status quo
current events
I caught an episode of The Daily Show several months ago, and the guest was Diane Ravitch, author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System (see video at right). She reveals how "No Child Left Behind" has turned our schools into little more than testing factories. She began by asking the studio audience how much they liked testing (they booed, naturally.) We've lost so many of the fun electives (and, increasingly, essentials like history, arts, science, civics, p.e.) that make school interesting and fun. Our kids (and our teachers, too, I imagine) hope to come to school for more than just test practice, after all. As a moderately-healthy product of public education system of the 70s, I tend to assume tests are a practical, inevitable and logical component of the learning process. In part, they are. But to see what the push for rigid, standardized testing has ultimately cost our students (our nation?) is sobering - and feels counterintuitive, somehow. But the fact that this demand has resulted in consistently failing our students can't really be ignored for that much longer, can it? If our politicians live and breathe by the numbers, why aren't they listening? The numbers clearly aren't adding up, according to the statistics we hear about. Why do we continue to accept this downhill slide? Is it more than a lack of awareness - I know that even as a parent, I never questioned the wisdom of "testing" in the schooling process. I never even imagined that educational wasn't always done this way. And if the pitiful results of the constant push for more and more testing aren't proof enough, what will it take to combat the lethargy of doing things they way they've "always been done"?
Which brings me to our class notes this week - the need for change doesn't seem to be enough to prompt the need for action. The motivation for change isn't enough if we won't act on it. At the risk of sounding like a TV-holic - although Comedy Central-holic might be more accurate? - The Daily Show, posted 10/11/11, ( I know - "Again?" you're wondering..."I thought she was a 
'reader'...?" I happily admit I get most of my TV news via The Colbert Report and The Daily Show) aired a segment the other night by British comedian John Oliver. He was "covering" the Occupy Wall Street event (with his typical wit and outsider's perspective) and after interviewing several of the protestors, ducked into a local bar to chat with some of the city's "normal" folk. Well-meaning, middle-class-appearing citizens, enjoying cold beverages; and all of them sided with the alternative-appearing protestors and the need to address the inequities of our current economic system. All agreed something needs to be done. They also felt it would be in the country's best interest if changes could be made. And all of them recognized the need for a call to action. But that action, for them - and for most of us, really - was to get home, get the kids off to bed, and catch up on some reality TV.
"A call to action or a call to recognition is not enough. This in itself is interesting. A recent theorist explained that when we are encouraged not to accept a call to action that we are actually being encouraged to maintain the status quo. The belief in: 'Don't challenge something unless you can provide an alternative,' actually allows (encourages) us to be oppressed to accept certain positions without question. " Ulveland, Unit 2
In the comedy sketch, those that were obeying that call seemed to be on the fringe element of society. Does that imply a lack of credibilty somehow? Does wearing the "wrong" clothing or hairstyles, or choosing body art or piercings as forms of expression, negate the message of reform? There is some irony in this, to be sure. But there is also that kind of response to a situation that moves some to move. That was what I admired about what the sketch reveals about human nature - we can recognize the need to stand up for our beliefs (or frustrations or injustices) and yet still not feel strongly motivated enough to participate. In general, we (like the diners Oliver spoke with) must still feel relatively comfortable with our lives and choices.
As a nation, we haven't gathered up enough strength/indignation/outrage to actually dump the tea in the harbor, as it were. We fail to recognize the depth of the need - or the breadth of the problem - or we shelve it as not-quite-bad-enough-to-get-up-from-the-couch. Or look out from behind the monitor and keyboard. I'm just as guilty as the people in the sketch - but maybe by educating myself about the situation in our students, and increasing my awareness of the magnitude of the public school debacle we now face - I'm inching closer to the precipice of actual involvement. The cynic in me reminds me that up 'til now, the status quo seems to have sufficed. I'm hoping that the next eight weeks might reveal more about my own motivations. Or more importantly, about my ability to make informed decisions. What will move me from complacency to action? How will I improve not only my knowledge base, but also my ability to think critically?
the good, the bad and the testing
Diane Ravitch discussed the success Finland has seen in it's students educational growth, and Alfie Kohn talks of "raising" standards—that is, getting tougher, but not yielding better results—in his C-Span discussion in 1999, regarding his book, The Schools Our Children Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and Tougher Standards. Kohn fears that "the intellectual life is being squeezed out of classrooms right now in the name of raising standards...It is a paradox for most of us and goes largely unnoticed...The more we work on raising the scores and embracing tougher standards in the name of accountability, the worse schools become." (http://www.c-spanarchives.org/x2y0t/) He also reveals that there were no standardized test scores in Japan (at least at the time of this video, but not including the very rigorous test students must take before entering university.) Why no standardized testing? When this was suggested by the government, the teachers refused, and demonstrated not only solidarity, but a far-reaching insight into the destructive nature of this kind of forced testing has on children.
