Michele Ramstetter :
America’s public schools have become a bouncing board of trial and error. With every social and political change comes a newfangled reform designed to save compulsory education. But the reforms rarely reform. Instead they reshape and rename existing policies, or they happen so far after the fact that their impact lies meaningless. Rather than predict societal changes, they respond to them, and rather than transform our schools into innovative institutions, they further entrench them in stodgy tradition.
Today’s students need anything but stodgy tradition. Youth today face a new world, one that is universal instead of national, one where lifelong careers cannot be assured, where marketable skills can quickly become obsolete, and where human rights outshine differences in race, class or gender. To be successful in this ever-changing economy, students need to think as entrepreneurs; they need independence, creativity and diversity (Watanabe 2010). The focus of America’s schools is on the complete opposite. Through common standards, we teach students how to be dependent, artless, and uniform. We show them how to stifle their talents and quell their thirst in order to fulfill the requirements of a standardized test.
Standards have become not only a major focus of educational reform but also the publicly-accepted route to educational perfection. The consensus seems to be that by controlling the curricular content of schools, learning will be heightened, hierarchies will be dismantled, and equity will prevail. However, an assessment by the National Academy of Education (2009) of America’s more than 20-year history of standards-based education has revealed less than desired results. Are our reforms really reforming or are they simply shaking up the contents of what already exists? In today’s globalized world, is a standardized curriculum beneficial to all students or is it an outdated tactic that feigns educational quality and equality?
Educational standards grew in response to social changes. Concern about the quality of America’s schools rose after the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011; National Research Council, 2000). To determine student progress, the congressionally-mandated National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was created. Assessments of primary and secondary school students began in 1969 and continue today. Administered by the U.S. Department of Education, the uniform NAEP tests follow frameworks that are devised by a bipartisan governing board. The goal is to monitor long-term trends in education and present the American public with a national report card (NCES, 2011).
The Civil Rights Movement spurred another educational reform. The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson, aimed to make classrooms more equitable and lessen the achievement gap through high standards and accountability (Education Equality Project, 2011). Although the law saw expanded federal involvement in education, a statute within it forbade the establishment of a national curriculum (Manna, 2006).
Since its inception, the ESEA has been continually renewed. In 1994, the Clinton administration reauthorized the law, strengthening accountability through annual testing and academic standards that all students must meet. In the George W. Bush administration, ESEA became the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Through state standards and adequate yearly progress (AYP) criteria, NCLB further strengthened accountability (Manna, 2006). During Barack Obama’s term, the Race to the Top (RTT) initiative loosened the improbable NCLB requirements but became the impetus for the adoption by many states of common standards (Lewin, 2010). Instead of a national curriculum, which the ESEA forbade, RTT encourages de facto national standards (Mathis, 2010). Despite the name and criteria changes, the underlying goal of all the initiatives is to offer equitable and quality education to all students via mixed-ability classrooms where everyone receives the same share of the educational offerings.
The national common core standards initiated through RTT are designed to help learners succeed in college and the workforce. According to the initiative’s website, the reform will prepare students for today’s global economy (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011). Although the goals sound student-oriented, there is more to the story. As with previous reform efforts, both states and the nation will benefit; adoption of the common standards by state governors will bring them closer to federal monies. Also, by using similar curriculum, textbooks and assessments, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan believes the country will save billions of dollars (Lewin, 2010).
NCLB had comparable state perks. Federal funding was given for administration of state-wide standardized tests. Prior to that, the ESEA offered Title I funding to schools that pledged to help disadvantaged students.
Federal initiatives are formulated to benefit the country and its citizens, and would be counterproductive if they didn’t. In education, however, the goal of finding the most cost effective way to develop human capital reeks of Marxism. Students become not individual talents to be honed but pawns in an economic game. The common standards prompted by RTT will benefit the country via billions saved on education, thereby frugally increasing human capital, but will they increase the quality of our future work force?
