Education Reform Exposed
Recently, a friend
had a question of her state department of education concerning curriculum being
used in her local high school. The SDE responded that "curriculum was a local
issue". My friend knew that
wasn't true, so requested to know if local schools didn't have to meet the
State curriculum frameworks.
Following is the response she received.
Friday, August 30,
2002
All children enrolled in public schools must be taught a curriculum
based on the content standards in the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks. This is a requirement of the law and of
Rule and Regulation. Local school
districts may include learning standards which exceed or are not part of the
Frameworks, but they must
teach the Frameworks. The State assessments taken by
our children are intended to measure their learning of these content standards. The school accountability program is heavily based on
their test scores.
Additionally, by law we
are required to provide professional development around the content standards
in the Frameworks. In short,
we are focusing our public education system on challenging content standards
within the Frameworks. I would also
note to you that our Federal
government now requires us to create such a standards-based system under
the No Child Left Behind legislation.
There is no way to
opt out of having students in public schools educated based on something other
than our Frameworks. Parents
do have choice in directing the education and upbringing of their
children. Any parent completely
opposed to his/her child being taught based on the Frameworks can determine to
seek another form of education for that child, such as a private school or home
schooling. However, before making
such a decision, I would urge you to closely study our Frameworks, which are
posted on our web site. You will
find clear definitions of what students should know and be able to do in each content
area. These Frameworks are written
by Arkansas teachers who have access to curriculum documents from across the nation and who
want our children to grow into contributing citizens with the kind of knowledge and skills it is going to take to
compete successfully in the job market of tomorrow. I apologize for the length of this
e-mail, but I wanted to provide a full explanation and context for my response. (highlighting added)
Dr. Gayle Potter
Associate Director, Academic Standards
and Assessment
Arkansas Department of Education
What is Dr Potter really saying here?
In her first sentence Dr Potter states
that curriculum must be based on the states content standards. What are content standards? From the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks
comes the following definition of standards:
General statements of what
students are expected to know
and be able to do in the academic content areas. Example: Students can
write in a variety of types for a variety of purposes. (highlighting added)
There are content and process
standards, coalescing, interconnected, interdependent, one upon the other. (Conley, 1993)
From the Final Report: Schools
for the 21st Century, (State Board of Education, Washington State,
1995) it becomes apparent that ...
content is
excellence in terms of the change agenda;
process is the
product; the destination; what learning is about;
emotionality and affectivity are the
means by which content and process will be achieved;
feelings are paramount
With this in mind, please take a look
at the curriculum
frameworks for Arkansas.
As you look at these, ask yourself whether these curriculum frameworks
are objective or subjective?
The obvious answer, when children are taught
to respond to what are known as trigger words or prompts ...
|
Thinking
Skill |
Action
Verb ... |
|
Recall |
define,
identify, label, list, name, repeat, what, when, who ... |
|
Analysis |
subdivide,
break down, separate, categorize sort ... |
|
Comparison |
compare,
contrast, differentiate, distinguish ... |
|
Inference |
deduce,
predict, infer, speculate, anticipate, what if, apply, conclude ... |
|
Evaluation |
evaluate,
judge, assess, appraise, defend, argue, recommend, debate, why, critique ... |
|
(Stiggins, 1986) |
|
... action
verbs that denote a particular process — defined as behavior, procedure, (Stiggins, 1986) — to be
performed, is that these are subjective.
Look at the way the curriculum frameworks
are assessed, remembering that an assessment is a subjective measure of worth
to the one doing the assessing:
Legend for
suggested assessment tools to measure mastery of Arkansas Curriculum
Frameworks:
S: Statewide
assessment tool;
T: Teacher-made
tests;
PO: Portfolio
assessment;
PR: Project;
C: Checklist;
O: Observation;
PE: Performance;
E: Exhibition;
D: Demonstration;
LJ: Log/Journal;
W: Writing;
DBQ: Document Based Question
Each of these is a subjective measure
(opinion) of the child's work, not an objective measure of the factual
knowledge base of the child:
the
child will be observed ...
the
child will demonstrate ...
the
child will exhibit ...
the
child will perform ...
the
child will be assessed by the opinion the teacher has ...
of
the child's journal where children are often times encouraged to express their feelings
on various social and life related issues (Erickson, 1995) ...
of
the child's ability to write ...
of
projects the child is required to do ...
Considering the aforesaid, ask yourself
these questions concerning the curriculum frameworks ...
