Diane Dalenberg Personal Theory on Education

EDUC 570 – The Reflective Educator Dr. Perry Marker

10/25/11

Practice and Purpose Schooling and education can be two different ideas. Schooling in our current system can be very

oppressive, yet we claim to offer the ideal of democratic education. When teachers are prompted to

express their purpose of education, many times it doesn’t match with their daily practice, and many times

their daily practice perpetuates the undemocratic ideals of the “system.” “To teach democracy without

practicing it in the schools reduces the concept to a hollow shell.” (Horton, 2003)

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SCHOOL?

In a book titled, How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning, David Labaree of Michigan

State University argues that schooling these days is not seen as a way to create democratic citizens or

even capable workers, but serves more as a credentialing mechanism. “The purpose of education from

this angle is not what it can do for democracy or the economy but what it can do for me, “and this shift

turns our school systems into “a vast public subsidy for private ambition.”

When education is viewed as a competition it is highly likely that the quality of learning itself will

decline. “We have credentialism to thank for the aversion to learning that, to a great extent, lies at the

heart of our educational system,” according to Labaree. (Labaree, 1997) Is making schools more effective

really not the point for most Americans? It seems like the point is not to get an education but to get

ahead. The student’s point of view is to gain the highest grade with the minimum amount of learning. In

fact, efforts to help all students succeed, or to place more emphasis on teaching and less on sorting, would

go against the individualistic, competitive credentialing model of school.

We have a factory model of education that was created 100 years ago and we haven’t changed it.

The schools that we have are a result of the industrial revolution. Children weren’t educated this way.

Why? Because everyone had local schools with kids from all different ages that worked together and did

things together. They had homeschoolers and everything else, but when people moved to the cities, they

moved into the factories with assembly lines.

John Dewey was the father of progressive education during the 1930s. His ideas were so

advanced; however, the state didn’t like his progressive model of education and accepted the “Fordism”

model instead. The schools today look like factories because they are modeled after factories. Dewey’s

model was too messy and too difficult to control by the state. So the idea that we can take students,

separate them into classrooms with an authority figure (the teacher) and then teach them in rows would

eventually after eight years of basic education create citizens in the same way that if we manufacture

different parts of a vehicle, assemble them together and we would produce a functioning car.

So we went to assembly lines, we went to assembly line for kids. We put them all in a factory, we

divided them up into the same ages, and created an experience that is not like anything they are going to

experience in the rest of the world – and the government took it over.

For Rousseau, “learning and knowledge are tools to be used by the individual – not tools enabling

society to use the individual.” (Spring, 2011) This was the most profound quote for me so far this

semester. It really does capture the purpose of education. If children aren’t given the opportunity to pick

up the tools of learning and knowledge for their toolbox, then society or government will use them like

tools.

It is through thinking about the purpose of school, that I began developing my personal practice

theories. These ideas help me reinforce my purpose, which in turn affect my daily practice. Furthermore,

I have provided evidence from my own practice and from various readings that support my thinking

behind each Personal Practice Theory.

MY PERSONAL PRACTICE THEORIES:

1) Inquiry-based practices promote what is necessary in the real world. 2) Open-ended tasks keep students motivated! 3) Students and their households offer Funds of Knowledge. 4) Culturally-responsive classrooms are how we begin to shape a new society. 5) The grouping of students needs to be done thoughtfully, otherwise it is tracking. 6) Relationships are powerful.

PPT #1 Inquiry-based practices promote what is necessary in the real world.

There is clearly a disparity between what the “real world” wants from the educational community

and what we have been delivering. A study done by the Creative Education Foundation found out what

the Fortune 500 companies look for in potential candidates: 1. Teamwork 2. Problem solving 3. Interpersonal skills 4. Oral communications 5. Listening 6. Personal/career development 7. Creative thinking 8. Leadership 9. Goal setting/motivation 10. Writing 11. Organizational effectiveness 12. Computation 13. Reading From Creativity in Action, Creative Education Foundation, 1990 Ironically, much of the standards movement of the past ten or so years has been in direct contrast

to these demands. The high-stakes tests of today often focus on the most basic of skills, such as memory,

formulaic writing, and basic reading comprehension, instead of the skills that are most important.

