Active Research 11 | -
Dec 03, 2016 | #1
Improving standards in American education requires stakeholders to consider the lessons available in the study of historical reform efforts, the question of what the purpose of education should be, and the pros and cons of using the standards based reform associated with the No Child Left Behind Act. In this paper, such questions are addressed with reference to the insights of several scholars whose work demonstrates the many mechanisms that are at work to influence student outcomes. After analyzing the various factors, a plan will be outlined, and that plan can be summarized in the following way: 1.) Standards need to be raised without destroying teacher morale, and 2.) Because of the complexity of the challenge at hand, the scope of education should be limited such that it is protected from ambiguity and corruption.
Review of Pertinent Literature
The title of this section comes from a question posed by Thomas Hunt, who asks why we keep trying to find quick-fix "panaceas" when history shows that they do not work. He observes that the history of American education is full of what we thought to be cure-alls that would immediately correct all problems, pointing out that even the establishment of the common school, itself, was expected to be a reform that would eradicate crime and ensure prosperity for the nation. He concludes, "A more modest expectation of what schools can accomplish would seem to be in order. Human beings, not movements or devices, guarantee progress" (87). Orlich similarly objects to the notion that increased funding, the raising of standards, and strengthened resolve would produce improved student outcomes. Developmental limits are at work to thwart such efforts, he writes.
Likewise, Evan Keliher predicted that a philanthropist's donation of $500 million to American education would not produce any significant results, and she cites evidence to prove that she was right! Keliher asserts, "There has never been an innovation or reform that has helped children learn any better, faster or easier than they did prior to the 20th century" (1). Her idea is to return to simplicity, demanding hard work just as Euclid famously demanded hard work of the Pharaoh whom he tutored in geometry. Keliher calls for "a teacher in front of a chalkboard and a roomful of willing students" (2), and she recommends a model called "direct instruction," which promotes scripted interaction between teacher and students.
If simple hard work, rather than innovations that make students into "lab rats" (Keliher 2), is necessary, the hard work must take place not only in the classroom where teachers teach students but also in the classrooms where teachers are taught their professions. Many Americans agree that education is the institution that is foundational to everything else - eradicating war, conserving natural resources, sustainable development, and so forth - yet the standards (and salaries) for teachers still remain low. This is demonstrated by the fact that even Keliher, a veteran teacher, writes a run-on sentence in the middle of her Newsweek article about education reform: "What baffles me is not that educators implement new policies intended to help kids perform better, it's that they don't learn from others' mistakes" (1).
Another important consideration is that there is more to education than just the "reading, writing, and arithmetic" emphasized by Keliher. Education is the basis for all social improvement and problem solving. Hooks, a theorist of the feminist tradition, describes theory as a method of healing. She calls for academics to "formulate theory from experience" (82) and reach out to touch the hearts of students and "address their pain" (82). Though her discussion is given in the context of feminism, its truth is applicable to all learning situations - particularly in the field of social science. Thus, one answer to the question of what the purpose of education should be is that it should go beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic and tackle issues associated with the lived experience of students.
Another answer to that question can represent the opposite view; Stanley Fish, former Dean of Education at Florida International University, argues that academics need to stop allowing the lines between academia and activism to blur. He advises teachers to do their jobs, not allow anyone else to do their jobs, and not try to do anyone else's job. He explains that what he means by this is that teachers should not allow themselves to be swayed by politicians, parents, donors of money, or any other stakeholders. Furthermore, teachers need to refrain from trying to change the world while they work; their job is to interpret and make sense of things. This job, he asserts, is big enough for any person or institution. Thus, some scholars believe that the role of education should be limited to interpretation and explanation of subject matter.
