Contrary to popular wisdom,
public schools are not under-performing wastelands, but that is not to
say that our schools are good enough. Since the mid-1980s discussions of
how we might reform schools have been dominated by a discourse of decline,
which has produced a search for the "magic bullet" to save public schools.
A combination of crisis rhetoric, unduly simplified conceptions of the
problems schools face, and policy elites working to protect their own political
and ideological interests has yielded a series of one-dimensional proposals
intended to save the public schools including: school choice, vouchers,
technology, and now, standards.
Standards-based reforms
have been codified under the federal government's Goals 2000 initiative,
which encourages states to ratchet up high school graduation requirements,
supports top-down approaches to defining what should be taught in classrooms,
and aims to create high-stakes tests that drive instruction toward a single
set of national standards.
It is easy to understand
why establishing standards and linking them to high-stakes testing is the
vogue in educational reform. The large number of students in public schools
and the demands of the public, politicians, and policy-makers for speedy
and tangible evidence of progress (or lack of it) make the adoption of
standards and accountability via mandated student testing an appealing
approach to educational reform. The assumption of advocates of standards-based
reforms is that by raising expectations and holding children, teachers,
and schools "more accountable" public schools will be improved. If
only it was that simple.
The history of school reform
illustrates that it is much easier to change educational policies than
it is to change the conditions of teaching and learning in schools. Despite
many reform efforts in this century, the major features of school remain
largely unchanged. The primary reason for the stability of schools in the
face of repeated reform efforts is the failure of reformers to consider
the ecology of schools-that is, the multiple and inter-connected systems
of curriculum, pedagogy, evaluation, as well as the organizational structures,
perceived purposes, and contexts in which schools exist. Standards-based
reforms offer simplistic solutions to a complex problem. These efforts
may be "feel-good" exercises that raise the self-esteem of politicians
and policy elites, but standards talk does little to lead us beyond the
gimmicks and fads of previous educational reform efforts.
Standards-based reforms
actually divert attention away from the conditions of learning and teaching
that must be changed if schools are to be improved. The seductive lure
of standards is that the problems public schools face can be solved by
merely being tough-minded, rather than investing in the improvement of
schools and redressing the contexts of local schools that include joblessness
and diminished tax bases. Standards talk obscures the fact that no reform
effort will succeed in an educational system in which a number of select
schools suffer from an embarrassment of riches in comparison to those that
function without qualified teachers, adequate numbers of books, and in
decrepit and dangerous buildings that lack classroom space. Standards do
nothing to address the funding inequities that produce gross educational
inequalities among schools.
Today, the people that know
children best-families and teachers-have too little power to affect change
in their schools. Standards-based reforms exacerbate this by taking authority
away from local school communities. Advocates claim standards are intended
to guide, not limit instruction. However, after specifying content to be
taught and student outcomes as well as developing textbooks and tests based
upon the standards, little remains. Standards-based reforms encourage centralized
curriculum decision making that makes teachers and schools conduits for
the delivery of pre-packaged knowledge. Teachers and communities without
the authority and resources to bring their collective intellect and judgment
to bear on matters as important as the education of children cannot be
expected to model what it means to be responsible citizens in a democratic
society.
Standards-based educational
reforms exemplify and engender what has been call "spectator democracy."
This kind of democracy deters or prohibits the public from managing its
own affairs and resolutely controls the means of information. At first
this may seem an odd conception of democracy, but it is the prevailing
conception of liberal-democratic thought. In spectator democracy
a specialized class of experts identify what our common interests are and
think and plan accordingly. The function of the rest of us is to
be "spectators" rather than participants in action (for example, casting
votes in elections or implementing educational reforms that are conceived
by people who know little or nothing about our community, our desires,
or our interests).
If, however, we conceive
of a democratic society as one in which the public has the means to participate
in a meaningful way in the management of its own affairs and the means
of information is open and free, then the foundation of standards-based
education reform collapses. Engaging in educational reform forces us to
ask what kind of world and what kind of society we want to live in, and
in particular what kinds of schools we want. Of course, everyone will not
subscribe to the same visions of what ought to be. Standards-based educational
reforms, however, endeavor to create standardized, "one-size-fits-all"
schools that represent the views and interests of elite policy-makers rather
than cultivating multiple visions of schooling that will emerge from public
deliberations about what schools should be.
What direction should we
take to improve public schools? First, there must be fair distribution
of funds for public education; we must challenge the funding inequities
that have created a chasm between schools that have and those that have-not.
Achieving educational equity, however, will not be accomplished through
fiscal equality. Local school communities that have suffered years
of joblessness, poverty, diminished tax bases, and unequal funding need
more funding than wealthy school communities. School finance inequities
are currently being challenged in New York courts by the Campaign for Fiscal
Equity. Similar challenges are underway in New Jersey, Texas, Alabama,
and Connecticut.
Second, if schools
are to be accountable, they must have sufficient power over the factors
that influence success, such as budgets, staffing, scheduling, and particularly
curriculum and assessment. In New York, the State Education Department
must provide local schools with the authority to construct their own curriculum
and assessment plans. This will allow those who know students best to shape
the educational experiences they receive.
Third, there must be increased
parental and community involvement in public schools. The Chicago school
reform plan that mandated significant parental decision-making through
local school councils has demonstrated that deep structural reform of schools
is possible and that such reforms contribute to increased academic achievement
of students. In addition, collaboration among schools and organizations
with strong neighborhood roots (such as community development corporations
and neighborhood associations) can contribute to the creation of self-determining
communities with power to plan their own development and the resources
to fulfill those plans.
Lastly, it must be remembered
that education and democracy are human endeavors that are fundamentally
about relationships. Standards and examinations do not teach, people do;
we must focus our attention on creating conditions for teaching and learning
that respect all children and call out their potential.
Return
to The Rouge Forum