? Right now, the Democratic party is being torn because of the two mindsets. You have the structuralist and those who look at everything from a humanist point of view. Will we ever come to a happy chord? Probably not; therefore, school reform will continue to be the spiral we face today.
I like Andre's comment about improving education from various angles. David also touched on this in his post when he said a true education has no set formula or any prescriptive measure. I’m curious about Andre’s point of a systematic approach hindering the educational system. I think this could bring about an interesting discussion in class that aligns with the implementation of common core standards.
Yes, I agree with Checker Finn's statement that the primary external reforms of the last quarter-century (standards, testing, and reform) have outlived their usefulness. As stated in this article and shown by statistics, there have been no significant gains in test scores in the last 25 years and we have even been surpassed in graduation, college-matriculation, and college-completion rates by other countries. These facts, amongst others, prove that these external reforms are not working and we must utilize the lessons learned from these experiences to build a stronger, more effective educational system in the US.
I think the external reform that will have the largest negative impact on public education is testing (done as it is now). The fact that students may not score at a certain level on a standardized test (of which a passing score is determined by the state and changes periodically) does not mean that students have not received a good education and have not made positive academic change. Due to test scores, a school is labeled good or bad. It is unfair to label a school solely on standardized test scores especially when we are to produce a productive citizen who is globally competitive. This means we must cater to the whole student and s/he must be able to master abstract skills such as working effectively in groups and being able to articulate ideas without delay. These items are not assessed through standardized test.
I tend to agree with Kewanda, and others who have posted, that testing is a serious issue in the school reform debate. If testing doesn't prove students are learning how should we track student results? In looking back at Finn's article and Paul's statements I think effective teaching styles, or as Finn describes as what actually goes on in the classroom, is what needs to be looked the most in the next wave of school reform.
I agree with Finn that a lot of the policies and strategies in education have outlived their usefulness. The increased emphasis on standardized testing has become all about the numbers and not as much about student growth in all areas of education (i.e. character development). And, I like to think that the reason these policies are not bringing about the changed that was intended is because teachers are still trying to mold and sculpt kids and not necessarily striving for numbers and AYP growth.
In terms of the what policies and movements in education will most likely have the largest impact on education in the future, I feel that a revival of the educational theories and degression of increased standardization is key. I'm so tired of looking at my classroom and trying to convince myself that all the students are the same and that it is necessary that they all think the same way about the material. Education as it stands today is a one size fits all approach. Instead, we should look at education through all the theories that suggest that we should make education relevant and individual. For instance, assess and relate the material according to Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. I think by doing so, students will abandon the "who cares" attitude that Finn discusses and, instead, start to experience a relevant education that is more intrinsically motivating. I think both teachers and students are more likely to buy into this approach, hopefully proving to be a more enduring and fruitful approach.
I agree with what Liz said about how research can pull you in many directions. Research often times leans towards your views and you try to make a strong argument for what you believe in. We definitely need to gather information from inside and outside of a school to find out what is working and why. Also, will one standard reform work for every school? Or do we need to make different reforms depending on the area, environment, and community.
I am also interested in knowing and researching more about merit-based pay. I feel like this could work and fail all at the same time.
In reading some of the older posts, I saw some discussion of the Race to the Top strategy, and like most people I remain optimistic while at the same time cautious. I see the potential for this program to become enduring policy that helps a number of issues--namely, budget constraints. But, also, I see the possibility that it could be another loathed NCLB-like intiative that won't stand the test of time.
legislative landscape
I do not think that the reforms Finn refers to have outlived their usefulness. No system should be responsible for policing itself or for creating all of its own measures of success and internally designing approaches to satifying those measures. External establishment of common standards (the common core) and the further creation of standardized measures to determine whether the common standards are met is essential if we are to make the gains necessary to maximize educational opportunity for all children.
NCLB and the Reach for the Top grant money are right minded, yet flawed, attempts at doing what is best for all of our children. The common core, along with measures to determine whether content is beng learned that are consistent across state boundaries will hopefully counteract the downward slide of state testing standards and help to put us back on an upward trajectory for achieving results.
If the commmon core and the standardized testing associated with it is successful in creating a level playing field across state boundaries and we get the necessary participation from the states then we no longer have a moving target as far as high stakes end of grade testing goes. I think the real gains will be made in the broader implementation of a standardized framework of formative assessment in the classroom that will allow us to efectively direct the right resources and instruction to all students, particularly the students at risk of failure.
