Click to enlarge.
A nice, if slightly testy, op-ed piece from Robert Samuelson at the Washington Post. Read it here.
A few ideas from this article are worth considering. The news used to be about No Child Left Behind – whether or not you were affected by this policy, it was a fascinating topic of study because of its link to economics (“building incentives for schools to increase scores”) and social science (in the form of highly standardized testing). Of course, if you aren’t aware that NCLB was a piece of junk, then let me tell you. It doesn’t work. Samuelson may have hit on some ideas about why.
Now, though, the news is about Obama’s big push to reform the American educational system called “Race to the Top”. I suppose we are meant to feel the optimism of this program – we’re racing up! forward! progress! – as opposed to the inherent pessimism of NCLB – there is a danger that one of our own, like a fallen soldier on the battlefield, will be left behind. Obama and his team are nothing if not masters of political discourse.
Samuelson is not so upbeat about all the reform talk in the air. He writes:
Duncan has announced $4 billion in “Race to the Top” grants to states whose proposals demonstrate, according to Duncan, “a bold commitment to education reform” and “creativity and innovation [that are] breathtaking.” What they really show is that few subjects inspire more intellectual dishonesty and political puffery than “school reform.”
Samuelson notes that previous attempts at school reform have generally failed. The implication is that this one will be no different.
“Reforms” have disappointed for two reasons. First, no one has yet discovered transformative changes in curriculum or pedagogy, especially for inner-city schools, that are (in business lingo) “scalable” — easily transferable to other schools, where they would predictably produce achievement gains.
This might be true because people, least of all social scientists, have no idea why policies and practices work in one school, district, state or country and not every school, district, state or country. Why does one approach not work for every student? The reason is simply that the number of variables at work in the world of education is so vast that social science cannot cope with the distortion of seemingly minor differences or complications. No one really knows or understands why some teachers are wonderfully successful and others are hopeless. Why does reducing class size have an effect over here but not over there? We just don’t know enough.
Samuelson’s true thesis is the most interesting, though. (I can tell he’s not a teacher.)
The larger cause of failure is almost unmentionable: shrunken student motivation.
The unstated assumption of much school “reform” is that if students aren’t motivated, it’s mainly the fault of schools and teachers. The reality is that, as high schools have become more inclusive (in 1950, 40 percent of 17-year-olds had dropped out, compared with about 25 percent today) and adolescent culture has strengthened, the authority of teachers and schools has eroded.
Motivation is weak because more students (of all races and economic classes, let it be added) don’t like school, don’t work hard and don’t do well.
I was making a similar point regarding technology when I pointed out (In “Remaking the World with txt“) that
…because of their new habits of mind and new technological tools, students have an unprecedented amount of power.
Samuelson is trying to be controversial, like every successful (I didn’t say talented) pundit, by making bold claims about the way things are. There are shreds of truth in his aggressive methods. The last quote I included, about the reasons for motivation being weak, generally begs the question, though. Kids don’t like school, don’t work hard and don’t do well because they are unmotivated. Anyway, philosophical weakness aside, Samuelson is aiming at something worthy of thought: how much responsibility is being taught to students? Shouldn’t a strong education rest in large part on the students’ shoulders? Why are teachers and politicians responsible for everything? Education is a multi-laned street. That’s a terrible metaphor, but you get the idea. It’s a collaboration between students, administrators, teachers, parents and peers. The “student” can’t be forgotten, and is the crux.
No related posts.
[...] Is Student Motivation Decreasing? [...]
Motivation is probably one of the most difficult qualities to assess. Some students are simply motivated and others are not. As a college admissions consultant, I have had some students who simply had no interest in school. They were smart and obviously quite capable. When they went off to college, their education took on a new life. Suddenly, it was their responsibility. I think that true motivation often comes from within. It is fostered further by teachers and parents who care and make education and learning the #1 priority. Most importantly, schools need the financial resources that many so desperately lack.
An interesting word you use: responsibility. Perhaps part of the motivation that could be harnessed or fostered during high school years is lost when schools don’t allow students enough choice and opportunities for personal responsibility. That’s a great point.