Every school I walk into has many similarities and many differences. Because I am supply teaching in Ontario high schools, the material that is taught is the same from one English classroom to the next. The physical building is always similar; with an office, gym, cafeteria, wide halls etc. It is once I start talking to the students and talking to administration and teachers in the staff room that the differences start to appear. The differences are due to the varying teaching approaches. While one teacher may implement project-based learning whenever possible, another teacher may believe in lectures as a main way to teach. So while the content may be the same, there are many ways that material is delivered. The varying paradigms are explored in Diane Ravitch’s article “A Brief History of Testing and Accountability.” Ravitch dives into the components of teaching that dictate what goes on inside a classroom. She starts off by noting that while there is a long history of test-taking in learning environments, the idea of holding teachers accountable for the student grades is a “more recent invention.” Here is a summary of Ravitch’s article, outlining the changes in a call for accountability in education.
19th Century Accountability
In the 19th Century, school-houses were often one-room building where students of all ages gathered to learn from one teacher. These schoolteachers were required to undergo an initial test of their knowledge in order to teach. The teacher was also expected to hold certain views and practice the religion that was the norm in the area.
Robert Harris Oil on Canvas (Confederation Century Art Gallery)
In order to make sure the teacher held these particular qualities, they would be interviewed by members of the local school board which usually included a member of the clergy. No practice teaching days and no observations of their teaching. The teacher was approved and would not be tested on their teaching ability again. Teachers were to instruct and students were to learn and "If students failed to learn, it was the students’ fault"(Ravitch 2002). It seems that things were fairly black and white with respect to the ideas surrounding education at the time. It also appears that this type of schooling did not suit all students because only 1 in 10 students went on to study in high school.
Even fewer went to colleges in the nineteenth century. Most colleges accepted anyone into their programs except for places of prestige like Harvard or Yale where an entrance test needed to be passed for admission. In 1900 the College Entrance Examination Board was created and made ONE single college admission test. This test guided a lot of the content that the teacher taught.
Progressive Education
In the 1930s and 1940s, progressivism became a dominant ideology because it associated education with the trifecta of progress, science, and reform. Educators liked their profession being seen as scientific and could therefore "withstand entreaties of parents" (Ravitch 2002). Testing, therefore, became an important focus in education and to people like Edward L. Thorndike, a key voice for progressive education.
Goodenough, Florence L. “Edward Lee Thorndike: 1874-1949.” The American Journal of Psychology, vol. 63, no. 2, 1950, pp. 291–301. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1418943.
He attended Columbia University's Teachers College and wanted to prove that education was an exact science. He used scientific methods to measure academic performance and was very interested in test results, not accountability. He thought noneducators need not be involved in schooling.
Progressive educators were also concerned with the ‘psychological well-being of the child’ and there was a push to focus less on subjects and more on social adjustment within schools. Students were promoted even if they were not succeeding academically (social promotion). Tests were still administered but they were not the be-all and end-all of accountability. The belief that if a student fails it is their fault was falling by the waist side as people were recognizing, partially in response to the depression, that many other factors contribute to student grades.
Influence of the NAEP
One of the first reports that looked into the external factors that contribute to academic success came in 1966 when sociologist James Coleman wrote Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman report). The report examined the varying amounts of resources and opportunities had amongst children of different races. It also "examined differences in achievement scores, or outcomes" (Ravitch 2002) and looked at the ways school resources affect achievement. This analysis was possible due to the large amount of test score data available.
In 1970 the establishment of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) documented achievement and provided cumulative data of American students. There were also international tests of math and science scores that were available for scrutiny. The public started to believe the problems were due to the public education systems and that there should be ‘market competition.’ Elected officials were pressured to take action to find a way to improve low student achievement. This led to large education budgets in every state in 1980. Education was the largest budget item at 40% of the expenditures. Governors took up the challenge to make spending more cost-effective and get education costs under their control. Elected officials wanted to see accountability for performance so they brought in business leaders to help adapt incentive structures from businesses to public education hoping to improve student achievement.
Teachers vs, Policy Makers
Ravitch notes that the push for accountability from policymakers has been met to a large degree. She highlights the 1993 Massachusets school reform law that "pledged an extra $1 billion a year for the schools with the understanding that students would be expected to pass-state examinations for high school graduation by 2003" (Ravitch 2002). Many educators were against the state testing program and the teachers union even campaigned to roll back the implementation of the tests. Despite the protests, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Texas and Virginia students (of all races) have seen academic improvement on tests after persisting in this strategic push for accountability.
Another idea that provides accountability is school vouchers. These vouchers are subsidies given to parents to allow them to move their children into a school they choose. The voucher system threatens the dominion of public education as well as the teachers in low achieving schools. Understandably, educators and public education advocates are against school vouchers.
Ravitch believes these clashes will continue. Educators should have continued training, good salaries to attract well-educated college grads and good facilities and supplies. However, there may be a push for a drastic educational reform or the voucher system could gain more public support if students continue to be poorly prepared. So while the education system has changed drastically from the 19th century, it is not perfect. Going forward it will surely be a challenge to keep policymakers from pushing their incentives and agendas into classrooms.
I think accountability is so important for students and teachers. The problem with the incentive program is that schools who need more funding for resources won't receive it and the educators will be more likely to avoid or move away from tougher schools. This will allow classism to interfere with the education of future generations. Education should be an equalizer.
ReplyDeleteWell said! It should be an equalizer and the fact is, is that developing equity within schools does not mean treating all students the same because some need accommodations or modifications to the content. Instead, equity means to use tools, accommodations, or modifications to ensure all students are 'set up for success.' In the same way, perhaps we should look at schools with the same eyes. Some schools in areas, with lower socio-economic status for instance, could benefit from more funding so they would be able to provide students with hot lunches, like Finland's education system, so students can focus in class. Perhaps this would not be necessary in all schools but would really benefits some.
Delete