The American Education System
As an inner city school teacher for nearly 20 years, I find it entertaining the way our government and media criticize our school system but offer no practical solutions whatsoever. They aren't even able to focus on the problem, only the symptoms. My perspective as an inner city school teacher, coupled with my experience as a parent of a child in an excelling suburban school, allows me great insight to the American Education conundrum -- why our schools are "failing".
First, it is apparent to me, and mostly everyone else, that our schools are NOT "failing" in wealthy areas, only in poorer, mainly inner-city areas. If you look at any of the statistics from the state's labeling system of schools in accordance to their academic performance, you will quickly notice that almost all of the excelling schools are in affluent areas, and those underperforming or failing schools are located in low socio-economic areas. This clearly illustrates the fact that the socio-economic background of the school's population is one of the determinant factors of a school's academic success. Upon further study, however, one would notice that it is NOT the socio-ECONOMICS, but rather the socio-cultural background of the students in question that determines the academic success rate.
In America, we are used to using the term "socio-economics" to identify behaviors and outcomes associated with a person, in this case a student's particular (academic) performance . However, in Europe most scholars use the term "socio-cultural" to identify people because it more correctly assesses one's behaviors as related to their background and family values and beliefs. I concur with this identification and always prefer to use "socio-cultural" as a descriptor since it explains why a student from an impoverished area (low socio-economic) can still achieve well academically. The reason is because s/he most likely comes from a family who has and demonstrates on a daily basis, strong family (cultural) values to their children, something that is not related to economic status.
The best example of why higher test scores are NOT merely determined by economics and why no one should assume that by merely funding schools more will lead to higher test scores is the Scottsdale Unified School District. All of the excelling schools within the SUSD are located in its northern boundaries, and the few underperforming schools it has are located in its southernmost boundaries, the lower socio-economic areas. However, when you consider the fact that the excelling and underperforming schools belong to the same school district and have the same curriculum, same textbooks, same teacher training, same grading expectations, same educational philosophy, etc., then one can quickly deduce that the only difference is the PARENTS, not economics. If it were economics and not family values, nor parental participation in the educational system, then not one student from the underperforming school would be able to test high like the majority of the students in the excelling schools -- not one. But, we know that's not the case. Even in the poorest school districts like the one where I teach in Phoenix have a few extraordinary students who, despite their surroundings, succeed wonderfully. These few students are extraordinary because they are able to succeed in any environment due to their strong parental support and family values. And it's not even the education level of the parents, it is just common sense or observed behaviors learned from one generation to another. It certainly helps to have a college degree when being a parent, but you don't need one to make sure your child does his/her homework, goes to bed and wakes up on time, attends school regularly, reads more than they watch TV, etc. None of the parents in my school have a college degree, but all of our successful children come from homes with parents who actively participate in their child's education. They contact teachers, attend parent conferences, and do all of the necessary things mentioned earlier to assure that their child is successful in school. Most of them do not speak English -- another "excuse" by many people. You don't need to know English to make sure your child sits down and completes (or at least attempts his/her homework). You may not understand the homework if you don't understand English, but you still can make sure your child has a daily routine of sitting in a quiet area and doing homework . Nor do you need English to monitor their TV reading time, make sure they eat healthy snacks, sleep enough or to make sure they hang around with the "right crowd"-- all important responsibilities that affect a child's life and academic performance.
Now I would like to dispel some of the myths/misunderstandings about our educational system and student performance:
The Money Pit
Most people strongly believe that if you spend more money, test scores -- or student achievement will increase. Not so. The following excerpts from a George Will article should clarify this point:
"In 1964, SAT scores among college-bound students peaked. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) codified confidence in the correlation between financial inputs and cognitive outputs in education. But in 1966, the Coleman report, the result of the largest social science project in history, reached a conclusion so "seismic" -- Moynihan's description -- that the government almost refused to publish it.
Released quietly on the Fourth of July weekend, the report concluded that the qualities of the families from which children come to school matter much more than money as predictors of schools' effectiveness. The crucial common denominator of problems of race and class -- fractured families -- would have to be faced.
Let us limp down memory lane to mark this week's melancholy 25th anniversary of a national commission's report that galvanized Americans to vow to do better. Today the nation still ignores what had been learned years before 1983.
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once puckishly said that data indicated that the leading determinant of the quality of public schools, measured by standardized tests, was the schools' proximity to Canada. He meant that the geographic correlation was stronger than the correlation between high test scores and high per-pupil expenditures.
