It's infuriating that business leaders and politicians keep trying to "reform" education in the United States when first of all it wasn't in that bad of shape to begin with, and second of all they are not educators! Obviously Bill Gates has some business talent, or he wouldn't have been able to make MicroSoft the computing behemoth that it is, bugs and all. But why does that business savvy allow him to crown himself King of Schools? When did talent at making money translate into talent to teach? Or ability to build a business mean ability to build an institution meant to care for the academic, social and emotional needs of a population diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, interests, religion, talents and skills?
Because that's really what we're talking about here. Gates, Walton, Broad want to improve education by treating the education structure in this country like a business. It doesn't work. School is not a business. Efficiency, choice, competition, and hunts for profit don't work in this setting!
The often-used but still true aphorism that businesses get to choose their raw materials which they manufacture into value-added goods but schools don't is just the first difference between schools and businesses. I wish every day that all of my students came from good solid homes in which not only are their basic needs met, but their hopes, dreams, interests and curiousities satisfied as well. Besides being the bomb-diggity for them, it would make my job much smoother! But, Mr. Gates, when I get a student in my classroom who is unclean, underfed and bruised physically and emotionally, I can't send him back and get a replacement.
Another main difference between my "factory" and Mr. Gates' or Mr. Broad's is that my output should be measured very differently. It's pretty easy to quantify how many computers, software programs or houses have come off the assembly line. It's much harder to quantify a successful outcome for a child in school. Those reading and math scores? SO easily manipulated. SO easily misunderstood. And frankly, just not holistic enough - to use them as the only yardstick by which students' progress is measured diminishes the students, diminishes me, and, honestly, diminishes those who use it to the exclusion of other factors. One test score doesn't give my students the chance to show everything they can do. My student might not be reading at proficient or advanced grade level, but you know what? Other progress monitoring measures show that he or she gained a year's worth of growth in reading fluency or comprehension. In addition, the /r/ sound was conquered in speech! And, perhaps the biggest and best improvement - hitting is no longer the way disputes are resolved, because through social skills training, he or she has learned to use words to express emotions!
Where do those gains show up on your tests?
Not that we want to turn down all your money, Mr. Gates and Mr. Broad. But how about investing in something really challenging? Come up with assessments and accountability structures that delve deeper than a multiple-choice test. Put those billions into creating a system that requires more than a Scantron test scorer and asks if my kids had a productive school year.
No comments:
Post a Comment