Terry O'Banion points out how educational reform has caused many changes in education across the nation such as: increased requirements for high school graduation, increased standards for teacher clarification, increased use of assessment, and increased use of technology. However, what I thought was most significant is that he points out that with these changes, there has been little or no increase in learning among the nation's students. This made me think about the difference between education and learning. The two terms are completely different in my opinion. Learning is defined as "the cognitive process of acquiring skill or knowledge." Whereas, education is defined as "the activities of educating or instructing or activities that impart knowledge or skill." The two terms definietly go hand-in-hand, however, a person does not necessarily need the activities of educating in order to learn something. A person can say that they have been educated throughout their life, but did they actually learn anything? In addition, it seems as if policy makers are focused on the educational aspects of schools, educators, and institutions, but not the actual learning processes for students.
I never would have imagined a person such as George Leonard (1992) saying, "We can no longer improve the education of our children by improving school as we know it. The time has come to recognize that school is not the solution. It is the problem." I would have never thought school as problem for anyone ever. I think that schools do not need be focused on, but it is the actual learning that is taking place that is important. Ways of learning is what needs to be improved, not the education.
Yes,
ReplyDeleteas we have been learning, experienced, in this program, there must be a connection between subject and student - meaning for the individual.
Many of us have that as we sought out this program particulary, but how is that done when teaching/facilitating a subject that students are not necessarily in tune to?
It is unbelievable how, in the 21 century, there is still educators that do not understand the meaning of learning.
ReplyDeleteIt does not matter if a facilitator must teach a subject that is not exactly his favorite one. It does not matter either if the student is taking a class because of a requirement. The setting is not as important as the application of teaching philosophies. Methods can change and adapt, only if the teacher is willing to do so in the first place.
My partner is a high school educator and she often laments the fact that every time a new superintendent is elected/appointed to their district, a new 'pet project' is immediately in the works, usually to shake up teaching methods or policy. The particular superintendent they have now has mandated a system wide shift to Standards Based Education which is largely self-directed learning for the students and facilitation from the teachers. Sounds lovely right? Not if your teachers have little concept and negligible training, and no comfort with the model. The K-8 schools have made the shift, and it's been rather rocky, but the high schools will shift this coming year and my partner and most of her friends feel very ill-prepared and the kids are even worried. My point here is that it seems to me that we're sacrificing students learning and retention in order to promote that our schools and learning centers as using the latest and greatest learning methods. Yet our teachers are not being fully supported through the expected changes. And... just when they get the hang of it, the 'latest and greatest' is now passé and its on to something else. I do not disagree that education as our grandparents knew doesn't necessarily fit with today's technological society, but I wish we could strike a consistent cord and stop shifting gears so fast. Give methods and teachers a chance to adapt and do their job, give students a chance to catch up with the changes and get comfortable, and get the kinks worked out before throwing in the proverbial towel and shifting to something else entirely! I'll get off my soap box now... :)
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Aimee when you said that it seems as if we are sacrificing students learning and retention in order to promote that our schools and learning centers are using the latest and greatest methods. It just seems to me that everyone is concentrated on other things related to school than the actual learning process.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is so interesting is that if seems to me that teachers and parents spend so much time worrying why their student or child did not pass a test than actually helping them learn the material to pass it. Take for example the CSAP (Colorado Student Assessment Program) in Colorado. The CSAP as been an on-going controversy. There is a group that formed called Coalition for Better Education. The website is: http://www.thecbe.org/index.html. Anyways, this group was started by a group of educators from the University of Northern Colorado, and has expanded to include teachers, parents and students across the state. Their goal is to expand awareness of the costs and limitations of the CSAP and "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB), and to empower parents and teachers. As I explored this group and their website I became rather disappointed. This group does nothing but complain about the CSAP rather than realizing that they could be doing a lot more to actually help students pass the CSAP. Teachers complain that preparing for and taking the test takes time away from course curriculum and then leaves the students behind for the next year. I believe the reason why students do poorly on this CSAP is because they are not LEARNING the material every year that makes them pass this test. Standardized tests should not be the sole technique to assess learning, but I do see the importance behind them.
