Educational Reform through Standards



History of American Educational Reform

Through Standards

Carly Schwarmann

August 25, 2008

Education 6120

American Education: Past and Present

Instructor: Dr. Andrew Lumpe

Introduction

American education reform throughout history has influenced teaching, curriculum, student learning, and the organization of schools. Important theorists such as Horace Mann, John Dewey, Jerome Bruner, and Theodore Sizer have contributed to the changing ideal in American education. Government reports and laws like The Committee of Ten, A Nation at Risk, No Child Left Behind, and Goals 2000 have transformed the way we view and run schools. Standards define what students should know and should be able to do, and they change with the ebb and flow of leaders in education and the government. Standards almost always call for raising the bar with more difficult material and increasing student achievement. With each introduction of reform and new standards comes support and criticism from many groups.

Educational Leaders and School Reform

Horace Mann, known as the father of the common school was one of the main advocates for school reform through progressive education. Progressive education used a child-centered approach, and for Mann moral education was at the heart of the curriculum. He argued that educated workers were less likely to drink, damage machinery, and more likely to attend church and provide a stable life for themselves and their families. He convinced people the common school was “an institution that existed not for the benefit of any individual, but for the benefit of all.” Mann was criticized for being a dreamer and many did not like his soft-line pedagogy (2004, Urban & Wagoner p.100-106).

John Dewey emphasized aligning school experience with real life. He recognized the school as a social institution that is part of society and proposed strategies for overcoming cultural differences. He believed in democracy and his philosophy of education combined content of academic subjects with interest in the subject matter. He saw the role of the subject matter, the child and the teacher as equal. Some historians looked down on Dewey’s emphasis on cooperative activity claiming it did not leave room for student autonomy (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 217-222).

In 1893 the National Education Association (NEA) conducted a high school study and published a report known as the Committee of Ten. At the time, high schools were competing against academies, private preparatory schools, and private tutors for college admission. A movement began promoting technical and commercial studies for boys and girls to prepare them for life after high school. Students chose among four alternative curricula for their course of study depending on their goals and interests. The courses were mainly prescribed and included Classical, Latin-Scientific, Modern Languages and English. All required classical languages, which, according to Charles Eliot, were the “key to intellectual and cultural development.” Critics of the Committee of Ten believed high schools should offer commercial and manual training as well (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 206-208).

From 1910-1955 the focus of curriculum shifted from traditional foreign language to functional math and English (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 290). Following the arrival of Sputnik, in 1958 the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) pushed for curriculum focus on math and science and other “defense related” subjects (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 294-299).

At the Woods Hole conference in Massachusetts in 1959 Jerome Bruner promoted curriculum reform dealing with structured learning. He believed any subject could be taught to any child at any stage of development. He stressed the use of intuitive and analytical thinking such as problem solving and reasoning. The problem with this approach was that the new requirements caused students, teachers, and parents discomfort because they found the work challenging (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 296-297).

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 brought us federal funding including Title I antipoverty programs like Head Start, which gave assistance to high needs students. President Jimmy Carter’s creation of the Department of Education increased federal involvement. Unfortunately there was little evidence that federal spending improved educational achievement for poor children (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 329-333).

Activism in the 1960’s and 70’s won students freedom of speech in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines. Teachers also gained academic freedom. Teacher unions such as AFT and NEA prospered during this time period. (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 338-340).

In the eighties Ronald Regan brought school choice and tuition tax credits, plus a push for school prayer. We started to see a rise in the number of students being homeschooled, for academic reasons and religious ones. Parents were displeased with the quality of education and lack of morals being taught in school (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 347-353).

A Nation at Risk written in 1983 attempted to persuade the public that there was a crisis in American education (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 355). It inspired the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB). NCLB brought federal mandates to local schools. By meeting adequate yearly progress, schools maintain funding from the federal government.

