This week the American Educational Research Association is holding its annual meeting in Chicago. This important conference brings together researchers and teachers from all areas of the spectrum of education and, as such, is one of the more exciting places to be as a professional educator. In this post I am going to summarize some of the more important points I heard today.
David Berliner spoke about the state of education in the United States today as a political space in which the ENDS of education have been taken away from professional educators and the MEANS of education have been corrupted by the reduction of knowing to a single test-score number. As test scores become the ENDS of education, primarily due to NCLB, then the MEANS of education become teaching to the test. When knowledge as an END is replaced by test scores then the only thing worth knowing is “is that going to be on the test?”
Another speaker argued that there is simply too much policy, policy layered upon policy upon policy. Fossilized reforms are something like geological layers as legislators fail to review either old policy prior to passage of new policy or evidence in support of policy legislation in the first place. The result is a web (more like a rabbit warren) of overlapping policies and legislation that boggles even the least capable minds.
Perhaps my favorite speaker argued that we do not live in an age of educational uncertainty. Quite the contrary, NCLB has placed a strangle hold on certainty. Schools are certain as to what programs count and what to teach in order to avoid the degradation of being labeled low performing. The problem is not certainty but faulty logic. NCLB is based on a confused logical structure where knowledge is reduced to test scores, schools are expected to solve social problems, and reading and math instruction are scripted and uniform across irregular contexts. This speaker called not for evidence based teaching as NCLB does, rather he argued that there ought to be EVIDENCE BASED LEGISLATION. I suggested to a colleague sitting next to me that perhaps those that pass the laws ought to be subject to the consequences of their own legislation. Congress ought to be forced to sit for say the 12th grade test. It was also suggested that no legislation be passed that does harm to anyone.
Finally, a speaker argued that education cannot be reduced to a model that corresponds in any way to producing widgets in a factory. By that logic FedX Delivers–Teachers Teach holds supreme. The fact is, however, that teachers do not exist, only teachers in a context exist and only in that context can teachers navigate through the murky waters that make up the classroom. Teaching is not something that can be planned except in broad brush terms if only because the unexpected is bound to happen at any moment of the day. Teachers are not tutor technicians preparing their students for tests. In the end, high stakes testing is blocking effective implementation of curriculum that encourages students to solve problems, to think about difficult problems, to rigorously reflect on ideas and concepts, and to remain curious about the world in which we all live. American educators for years have been critical of the centralization of European and Asian educational systems. The irony is that Europe and Asian nations are becoming decentralized as the United States moves toward a centralized national system of education.
I expect to be NCLB’d out by the end of the week. More to come later.
If anyone wants education go to a library
Thanks for your insight on my post. I think, however, that you missed the point of my argument regarding Kettlewell’s moth experiment. The point was that the variation in moths persisted ONLY while the pollution problem was present. This doesn’t provide evidence that permanent changes could occur in species. Also, there is nothing in that experiment to suggest (without a bit of imagination) that new species, or even major organs could be developed. Evolution doesn’t simply claim that micromutations occur, it claims that speciation occurs as a result of the net effort of numerous micromutations.
Regarding the analogy, I do concede that it is possible for random genetic changes to produce new species. I simply do not believe that it is probable, but that is merely personal conjecture. While rapid change can occur, artificial selection only succeeds in proving that it is possible when driven by intelligence. I draw upon the analogy because true Darwinism relies solely on naturalistic processes. However, I do uphold the possibility of evolution as driven by an intelligent Creator. I don’t at all suggest that scientists and God are on an equal intellectual plane, but they both possess some kind of intelligence, which Darwinism forbids.
Finally, your claim that Darwin never referenced survival of the fittest is false. Darwin did indeed use this phrase, and went to far as to draw the correlation between it and natural selection. In his Origin of Species, 5th edition, he was known to use the phrase “natural selection, or survival of the fittest.” But it is true that he himself did not invent the phrase. Thus, the tautology argument is perfectly valid.
So what would you do at the library Jesse?
Hi Roger. It’s good to see you blogging. I’m here at AERA too, primarily to present on Wednesday as part of a panel. We’ll talk about writing for a general audience, improving presentation skills, and my part will be to discuss blogs, podcasts, news feeds, Wikis, etc. as communication tools.
12:25pm to 1:55pm: In Support of Quality Research Use: Communicate Your Research to the World. Building: Marriott, Room: Chicago Ballroom, Section H – Fifth Floor.
I’m an incoming member of AERA’s Communication and Outreach Committee, and we’re brainstorming about what kind of session to put together for next year’s meeting in NYC. So please chime in with any communication/ dissemination/ outreach ideas you have.
Cheers
Paul Baker
Wisconsin Center for Education Research
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu
EducationPR blog
http://www.pbaker.wordpress.com
Paul, thanks for the kind words. I am sorry I will miss your panel. I have some obligations in the morning and expect not to arrive downtown until after 1:30 (the problem with the meeting being in your hometown). I would like to be a part of the conversation. Perhaps we can meet for coffee on Thursday or Friday.