July 27, 2008
TECHNOS QUARTERLY Winter 2000 Vol. 9 No. 4
A Matter of Degree
by Jason Ohler
In
the two decades that I have been involved with teacher education, I have never
seen a profession so in search of itself. I entered education during the peak
of the open classroom/alternative education movement, which was rapidly replaced
by education theorist Madeline Hunter’s need for predictability and accountability,
which yielded to a number of attempts to honor self-discovery, which were
always countered by a back-to-the-basics movement. Then, either because of
or coincidentally along with the advent of technology, came restructuring,
in which the classroom and the roles of its inhabitants were redesigned due
to the changing demands in the way we lived and worked. As we wrestle with
school-to-work, voucher-driven, semi-private education and K–80 learning,
we are, as always, not only in the middle of one paradigm but also always
poised for the next.
Laying Blame
Education’s search for a path is largely driven by a sincere desire to
improve and by a confused public that blames our schools for everything from
a bad economy (when there is one)—but never credits them for a good economy
(when it comes around)—to a lack of respect for the past, while pushing
them to abandon it in order to prepare kids for the future. By the end of
the last two decades, there was very little I knew for sure about the ever-evolving
world of teacher education, except perhaps the following: (1) every educational
movement offers something worthwhile to the profession of teaching while simultaneously
containing the seeds of its own misuse; and (2) despite our experience on
the merry-go-round of educational philosophy, we have not yet learned to anticipate
the downside of, as CEO of Aspire Public Schools Don Shalvey calls it, “the
paradigm du jour.”
As we wrestle with school-to-work, voucher-driven, semi-private education and K–80 learning, we are, as always, not only in the middle of one paradigm but also always poised for the next.
Classroom teachers, often criticized for their unwillingness to change, many times are simply overpowered by policy makers who tend to adopt the newest trend, overdo it, vilify it, and move on in search of the next one so quickly that classroom teachers don’t have time to determine what works and what doesn’t. So, bear with me as I examine the current paradigm in light of these observations.
Setting Standards
The rage now is standards and their practical complement, competencies. Through
various federal, state, and local initiatives, many school districts across
America have developed standards, which usually take the form of a wish list
of abilities that we want students to have at various age levels and in various
subject areas. Competencies are standards made concrete. They typically consist
of skills that students who have met the standards should be able to demonstrate.
Thus, a standard might be expressed as: “Students should understand the
basic working of the solar system”; while a competency to address this
might be stated as: “Students will be able to describe the basic elements
of the solar system, using diagrams, and explain the relationship between
the surface temperature of a planet and distance from the sun.”
So, you might ask, if this is an example of the current movement, how can anyone be against being competent? It sure beats being incompetent. As with all educational movements, standards and competencies offer a great deal that is useful. But I offer the following concerns, which sooner or later we will need to address.
Drowning in a Sea of Paper
Let me start with the less important stuff first. To begin with, there is
the sheer volume of paperwork associated with competencies. As an educator,
I must now address seven sets of standards or competencies, some related to
my field (educational technology), some related to my institution (a state-supported
university), some related to state mandates (Alaska), and so on. I could easily
find seven more, all of which have value. It has become a “rubric’s
cube” (pun intended) to keep them aligned. While this sounds more like
whining than social inquiry, I am compelled to observe that what had all the
potential of being helpful is now confusing, unbelievably time consuming,
and often counterproductiveÑif the real goal is to spend time helping students
learn.
There is also the fear that always lurks in the back of my mind that some, if not many, students might be better off developing the talents and interests they have rather than focusing on the plethora of competencies that now confront them. I am not suggesting we have set the bar too high, but perhaps too broadly. As I look at the exit standards for high school students in my own state, I don’t know any five people collectively who have these abilities among them in all subject areas. We all know students who shine in some areas and are weak in others. These students will, on some level, be judged incompetent by standardized learning and testing. Some of our concerns about these students are bona fide, while others reflect cultural and social biases and fail to take advantage of students’ intrinsic motivation to develop talents and skills that are meaningful to them.
Schools in poor areas that are already struggling will be held to the same standards as all other schools, but will receive no extra help—all stick and no carrot.
The economic divide will only amplify this situation. Schools in poor areas that are already struggling will be held to the same standards as all other schools, but will receive no extra help—all stick and no carrot.
I also don’t feel we as a society have thought through the amount of power we are willing to relegate to standardized tests and those who create them. As students, teachers, schools, and entire districts are reduced to statistical assessments of standardized test results, we begin to see an ugly truth: in a standardized testing environment, it is extremely difficult to test or reward for skills in creative problem solving, critical thinking, lifelong learning, and a number of other key skills that are needed today. Therefore, teachers will forgo the kind of honest inquiry and exploration skills needed in “the real world” to make sure students are ready to take tests or address standards. No doubt there are things we can legitimately test for in a standardized environment. But no doubt there are many we cannot, none of which will be considered valuable, and therefore, will not be addressed.
But perhaps the most disturbing part of a competency-driven education environment is that, as the teacher, I can no longer move the goal post down the field for those who need to be pushed the extra 10 yards to truly realize their potential. If a student meets or even exceeds the competencies, he or she is free to go. While this sounds wonderfully equitable, it comes at the expense of true mentoring while promoting mediocrity. The great irony is that it is the students I pushed to excellence over the years—many of whom were “competent” before they met me—who have come back to thank me for being a good teacher. I don’t think many will come back to thank me for recognizing their competency.
Shifting Paradigms
In this political year it was at least curious, if not disturbing, to hear
all the great macho blustering about being “tough on standards”
juxtaposed with candidates’ desires to have students prepared for the
realities of today’s workforce. While these two goals are not necessarily
mutually exclusive, they are far from being reconciled. Perhaps they will
meet in the middle by letting the competency movement put formal education
out of business. After all, what is the value of a degree in an era in which
being competent is king? If we can prove we know how to do something, do we
need a learning institution to bless our knowledge? If employers value proven
abilities over parchment, then clearly formal education has a new role in
society. Perhaps it will turn out to be producing well-rounded human beings
before they set out for the work world in which “attitude as well as
aptitude” is the new key to success.
. . . the science of teaching is knowing a number of different approaches to teaching, while the art is knowing when to use which.
As a teacher, I know that somewhere in my future lurks an enthusiastic reformer who honestly believes in the next paradigm and whose job it is to help me make the shift. While no doubt there is value in the next wave of re-evaluation, the fact is that good teachers come in every flavor of philosophy. As paradigms come and go, we would do well to remember that the science of teaching is knowing a number of different approaches to teaching, while the art is knowing when to use which. In the meantime, I brace myself for the next wave of reform and hope we have the wisdom of foresight to anticipate its weaknesses.
Jason
Ohler is director of the educational technology program at the University
of Alaska Southeast in Juneau. He is author of Taming
the Beast: Choice & Control in the Electronic Jungle, published
by TECHNOS Press in 1999, and is editor of a second TECHNOS Press book titled
Future Courses: A Compendium of Thought
about Education, released in 2001.