Modern industrial societies are built on a hierarchy of occupations and duties. To fill these, a variety of interests and talents are required. Standardized education treats students, not as vital components of a multifaceted society, but as a mass, a single unit that must be indoctrinated for national gain. Instead of empowering and embracing individual skills, it sets students on a curricular path which may not be in their best interests.
In the pursuit of equalized intelligence, the burden falls on the disadvantaged. Academically-successful students will breeze through any curricular changes and remain as successful as they were before the standards were introduced. Their mastery will further increase their sense of efficacy. Meanwhile, low-achieving students will struggle to reach the newest arbitrary mark of common intelligence. Disappointing results in their efforts can further decrease what may be an already low sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1994). The loss of self-esteem can lead to frustration with school and eventually to dropping out (Reasoner, 2010).
As a teacher at a continuation high school, I have seen firsthand the lackluster results of government initiatives. Whether it be NCLB or RTT, standardized schooling blatantly reproduces biases, promotes boredom and, for many students, results in failure. The career goal of several of my senior students ranges from tattoo artist to dental assistant. Those who say they want to go to college are unsure what they want to study. Their uncertainty is not a surprise. The standardized curriculum they must follow leaves little room for self-discovery. Rather than hone their specific interests and abilities, the required college-preparatory courses exclude them from personal development and growth.
Standardization is meant to ensure quality. With commodities, it makes perfect sense, but should it also be applied to individuals? A 2009 assessment by the National Academy of Education (NAE) of America’s standards-based education showed unsatisfactory results. Rather than teach students according to individual abilities, a standardized curriculum encourages teaching to the test. More instructional focus is given to the tested subjects of math and English, and less is given to science, social studies, art, music and physical education. In addition, the traditional college-preparatory, standardized curriculum ill serves students who do not plan on continuing their education (NAE, 2009).
Although designed to instill equality, common standards can evoke inequality. Any standardized test is a ranking system; as such it breeds comparisons of students, schools, districts, and regions. To flaunt the common core standards as an egalitarian tool is inaccurate; ranking systems create or reproduce hierarchies (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Those who are good test takers or who have a natural bent for the subjects being tested will be at the top of the hierarchy; all others will fall below. This is not equality and is certainly not a lesson that should be taught in schools. By pitting students and schools against one another via test scores, the lesson becomes competition rather than cooperation.
Equality of intelligence can never be attained yet too often government officials lead the public into believing it can. Rather than continue the charade, the purpose of the common standards and standardized tests should be told forthright. Disguised as avenues toward social democracy, they are a capitalistic money-making venture, as well as a panicked solution to a country that fears losing its economic standing in the global market. They feign innovation but are instead a dated response to a worldwide competition.
It is ironic to see that in an era of critical pedagogy and equitable rights, our educational policies move more and more toward rigid uniformity. Instead of focusing on individual talents and expertise, we focus on collective basics. Instead of allowing our high school students to choose their own destiny, we steer their course through mandated curricula. Instead of being educational innovators, we revise and rename what has already been done.
Education is designed to sit in a state of flux, yet our educational practices are anachronistic and stale. A one-size-fits-all education is not practical. New generations of students bring new knowledge, perspectives, and ideas. Changes in population, economics, and occupations necessitate periodic curricular reforms.
The argument for individualization dates back to Ancient Greece. In The Republic, Plato (1908) contended: “No two persons are born exactly alike; but each differs from the other in natural endowments, one being suited for one occupation and the other for another” (p. 55). According to Plato, when workers choose an occupation that befits their talents “things will be produced in superior quantity and quality, and with greater ease” (p. 55).
The individualistic mindset continued through the 18th century periods of Enlightenment and Romanticism. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762/2007) saw it as a roadway to educational equity. Inequality, he asserted, was an unavoidable and unfortunate byproduct of the civilization of man. With metallurgical and agricultural production came greed, competition, labor divisions, and social classes. For an egalitarian education, children should be separated from influential social factors and be allowed to embrace and develop their natural bent (Rousseau, 1754/2009).