In the real world, adults ask and answer their own questions each and every day. Children are

naturally curious yet schools seem to be stifling curiosity with scripted curriculums and meaningless

assignments. Inquiry-based methodology inspires students to ask their own questions, lead their own

exploration, and come up with answers or even more questions.

Inquiry-based instruction is a student-centered and teacher-guided instructional approach that

engages students in investigating real world questions that they choose within a broad thematic

framework. Inquiry-based instruction complements traditional instruction by providing a vehicle for

extending and applying the learning of students in a way that connects with their interests within a

broader theme. Students acquire and analyze information, develop and support propositions, provide

solutions, and design technology and arts products that demonstrate their thinking and make their learning

visible.

Research shows that the amount of student learning that occurs in a classroom is directly related to

the quality and quantity of student involvement in the educational program. (Cooper & Prescott, 1989)

Yet research studies indicate that teachers typically dominate classroom conversation, consuming nearly

70% of classroom time! Inquiry-based instructional approaches reverse this trend, placing students at the

helm of the learning process and teachers in the role of learning facilitator, coach, and modeler.

CONNECTION TO PRACTICE: I am a member of a voluntary discussion group at my site called Practice and

Purpose, which is a type of inquiry-based professional development group. This group is inquiry-based and guided

by the work of Dr. Paul Heckmann and Dr.Viki Montera through a process called Indigenous Invention. (Heckman

& Montera, 2009) Our group consists of about 5 or 6 teachers, the principal, and a third party facilitator, which

happens to be Dr. Montera. We focus on discussing how our practice and our purpose match or don’t match. I

think about this on a daily basis, especially when there is a mismatch or incongruence. My position as Academic

Coordinator forces me to deal a lot with data. In many ways I am performing tasks that go directly against the grain

of who I am and what I believe in. In fact, the position was created for schools in Program Improvement so there

could be someone dedicated to studying and analyzing state test score data and implement interventions. Focusing

on students performing well on closed-ended, multiple- choice tests is not why I entered the teaching profession.

Many think performing well on this test is the only thing that matters. I frankly don’t care about No Child Left

Behind, except when it affects the reputation of our school. We strive to provide an environment that allows

creative, out-of-the-box thinking through innovative practices that promote critical thinking and inquiry.

To deal with this incongruence I have made it a focus to educate our parents, our community, and our

district office, that there is more to a school than the AYP and API scores. I have written op-ed pieces in the

newspaper and constantly strive to find creative ways to show alternative ways we are showing progress, especially

through inquiry-based methods. It is my duty to provide more information about our amazing school, because what

the public currently gets is driven by NCLB and that should not be the reality. I get a lot of satisfaction and

fulfillment from participating in this type of group and believe students benefit from inquiry-based activities.

CONNECTION TO READINGS: Joseph Priestly believed that education should encourage free inquiry and inspire

the love of truth, and that endowed education would be more committed to instilling a particular set of religions,

morals, or political principles than to training the mind for the free use of reason. (Spring, 2011) One of John

Dewey’s core beliefs was that education is not about the transmission of knowledge but more about an interactive

process where problems are posed and answers are collaboratively sought. It is about fostering thinking. Richard

Chant believes that in order to help teachers be the most effective, they must first recognize that they have the

capacity and power to make key decisions that impact what their students experience and learn. (Chant, 2009)

PPT #2 Open-ended tasks keep students motivated!

An article based on Julianne Turner’s award-winning dissertation identifies six critical (the 6 Cs)

features of motivating tasks that I keep in mind when planning for students: (Turner & Paris, 1995) 1) Students should be allowed to make personal choices during activities. 2) Activities should provide challenge for all students. 3) Students will learn to take control over their own learning through planning, evaluation and self-monitoring. 4) Students foster the sharing of expertise through collaboration. 5) Open activities foster constructive comprehension which is making meaning through reading and writing. 6) The consequences of open activities promote feelings of competence and efficacy.

