The two camps as I see it

There are two conflicting camps in education.  One camp believes that the route to success is by controlling and aligning as many factors as possible.  In this ideology, the problem in the current system is not the system itself, but lack of planning.  If teachers plan together so that one grade builds on the next, and all desired skills are gradually developed, then students will be able to achieve the performance goal.  In this model, the students are called on to prove what they’ve learned in a standardized test, administered at the end of the year.  Funding is then tied to the performance of the school, determined by a formula that also takes into consideration demographic information and attendance rates.  In this camp, the pervading belief is that if teachers were able to plan the perfect system, aligned both vertically and horizontally, then students will achieve the desired goals. 

Another camp believes that planning and assessing isn’t the crux of the problem.  Instead, we need a revolutionary change to take the current education system that was designed in the Industrial Age and update it.  This camp believes that, in order to have a healthy system, it must be adapted.  Changes are necessary at all levels of the organization, from the age-based system down to the standardized assessment.  In this viewpoint, human beings are at the center of the classroom, not just students.  This means that we have to look at them as individuals and make adjustments according to their needs.  Within this system, creativity is valued and divergent thinking encouraged.  People who fall in this ideological stance aren’t necessarily against standards, as they recognize the importance of having goals.  However, the usage of current standardized tests is what is questioned.  Instead of giving the tests at the end of the year when the teacher can’t take corrective action, this stance would rather have the tests earlier, so that results could be used to determine where the most attention should be given.

In both camps, teachers, administrators, and policy-makers believe they are making the best decisions for their students.  They use the information and experiences they have in order to shape their pedagogical beliefs.  Because everyone has a different set of experiences, in different contexts, with different people, and different goals, there is bound to be a different outcome. 

For myself, I believe that a mix of the two approaches is probably closer to the truth.  However, I do lean more toward the socio-cultural constructivist viewpoint.  As I’ve stated in a previous post, I don’t plan out every question I’m going to ask, although I have a good idea of where I want to go.  Instead, I listen to what the students already know, and adapt to them.  If they need more instruction in one area than another, and I’ve planned differently, then I’m not opposed to dropping my goal for the day and returning to it another day.  Sometimes, this means I’ll do it in the same unit.  Sometimes, it means it will be shifted to another unit.  I couldn’t do this in a scripted curriculum.  However, I value the importance of meeting with other teachers, across content areas.  If we could figure out a way to make sure the History teacher and the English teacher are discussing WWII at the same time, the students will note connections between the two subjects.  If the Biology teacher is discussing Ecosystems, the English teacher could provide an article to supplement this instruction in order to teach a reading skill.  They are all interrelated, so there should be a collaborative plan.  But it shouldn’t stop there.  Teachers in the middle school and teachers in the high school need to plan together.  High school teachers can tell middle school teachers what skills they’d like to see more fully developed.  Middle school teachers could tell high school teachers what skills and texts students had already learned.  In this way, students would have a cohesive, logical, relevant curriculum to give them maximum connections.

But until we sit down and reconcile these differences, this won’t happen.  We’ll continue to teach the way we think it should be done, following the rules, and getting it done.  Is it enough?  I don’t think so.  We should expect more of ourselves just as we should expect more from our students. 

Assessment Doesn't Have to Be a Dirty Word

The word “assessment” makes me cringe.  Perhaps my dislike of the term is because of the association with testing.  Assessment should be more than that, but, unfortunately, according to our government, that is not the case.  So, teachers across America are forced to have a negative experience with assessment, aka testing.  If the concept were more about evaluation of what students know versus what they do not know in one moment in time and under pressure, perhaps students’ needs would be better served.

What state assessment is: a picture of what a set of students do not know at a specified point in time about a subject whose required standards may or may not be represented.  Students come in to a bare room, cleaned and stripped to reduce the chance of cheating, and sit in rows spaced to prevent wandering eyes.  Of course, the implication is that we do not trust the students, so they are already uncomfortable.  If they look up and accidently allow their gaze to linger too long on another student, they may be subject to severe punishment.  Since the room has all posters ripped down, and any writing on the walls removed, it looks lifeless and dull, as intellectually unstimulating as possible.  Absolute silence is the rule, and no movement of any kind is allowed. They must fill out the test in standard number two pencil, not allowing any stray smudge marks to give inaccurate results.  Essays should be completed only within the lines of a box, and absolutely must follow a standard format for ease of grading in a rubric.  No creativity allowed.