Moynihan also knew that schools cannot compensate for the disintegration of families and hence communities -- the primary transmitters of social capital. No reform can enable schools to cope with the 36.9 percent of all children and 69.9 percent of black children today born out of wedlock, which means, among many other things, a continually renewed cohort of unruly adolescent males."
-It's The Teachers Not The Parents!
Anyone who thinks education occurs in a vacuum, that is, that only the teachers are directly responsible for a child's success is sadly mistaken. There are many other variables that go into a child's success, primarily his/her home environment. From birth to age 19 a child spends only 9% of his/her time at school and 91% at home or other places. Any educated person can see the obvious: almost all "failing" schools are those serving inner city children. The best example is the Scottsdale School District (mentioned earlier), where the only underperforming schools are in its southern boundaries, and all the excelling schools are in the north. This is a clear-cut example because it's the same district, same textbooks, same curriculum, same teacher training, same EVERYTHING except for the type of students!
Yes, there are a few bad teachers -- just as there are in any profession. I doubt there are many, though , in the inner city. It takes a very patient and dedicated person to teach there. Nonetheless, even if a child has a bad teacher, it's only for 9 months. A bad parent is for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think we should start publishing the names of the PARENTS of the elementary schoolchildren who are habitually truant, never turn in homework, watch too much TV at home, and whose parents never show up to parent conferences!
The Europeans are coming, the Europeans are coming!!!!
Yes, they are! It has widely been reported that the Europeans have caught up to us in sports and in education and are now surpassing us on both fronts. Why is this?
"Tennis and Testing"
What does the sport once dominated by U.S. Players have to do with standardized testing? Everything. Allow me to explain:
If you are familiar with the United States Tennis Association (USTA) and how they develop young players, then you would be aware of the recent switch from the traditional methods of tennis instruction to the current European style, which allows for much more creativity.
After speaking to one of the USTA regional representatives, I learned that the traditional style of teaching tennis to our youth no longer works; the Europeans have become the dominant force in tennis because of the way the teach the game. The Americans, for some unknown reason, still cling to the antiquated method of teaching tennis by having students line up in a straight line and collectively work on one skill at a time (e.g. serving, returning, volleying), with very little time for game like simulations. This deconstruction of the sport allows teachers more control of their students, but it also restricts the students' creativity, and their ability to learn and develop HOW to become successful in a competition, how to adapt and modify one’s game according to their opponent's strengths and weaknesses. This lack of developing the most critical part of the sport, the ability to adapt and be creative in new and different situations, is very similar to what has happened in education.
While many countries are now moving away from the old fashioned, straight rows, rote memory forms of instruction and moving toward more creative methods of instruction to foster higher level critical thinking skills, the decision making process, and creativity.
The Antiquated American Educational System
So why, when the rest of the industrialized world is moving away from the old fashioned, straight rows, rote memory form of instruction, does the U.S. continue to embrace it?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
S.O.S. Save Our Schools
The current state of our American educational system is substandard, at best, and antiquated and dysfunctional at its worst when compared to other first world nations. As a public educator for almost 20 years, I have come to this conclusion based on my personal educational experiences both as a students and now as a teacher. My personal insights into the American educational system are further enhanced since I teach in an inner city school district, but my daughter attends one of the very best public school systems in our state. Therefore, I have first hand experience as how schools function, what types of teacher training, curriculum, and educational philosophies different districts use.
Before becoming a teacher I, like most Americans, believed that the way I was taught 30 years ago was the best way because -- look at me, I turned out all right! However, as Bob Dylan sang (also many years ago), "The times, they are a changing," and unfortunately our American educational system is/has not. We, as educators, have all heard the old adage: "If you are still teaching the way you did 10 years ago, then you better find a new profession." Why then is it so difficult for most teachers to embrace new ways of instruction, based on research? Why do most still teach the way their teachers taught them 30 years ago?
I suspect much of it has to do with the fact that the everything revolves around standardized test scores. That, coupled with the fact that most teachers are uncomfortable when they feel like they don not have complete control over their class at all times. The authoritarian teaching model that has been in place in American schools sicne the very beginning does not allow for divergent (outside the box thinking. The authoritarian teaching style is one that not only insists on everyone arriving at the same answer (convergent teaching style), but in many instances, it dissuades students from the opposite -- divergent thinking, i.e. to come up with a different, usually very creative answer, based on one's own findings and perspective. The authoritarian teaching style also doesn't allow for much student interaction. It prefers the straight rows, limited student participation, more teacher talk, and less cooperative group work.
