As the public education debate heats up in Michigan and around the country, we find ourselves at a crossroads. Our flat and digital world demands change, and we must use our resources to fund the system most capable of producing successful global citizens. As I listen to various political, business and education leaders debate what that system should look like, I begin to wonder if in the current economic climate, we are prone to using our dwindling resources to address symptoms while missing the real issues challenging education.
Think about it. If you raise test scores high enough, everyone eventually fails. But are high test scores in a few core subject areas the right answer to remaining "on top" as a country? Are we looking forward, or backward with this approach to educational reform? And if you make teachers the "culprit" by painting them as the main reason for our economic failures, then public education becomes incompetent by default. Are teachers responsible for the economic woes in America? Why isn't anyone talking about poverty?
In an era of dwindling public funds, it's imperative that we "get it right" with respect to the system we fund. Two leading voices in the educational debate are Yong Zhao and Diane Ravitch. These experts consider a few of the HUGE questions and provide interesting perspectives.
Question: If the American Public Education System is broken, then why is China trying so hard to copy it?
America is the largest economy in the world. Our country has the most original patents, the most Nobel laureates, and the most scientific discoveries in the 20th century. In his book, Catching Up or Leading the Way, Yong Zhao ponders America's fixation on standardization and centralization of curriculum and assessment. He suggests that the results of our educational efforts will be disastrous, producing a "homogenous group of individuals with the same abilities, skills and knowledge" at a time when the U.S. needs "a citizenry of creative individuals with a wide range of talents to sustain its tradition of innovation" in a global and digital world.
Zhao contrasts recent reforms in both American and Chinese education. For example, in recent years, China has implemented reforms to decentralize its curriculum; provide increased autonomy to local schools; increase offerings in art, music and humanities and change its system for evaluating students and schools. The goal of the reforms is to better prepare citizens for success in the global world. Additionally, in 2008 the Chinese Ministry of Education relaxed the college entrance criteria, granting universities increased authority to admit students using their own criteria, rather than relying solely on standardized test scores. In direct contrast, the United States, via No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has caused many schools to narrow "their curriculum to focus only on what is tested" and teachers have increasingly been forced to "teach to the test". Zhao believes this narrow focus on a few subjects will destroy children's creativity and reduce their curiosity for learning. Numerous business, education and economic based "studies" articulate these very traits as essential 21st Century Skills. For example, Inventive Thinking, defined as adaptability/managing complexity; self direction, curiosity, creativity, and risk taking, is listed as a critical skill for workers in the 21st century. Zhao wonders why America is so eager to change the very system that China is working hard to emulate in its effort to move from a low level manufacturing economy towards an innovation-driven knowledge society. Zhao acknowledges that our system needs to change and improve, but he disagrees with the change being prescribed by our government.
It is Zhao's belief that "American education is at a crossroads. There are two paths in front of us: one in which we destroy our strengths in order to "catch up" with others in test scores and one in which we build on our strengths so we can keep the lead in innovation and creativity." With the federal government's $330 million award to two consortiums charged with developing new national exams, it's a great time to question, along with Yong Zhao,"Will our global competitiveness will be damaged by the U.S.Government's imposition of high stakes testing?"
(Yong Zhao is currently Presidential Chair and Associate Dean for Global Education, College of Education at the University of Oregon, where he also serves as the director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education. He grew up in China, but also studied in the United States and currently consults with many countries on educational issues. He describes himself as both an "insider" and an "outsider" to the American Educational System).
Diane Ravitch, New York University professor and author of The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, shares Yong Zhao's concern that the heavy emphasis on a limited number of subject areas will "test the innovation out of our system". She says, "What we need to improve education in this country is a strong, highly respected education profession, a rich curriculum in the arts and sciences, available in every school for every child; assessments that gauge what students know and can do, instead of mindless test prepping for bubble tests. And a government that is prepared to change the economic and social conditions that interfere with children's readiness to learn."
Question: What is the best predictor of low academic performance, bad teachers or poverty?
Ravitch, once a big supporter of NCLB (she was Asst. Secretary to Education under the Bush administration that crafted it) now opposes it along with the current Obama administrations emphasis on increasing choice (charters), firing teachers and closing schools. Her research suggests that the "best predictor of low academic performance is poverty - not bad teachers. She believes that "on our present course, we are disrupting communities, dumbing down our schools, giving students false reports of their progress, and creating a private sector that will undermine public education without improving it. Most significantly, we are not producing a generation of students who are more knowledgeable, and better prepared for the responsibilities of citizenship."
A compelling letter accompanies discourse found on Ravitch's website. A 5th grade teacher in North Monterey County, California writes, "it's not bad teaching that got things to the current state of affairs. It's pure, raw poverty. We don't teach in failing schools. We teach in failing communities. It's called the ZIP code quandary. If the kids live in a wealthy ZIP code, they have high scores; if they live in a ZIP code that's entombed with poverty, guess how they do?
I had 32 kids in my class last year. I love them to tears. They're 5th graders. That means they're 10 years old, mostly. Six of them were 11 because they were retained. Five more were in special education, and two more should have been. I stopped using the word "parents" with my kids because so many of them don't have them. Amanda's mom died in October. She lives with her 30-year-old brother (a thousand blessings on him). Seven kids live with their "Grams", six with their dads. A few rotate between parents. So "parents" is out as a descriptor. Here's the kicker: Fifty percent of my students have set foot in a jail or prison to visit a family member".
The number of people living in poverty in America rose by nearly 4 million to 43.6 million in 2009 - the largest figure in the 51 years for which poverty estimates are available. The Census Bureau reported that the official poverty rate was 14.3 percent, or 1 in 7 of Americans. Children represent a disproportionate share of the U.S. poor, making up 25% of the total population, but 35% of the poor population. As we review the census results, we need to take a hard look at the impact of poverty on education, and along with Ravitch, begin to focus public discourse on the issue.
There is little dispute among the debaters that education needs to continue to change, that assessments are important and union contracts need to be re-designed to better address today's economic, education design and student achievement challenges. We acknowledge that we have some "bad" teachers (what profession doesn't suffer the below average performer) and everyone's in favor of measures that ensure we are able to attract the best into the profession. Where the debate gets lively is when the various stakeholders begin to define what the "change" should look like. Financial resources available for public education are dwindling. The answer matters.