Teachers are feeling threatened by the new Race to the Top Funding. Explained by one teacher, "the current Race to the Top effort to tie teacher salaries to test scores will be the final nail in the coffin of public education." This teacher asks,"What teacher would want their pay tied to test scores when they have no real opportunity to follow good teaching practices in classrooms mandating scripted curriculums, hours of data collection, and packets of test preparation materials all of which prevent the teachers from actually doing their job of preparing students for success in the 21st century and a global market place?" I would if I was teacher. I think it will motivate and push teachers to be the best they can and actually care about the students more. I think this is a great way to assess whether students have actually LEARNED the material. Teachers can still be great teachers and do their jobs and it will show by what they are getting paid. Why feel threatened if you think you are such a great teacher? Are your students really learning what you are teaching them? Teachers complain about how students are scoring lower on tests than other countries. One teacher pointed out how other countries especially Japan cover fewer concepts each year and cover them in depth so kids are building on a firm foundation of understanding as they move through school. US students who have teachers forced to focus on test scores cannot do what they are asked because they don't have the in depth understanding that comes with teachers being allowed to focus on good teaching. By high school, US students are hopelessly behind. This makes no sense to me because first Japan students are still taking tests aren't they? So Japan has figured out way to build for a firm foundation of understanding and still do better than US students. This just demonstrates the they have better control over learning the material. In addition, I think this also shows that this teacher is concentrating on the wrong thing - DON'T FOCUS ON THE TEST, FOCUS ON BEING A GOOD TEACHER, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO STRESS ABOUT THE TEST. It seems as if this teacher in particular is more concerned about the test than teaching which is not good. Tests exist for a reason, but you don't let it control the way you teach. I have never taught before so I may not have any idea what I am talking about, but to me I would be more concerned on whether my students are learning something and absorbing the material than the actual test.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comparing the definitions between education and learning. I had never thought of them this way until I read your post. But when stated this way isn't learning what we are going after? "The cognitive process of acquiring knowledge and or skill"
ReplyDeleteThe book I am reading, From Telling to Teaching, covers this concept throughout the book. We are too busy giving out information, preparing students to take test, but not working on students acquiring the skill or knowledge of the subject matter.
Interesting conversation regarding the CSAP test. Perhaps these teachers are "Telling rather than Teaching."
Deb
I think one of the reasons reformers have focused so much on education and not learning is because education can be controlled. Systems can be changed. For instance, I had a principal who was convinced that block scheduling was the answer. My question to him was, "Where is the data to support that block scheduling increases student achievement?" He just rolled his eyes and dismissed me as one of "those teachers" who just didn't like change. Not true. I embrace change when I think it's addressing the REAL problem -- not just putting a band aid on a broken system.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point Kristina about you cannot just put a band-aid on a broken system. Terry O'Banion points that out in the first chapter of his book by saying, "The primary problem of education reform triggered by A Nation at Risk is that solutions have been proposed as add-ons or modifications to the current system of education. Tweaking the current system by adding on the "innovation du jour" will not be sufficient" (p.7).
ReplyDeleteRacheal:
ReplyDeleteGreat quote. You sent me back into Ch. 1, which quite frankly, was one of my favorite chapters in the book. I think O'Banion makes a really good argument for the need for change. I whole-heartedly agree with him that the time-bound nature of schools is archaic -- based on an agrarian society and modeled after industrial factories. Most compelling: "The reliance on time as a unit of measure must be changed to reflect mastery of a subject instead of time on task, recognizing what is universally understood: human beings learn at different rates" (p. 11)
I taught in a department that practiced mastery learning. It was exhausting, but we achieved amazing results. What caused the system to unravel? When the pressure to just "pass" the kid to the next grade became too great. If schools are to truly reform, they must seriously reconsider policies of "social promotion."
You're helping me appreciate this book in a different way, Racheal. Thanks for your insights.
P.S. (Love the new color scheme on your blog!)