This view is supported by the observation that many stakeholders would take advantage of ambiguity in the purpose of education; it is important to keep reform efforts in check to make sure they emerge from good intentions and sound reasoning. Batt writes, "Because education reform debates are highly divisive, complex, and intertwined with deeply rooted cultural, moral, and political issues, they evoke a need for a critical framework capable of addressing moral and political difference at an experiential and descriptive level" (iii). Though a full description of the method he proposes is beyond the scope of this paper, it suffices to describe his approach as one that aims criticism at those who argue about education reform, scrutinizing them to determine what motivating factors are influencing their arguments. He makes an important point when he calls attention to the many motives and deceptions that may be at work, keeping education dysfunctional while stakeholders pursue their own ends.
McDermott conducted a 2001 study involving review of state documents, more than 60 interviews with state officials and education professionals, and three surveys of Massachusetts educators. Massachusetts was the setting for some of the first efforts to use standards based reform. The extensive study shows that standards based reform, which McDermott explains as being of the same nature as standards based evaluation used in businesses of the private sector, has improved student outcomes in notable ways. Yet, raising standards is a practice that tends to be unpopular with teachers and students alike, who feel that they are being treated unfairly.
Raising standards has inherent benefits and drawbacks - namely, improving outcomes in undeniable ways while also lowering the morale of teachers and students and causing teachers to have to "teach to the test" rather than striving for real learning. Yet, the raising of standards is an unsophisticated measure, like using a hacksaw in place of a scalpel. For example, lifelong educator Kenneth Kastle criticizes both President Obama and Senator John McCain for their failure to consider the socioeconomic factors that interfere with the achievement of improved student outcomes. Socioeconomic factors, cultural bias, and other subtle mechanisms interfere and make an uneven playing field for all involved.
With regard to the tension that is experienced by teachers when change occurs, including the raising of standards, Margolis and Nagel conducted a study to explore their lived experience and understand their perceptions of change. Three major findings are presented:
There is a complex interactive relationship between structures in schools designed to yield certain changes and the lived experiences of teachers within those structures.
Teacher vitality is an important dimension of teacher lived experience and the viability of school reforms.
Teacher role embodiment-the perceived compatibility between a teacher's sense of self and the roles they take on within a school-impacts teacher satisfaction and feelings of self-worth and the viability of school reforms. (147)
Margolis and Nagel conclude, "Investments made in professional development for teachers and administrators that is geared toward increasing awareness and acknowledgement of teacher lived experience will be cost-effective in the long-run. Even the most well-funded and well-researched reform effort will not succeed without teacher buy-in" (148).
So, we have a paradox to cope with as we try to reach higher standards without discouraging teachers. Teachers, like other professionals, can be expected to perform best when they have inspiration, but inspiration is thwarted when teachers are treated in ways that they perceive to be unfair. How can standards be raised without discouraging teachers and students? In the next section, a possible solution to this and other problems will be provided.
Three questions are posed in this paper. One refers to the notion that innovations can provide a quick and sure road to improved student outcomes, and this question is answered by multiple scholars who observe that history has shown that panaceas do not work. Another question refers to the purpose of education, and some scholars wish to see education create real change in the personal lives of students (i.e. Hooks) while others, like Stanley Fish and Shawn Batt, feel that the scope of education should be limited to explanation and interpretation - lest it be corrupted by stakeholders with divergent or unscrupulous motives. The third question refers to the efficacy of using standards based reform, such as that attempted first in Massachusetts and then in the rest of the nation with the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act; while standards based reform has indeed been shown to make a significant difference it also has been shown to lower the spirits of teachers and force them to "teach to the test" rather than accommodating individual student needs. Based on these three areas of inquiry, a plan can be outlined. The plan involves raising standards while taking steps to ensure teacher inspiration:
Standards based reform has proven to be effective, but it also lowers the morale of teachers. Therefore, teachers should be given circumstances that encourage them by positive means rather than negative ones. If teachers could have bonuses when they achieve improved outcomes, rather than just scrutiny and the threat of reduced funding if Adequate Yearly Progress is not met, it might be possible to gain that "teacher buy in" (Margolis and Nagel).