1.
who will define these?
2.
who will assess these?
3.
who will have the final say if the parent/s do not agree with these
curriculum frameworks?
In each case, will it be ...
- the parents,
who enter into a partnership, albeit the silent partner, with the
local public school in the education of the child?
- the
school, who must comply with state and federal laws in order to continue
receiving state and federal monies?
- the teacher, who must
teach the state curriculum frameworks, or
- the
one developing the assessment tool to determine whether the child has
mastered these curriculum frameworks — what the child should know
and be able to do?
The answer to questions 1 through 3 is
(d) — the state, who, because it has taken federal money, must answer to
the federal government as Dr Potter indicated above.
But, you say, the curriculum frameworks
for your state are different. Not
so. The words may vary somewhat
from state to state, but the intent and meaning are the same. Dr Potter lays out how this is possible
in speaking of having access to curriculum documents from across the nation in
writing the curriculum frameworks for Arkansas.
Dr Potter refers to the federal
requirement of a standards-based (aka, outcome-,
performance-, competency-based ... aka, systems
education) system. In that she is
correct, although she is not correct in the source of the requirement. Before the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), it was the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), both the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
In 1994, the ESEA was changed to the IASA to
fund Goals 2000. Even though the
Goals 2000 law has sunset, the NCLB continues to fund
the system established by that law.
Dr Potter makes the connection between
curriculum frameworks and curriculum, instruction, and teaching methodologies;
what some education reform advocates refer to as back or backward
mapping — defining the end result, then aligning curriculum, instruction,
and teaching methodologies (teacher training) to obtain the end result
(Holly, 1989; State Board of Education, 1995). Accountability becomes the tool
by which teachers, schools, and school districts are forced into compliance
with the state, and the state into compliance with the federal government.
Dr Potter states that parents who do
not agree with the state curriculum frameworks have the choice of private
school or home school. This would
be true were it not that these same parents must continue to support the public
or government school via taxes.
This brings up the subject of equal
access and taxation without representation. When a citizen is required to help pay
for something to which he is denied access because of his world view, then he
is denied equal access. (See Separation of School and State)
Our country was established as a representative
republic, meaning those who represent us must be elected. The individuals who brought (they did
not write them) the curriculum frameworks into each state were not elected,
they were appointed. As such, it
cannot be said, in any instance, that the curriculum frameworks represent
what the community wants in the education of children. Nor can it be said that parents and
community were represented in the writing of the curriculum
frameworks. To require citizens to
pay taxes to support a system in which they have no voice equates to taxation
without representation.
Dr Potter acknowledges that the sole
purpose of education under systems education is to produce a workforce,
individuals who have demonstrated mastery of the new basic skills: teamwork, critical thinking, making
decisions, communication, adapting to change and understanding whole systems. (Workforce Training and Education
Coordinating Board, 1994)
Since the real
purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities
but to bring about
significant changes in the students' patterns of behavior, it becomes
important to recognize that any statement of the objectives ... should be a
statement of changes to take place in the student. (Tyler, 1949)
In fact, a large part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability
to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs
and getting them to discuss issues. (Bloom, 1964)
Instead, education,
as now conceived, leads to
demonstrable changes in student behaviors, changes that can be assessed
using agree-upon standards. (Conley, 1993)
_____________________
Bibliography of Sources:
Conley, David T; Roadmap to
Restructuring; University of Oregon; ERIC Clearinghouse of Educational Mangement; 1993.
Erickson, H Lynn; Stirring the Heard, Heart and
Soul; Redefining Curriculum and Instruction; Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press; 1995.
Holly, Peter and Geoff Southworth;
The Developing School;
Philadelphia: Falmer Press; 1989.
Krathwohl, David R, Benjamin S Bloom and
Bertram B Masia; Taxonomy of Educational Objectives;
Book 2; Affective Domain; New York: Longman; 1964.
Stiggins, Richard J, et al; Measuring
Thinking Skills in the Classroom; Revised Edition; National Education
Association; 1986.
State Board of Education; Final
Report; Schools for the 21st Century; Washington State; 1995. (The final report was actually
written by Peter Holly under contract to the State Board of Education.)
Tyler, Ralph; Basic Principles of Curriculum and
Instruction; Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1949.
Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board; High
Skills, High Wages; Washington's Comprehensive Plan for Workforce Training and
Education; Washington State; 1994.
© August
2002; Lynn M Stuter
╪