The more effective teaching styles allow for much more student interaction and less teacher talk. In the teacher as facilitator model, after initially explaining the material, teachers merely guide students as they discover answers for themselves and move up Bloom's Taxonomy and develop higher critical thinking skills.
Another reason why most teachers are reluctant to let go of the reins a little and allow their students to work cooperatively in class instead of just sitting their and listen to a lecture is because of the noise factor. My first year teaching I was like most first year teachers in that I thought that a classroom should always be silent. It was an obvious sign that I was in charge, lecturing up front. The students should never have a chance to talk unless i called on them. Those were the rules. After all, that's how I was taught, so it must be right, right? Wrong! How VERY wrong!
Once I felt comfortable with the normal noise level of my cooperative groups enthusiastically discussing the plot and characters of a book we were reading in class, my whole outlook on education changed forever. Of course, i had to be trained on how to effectively use cooperative learning groups. Once you have established student roles and accountability, the groups work well. The teacher can ten act as a facilitator and walk around the classroom, checking to make sure the groups were on task, and helping to clarify any points or questions students might have.
So how can we save our schools from their status quo, i.e. clinging to antiquated teaching methods? First, we must convince the public and the school governing boards that the old way of rote memory of facts is no longer necessary nor effective today. With the advent of the Internet, why would anyone waste time merely memorizing facts like state capitals, long vocabulary lists or dates of certain events in a social studies text when you can instantly find all of that information online? It is much more important to be teaching students how to find the information and what to do with it, i.e. analyzing it and applying it, than merely memorizing it!
Please read my other blog The American Education System, especially the part about Tennis and Testing for further information.
Before becoming a teacher I, like most Americans, believed that the way I was taught 30 years ago was the best way because -- look at me, I turned out all right! However, as Bob Dylan sang (also many years ago), "The times, they are a changing," and unfortunately our American educational system is/has not. We, as educators, have all heard the old adage: "If you are still teaching the way you did 10 years ago, then you better find a new profession." Why then is it so difficult for most teachers to embrace new ways of instruction, based on research? Why do most still teach the way their teachers taught them 30 years ago?
I suspect much of it has to do with the fact that the everything revolves around standardized test scores. That, coupled with the fact that most teachers are uncomfortable when they feel like they don not have complete control over their class at all times. The authoritarian teaching model that has been in place in American schools sicne the very beginning does not allow for divergent (outside the box thinking. The authoritarian teaching style is one that not only insists on everyone arriving at the same answer (convergent teaching style), but in many instances, it dissuades students from the opposite -- divergent thinking, i.e. to come up with a different, usually very creative answer, based on one's own findings and perspective. The authoritarian teaching style also doesn't allow for much student interaction. It prefers the straight rows, limited student participation, more teacher talk, and less cooperative group work.
The more effective teaching styles allow for much more student interaction and less teacher talk. In the teacher as facilitator model, after initially explaining the material, teachers merely guide students as they discover answers for themselves and move up Bloom's Taxonomy and develop higher critical thinking skills.
Another reason why most teachers are reluctant to let go of the reins a little and allow their students to work cooperatively in class instead of just sitting their and listen to a lecture is because of the noise factor. My first year teaching I was like most first year teachers in that I thought that a classroom should always be silent. It was an obvious sign that I was in charge, lecturing up front. The students should never have a chance to talk unless i called on them. Those were the rules. After all, that's how I was taught, so it must be right, right? Wrong! How VERY wrong!
Once I felt comfortable with the normal noise level of my cooperative groups enthusiastically discussing the plot and characters of a book we were reading in class, my whole outlook on education changed forever. Of course, i had to be trained on how to effectively use cooperative learning groups. Once you have established student roles and accountability, the groups work well. The teacher can ten act as a facilitator and walk around the classroom, checking to make sure the groups were on task, and helping to clarify any points or questions students might have.
So how can we save our schools from their status quo, i.e. clinging to antiquated teaching methods? First, we must convince the public and the school governing boards that the old way of rote memory of facts is no longer necessary nor effective today. With the advent of the Internet, why would anyone waste time merely memorizing facts like state capitals, long vocabulary lists or dates of certain events in a social studies text when you can instantly find all of that information online? It is much more important to be teaching students how to find the information and what to do with it, i.e. analyzing it and applying it, than merely memorizing it!
Please read my other blog The American Education System, especially the part about Tennis and Testing for further information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)