The purpose of education is determined by ongoing legislation as state standards are established and enhanced. Scholars cited in this report, including Stanley Fish and Shawn Batt, make excellent cases for the need to keep stakeholders in check by limiting the scope of education. In fact, the need to limit the scope of education is intertwined with the need to raise standards: by challenging teachers with realistic goals and simultaneously raising standards of achievement, it is possible to refine our focus and produce results that are both measurable and improvable.
Works Cited
Batt, Shawn. "Keeping Company in Controversy: Education Reform, Spheres of Argument, and Ethical Criticism." Argumentation and Advocacy 40.2: iii+.
Fish. "Why We Built the Ivory Tower." New York Times. New York, N.Y.
Hooks. "Out of the Academy and into the Streets." Out of the academy and into the streets. Research Library Core. 80.
Hunt, Thomas C. "Education Reforms: Lessons from History Just as There Is a Widely Held Belief That Our Schools Can Solve Our Society's Problems, Many Education Policy Makers Believe That the Right Reform Strategy Can Solve All of Our Schools' Problems. Mr. Hunt Argues That a Look at the History of Education Reform Might Slow the Rush to Embrace the Next Reform Panacea." Phi Delta Kappan 87.1: 84.
Kastle, Kenneth D. "Educators Must Rally for Reform: Politicians Don't Have the Answers That Schools Need, Mr. Kastle Writes. It's Time for Educators to Stop Indulging in Self-Blame and to Lead in Education Reform." Phi Delta Kappan 90.1: 38+.
Keliher. "Forget the Fads--The Old Way Works Best: What will Fix Public Education? A Teacher, a Chalkboard and a Roomful of Willing Students." Newsweek.
Margolis, Jason, and Liza Nagel. "Education Reform and the Role of Administrators in Mediating Teacher Stress." Teacher Education Quarterly 33.4: 143.
Mcdermott, Kathryn A. "Incentives, Capacity, and Implementation: Evidence from Massachusetts Education Reform." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16.1: 45+.
Orlich, Donald. "Education Reform and Limits to Student Achievement." Phi Delta Kappan 81.6: 468.
Review of Pertinent Literature
WHY ALL THE PANACEAS? (HUNT)
The title of this section comes from a question posed by Thomas Hunt, who asks why we keep trying to find quick-fix "panaceas" when history shows that they do not work. He observes that the history of American education is full of what we thought to be cure-alls that would immediately correct all problems, pointing out that even the establishment of the common school, itself, was expected to be a reform that would eradicate crime and ensure prosperity for the nation. He concludes, "A more modest expectation of what schools can accomplish would seem to be in order. Human beings, not movements or devices, guarantee progress" (87). Orlich similarly objects to the notion that increased funding, the raising of standards, and strengthened resolve would produce improved student outcomes. Developmental limits are at work to thwart such efforts, he writes.
Likewise, Evan Keliher predicted that a philanthropist's donation of $500 million to American education would not produce any significant results, and she cites evidence to prove that she was right! Keliher asserts, "There has never been an innovation or reform that has helped children learn any better, faster or easier than they did prior to the 20th century" (1). Her idea is to return to simplicity, demanding hard work just as Euclid famously demanded hard work of the Pharaoh whom he tutored in geometry. Keliher calls for "a teacher in front of a chalkboard and a roomful of willing students" (2), and she recommends a model called "direct instruction," which promotes scripted interaction between teacher and students.If simple hard work, rather than innovations that make students into "lab rats" (Keliher 2), is necessary, the hard work must take place not only in the classroom where teachers teach students but also in the classrooms where teachers are taught their professions. Many Americans agree that education is the institution that is foundational to everything else - eradicating war, conserving natural resources, sustainable development, and so forth - yet the standards (and salaries) for teachers still remain low. This is demonstrated by the fact that even Keliher, a veteran teacher, writes a run-on sentence in the middle of her Newsweek article about education reform: "What baffles me is not that educators implement new policies intended to help kids perform better, it's that they don't learn from others' mistakes" (1).