Individualistic learning is a goal in many countries. Japan aims to give every student equal educational opportunity according to his/her abilities. Recent curricular reforms have been focusing not on uniformity and conformity but on creativity and individuality. The goal is to provide students with the skills needed to survive in the 21st century; namely, the ability to identify problems, act independently, and adapt to new situations. Compulsory schooling includes six years of elementary and three years of lower secondary. Upper secondary schools, although not mandatory, have a 97% attendance rate (Watanabe, 2010).
South Korea’s educational focus is on diversity and individuality rather than uniformity. Known for its stringent academics, the republic is now promoting vocational training and lifelong learning. Also, the curriculum and College Scholastic Ability Test were restructured to allow 11th and 12th grade students to choose their own classes (Shin & Koh, 2005).
Germany’s tripartite educational system sets primary students on an academic or vocational track. According to governmental policy statements, the program was designed to focus on individual abilities and interests (Kubow & Fossum, 2003). This concept is seen in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (2008): “Every person shall have the right to free development of his [sic] personality” (Article 2).
Sages have, for centuries, advocated individualism and several academically successful countries focus on it. Why then do American leaders cling to educational standards? For true reform, policy makers need to look beyond the parameters of standardized education. School curricula and structures must be changed. Rather than attempt the impossible feat of equalizing intelligence, educators should center on individual talents, interests, and abilities.
Individualizing education can be done through more student responsibility and less compulsory education. A mandatory 12-year college preparatory curriculum no longer makes sense. After earning a Grade 10 certificate, students should be given options to follow the upper secondary path of their choice. Allowing students to choose their classes according to time preference, interests, abilities and goals would bring a college atmosphere to the high school campus. To accommodate individual interests, high schools should be open longer and offer more courses. Federal funds that are now spent on standards-based reforms could instead be used to hire more teachers in order to make this a reality. After all, the key to equitable learning is not standardization but individualization. When futures are put in the hands of the beholder, true equity in education will unfold.
America’s public schools have become a bouncing board of trial and error. With every social and political change comes a newfangled reform designed to save compulsory education. But the reforms rarely reform. Instead they reshape and rename existing policies, or they happen so far after the fact that their impact lies meaningless. Rather than predict societal changes, they respond to them, and rather than transform our schools into innovative institutions, they further entrench them in stodgy tradition.
Today’s students need anything but stodgy tradition. Youth today face a new world, one that is universal instead of national, one where lifelong careers cannot be assured, where marketable skills can quickly become obsolete, and where human rights outshine differences in race, class or gender. To be successful in this ever-changing economy, students need to think as entrepreneurs; they need independence, creativity and diversity (Watanabe 2010). The focus of America’s schools is on the complete opposite. Through common standards, we teach students how to be dependent, artless, and uniform. We show them how to stifle their talents and quell their thirst in order to fulfill the requirements of a standardized test.
Standards have become not only a major focus of educational reform but also the publicly-accepted route to educational perfection. The consensus seems to be that by controlling the curricular content of schools, learning will be heightened, hierarchies will be dismantled, and equity will prevail. However, an assessment by the National Academy of Education (2009) of America’s more than 20-year history of standards-based education has revealed less than desired results. Are our reforms really reforming or are they simply shaking up the contents of what already exists? In today’s globalized world, is a standardized curriculum beneficial to all students or is it an outdated tactic that feigns educational quality and equality?
Educational standards grew in response to social changes. Concern about the quality of America’s schools rose after the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011; National Research Council, 2000). To determine student progress, the congressionally-mandated National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was created. Assessments of primary and secondary school students began in 1969 and continue today. Administered by the U.S. Department of Education, the uniform NAEP tests follow frameworks that are devised by a bipartisan governing board. The goal is to monitor long-term trends in education and present the American public with a national report card (NCES, 2011).