I hope the greatest reforms that we see in the next quarter century focus on creating a more efficient and effective data driven environment in the classroom. An environment that by its very nature encourages teachers to work together. We need a model that breaks down the walls between classrooms. One example of a different model is to have teachers of a given grade level broken down by their individual strengths whether it be AIG, ELL or reaching those kids that are just below the bar or above the bar but who have potential to move significantly. So each teacher with a given expertise has a cohort of kids in his class that will benefit most from his expertise. In addition to this cohort he will also have a small mix of other students but primarily those that need his expertise. Each teacher brings to the PLC his or her expertise in a given area and drives the planning in that given area for the whole grade level. The AIG specialist comes to PLC with a lesson that she will use in her class with her AIG cohort and gets the benefit of input from her peers during that planning session. This procedure is repeated for all areas of expertise. One desired outcome of this approach is a strong collegial relationship among teachers of a given grade level and a strong sense of shared responsibility for all of their students.
In response to question one, I am ambivalent towards the idea of the external reforms of the last quarter-century. On the one hand, I agree with Finn that they have outlived their usefulness. The common goal behind standards, testing, and school choice was increasing student achievement; unfortunately, these reforms have not proven themselves to achieve this end. In Finn’s article he highlights the fact that “American test scores…graduation rates….our international rankings…[and] SAT scores” have all remained the same despite efforts to increase them. Essentially, if the goal of the reforms was to increase student achievement and this end has not been achieved after twenty-five years, then it is impossible to deny the fact that these changes aren’t working.
On the other hand, I do still believe that standards, testing, and school choice have the potential to reform our American school system, but that the efforts to employ them have been misguided and unrealistic. No one can deny that examining student outcomes—i.e. standardized testing results, graduation rates, etc.—at least partially reflect the quality of education in a school setting. Accountability is an important measurement tool in our system, though testing and standards need significant reform to make them much more consistent and fair. Likewise, I personally think that having more thorough and clear standards—and assessments that are truly aligned to these standards—would result in better teaching practices.
Aripita’s comment about how testing has created competition between teachers, schools, and states and therefore decreased collaboration is interesting. I do agree that competition has been created by testing, but I think, for the most part, this competition has been directed towards good means to an end. As educators, we have personally witnessed and been a part of the PLC movement which has led to common planning, common assessment, and collective data analysis, all of which have seemed—in my own experience—to reform teaching practices for the better. (With the exclusion of over emphasis on test preparation…gewww.)
In response to Dr. Graham’s second question concerning what external reform will have the largest impact over the next-quarter century, I believe that accountability will continue to play a significant role in our system’s reform. With the competition of the Race to the Top grants and the adoption of the National Common Core State Standards, I foresee more states adapting to increased federal control over education, though whether this will have beneficial or malevolent effects, I have yet to decide. Especially in our current economy, many states have financial incentives to adapt to what Washington decides is the most appropriate measures towards educational reform. However, in reality, Aripita and Romano discuss interesting implications of accountability: the concern that American students are losing the ability to think critically and can only function when given a set of answers to choose from. This is a reality—which as of now seems to be merely an assumption—that definitely frightens me, but it seems that standardized testing is the most efficient and objective way to measure student achievement.
Maria and Spencer’s comments on merit-based pay and its effects are something that really interest me. I tend to agree with Spencer’s ideas that merit-based pay is complicated. To echo his comments, it would be difficult to set guidelines for how this pay would actually work. Would teachers in historically low-income schools follow different guidelines than those in historically high-achieving schools? Also, the idea of merit-based pay seems too objective for the reality that is a subjective system. I also think there is validity to Spencer’s idea of paying teacher’s better in general. Especially in a state like North Carolina where the pay is very low, it seems hard to attract the best and brightest to the teaching field.
Looking back at older post, Arpita made the comment that standardized test promoted competition and demoted collaboration between teachers, schools, districts, and states. I totally agree with this notion. Although most schools have carved out time for teachers to collaborate and encouraged them to design and use the same rubrics, assessments, grading systems, etc. most teachers only focus and care about “their” students and “their” test scores.
While conversing with a former co-worker last evening, she shared with me a very timely example that proves this point. During a staff meeting the principal shared with them testing data from the 2009-2010 academic year. The discussion was what can be done throughout the school to not only have all students make 3’s and 4’s, but for each student to make academic change. One teacher made several snide comments stating that ALL of her students made 3’s and 4’s without retest and therefore she had done her part.
Many teachers treat the world of teaching as an individual sport, only concerned with their performance and the success of the children they teach. This attitude will not lead to all students being successful and if merit-based pay is added, it will only get worse.
Kwanda made an excellent point on the "teachers seeing teaching as an individual sport". The "private practice component".
It will be up to us to fragment that notion of 'isolated success" and set the stage for positive interdependence as the universal guideline for teaching and learning.
Post a Comment