Standards 1
STANDARDS IN A DEMOCRACY
Joyce Foss
March 15, 2004
EDCI 572
Dr. Randy Schultz
With the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) , schools across the nation have turned to standards with the hope of finding a way to measure the efficacy of their teachers, staff, and the system itself. Public schools face stiff sanctions, i.e. loss of funding, if they cannot prove that they are bringing up test scores--especially the scores of the poor and disadvantaged students. Although the goal of NCLB was to improve public education, is the pressure of proving success through standardized testing really raising the bar, or is it, as some have claimed, causing the exact opposite of its stated goals? Are teachers being forced, as many have claimed, to limit their lesson plans to only those lessons that cover grade-level standards? Are they teaching only to the test and nothing else? Are higher percentages of those who are economically or otherwise disadvantaged staying in school? Do value-added assessments make other assessments invalid, or do they allow for manipulation of test score evaluation? Noted educators, psychologists, and social critics say teaching to standards and standardized tests raises the above questions and leaves one wondering what truly is the future of education in the United States.
John Holt in How Children Learn, (1982) viewed learning not as something that can be standardized. He believed that children need to be free to explore and fantasize before they can be expected to grasp those concrete ideals set forth in standards. In his book he says fantasy is what children do to connect "new experiences and ideas to the ones they already have...We cannot predict, or plan, or control their fantasies, or bend them to our uses. All we can do is put on their mental dinner plate, as in their real dinner plate, the kinds of food we know they like to eat" (p.252). This method would definitely not fly with the rigorous state standards that mandate children learn things at specific rates.
Piaget also stressed that "it is not important to him how fast children went through (fundamental stages of cognitive development), but more important how thoroughly they became engaged at each step along the way." (p.154, Armstrong, 2000) Along this line of thinking you find the late Dr. Louise Bates Ames saying, "...if we would let children enter first grade based on their own developmental readiness rather than according to when they were born...we might eliminate up to fifty percent of all learning disabilities in this country." (p.154). Neither of these ideas fit into a standardized plan of meeting specific goals by a specific age or grade level.
Deborah Meier suggests that the work of a public school is "to pass on the skills, aptitudes, and habits needed for a democratic way of life...Moreover, if the democratic promise is to thrive, these democratic virtues and skills need to be as firmly part of the repertoire of the poor as of the rich, of people of color as of white people, and of women as of men." (Meier, 2003) She asserts that not only are standardized tests counter-educational (even counter-democracy as we know it), it is impossible to create one test for all schools and all students (p.192). Meier advocates a system of public education that encourages and employs the democratic method of teaching.
A democratic school is one in which the community--parents and
businessmen--comes together with the principals, teachers, and students to make decisions about budget, hiring, and such things as in which community projects the school will actively participate. The focus of this kind of school is educating children to be better citizens, thereby creating a better society in which true democracy can be passed on from generation to generation. Obviously, such a school's progress cannot be measured by a standardized test. In fact, Ms. Meier admits test scores can be hurt by this plan; but, she advocates that this very system of education can narrow the gaps between rich and poor, and can encourage unity in a democracy. (Meier, 2003)
Howard Gardner also has a problem with all schools being held to the same standard. His vision is a system of path choices within the public schools. He sees that there are six distinct paths schools can take: traditional; multicultural; progressive; technological; socially responsible; and his favorite, the Understanding Pathway. This last pathway is inspired by Socrates and is "for those who believe that human beings have a desire to explore and to understand the most fundamental questions of existence," and that the curriculum should be one that visits that which is "the true, the beautiful, and the good." (Gardner, 2000) This path may be the hardest one for standardized test makers to write tests for. Who decides what is true, beautiful, and good? I have my opinions, and the students have their opinions, and society has its opinions...maybe some good learning could go on in such a democratic-type setting, where all are free to express themselves, seek out their own interests, and learn what best suits their personal goals!
William H. Garrison (2003), director of Research and Evaluation, Milpitas Unified School District, Santa Clara County, California puts it another way:
When education is understood as the construction of meaning,
rather than merely the transmission of knowledge, the primacy of
the student's engagement in the process becomes self-evident.
Obtaining this engagement pedagogically requires the student's
continual discovery and renewal of self-direction; this is possible
only in democratic environment. (p.256)
These are all wonderful theories--some put into very successful practice, but what does research say? Meta-analysis proves, among other things, that the more a student is involved in the learning process, the more he actually learns, retains, and applies what he learns to higher levels of learning. (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) Although there is information that shows test scores are improving since standards have been implemented in the classroom, can we trust that the information gives a true picture of the state of the classroom, what with value-added assessments, socioeconomic differences, and political influence that can tweak how results are evaluated?
With NCLB firmly established as educational law, the real question to be answered in the next few years is: Does teaching to the standards allow for a democratic education where children are allowed to digest and apply what they learn, or do teachers have to teach to the standards and ignore any pull to elaborate, illustrate, digress, or otherwise make a piece of information relevant for the students? Time, as they say, will tell. I am optimistic that teachers will always be teachers--looking for that Jeffersonian "higher good."
Bibliography
Armstrong, T. (2000). In their own way: discovering and encouraging your
child's multiple intelligences. Revised. Putnam: New York.
Gardner, H. (2000). The disciplined mind: beyond fact and standardized tests. Penguin Books: New York.
Garrison, W. H. (Mar., 2003). Democracy, experience, and education: promoting a continued capacity for growth. Phi Delta Kappan 84(7), 525-29.
Holt, J. (1982). How children learn. Revised. Delta/Seymour Lawrence: New York.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
McDonald, D. (Sept./Oct. 2002). No child left behind act mandates assessment
measures. Momentum, 33(3), 8-10.
Meier, D. (Nov. 2002). [Excerpt from In god we trust]. Standardization versus
standards. Phi Delta Kappan 84(3), 190-8.
Meier, D. (Sept. 2003). So what does it take to build a school for democracy?
Phi Delta Kappan 85(1), 15-21.