Since the Constitution makes education a function of the states, not the federal government, a site based management movement progressed in the 1980’s. It proposed a bottom up approach rather than top down. It gave independence to individual schools, but was met with complaints by teachers and principals, who didn’t have time to commit to the extra responsibility of school management (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 269-270).

President George Bush promoted America 2000, which included a set of six goals for education to be reached by the year 2000. The lofty goals proposed raising rates of graduation, literacy, competency in challenging subject matter; especially math and science, and becoming drug and violence free. (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 361-363).

The 1990’s created a charter school movement adopted in 37 states. The law allowed chartered schools to receive funding from the state and local school district. They were given freedom to develop curriculum with only periodic review. Studies of charter schools by the AFT show that they have been unsuccessful in raising student achievement in comparison with public schools (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 374-375).

Theodore Sizer, a follower of Horace Mann, founded the Coalition of Essential Schools, which subdivided large high schools into self contained units. Teachers were made accountable for no more than eighty students. He believes individual school autonomy and teacher autonomy are key to meaningful school reform (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 379). Another proponent for the democratic vision in schools is Deborah Meier, who empowered students, teachers and parents to work together to reach their goals. Her schools saw great success with typically underperforming populations (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 380).

Teacher education methods became stricter after A Nation at Risk was introduced. Alternative teacher training and certification programs pushed for masters degrees and increased the amount of subject matter required (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 381-382). NCLB required teachers to be highly qualified. The Nation Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) brought standardized testing for teachers due to the increasing emphasis on accountability and standards in education (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 383-384).

Measuring Standards by Testing

Testing has seen a major shift through history, since it’s advent in the 1920’s. World War One brought intelligence testing, which influenced school policy. Dewey claimed classifying people into groups through testing threatened democracy by indiscriminately labeling people (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 233). Latinos and African American perform lower than whites and Asians on achievement tests. (Chubb and Loveless p. 131). East Asian students spend more time studying because their parents teach them success is based on effort (Chubb and Loveless p. 145). Basing standardized test scores on school rewards created problems. Teachers began teaching to the test and students felt added pressure (2004, Urban & Wagoner p. 368). The high stakes test in Washington implemented in 1997 is the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL). All students in Washington must take the WASL and pass it in order to graduate.

Summary and Possible Solutions

Many patterns of required subjects and ideas about pedagogy have been reintroduced throughout history. While change is good, it is almost always met with resistance. Schools have the biggest impact on social society, so there is a lot riding on every new standard. Civility, hard work, high standards, and superb teaching results in higher test scores (Chubb and Loveless p. 142). Community and parent involvement is a key indicator of success. More education occurs outside of school than within it. Smaller class sizes can allow for more teacher student interaction and results in an increase of standardized achievement scores (Chubb and Loveless p. 11). Observational studies show a higher increase in reading scores than math because teachers are more literate than numerate. Therefore, they are able to innovate reading material more easily (1996, Ladd p. 113). If teachers are given training and support from districts and parents necessary to raise standards, then we may see a rise in test scores.

Conclusion and my Professional Position

America is no longer a melting pot, but a salad bowl that consists of very different schools, unique teachers and students from all cultures. It is a good idea to have everyone on the same page, but it is virtually impossible with local control of schools and fragmented policies for meeting standards. For me, this means I need to do the best I can at teaching my subject. I relate what I teach to the standards and prepare my students for rigorous assessments. I am able to do all this without teaching to the test. Students ultimately perform well because they have gained the skills they need to succeed in many contexts; not only on tests, but also in the real world. Schools that work have good teachers, and no amount of standards can change that.

References

Chubb, J. E. & Loveless, T. (Eds.). (2002). Bridging the achievement gap. Washington D.C.:

Brookings Institution Press.

Ladd, H. F. (Ed.). (1994). Holding schools accountable: performance-based reform in education.

Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Urban, W. J. & Wagoner, J. L., Jr. (2004). American education: a history (Third Edition).

Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download