In talking of testing in percentile terms, Kohn (about 36 minutes into the video) tells us these types of tests were never designed to figure "out how well kids have learned, how much they know, or how well schools are doing their job... [these tests] were designed for one purpose only, to artificially space out the scores, so as to maximize the ease of ranking kids against one another, in effect sorting them like potatoes." Much as we've learned from Ken Robinson and John Taylor Gatto about the public school system. In general, the more we focus on raising test scores, the more we decrease the kind of learning that is effective. But school administrators and politicians use the testing to prove their "effectiveness" as a valid measure of the success of the schools (when the scores go up. No whether learning actually takes place or not. Because learning information for the thirty minutes necessary to pass a test is clearly an indicator of "schooling" done well.) They read the outcomes of the process as successes, regardless of the shifting standards of schools according to their individual districts – i.e.: it doesn't seem to matter how they rig the game. He also talks of behaviorism in education, and the manipulative effects of offering rewards and punishments for grades, "...which can never measure the detriment to intrinsic motivation."
think again
Authors Paul and Elder (2007), in Educational Fads, talk about the thinking of various groups about education. The thinking of our legislators and governors, who create public policy and are in charge of our school's funding and instruction, are under the assumption they "understand exactly when the schools need. (p. 11)" Kohn effectively makes a distinction between the "raising the bar" emphasis and those who make the decisions to toughen the standards. They clearly (according to Kohn, and proved by the declining test scores) "don't know what they're talking about." Teachers, not politicians, see the up-close and personal results of this kind of thinking. I believe there are those students who will succeed despite the government continued meddling. But thousands more that haven't. But I think even worse than the wrong thinking by politicians, is the intrinsic love of learning, or reading, or dancing, or multiplying (because there are a few of those right-brain kids out there...) being sucked out of our children's lives. And the fact that parent's aren't aware of it.
One statement by Paul and Elder caught my eye - as it spoke to me directly - regarded school choice. When presented with the option for my kids to attend a private school, I pushed for the public option. I was blindly biased by my own happy experiences, and not cognizant of the role behaviorism plays in the role of learning. "[S]chool choice only works to the extent that parents have a sound understanding of what impedes high quality learning and what is best done to cultivate it (p. 78-79)." I know see what a huge assumption it is, trusting that parents can effectively " articulate a demand for what will actually increase the quality of learning." We know intellectual growth is important, but how do we know it's a component of the curriculum? How will competition ensure quality in the schools, if parents aren't sure what to look for? We are far too trusting of our politicians and educational psychologists, who we assume are smarter than us, because they are our "experts." But if parents don't understand that the effective use of language is connected to the practice of thinking and writing, why would they ask for it?
Elder makes a keen observation at her son's science fair. All the students were given a list of directions with their projects, and they were also tasked with decorating the school with the creation of paper mache flowers. When she asked him what he thought science was, he didn't know. When she asked him what he kinds of problems scientists might solve, he also had no idea. When pressed a little more about science, his response was: "We don't have to know that to be in the science fair (p. 79)." So while the parents fawned over the impressive paper mache dinosaur, Elder was left with the feeling that she alone knew that the emperor was wearing no clothes.
I'm afraid I know which parent I was back then. I didn't know how much I didn't know. I didn't understand the side effect rewards can have on the basic desire to learn. (I'd say undermining a child's desire to read and learn for the sheer pleasure and fulfillment they offer is a significant side effect.) Now that I can see the emperor more clearly, I wonder what kind of help I can be for the next generation of learners. Will I choose to act if given the opportunity? Do I feel enough motivation do something beyond talking about the problem? Yes, I know that at least sharing the information is doing something - it's certainly the path of least resistance. We all have a choice, ultimately, but we have to choose to exercise that choice. (And to educate ourselves with information about what has happened to our "schooling" in America. And how we got here.)
Or settle for the status quo. And catch up on some reality TV.
| home | wk 1 | wk 2 | wk 3 | wk 4 | wk 5 | wk 6 | wk 7 | wk 8 | wk 9 | wk 10