Close-ended tasks reinforce the idea that there is always one right answer. I want to provide

opportunities for students to think “out of the box” and to be rewarded for thinking creatively. As adults,

we frequently need to know the purpose behind certain tasks we are asked to do. This pertains to students

as well. Students deserve to either create the purpose or understand the purpose behind various school

tasks they are asked to do on a daily basis. I tell my students to always ask me if they want to know why

we are doing a certain assignment in class and if I am unable to justify the purpose in a meaningful way,

we should move on. I believe teachers have a lot more freedom than they think they do. I have worked in

a Program Improvement school for over ten years now and still believe we, as teachers, have the

opportunity to be creative and exercise more freedom than we believe we have in this age of

accountability.

CONNECTION TO PRACTICE: While administering the CELDT test to a first grade student last year, I asked the

student to connect a drawing that contained a variety of tools to another picture. The picture choices were an

airplane, a toolbox, and something else random. The student selected the airplane and began offering unsolicited

reasons why. He explained how he wanted to learn how to fix airplanes and cars with those tools. The correct

answer was actually the toolbox and I had to mark the student as providing and incorrect answer. I have always

remembered this moment. When our standardized testing systems “ding” our students for thinking “out of the box”

or even for thinking logically, something is drastically wrong. Open-ended tasks allow students a feeling of

freedom.

CONNECTION TO READINGS: I connected with Robert E. Peterson’s article, “Teaching How to Read the World

and Change It: Critical Pedagogy in the Intermediate Grades.” Peterson was obviously greatly affected by Paulo

Friere and worked hard on applying his ideas to his inner-city fourth and fifth grade classroom. Even in the 1980s

Peterson felt the need to contrast with state and system mandates. Essentially he believed in engaging children in

reflective dialogue on topics of their interest, which goes against the push to use teacher-proof curricula, direct

instruction, and standardized test prep. I agree (and so does John Dewey) that students are not sponges designed to

soak up all that the teacher drenches them with. In order to downplay a hierarchical skills-based curriculum,

Peterson offered the idea of generative themes which is an issue or topic that catches the interest of students in such

a way that a discussion, study, and project can be built around it. A focus on field trips, guest speakers, movies,

and current event studies all help to connect the classroom to the real world. This is how we begin to guide

students in how to “read the world” for themselves. (Peterson, 1991)

PPT #3 Students and their households offer Funds of Knowledge.

Funds of knowledge is defined by researchers Luis Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff, and Norma

Gonzalez “to refer to the historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and

skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being.” (Moll, Amanti, Neff, Gonzalez,

1992) Basically this means that people are competent and have knowledge, and their life experiences

have given them that knowledge. When teachers no longer assume the role of teacher and expert and,

instead, take on a new role as learner, they are then able to know their students and the families of their

students in new and special ways. With this new knowledge, teachers may begin to see that the

households of their students are full of rich cultural and cognitive resources and that these resources can

and should be used in their classroom in order to provide culturally responsive and meaningful lessons

that tap students’ prior knowledge. Information that teachers learn about their students in this process is

considered the student’s funds of knowledge.

Moll contends "that existing classroom practices underestimate and constrain what Latino and

other children are able to display intellectually." He believes the secret to literacy instruction is for

schools to investigate and tap into the "hidden" home and community resources of their students. And he

points out that his research calls the "deficit model" of student assessment into serious question.

CONNECTION TO PRACTICE: It is my job as a teacher to understand the background of each and every student.

For students who come from similar backgrounds as mine this is not a hard task, but for those students who have

had an upbringing vastly different than my own, this task is usually more difficult. Funds of knowledge is one

strategy that helps me connect with children and with their family. Participating in home visits is the single best

way I know of to withdraw funds of knowledge from the families I serve each and every day.

CONNECTION TO READINGS: The Funds of Knowledge article was actually given to me in the Educational

Leadership program last year and I find myself referring to this article whenever a discussion around parents and

school begins. When a symmetrical relationship is built between parents, students and teachers, an exchange of

knowledge can occur. Furthermore, a type of inquiry is entered and specific strategies are gathered for use in the

classroom that emerge from specific needs of the community. (Moll, Amanti, Neff, Gonzalez, 1992)

PPT #4 Culturally responsive classrooms are how we begin to shape a new society.

Many teachers refuse to see differences among their students in attempts to uphold a “fair,

impartial, and objective” view. By not acknowledging gender, racial, and ethnic differences, teachers

ignore how differences can affect learning styles. In contrast, a multicultural perspective attempts to

recognize and critically analyze differences rather than deny that differences exist. Rather than viewing

cultural differences as a “burden, a problem…or a challenge,” teachers should view differences as

strengths, in order to develop culturally responsive classrooms.

