The Flat World and Ed. Chap. 1-4
As has been a common theme to most reflections to the first four chapters of The Flat World and Educations, I too initially had a sense of doom and gloom when faced with the statistics and data presented. It was very evident by the data presented that schools that have unequal funding and support have unequal results. Schools with highly qualified, adequate resource allocation, rigorous curricula, high expectations, and great internal and external support have ever-increasing academic benefits—schools with the opposite characteristics have ever-sinking student outcomes. Duh.
However, I am now very critical, as Jax explains well, of the validity of a set of data. I do believe what matters regarding these chapters is the notions that schools that fall within the failing category do not self-correct--bad schools become worse, teacher turn-over increases, and expectations decrease. This matters to me. It does not depress me, worry me, or make me feel disheartened because I am not sure what the seeming downward spiraling of the school means. I do not know what it means for us globally as a nation. I have a hard time believing that other countries do not have schools that fail. I also do not know what it means for the students of the school. I believe to really understand the issues a school is having, it must be looked at closely and carefully. This is in contrast to the overarching and exaggerated picture state and national data can depict. The data allows for comparison and competitive practice between schools of success and those lacking. As hooks explains, “competitive education rarely works for students who have been socialized to value working for the good of the community. It rends them, tearing them apart. They experience levels of disconnection and fragmentation that destroy all pleasure in learning.”
It seems for many education policy makers, broad-stroke policies and solution standardization will solve our school problems (there are problems right?) As many classmates know, I have trouble with standardization as a solution to some of the problems (again, there are problems right?) with education. Standardization by its definition guts a society of the differences within. It is not an intimate examination of potential problems which I believe to be more effective.
Standardization is….
Formulation, publication, and implementation of guidelines, rules, and specifications for common and repeated use, aimed at achieving optimum degree of order or uniformity in a given context, discipline, or field.
To me, this is the opposite of democratic education, which I am beginning to understand and value. Standardization too, it seems, is counterproductive to a democratic society member—of which we teach each day and will eventually send into the world. I believe this to be far more problematic and have greater American impact globally than low math scores.
As has been a common theme to most reflections to the first four chapters of The Flat World and Educations, I too initially had a sense of doom and gloom when faced with the statistics and data presented. It was very evident by the data presented that schools that have unequal funding and support have unequal results. Schools with highly qualified, adequate resource allocation, rigorous curricula, high expectations, and great internal and external support have ever-increasing academic benefits—schools with the opposite characteristics have ever-sinking student outcomes. Duh.
However, I am now very critical, as Jax explains well, of the validity of a set of data. I do believe what matters regarding these chapters is the notions that schools that fall within the failing category do not self-correct--bad schools become worse, teacher turn-over increases, and expectations decrease. This matters to me. It does not depress me, worry me, or make me feel disheartened because I am not sure what the seeming downward spiraling of the school means. I do not know what it means for us globally as a nation. I have a hard time believing that other countries do not have schools that fail. I also do not know what it means for the students of the school. I believe to really understand the issues a school is having, it must be looked at closely and carefully. This is in contrast to the overarching and exaggerated picture state and national data can depict. The data allows for comparison and competitive practice between schools of success and those lacking. As hooks explains, “competitive education rarely works for students who have been socialized to value working for the good of the community. It rends them, tearing them apart. They experience levels of disconnection and fragmentation that destroy all pleasure in learning.”
It seems for many education policy makers, broad-stroke policies and solution standardization will solve our school problems (there are problems right?) As many classmates know, I have trouble with standardization as a solution to some of the problems (again, there are problems right?) with education. Standardization by its definition guts a society of the differences within. It is not an intimate examination of potential problems which I believe to be more effective.
Standardization is….
Formulation, publication, and implementation of guidelines, rules, and specifications for common and repeated use, aimed at achieving optimum degree of order or uniformity in a given context, discipline, or field.
To me, this is the opposite of democratic education, which I am beginning to understand and value. Standardization too, it seems, is counterproductive to a democratic society member—of which we teach each day and will eventually send into the world. I believe this to be far more problematic and have greater American impact globally than low math scores.
Beau, I love the way you worked bell hooks into your discussion, and how you are imbracing critical pedagogy. It is such a perfect fit for you argument about how standardized testing does not really have a positive change in education, but is used to show the the fragmentation of the educational system, and the disparity of some school districts, especially districts with minority majorities, and low socio-economic status.
ReplyDeleteThese test do not make students gain a lifelong love of learning, which is especially true of the students who are not given the same amount of respect given to other students. America is not benefiting from this system as a whole, and is making it worse with more and more emphais on standardized tests.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your identification of standardization as "counterproductive to a democratic society member," Woodford, but I am also wondering if it doesn't serve some good, too. Standardization certainly helps in the quality of food, medicine, or car I buy. It also makes travel on roads, in cities, in the air safer and smoother. I guess standardization is also essential in communication. So, if standardization "guts a society of differences within," then how do I decide what or how to teach the many students I have? Do we teach a standard curricula, one that is culturally/regionally based, or what I think is important? It seems that we are echoing the discussion about a pluralistic view of culture vs. a common American culture. Do we educate toward excellence or toward inclusion of all with a view toward equality? To standardize or not: I do not have an answer, but I appreciate your getting me to think more about that concept.
ReplyDeleteWho determines excellence, more importantly who determines excellence in education? I suspect that those that are not achieving excellence are not those that defined it. It seems that for some that do not successfully reach academic excellence; it may be due to difference in definition of what it means. Learning is a common valued component of all societies…however, what is valued within each group in regards to learning may be different.
ReplyDeleteI do not know what this means for us in the classroom. However, the flip-side to excellence is a heavy burden to yoke anyone with. I am satisfied for now recognizing that a standardized definition for excellence may not always serve or be valued in all groups.