Transforming the Heart of American Schools

Laura Schamus

Dr. Kristan Morrison

Radford University

Fall 2010 Throughout class discussions this semester, I have found myself consistently frustrated with the current state of education. Although we have seen many scholars and educators exaggerate its downfalls, such as conspiracies and the like, I can identify a great deal of truth in their theories. In an overall sense, I would say that my perspective lies somewhere in the middle. I do not believe that education is the root of everything wrong with our society, nor do I believe that the schools are sufficient and should be left alone. I feel strongly that our leaders, specifically those connected to education, have their priorities thoroughly out of order. There are certainly many serious issues that need to be addressed, but it seems that we are focusing on the wrong ones. In suggesting that the purpose of education is to prepare children to be competitive and “get ahead” in the world, we are devaluing the dynamic worth of learning. While competition can be a positive motivator, various initiatives, such as No Child Left Behind, have transformed benefits into harmful consequences. Representative Scott Garrett (2007) states,

Instead of encouraging teachers to be creative in engaging their students in the

classroom, NCLB’s testing requirements have forced teachers to ‘teach to the

test.’ Many states have actually lowered their standards in order to maintain their

federal funding. NCLB hasn’t encouraged creativity or competition. Instead, it

sets standards to a lowest common denominator and established a race to the

bottom.

If we truly want what is best for our society, we should be striving to develop well- rounded citizens who are capable of facing all of the emotional, physical, and psychological trials of life. High test scores are only going to get us so far in this challenging world. Convinced that the American education system is in need of change, I am led to explore how it should change and what it should be. I believe that the main purpose of schools is to meet the eight goals of education proposed by Rothstein (2008): basic academic knowledge and skills, critical thinking and problem solving, appreciation of the arts and literature, preparation for skilled employment, social skills and worth ethic, citizenship and community responsibility, physical health, and emotional health. It is with consideration for all areas of learning that we will respect each individual child and support his or her growth and development as a whole person. If we do not enter the classroom with the mindset that each and every student has comes in with a different background, different issues, and different perspectives, we will never succeed in truly reaching them. However, our current focus on standards-based education does not have the capacity to attend to individual needs; rather, it generates a mechanical, monotonous learning environment in which creativity and uniqueness are stifled.

Whether or not they choose to admit it, all humans deal with some sense of struggle in their lives. This is something I have come to fully grasp and accept over the years, and I feel that all educators should have an understanding of it. If we fully acknowledge the challenging nature of life, we can better address the social, communal, physical, and emotional aspects of Rothstein’s goals. Those who believe that schools should focus solely on academics tend to claim that the more abstract qualities of learning, such as character development, should be taught at home or elsewhere outside the classroom. This is unrealistic. A person’s emotional condition cannot be separated from certain aspects of life; it is a state of being that we carry with us, as it underlies everything else. It is in our nature to be consistently affected by how we feel internally, so it is unnatural to ignore that for the sake of scores and rankings. I am not implying that academics be pushed to the side. I understand that we also must not ignore preparing our youth for the impending realities. It is necessary to be educated in the knowledge, critical thinking, job skills, and work ethic goal areas to survive in this society. We cross the line, however, when competition becomes a necessity. Therefore, I believe that Shapiro’s

(2006) concept of peace education is the key to maintaining the balance between academic progress and character development. To implement this requires a shift in the typical American mindset.

Public support is an essential aspect of achieving this all-encompassing style of education. Support, in this situation, must be generated at multiple levels. The first and most important level is perspective. If we are going to shift the priorities of education, we will have to see a shift in the priorities of society. While this initially sounds daunting and perhaps even irrational, I believe it is possible. If the public is better informed, we have a better chance of stirring conversation and triggering change. The other necessary aspect of support is at the financial level. As revealed through Rothstein’s discussion of the early NAEP, addressing a wide variety of educational areas requires a stable, sufficient amount of money dedicated to the schools. Taxes are a significant way of maintaining this, but it is also critical for the federal and state governments to organize their spending with more regard to education. We instinctually say that we do not have the money to provide for all the materials and evaluations required in a more balanced schooling system, yet if we spent less money on testing supplies and preparation, it would be more realistic to finance the other areas. As Rothstein notes, the federal government is responsible for assuring that “all states have the fiscal capacity to support adequate schools and other institutions of youth development” (p. 145). Essentially, education that values the whole person demands support from the whole community.

If schools are to experience this transformation, a system of accountability must be implemented to sustain the effects. Instead of basing it solely on numerical testing data, however, accountability would need to stem from a wide variety of fields. As

Rothstein suggests, “By coupling an expanded federal NAEP with state-directed school inspections, we can be sure that all children are making progress in all the goal areas of public education” (p. 159). While this would seem to add excessive finances and complexity, Rothstein states that “the gains in efficiency would more than justify this expenditure” (p. 158). I fully agree with these claims. I believe that if schools utilized

NAEP-style efforts to address all areas of learning, we would ultimately see improved outcomes in the form of a more interactive and dynamic education.

Additionally, I am strongly opposed to the idea of punishment as an accountability measure. It seems to me that penalizing a school would only reinforce its struggles and risk trapping it in a negative cycle. Why is it not our response to provide more assistance? Should we not be attempting to fix the issues rather than reprimanding them? I find it much more logical to focus on all the needs of a school and its students instead of putting it at fault for what is lacking. If we truly want children to be prepared for the unpredictable society in which we exist, we have to develop all aspects of life.