Student identities (race, ethnicity, social class, and language, among other characteristics) can

have an impact on their academic success or failure but it isn’t these characteristics that cause failure.

Rather, Sonia Nieto believes it is the school’s perception of students’ language, culture, and class as

inadequate and negative, that helps to explain school failure. When students enter school without

speaking English, this leads some schools to refer to them as non-English speakers rather than second

language learners. The difference is not only semantic but vital because language ability is the main

ingredient for school success, how schools and teachers perceive children’s language is significant.

(Nieto, 2004) In studies of home-school mismatches, the previously overt naming of differences as deficits (as in cultural-deprivation theories) becomes more covert, but the dualistic framing continues to reinscribe deficit portraits of non-dominant homes and families. In a stratified society, differences are never just differences; they will always be interpreted and ranked according to dominant cultural values and norms. Cultural-mismatch theory suggests that the presumed mismatch in home and school ways is something that must be fixed, usually through the alignment of children and families with the ways of school. (Gutierrez, 2003)

CONNECTION TO PRACTICE: It is only now that I have a more administrative role that I see how powerful a

teacher’s perception of a student’s ability is making or breaking that student’s success. I truly believe that students

rise to the level of their teacher’s expectation. I take care each and every day to not let data and numbers define my

perception of students. I strive to find innovative ways to define students, rather than let NCLB define students as

success or failures. Some of my colleagues refer to me as “No Fear.” I don’t have fear around being sanctioned so

I say bring it on.

CONNECTION TO READINGS:

Critical theorists focus on the construction of oppression and how individuals can emancipate themselves from it by

deconstructing hidden assumptions that govern society. We need to build a type of “human agency” in order to

band together in hope of transforming society. Antonio Gramsci argued that social change could only occur when

there is a revolution and alternative institutions, like schools, can be created which could have the potential to

change the hegemony of dominant groups. Michael Foucault believes knowledge IS power because what is taken

to be real knowledge is defined by the powerful groups in society. Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire believes that

teachers must respect the culture of their students by giving them opportunities for them to participate in their own

learning. Freire viewed teachers and students as active agents in understanding, criticizing, resisting, and

transforming schooling practices that serve to maintain a society that oppresses large groups of people. (deMarrias

& LeCompte, 1999)

PPT #5 Grouping of students needs to be done very carefully and thoughtfully, otherwise it is

tracking.

I whole-heartedly believe that labeling students is dangerous. I have learned that students rise to

the level of their label. Homogeneous grouping needs to be done extremely carefully and very

purposefully. School is where racism and classism are reinforced or even created. The current structure of

school makes it difficult for any student to feel able to “rise above.” A student who is still developing

skills in the “essentials” is very susceptible to how others classify him or her. At early ages students

develop their sense of self-efficacy or self-worth. When we believe we can actually do something, we

have a greater confidence to try anything.

Jeannie Oakes’s Keeping Track, prompted debate regarding the effects of homogeneous grouping.

Ask teachers today if they track pupils into “ability groups,” and they will probably say “No.” Ask them if

they group students homogeneously by achievement to facilitate instruction, and their answer is likely to

be “Yes.” While grouping is currently based on past performance rather than measured academic aptitude,

the results are probably not much different, given the reasonably high correlation between achievement

and aptitude.

Jeannie Oakes has been a consistent critic of homogeneous grouping of students at all levels of the

educational system and has worked hard with a number of schools in her “de-tracking” movement. Her

research dating from the late 1970s, has drawn on the evidence compiled in literally thousands of person-

hours of observation of teachers and students in tracked classes and schools. She has forcefully presented

her findings: Tracking does not equalize educational opportunity for diverse groups of students. It does not increase the efficiency of schools by maximizing learning opportunities for everyone…. Tracking does not meet individual needs. Moreover, tracking does not increase student achievement. (Oakes, 1985)

What tracking does, in fact, appears to be quite the opposite. Tracking seems to slow the academic

progress of many students – those in average and low groups. Tracking seems to foster low self-esteem

among these same students and promote school misbehavior and dropping out. Tracking also appears to

lower the aspirations of students who are not in the top groups. And perhaps most important, in view of

all of the above, is that tracking separates students along socioeconomic lines, separating rich from poor,

whites from nonwhites. The end result is that poor and minority children are found far more often than

others in the bottom tracks.