The Civil Rights Movement spurred another educational reform. The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law by Lyndon B. Johnson, aimed to make classrooms more equitable and lessen the achievement gap through high standards and accountability (Education Equality Project, 2011). Although the law saw expanded federal involvement in education, a statute within it forbade the establishment of a national curriculum (Manna, 2006).
Since its inception, the ESEA has been continually renewed. In 1994, the Clinton administration reauthorized the law, strengthening accountability through annual testing and academic standards that all students must meet. In the George W. Bush administration, ESEA became the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Through state standards and adequate yearly progress (AYP) criteria, NCLB further strengthened accountability (Manna, 2006). During Barack Obama’s term, the Race to the Top (RTT) initiative loosened the improbable NCLB requirements but became the impetus for the adoption by many states of common standards (Lewin, 2010). Instead of a national curriculum, which the ESEA forbade, RTT encourages de facto national standards (Mathis, 2010). Despite the name and criteria changes, the underlying goal of all the initiatives is to offer equitable and quality education to all students via mixed-ability classrooms where everyone receives the same share of the educational offerings.
The national common core standards initiated through RTT are designed to help learners succeed in college and the workforce. According to the initiative’s website, the reform will prepare students for today’s global economy (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2011). Although the goals sound student-oriented, there is more to the story. As with previous reform efforts, both states and the nation will benefit; adoption of the common standards by state governors will bring them closer to federal monies. Also, by using similar curriculum, textbooks and assessments, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan believes the country will save billions of dollars (Lewin, 2010).
NCLB had comparable state perks. Federal funding was given for administration of state-wide standardized tests. Prior to that, the ESEA offered Title I funding to schools that pledged to help disadvantaged students.
Federal initiatives are formulated to benefit the country and its citizens, and would be counterproductive if they didn’t. In education, however, the goal of finding the most cost effective way to develop human capital reeks of Marxism. Students become not individual talents to be honed but pawns in an economic game. The common standards prompted by RTT will benefit the country via billions saved on education, thereby frugally increasing human capital, but will they increase the quality of our future work force?
Modern industrial societies are built on a hierarchy of occupations and duties. To fill these, a variety of interests and talents are required. Standardized education treats students, not as vital components of a multifaceted society, but as a mass, a single unit that must be indoctrinated for national gain. Instead of empowering and embracing individual skills, it sets students on a curricular path which may not be in their best interests.
In the pursuit of equalized intelligence, the burden falls on the disadvantaged. Academically-successful students will breeze through any curricular changes and remain as successful as they were before the standards were introduced. Their mastery will further increase their sense of efficacy. Meanwhile, low-achieving students will struggle to reach the newest arbitrary mark of common intelligence. Disappointing results in their efforts can further decrease what may be an already low sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1994). The loss of self-esteem can lead to frustration with school and eventually to dropping out (Reasoner, 2010).
As a teacher at a continuation high school, I have seen firsthand the lackluster results of government initiatives. Whether it be NCLB or RTT, standardized schooling blatantly reproduces biases, promotes boredom and, for many students, results in failure. The career goal of several of my senior students ranges from tattoo artist to dental assistant. Those who say they want to go to college are unsure what they want to study. Their uncertainty is not a surprise. The standardized curriculum they must follow leaves little room for self-discovery. Rather than hone their specific interests and abilities, the required college-preparatory courses exclude them from personal development and growth.
Standardization is meant to ensure quality. With commodities, it makes perfect sense, but should it also be applied to individuals? A 2009 assessment by the National Academy of Education (NAE) of America’s standards-based education showed unsatisfactory results. Rather than teach students according to individual abilities, a standardized curriculum encourages teaching to the test. More instructional focus is given to the tested subjects of math and English, and less is given to science, social studies, art, music and physical education. In addition, the traditional college-preparatory, standardized curriculum ill serves students who do not plan on continuing their education (NAE, 2009).