WHAT SHOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION?
Another important consideration is that there is more to education than just the "reading, writing, and arithmetic" emphasized by Keliher. Education is the basis for all social improvement and problem solving. Hooks, a theorist of the feminist tradition, describes theory as a method of healing. She calls for academics to "formulate theory from experience" (82) and reach out to touch the hearts of students and "address their pain" (82). Though her discussion is given in the context of feminism, its truth is applicable to all learning situations - particularly in the field of social science. Thus, one answer to the question of what the purpose of education should be is that it should go beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic and tackle issues associated with the lived experience of students.
Another answer to that question can represent the opposite view; Stanley Fish, former Dean of Education at Florida International University, argues that academics need to stop allowing the lines between academia and activism to blur. He advises teachers to do their jobs, not allow anyone else to do their jobs, and not try to do anyone else's job. He explains that what he means by this is that teachers should not allow themselves to be swayed by politicians, parents, donors of money, or any other stakeholders. Furthermore, teachers need to refrain from trying to change the world while they work; their job is to interpret and make sense of things. This job, he asserts, is big enough for any person or institution. Thus, some scholars believe that the role of education should be limited to interpretation and explanation of subject matter.
This view is supported by the observation that many stakeholders would take advantage of ambiguity in the purpose of education; it is important to keep reform efforts in check to make sure they emerge from good intentions and sound reasoning. Batt writes, "Because education reform debates are highly divisive, complex, and intertwined with deeply rooted cultural, moral, and political issues, they evoke a need for a critical framework capable of addressing moral and political difference at an experiential and descriptive level" (iii). Though a full description of the method he proposes is beyond the scope of this paper, it suffices to describe his approach as one that aims criticism at those who argue about education reform, scrutinizing them to determine what motivating factors are influencing their arguments. He makes an important point when he calls attention to the many motives and deceptions that may be at work, keeping education dysfunctional while stakeholders pursue their own ends.
IS IT SAFE TO RAISE STANDARDS?
McDermott conducted a 2001 study involving review of state documents, more than 60 interviews with state officials and education professionals, and three surveys of Massachusetts educators. Massachusetts was the setting for some of the first efforts to use standards based reform. The extensive study shows that standards based reform, which McDermott explains as being of the same nature as standards based evaluation used in businesses of the private sector, has improved student outcomes in notable ways. Yet, raising standards is a practice that tends to be unpopular with teachers and students alike, who feel that they are being treated unfairly.
Raising standards has inherent benefits and drawbacks - namely, improving outcomes in undeniable ways while also lowering the morale of teachers and students and causing teachers to have to "teach to the test" rather than striving for real learning. Yet, the raising of standards is an unsophisticated measure, like using a hacksaw in place of a scalpel. For example, lifelong educator Kenneth Kastle criticizes both President Obama and Senator John McCain for their failure to consider the socioeconomic factors that interfere with the achievement of improved student outcomes. Socioeconomic factors, cultural bias, and other subtle mechanisms interfere and make an uneven playing field for all involved.
With regard to the tension that is experienced by teachers when change occurs, including the raising of standards, Margolis and Nagel conducted a study to explore their lived experience and understand their perceptions of change. Three major findings are presented:
There is a complex interactive relationship between structures in schools designed to yield certain changes and the lived experiences of teachers within those structures.
Teacher vitality is an important dimension of teacher lived experience and the viability of school reforms.
Teacher role embodiment-the perceived compatibility between a teacher's sense of self and the roles they take on within a school-impacts teacher satisfaction and feelings of self-worth and the viability of school reforms. (147)
Margolis and Nagel conclude, "Investments made in professional development for teachers and administrators that is geared toward increasing awareness and acknowledgement of teacher lived experience will be cost-effective in the long-run. Even the most well-funded and well-researched reform effort will not succeed without teacher buy-in" (148).