Those people who think that the purpose of schooling as preparing students for college or the

workforce, and who feel they see clearly the demands of those future roles, are more likely to accept

homogeneous grouping as an effective instructional strategy. On the other hand, those who see education

as sorting children and reproducing social and economic class inequalities and protecting the privileges of

already privileged social and ethnic groups are likely to see homogeneous grouping as a main way of

achieving this goal.

CONNECTIONS TO PRACTICE: The idea of tracking or homogeneous grouping is based on the premise that some

children are so academically different from other children that these groups should not be in the same classroom.

Children placed in lower tracks rarely “catch up” and actually fall further behind. The higher track students are

then in a way “shielded” from the other students through this type of segregation. I am involved in a movement at

my school where we have decided to experiment with grouping for English Language Development (ELD). Our

district “mandates” that we group the English Language Learners by ability level based on a standardized test. In

our “experiment” this year, we are instructing students in primarily heterogeneous groupings with the thought that

students can benefit from having English-speaking models during this subject matter. This experiment is done in

careful conjunction with the San Francisco Exploratorium that has helped us to teach ELD through inquiry-based

science. Currently, we are finding the most success with grouping for specific reasons and purposes, not simply

just to group to group.

CONNECTIONS TO READINGS: Conflict theorists believe schools serve as tools to keep wealth and power in the

hands of the white middle and upper class groups. Schools reproduce status, which makes me believe that school is

where change starts. (deMarrias & LeCompte, 1999) It is fair to say that teacher perceptions of a student’s ability

are a far more accurate predictor of a child’s group placement than is measured intelligence or standardized test

scores. Tracking or ability grouping act to differentiate students further because it profoundly affects the amount

and type of learning made available.

PPT #6 Relationships are powerful.

Positive relationships truly have the ability and the power to unleash untapped potential in our

students. While many teachers may not think they have the time to spend building relationships, I suggest

that we don't have the time not to. Relationships and instruction are not an either–or proposition, but are

rather an incredible combination. Research tells us this combination will increase engagement,

motivation, test scores, and grade point averages while decreasing absenteeism, dropout rates, and

discipline issues.

Nothing I try with students will work if I haven’t established a good relationship with them.

Making a good, solid connection with students will do more to motivate them and prevent classroom

problems than just about anything else teachers can do. This is because people aren’t motivated by

programs or concepts; they’re motivated by people.

The research is clear: humans are literally "hard-wired" with the desire and need to connect. We

are social beings who thrive on healthy relationships. And yet, the importance of positive relationships in

our schools is often overlooked.

We tell more than we ask; we direct more than we listen; we use our power to pressure or even

punish students whose interests don't align with ours. This has any number of unfortunate results,

including loss of both self-confidence and interest in learning. But let's not forget to number among the

sad consequences the fact that many students quite understandably choose to keep the important parts of

themselves hidden from us. That's a shame in its own right, and it also prevents us from being the best

teachers we can be.

CONNECTION TO PRACTICE: It is the responsibility of each teacher to attempt to learn something special about

each child they teach. Last year, I asked our staff of teachers to write something special they know about each child

on a class list. Over half the teachers were unable to complete the task. This has huge implications in my mind. I

played a large part in bringing the Responsive Classroom philosophy to our site, which focuses on building positive

relationships with positive and proactive discipline. I have made it part of my job description to be a Responsive

Classroom coach so I find many teachers and parents coming to me for support around positive relationship-

builiding with students.

CONNECTION TO READINGS: Interpretivists believe that human beings respond to each other and to their

surroundings based on the meanings assigned to people and settings by the people in them. Interaction and the

assignment of meaning are affected by people’s past experiences and beliefs, their current experiences in the given

setting, and what they come to believe as interaction occurs. Meaning is constructed through the social interaction

of people within the setting. This process is called the social construction of meaning and I believe this is what

happens in school each and every day. (deMarrias & LeCompte, 1999)

WHAT IS THE GOAL? (A visual representation of my PPTs)

The goal needs to shift from one of making a system that teaches children a curriculum more

efficiently to one of making the system more effective by inspiring lifelong learning in students, so that

they are able to have full and productive lives in a rapidly changing economy.