Although designed to instill equality, common standards can evoke inequality. Any standardized test is a ranking system; as such it breeds comparisons of students, schools, districts, and regions. To flaunt the common core standards as an egalitarian tool is inaccurate; ranking systems create or reproduce hierarchies (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Those who are good test takers or who have a natural bent for the subjects being tested will be at the top of the hierarchy; all others will fall below. This is not equality and is certainly not a lesson that should be taught in schools. By pitting students and schools against one another via test scores, the lesson becomes competition rather than cooperation.
Equality of intelligence can never be attained yet too often government officials lead the public into believing it can. Rather than continue the charade, the purpose of the common standards and standardized tests should be told forthright. Disguised as avenues toward social democracy, they are a capitalistic money-making venture, as well as a panicked solution to a country that fears losing its economic standing in the global market. They feign innovation but are instead a dated response to a worldwide competition.
It is ironic to see that in an era of critical pedagogy and equitable rights, our educational policies move more and more toward rigid uniformity. Instead of focusing on individual talents and expertise, we focus on collective basics. Instead of allowing our high school students to choose their own destiny, we steer their course through mandated curricula. Instead of being educational innovators, we revise and rename what has already been done.
Education is designed to sit in a state of flux, yet our educational practices are anachronistic and stale. A one-size-fits-all education is not practical. New generations of students bring new knowledge, perspectives, and ideas. Changes in population, economics, and occupations necessitate periodic curricular reforms.
The argument for individualization dates back to Ancient Greece. In The Republic, Plato (1908) contended: “No two persons are born exactly alike; but each differs from the other in natural endowments, one being suited for one occupation and the other for another” (p. 55). According to Plato, when workers choose an occupation that befits their talents “things will be produced in superior quantity and quality, and with greater ease” (p. 55).
The individualistic mindset continued through the 18th century periods of Enlightenment and Romanticism. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762/2007) saw it as a roadway to educational equity. Inequality, he asserted, was an unavoidable and unfortunate byproduct of the civilization of man. With metallurgical and agricultural production came greed, competition, labor divisions, and social classes. For an egalitarian education, children should be separated from influential social factors and be allowed to embrace and develop their natural bent (Rousseau, 1754/2009).
Individualistic learning is a goal in many countries. Japan aims to give every student equal educational opportunity according to his/her abilities. Recent curricular reforms have been focusing not on uniformity and conformity but on creativity and individuality. The goal is to provide students with the skills needed to survive in the 21st century; namely, the ability to identify problems, act independently, and adapt to new situations. Compulsory schooling includes six years of elementary and three years of lower secondary. Upper secondary schools, although not mandatory, have a 97% attendance rate (Watanabe, 2010).
South Korea’s educational focus is on diversity and individuality rather than uniformity. Known for its stringent academics, the republic is now promoting vocational training and lifelong learning. Also, the curriculum and College Scholastic Ability Test were restructured to allow 11th and 12th grade students to choose their own classes (Shin & Koh, 2005).
Germany’s tripartite educational system sets primary students on an academic or vocational track. According to governmental policy statements, the program was designed to focus on individual abilities and interests (Kubow & Fossum, 2003). This concept is seen in the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (2008): “Every person shall have the right to free development of his [sic] personality” (Article 2).
Sages have, for centuries, advocated individualism and several academically successful countries focus on it. Why then do American leaders cling to educational standards? For true reform, policy makers need to look beyond the parameters of standardized education. School curricula and structures must be changed. Rather than attempt the impossible feat of equalizing intelligence, educators should center on individual talents, interests, and abilities.
Individualizing education can be done through more student responsibility and less compulsory education. A mandatory 12-year college preparatory curriculum no longer makes sense. After earning a Grade 10 certificate, students should be given options to follow the upper secondary path of their choice. Allowing students to choose their classes according to time preference, interests, abilities and goals would bring a college atmosphere to the high school campus. To accommodate individual interests, high schools should be open longer and offer more courses. Federal funds that are now spent on standards-based reforms could instead be used to hire more teachers in order to make this a reality. After all, the key to equitable learning is not standardization but individualization. When futures are put in the hands of the beholder, true equity in education will unfold.