But creativity is what drives our American economy.  People make their living on innovation, ideas, and implementation.  So the assessment, in my opinion, doesn’t match what the desired skill is.  Instead, we are preparing students for an industrial society then throwing them into a pool of creativity that they just don’t know how to handle.  It is unfair to our students. 

Some states, like Washington and Tennessee, offer alternate portfolio evaluations to those students who have significant disabilities and it is specified on their IEP (Individualized Education Plan).  Why can’t it work to give all students the option to elect a portfolio evaluation?  All year, students could work on fulfilling a specified list of objectives, and be required to turn them in.  Teachers could receive specialized training (like we do for TELPAS) to evaluate these portfolios according to a state-provided rubric.  That way, students still have the ability to be in lower-pressure situations, have the time they need to do well, and even give them some room to be a bit more creative.  At the same time, states can keep students on a plan that fulfills state mandated standards, guaranteeing an attempt at continuity across campuses. 

There are already some schools that operate with this portfolio system.  When I was a pre-service teacher in New York in 2003, I took a field trip to observe at an alternative school in Rochester, NY.  It is called The School Without Walls.  At the School Without Walls, students take classes that are about a topic rather than a subject.  For instance, there is one class called Crime Scene Investigation.  The class reads novels about crime scene investigation, practices forensic science, meets with local law enforcement agents, and writes up a case.  The topic goes beyond what is able to be studied in a traditional classroom setting, and the kids are excited about it.  The students who sign up for this course have some interest in pursuing a career related to Crime Scene Investigation, so it is real and worthwhile to them. 

School Without Walls doesn’t just explore topics within the confines of the classroom.  They also meet as a whole school to read a shared text about a broader topic.  For instance, they may read a novel about Self-Discovery, as it is one of their broader topics.  As a school, they meet to discuss problems that may arise in the school, and relate it back to the reading that they do. 

To complete the year, students must turn in a portfolio that shows their growth throughout the year. It includes writing samples, lab reports, mathematical projects, etc.  A committee of teachers, administrators, and board members meets to evaluate the portfolios.  Additionally, to graduate, the student must complete a senior project.  For instance, one girl designed a building using computer software.  She worked with an engineer to complete her plan, getting real world experience.  Real world experience is what our current system is lacking, and this school is brilliant at integrating it into the curriculum.

New York isn’t the only state with a school like this.  Washington D.C. has its own School Without Walls that is Presidential Blue Ribbon Award Recipient.  They have a 99.5% graduation rate and a 100% placement rate of graduates into college (SWW 2011).  Compare that to the national average of only 70.1% graduating and only 36.2% of 18-24 year olds being enrolled in college (NCHEMS 2009), and it is clear that the normal system just doesn’t work as well as the alternative.  So, why is it the standard? 

Internationally, we are suffering too.  According to the NCHEMS organization, out of a surveyed 11 countries, the United States has the lowest amount of 25-34 year olds (39.2%) with college degrees.  The world is leaving us behind.  Perhaps part of the reason that we haven’t changed is because the older generation knows that they used to be the leader in the education scene.  But, what worked for them will not continue to work.  Times have changed, more technology has been introduced, and the children are growing up in an entirely different world.  It’s time to wake up and make an adaptive change.

Assessment should be about a combination of informal and formal data collected over time.  It should be about using the data collected as a means to help students achieve better.  It should be about preparing students for their next step in life, whether that means college or the work force.  What it should NOT be about is funding, which is currently the unfortunate truth.  My hope is that policy-makers will consult teachers who live in the trenches, and students who deal with the pressure of evaluations, in order to make a positive change to help our country get back on track to being number one.

Works Cited

NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymakers and Analysis.  (2009). Obtained on September 4, 2011 at http://www.higheredinfo.org/

School Without Walls. (2011). Obtained on September 4, 2011 at http://www.swwhs.org/

School Without Walls. (2009). Obtained on September 4, 2011 at http://www.schoolwithoutwalls.org/