The real world is not defined exclusively by math and science evaluations, so why reduce education to that one level? We cannot allow ourselves to be limited by standardized academic expectations; rather, schools should be held responsible for shaping the intellectual, collaborative, moral, and creative potential of humanity. While I believe this transformation of education is possible, I recognize that there are many challenges accompanying it. I have discussed the potential change in financial priorities and mindsets, yet this shift would be difficult considering the current system. It would require our government and our society to reinvent the idea of standardization, converting it into a structure that strives for widespread student success while maintaining a focus on each person’s unique circumstance. It would need to account for all areas of learning and have the capacity to evaluate whether or not the eight major goals are being met. This would be complicated to organize and sustain effectively. A vast amount of planning is necessary for this type of change, but the effort will not be put forth unless our leaders are fully devoted to it. Consequently, the greatest challenge would be obtaining support from everyone involved, including government leaders, educators, families, and all tax-paying citizens.

I firmly believe that if school were to prepare us for real life, then there would be a greater chance of fulfilling Shapiro’s concept of peace education. In a world consistently impacted by violence, intolerance, fear, and injustice, there is no better foundation for education than peace. With a solid awareness of who we are as individuals, along with an understanding of society as a whole, the potential for positive alterations would be much stronger. Shapiro addresses this objective, confirming the need for “a transformative process more deeply rooted: a profound change in our cultural attitudes, beliefs, and behavior, as well as a change in the psychological dispositions that shape how human beings react and relate to those others who share our world” (p. 157).

With this perspective, the American education system could revolutionize learning to benefit the future of our diverse culture. References

Garrett, S. (2007). Quotes on No Child Left Behind. Intellectual Takeout. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/content/quotes-no- child-left-behind Rothstein, R. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. Washington DC and New York, NY: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press. Shapiro, H. S., (2006). Losing heart: The moral and spiritual miseducation of America’s children. New York and London: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc. 607 Final Paper Rubric

Level of Performance Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

Written paper-mechanics, Spelling, There are 4-9 There are 10- There are 15+ formatting, feel punctuation, spelling, 15 spelling, spelling, (15%) grammar, and punctuation, punctuation, punctuation, phrasing are grammar, and/or grammar, grammar, and/or flawless or there phrasing errors. and/or phrasing phrasing errors. are only 1-3 errors. errors. The writing is Length and/or generally The writing is formatting are Length and engaging, but dull and incorect formatting are has some dry unengaging. correct (e.g. spots. In general, Though the The writing has margins, font it is focused and paper has some little size, page keeps the interesting personality. The minimum) reader's parts, the reader attention. reader finds it quickly loses The writing is difficult to interest and compelling. It maintain stops reading. hooks the reader interest and sustains 12.75 pts 7.5 pts or below interest 10.5 pts throughout.

13.5-15 pts Bibliography and in-text APA format is APA format is There are Format of the references– format of used accurately used with minor frequent errors document is not references and consistently errors. in APA format. recognizable as (7%) in the paper and APA. on the For this, please use resources “References" 5.95 pts 4.9 pts 3.5 pts or below available on WebCT, meet page. 7 pts with me or with someone at library or LARC if you have any questions about how to do proper APA. Organization The ideas are The ideas are In general, the The writing is arranged arranged writing is not logically (8%) logically. They logically. They arranged organized. flow smoothly are usually logically, Frequently, ideas from one to clearly linked to although fail to make another and are each other. For occasionally sense together. clearly linked to the most part, ideas fail to The reader each other. The the reader can make cannot identify a reader can follow the line of sense together. line of reasoning follow the line reasoning. The reader is and loses of reasoning. fairly clear interest. 6.8 pts about what 7.2 -8 pts writer 4 pts or below intends.

5.6 pts Level of Performance Distinguished Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory

Quality of What do you Does everything Student Something is Multiple things response think schools listed in responds to this lacking, listed are lacking, should be proficient level, question, below: listed below: (complete- seeking to but also has showing an ness, do? What “something” understanding of connection would be the extra – perhaps possible options s to course specific end a very original for school goals content) goals that take on the and their you seek? question, useful philosophical 70% examples, underpinnings. (17.5%) insightful connections, an 14.875 points extra thoroughness, or an in-depth connection to 12.25 points 8.75 or below course content

17.5 points Is public, tax Does everything Student Something is Multiple things support listed in responds to this lacking, listed are lacking, necessary to proficient level, question, below: listed below: meet this but also has showing an goal for every “something” understanding of child? extra – perhaps how schools are (should a very original currently take on the financed as well schools be question, useful as other possible publicly examples, ways that they funded?) insightful could be funded. connections, an (17.5%) extra 14.875 points thoroughness, or an in-depth connection to 12.25 points 8.75 or below course content

17.5 points How would Does everything Student Something is Multiple things you hold listed in responds to this lacking, listed are lacking, schools proficient level, question, below: listed below: accountable but also has showing an for meeting “something” understanding of these end extra – perhaps how schools are goals? a very original currently held take on the accountable as question, useful well as other (17.5%) examples, possible means insightful ways to hold connections, an schools extra accountable for thoroughness, or meeting goals. an in-depth connection to 14.875 points 12.25 points 8.75 or below course content. 17.5 points What Does everything Student Something is Multiple things difficulties listed in responds to this lacking, listed are lacking, would we proficient level, question, below: listed below: face in trying but also has showing an to shift from “something” understanding of where we are extra – perhaps the intersections to where you a very original between take on the education and want us to be question, useful politics, in education? examples, economics, insightful historical and (17.5%) connections, an cultural forces. extra thoroughness, or 14.875 points an in-depth connection to 12.25 points 8.75 or below course content

17.5 points

Total ______/100