So, we have a paradox to cope with as we try to reach higher standards without discouraging teachers. Teachers, like other professionals, can be expected to perform best when they have inspiration, but inspiration is thwarted when teachers are treated in ways that they perceive to be unfair. How can standards be raised without discouraging teachers and students? In the next section, a possible solution to this and other problems will be provided.
A PLAN FOR IMPROVING AMERICAN EDUCATION
Three questions are posed in this paper. One refers to the notion that innovations can provide a quick and sure road to improved student outcomes, and this question is answered by multiple scholars who observe that history has shown that panaceas do not work. Another question refers to the purpose of education, and some scholars wish to see education create real change in the personal lives of students (i.e. Hooks) while others, like Stanley Fish and Shawn Batt, feel that the scope of education should be limited to explanation and interpretation - lest it be corrupted by stakeholders with divergent or unscrupulous motives. The third question refers to the efficacy of using standards based reform, such as that attempted first in Massachusetts and then in the rest of the nation with the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act; while standards based reform has indeed been shown to make a significant difference it also has been shown to lower the spirits of teachers and force them to "teach to the test" rather than accommodating individual student needs. Based on these three areas of inquiry, a plan can be outlined. The plan involves raising standards while taking steps to ensure teacher inspiration:
Standards based reform has proven to be effective, but it also lowers the morale of teachers. Therefore, teachers should be given circumstances that encourage them by positive means rather than negative ones. If teachers could have bonuses when they achieve improved outcomes, rather than just scrutiny and the threat of reduced funding if Adequate Yearly Progress is not met, it might be possible to gain that "teacher buy in" (Margolis and Nagel).
The purpose of education is determined by ongoing legislation as state standards are established and enhanced. Scholars cited in this report, including Stanley Fish and Shawn Batt, make excellent cases for the need to keep stakeholders in check by limiting the scope of education. In fact, the need to limit the scope of education is intertwined with the need to raise standards: by challenging teachers with realistic goals and simultaneously raising standards of achievement, it is possible to refine our focus and produce results that are both measurable and improvable.
Works Cited
Batt, Shawn. "Keeping Company in Controversy: Education Reform, Spheres of Argument, and Ethical Criticism." Argumentation and Advocacy 40.2: iii+.
Fish. "Why We Built the Ivory Tower." New York Times. New York, N.Y.
Hooks. "Out of the Academy and into the Streets." Out of the academy and into the streets. Research Library Core. 80.
Hunt, Thomas C. "Education Reforms: Lessons from History Just as There Is a Widely Held Belief That Our Schools Can Solve Our Society's Problems, Many Education Policy Makers Believe That the Right Reform Strategy Can Solve All of Our Schools' Problems. Mr. Hunt Argues That a Look at the History of Education Reform Might Slow the Rush to Embrace the Next Reform Panacea." Phi Delta Kappan 87.1: 84.
Kastle, Kenneth D. "Educators Must Rally for Reform: Politicians Don't Have the Answers That Schools Need, Mr. Kastle Writes. It's Time for Educators to Stop Indulging in Self-Blame and to Lead in Education Reform." Phi Delta Kappan 90.1: 38+.
Keliher. "Forget the Fads--The Old Way Works Best: What will Fix Public Education? A Teacher, a Chalkboard and a Roomful of Willing Students." Newsweek.
Margolis, Jason, and Liza Nagel. "Education Reform and the Role of Administrators in Mediating Teacher Stress." Teacher Education Quarterly 33.4: 143.
Mcdermott, Kathryn A. "Incentives, Capacity, and Implementation: Evidence from Massachusetts Education Reform." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16.1: 45+.
Orlich, Donald. "Education Reform and Limits to Student Achievement." Phi Delta Kappan 81.6: 468.