“Over the years Congress has created hundreds of programs intended to address problems in education without asking whether or not programs produce results or knowing their impact on local needs ” (NCLB, Executive Summary, 1) . I found this statement to be ironic as the sweeping reforms of NCLB came from the federal government with little or no input from the schools that would be affected. Unfortunately teachers hold little sway when it comes to the debate, development, and implementations of policies that impact curriculum and classroom practice. These debates have been dominated by special interest groups and the government. The push for national standards and standardized testing looks to take control of what is taught in the classroom away from teachers. “By limiting teachers’ responsibilities for conceptualizing, planning, and evaluating the curricula they teach, reform efforts like the standards movement and GOALS 2000 impose more external control and intervention on the classroom level (Ross, 221)”. If social studies teachers were to strictly follow the curriculum that is associated with the standards movement they would be reduced from educational professionals to shift workers who dispense “knowledge”.
When it comes to the actual implication of policies that impact curriculum, teachers have the final responsibility. While federal, state and local governments can mandate standards, they have no control (thankfully) to what actually happens in the classroom. Teachers have the ability to act on their own initiative to teach what will benefit their students most. For these teachers who act autonomously, standards can be a useful tool. Standards can act as a point of reference that teachers can look to for guidance. Well written standards can be especially useful to new teachers.
The voice of teachers has been largely missing from the debate on standards. While individual teachers would have an extremely difficult time influencing national and state policies that involve curriculum and standards, teachers unions could effectively lobby on behalf of teachers interests. Unfortunately this has not happened. “In fact, the AFT recommends that the common core curriculum defined by standards should account for 80 percent of instructional time in the classroom (Ross, 219)”. Teachers unions seem to focus more on the job of teachers (sick days, length of lunches, and the number of prep periods per day) than the actual work of teachers.
Ross, Wayne. "Diverting Democracy: The Curriculum Standards Movement and Social Studies Education." Democratic Social Education: Social Studies for Social Change, 2000. pp. 203-228
Bush, Gerorge W. No Child Left Behind.
"ESEA: Myths Versus Reality Answers to Common Questions About the new No Child Left Behind Act." Published by The Education Trust
Karp, Stan. "Bush Plan Fails Schools." Rethinking Schools Online. http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_report/bushplan/BUSH153.shtml
First Time, Long Time…
3 years ago
4 comments:
Kevin--
I think you are right when you say that many would like to see the role of teacher reduced to that of shift worker dispensing knowledge. In my blog this week, I discuss what I see as the move to make public schools more corporate, like franchises. The problem is the corporate structure can be quite useful as a means of organizing and maximizing efficiency (I think that is primarily what makes it so appealing to policy makers and bureaucrats). As you point out, standards can be quite useful, especially in eliminating bad teachers and maintaining consistency. As I see it, the big question facing education reform is how to elevate quality while at the same time not stifling creativity and originality. Can we can make change without relying too heavily on the corporate model?
Kevin -
You do a good job here of highlighting Ross' key points, while noting your own belief that standards can be auseful tool for new educators. I think you also raise some interesting questions regarding the role of teacher's unions.
Ali
Jesse- I agree that the corporate structure is a useful organizational model, and I think that it may have its place in the realm of education (perhaps at the national or state level).
However, I do not think that the corporate model is applicable to individual schools. Since student populations and needs are so different from school to school, I do not think that a school model can successfully be "franchised".
I think that there are enough successful schools that a set "best practices" can be developed. Individual schools could then look to these best practices and pick and choose among them, or try to come up with something that is creative and original, to find what will work with their specific student populations. This in essence would be a set of loose suggestions, not a set of rigid standards.
The mechanisms are already in place (for better or worse) to determine how well schools are achieving academically. By using the existing assessment structure, schools could then determine how successful the changes that they implimented were. This would allow originality and creativity and at the same time hold schools to a level of accountability.
Post a Comment