Thomas Freidman writes recently in his OpEd column in The New York Times ("The New Untouchables") about professions whose jobs are potentially recession proof. He calls them "the new untouchables" and declares that, "those with the imagination to make themselves untouchables — to invent smarter ways to do old jobs, energy-saving ways to provide new services, new ways to attract old customers or new ways to combine existing technologies — will thrive." To prepare this untouchable workforce, Freidman claims the challenge will lie in school reform: "So our schools have a doubly hard task now — not just improving reading, writing and arithmetic but entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity." How then do we build schools that help to foster a students' imagination rather than simply teaching them basic skills, and how do we do this at not only a classroom level but at a policy level as well? The educational policies of the Clinton, Bush, and potentially the Obama administration move us away from schools that are innovative. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 placed "standards" at the center of educational reform. The standards for a school are determined by the state -- although under the Obama administration there is talk about moving towards national standards -- and are then handed down to schools by the respective state departments of education. Each state develops a set of tests that supposedly determine if a student have met the learning targets outlined in the state documents. Each year (or most often several times a year), students put aside their classroom work to take weeks of state-mandated tests.
It is true, many of our schools in the United States are in dire need of improvement. So we trust school administrators with this task, and over the last decade, they have been working gradually at standards based reform. My feeling is that this increasing move towards standardization is actually moving us towards a dumbing down of our public education system. I'm reminded of this passage in George Orwell's 1984:
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.
This comparison might seem extreme but from working in dozens of urban schools, in several cities in the United States, here are some of the indicators of orthodoxy I have observed:
1. Walk Throughs. Administrators perform what they call "walk throughs" in a school. The original intention behind walk throughs was good: open the classrooms and take a look at what is going on inside. Share ideas with other teachers and let the school leadership have a sense of what interesting things are happening in a school's classrooms. Yet what the walk through has become is a way of enforcing accountability. A group of school administrators (usually wearing dark suits) walk into each teacher's classroom. They ask the students what standard they are working on. They expect the teacher will clearly have the matching standard on the classroom board. Often they will dictate exactly what kind of teaching method they expect to see, perhaps the reading strategy of "summarization." They want to see all students reading and summarizing texts, not a bad skill in and of itself, but on the same day, and at the same time?
2. Scripted Curriculums. Similar to an actor following their lines, the teacher is expected to follow a "script" for teaching. Many of these curriculums tell the teacher exactly what they need to say to the students during the class. Others are a little less dictatorial but still outline exactly which activities, texts, and skills the teachers need to be teaching, week by week, or day by day. Often these are called "research-based curriculums" meaning a multi-million dollar company researched their own curriculums, and shockingly found them to be successful at improving students' literacy or math skills. If you are a school leader dedicated to so-called improvements, you go to a large corporation, buy curriculums for every grade level and every subject area, enforce them on the teachers, provide little training, and then perform walk throughs to make sure they are following them. And there you have it, quick reform.
3. Test, test, test. Most school administrators and policy makers will expound the virtues of collecting lots of data. "Without data how can you see what is going on in your district and make the necessary improvements?" they will ask. Similarly they offer sessions for teachers in order to use the testing data to improve their teaching practice. This is what our education system is becoming, the collecting and analyzing of data. But what does the data really show us? Does is reveal the student who was suspended from school the day of the test because he might bring down the scores? Does it tell us about the talented artist who sees no sense in taking the test and lays his head down to go to sleep in the auditorium? Even with the diligent students, all they see are an aggregate of numbers. A student's result on a standardized test is only a very small portion (a minuscule part) of who that student is. How does this standardized test reveal the talent of an artist or that student's capacity to lead? How do the aggregate results of a school's test reveal the power of a school's theater program? Even when we see an improvement on the test scores what are we really seeing? Legendary education writer Jonathan Kozol expresssed this beautifully in an interview with the Annenberg Institute of School Reform ("Segregation and its Calamitous Effects"):
Even when there is a slight uptick in [test] scores, these are testing gains; these are not learning gains. These are a direct result of obsessive teaching to the test. The reason I know this is the following: I follow all these kids — I follow hundreds of kids that I've known in several cities, especially in the Bronx in New York — and the same fourthgraders who allegedly have suddenly made a 5-percent gain in their reading scores don't retain these skills. I meet the same kids four years later, when they are in eighth grade, and they can't write a cogent sentence or read a textbook that's basically written at the fourth-grade level.
This emphasis on state standards and testing is leading to the Orwellian orthodoxy of our schools, where students are taught not to think: they are taught to take tests.
If we do hope to not move towards Orwell's vision of the future, and more towards Freidman's, we need to begin to think differently from the school to the policy level. We need to think not in terms of standardization but of innovation. We need to see our students not as numbers, but as change agents that can envision a better world.
Note: This post will be the beginning of a series on how to build schools and classrooms that are creative and innovative.
For an excellent brief analysis of the illusion of rising test scores read David Berliner's article "Why Rising Test Scores May Not Mean Increased Learning" in the Washington Post.