Valentine’s Day is all about compatibility in love…and
maybe politics too.
If you are like me and have occasional—or frequent--arguments
with friends, family members and acquaintances on social media or live (at the
dinner table or in bars—in my case, usually in Florida for some reason)
regarding education, the following might be useful in going beyond emotion,
personal experience and deeply held values.
Below, I share four different research-based perspectives on schooling. In reading political speeches, Facebook posts
and educational blogs, it becomes easy to see how and why I agree or disagree
with the author as I recognize these ideologies in their language.
The current conflicts over educational policy have as many
sources as stakeholders. Teachers,
parents, students, administrators, educational researchers and policymakers—not
to mention the general public and business leaders—bring a variety of viewpoints
as to what constitutes a meaningful education.
H. Kliebard and Michael Stephen Schiro built upon existing frameworks to
name four distinct ideologies, or standpoints https://goo.gl/8IbTkn
that can perhaps explain how deep and painful these arguments over education
can be, even if we who disagree ostensibly want something similar: for youth to
be prepared for the world beyond K-12 schooling, whatever that may bring.
The four ideologies are Scholar Academic, Social
Efficiency, Learner Centered and Social Reconstruction. The Scholar Academic ideology is based on the
premise that all worthwhile knowledge is based in academic disciplines and
certain cultural texts. Student
knowledge and experience are not considered, and students are assessed on their
place in a hierarchy, with experts at the top and apprentices below. GPA rankings, IQ tests and E.D. Hirsch’s
premise that there is “Core Knowledge” http://goo.gl/RtKlUy
that all students should know are examples of this.
Unfortunately in the United States, these disciplines and
texts are often centered in Western European white male values. Few women and even fewer people of color are
mentioned, so the experiences of millions are not acknowledged. Many elite schools, including Brown
University, supposedly a bastion of liberal thinking, still adhere to a Scholar
Academic framework in some ways: http://goo.gl/F9ORDc. This may be one reason why white male
privilege continues unabated.
Many would argue that K-12 schooling currently adheres to
the Social Efficiency ideology, whose goal is to prepare students to be
competent, efficient and docile workers socialized into the hierarchies of the
workplace http://goo.gl/0Pc8aV. Indeed, the SE perspective is supported by
business leaders and policymakers who privilege economic progress over
democratic citizenship. Behavioral objectives,
standardized assessments that sort students into predictable categories, and
accountability are hallmarks of Social Efficiency. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
http://goo.gl/o7MoaI and high-stakes exams
like PARCC http://goo.gl/W7T5gt are contemporary
examples pushed by corporate leadership, underscoring the link between private
sector goals of profit and SE as an approach to schooling. While it would be easy to agree that we want
competent workers, the emphasis on creating the same experience for academically
and culturally diverse learners, despite their particular experiences, is
troubling, as is the lack of attention to youth using inquiry and creativity to
problem solve and develop individual talents.
In contrast to the Scholar Academic and Social Efficiency
standpoints, the Learner Centered ideologists believe that the individual, not
the curriculum or a particular set of beliefs, should be the center of
learning. The job of the educator is to
foster personal and academic growth, which are valued over meeting certain
standards. Learners may be assessed by
portfolios and encouraged to explore and make mistakes in the name of inquiry
and creativity. This model, unlike the previous two, can support diverse learners. The Montessori method http://goo.gl/7qWGYR
and the writing workshop model http://goo.gl/U6ExcV
are good examples of the Learner Centered ideology. However, it is also difficult to measure,
quantify and compare student growth, something that our outcome-based culture
deeply questions.
The Social Reconstructionists believe that the purpose of
education is to create a more just society.
They contend that inequities are a manifestation of—and perpetuate--economic
and social privilege. These educators recognize
social problems and work with their students to identify the sources of these
problems and ways to fix them.
Rethinking Schools http://goo.gl/Sh9sbC
is a great example of how pedagogy and curriculum can expose students to how
American economic and social policies adversely affect individuals who identify
as anything other than white, male, middle class, heterosexual, Christian,
and/or other forms of difference than the mainstream. For Social Reconstructionists, it is
important for youth to understand the historical and cultural roots of these
policies and to work for social justice. This ideology is different from the others
because the measure of success is not the individual, but the learning of the group
as the students take steps toward community and social change.
So what’s your ideology?
Are you compatible with your partner, friends, family, colleagues or
chosen presidential candidate? Take the
inventory and find out:
https://www2.bc.edu/~schiro/sagefiles/inventory.pdf
https://www2.bc.edu/~schiro/sagefiles/inventory.pdf