Traditional Education Reinvented Education

Produce outputs: student who pass standardized tests

Teaches are “sages on the stage”

Bureaucracy: rules, plans, tests

Value: efficiency, cost cutting

Top-down instruction

Repeat…

Inspire passion for lifelong learning in students

Teachers serve as “guides to the side”

Coordinate progress in learning

Values that inspire lifelong learning

Communications: peer-to-peer conversation

Repeat…

This is a shift from running the system for the sake of the system (“You study what we tell you to

study, when we tell you, and how we tell you, and at a pace that we decide”) to a focus on the ultimate

goal of learning (“Our goal is to inspire our students to become life-long learners with a love of

education, so that they will be able to learn whatever they have to.”) We have become so lost in this goal.

Educational Autobiography

I was born and raised in San Francisco. I attended preschool, along with my twin sister, and then

went to a year round alternative elementary school. This is where I had my first student teacher, Mrs.

Bishop, in 3rd grade, and then met Mrs. Brown, my favorite 4th/5th grade teacher. They inspired me to

become a teacher. As a student, the job you know the most about is obviously teaching so I remember

“studying” what they did as teachers and practiced teaching my parents, sister, dog, and stuffed animals at

home. In high school I worked at summer camps and that reinforced that I loved working with young

kids. During my senior year in high school, I spent the summer volunteering in a hospital because I

pondered the idea of becoming a nurse. I quickly realized that my need to connect with people was too

difficult in a hospital setting as people come and go so quickly. I then spent time volunteering at my local

school’s summer school program and actually was able to work with small groups of students. I knew

teaching was what I wanted to do. I completed the Liberal Studies program at the Hutchins School of

Liberal Studies at Sonoma State University where I received my Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and

Minor in Applied Arts. I then went to Dominican University in San Rafael to earn my Multiple Subject

Credential with a Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (CLAD) emphasis. My student

teaching experiences in San Pablo and Richmond validated even more that teaching in a multicultural

neighborhood was where I “fit.” I knew I preferred to be in a diverse, multicultural environment, similar

to one I experienced growing up in San Francisco.

I have been at El Verano Elementary School for 15 years. I spent the first 10 years as a 5th grade

teacher. During year ten, I began asking about various leadership positions in technology. Coincidentally

our Principal had taken the Superintendent position and our Academic Coordinator was now our

Principal. My new Principal asked me if I would consider taking this Teacher on Special Assignment

position and I accepted thinking this would be for a couple of years. Five years later I am still fully

engaged in the Academic Coordinator position. This position has allowed me to reflect on teaching in a

way I could never do as a teacher with a full-time classroom. I have the luxury of supporting teachers and

students in their classroom and find it so exhilarating to simply walk around our school and help wherever

necessary. Teachers are very much in survival mode much of the time and I hated that. This position

doesn’t seem to attach less work, but it is a different kind of work. I now have 400 students instead of 30.

I think more globally and more vertically as a type of administrator, than I did as a teacher, which was

more horizontal thinking. I crunch data, coordinate interventions, coach teachers, assist with discipline,

and manage our Instructional Aides.

Last year, I received my preliminary Administrative Credential through Sonoma State

University’s Educational Leadership program and am now working on my Masters with a concentration

in Reading and Language. The Educational Leadership program, combined with my current position

have completely reshaped my schema. Actually, I don’t think I even knew I was operating through

schema until recently. Every time I engage in research, professional reading, interactions with students,

discourse with teachers, study policies and mandates, I shape my schema. It will never be fully formed as

it is always being shaped and affected.

My journey through Sonoma State University’s Educational Leadership program and the Master’s

program has been quite an awakening. My thinking before and after these two years has greatly changed.

I never thought being “schooled” was potentially negative but now I do. In my classes, there were

frequent references to being “schooled” like it was some horrible disease. My graduate school program

allowed me to become “unschooled.” In order to become “unschooled” I had to critically analyze the

purposes of our public school system, the history of our education system, and understand the effects of

these systems on society.

QUESTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

If what gets measured gets done, shouldn’t we change what/how we measure?

The current focus on testing has tended to make test results the goal of the system, rather than a

measure. The change in goal means recognizing that a test is only a measure. Using tests as the goal

infringes Goodhart’s Law: when measure becomes the goal, it ceases to be an effective measure.

Instead of measuring progress through top-down tests and bureaucracy, the education system must

be linked dynamically to self-driven learning of the students themselves. Education must abandon

accountability through the use of detailed plans, rules, processes and reports, which specify both the goal

and the ways in achieving that goal.

No Child Left Behind reinforces this sense of competition. I am stuck on (or struck by) the drive

for so many facets of education to be measured. I want to research alternative ways to “report” what is

happening at schools. I believe in some kind of alternative assessment idea that involves project-based

performance assessment where all the grade levels at a school sit down and design an end of term

assessment that embodies all that we want to see students accomplish.

Legendary management consultant, Peter Drucker, says, “what gets measured, gets done” It means

regular measurement and reporting keeps you focused because hopefully you use that information to

make decisions to improve your results. I believe this is true and that we need to develop common goals

and then plan backwards to figure out how these agreed upon goals will be achieved and demonstrated.

How can we reinvent ourselves with data that we value? NCLB dictates our key performance indicators

for us through standards and standardized assessments. I would like to invent new performance indicators

that measure what we truly value about education.

HOW WOULD I REFORM EDUCATION? (extra bullet point)

In order to figure out the best idea for reforming K-12 education, we need to figure out what is the

biggest problem that the system currently faces. To me, the biggest problem is a preoccupation with, and

the application of, the factory model of management to education, where everything is arranged for the

efficiency of “the system”, to which the students, the teachers, the parents and the administrators have to

adjust. “The system” grinds forward, at a growing cost and declining efficiency, disheartening students,

teachers and parents alike.

Given that the factory model of management doesn’t work very well, we should hardly be

surprised that it doesn’t work well in education either. But given that the education system is seen to be

in trouble, there is a tendency to think we need “better management” or “stronger management” or

“tougher management.” Management is assumed to mean more top-down management and tighter

controls, and more carrots and sticks. It is assumed to mean beating up the teachers who don’t perform

and then weeding out the rotten apples. The thinking is all over Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind.

These methods are known to be failing in the private sector, because they dampen the spirits of the

employees and limit their creativity; they frustrate customers, and they are killing the very organizations

that rely on them. So why should we expect anything different in education?

The inapplicability of these methods is worsened by the changes in the economy. Not so long ago,

we could predict what jobs and careers might be available for children in their adult life. The education

system could tell little Johnny what to study and if he mastered that, he was set for life. Not any more. We

simply don’t know what jobs will be around in twenty years time. Today, apart from a few core skills like

reading, writing, math, thinking, imagining and creating, we cannot know what knowledge or skills will

be needed when Johnny grows up.

REFERENCES Chant, R. (2009). Developing involved and active citizens: The role of personal practical theories and action research in a standards-based social studies classroom.Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(1), 181-190. Cooper, J., & Prescott, S. (1989, March). Cooperative learning: Kids helping kids, teachers helping teachers. Materials packet for Higher Education component of AACTE Symposium. deMarrais, K. B., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education (Third ed.). New York: Longman. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25. Heckman, P., & Montera, V. (2009). School reform: The flatworm in a flat world: From entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1328–1351 Horton, Myles,Jacobs, Dale. (2003) The Myles Horton Reader : Education for Social Change, Knoxville : University of Tennessee Press

Labaree, D.F. (1997). How to Succeed In School Without Really Learning: The Credentials Race in American Education. New Haven: Yale Press Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. Nieto, Sonia. (2004) Affirming diversity :the sociopolitical context of multicultural education Boston, Mass. : Allyn and Bacon Oakes, Jeannie. Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985). Peterson, Robert E. (1991) Teaching How to Read the World and Change It: Critical Pedagogy in the Middle Grades (CH. 15)New York, NY: Routledge: Spring, Joel. (2011). The American School: From the Puritans to The Obama Era. 8th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Turner, J. C., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How Literacy Tasks Influence Children's Motivation for Literacy. Reading Teacher, 48, 662-673