American education: making it work
William Bennett’s report on American education provides an insightful look at
the progress of education reform during the period from 1982 to 1988. While he
states that some progress has been made in achievement scores, he also makes
clear that higher thinking skills, such as analysis and evaluation, is lacking
among students who have been tested. Since I believe that these types of higher
thinking skills should be an outcome of any track of study, especially in
secondary education, I was hoping to find some recommendations that would
address this issue. Bennett’s recommendations, however, center around two
central themes: accountability and strengthening the basic tracks of study.
In his discussion about improving the core curriculum, Bennett states that most
Americans agree on what the outcome of this core curriculum should provide: a
common language of ideas, a common moral and intellectual discipline, the
ability to think for oneself, solve problems, defend a point a view, understand
opposites and weigh differences. He goes on to state this can be accomplished by
a more structured and “rigorous” curriculum that emphasizes English, Social
Studies, Math, Science, Foreign Language and Computer Science. He also states
that this core curriculum should be included in every study track, whether for
college preparation or vocational training. He further argues that the content
of this curriculum should be structured to develop traits and habits that are
prized by our society.
While I do not disagree with a more rigorous core curriculum for students
pursuing a college preparation track, I do have problems with how this core
curriculum might be administered. Does Bennett infer that only a predetermined
type of curriculum in each area is to be pursued and taught? Is Bennett
suggesting that education should produce a student that thinks, acts and
believes as every other student who goes through the system? It seems that
Bennett manages to skirt these issues. The new core curriculum is assumed to
maintain the plurality of American students and their interests. I believe,
however, the ability of students to pursue specific areas of interest, outside
the core curriculum, would become a problem. In fact, any area of interest or
skill that does not contribute to the knowledge “prized” by the state
appears to be excluded and devalued. This approach to education looks strikingly
similar to the educational approach of the Middle Ages in which students pursued
a core curriculum that maintained the status quo and relied upon one approach to
cosmology. The ability of Middle Age students to look beyond the beliefs and
ideas that was held by the ruling political Church was restricted and even
viewed as heretical.
This raises the issue of accountability. Bennett’s emphasis on accountability
raises several serious problems for me as an educator. First, it appears that
Bennett is suggesting that schools should become an institution in which social
engineering is used to produce the ideal student and citizen. This social
engineering will be accomplished under the guise of accountability and
administered through rewards and punishments. The whole issue of accountability
suggests that some standard will be applied to all students, teachers and
administrators. If the teacher, school or school district does not measure up to
this standard, the responsible party will be punished. Equally problematic is
the fact that students, who are continually asking to have more voice in what
and how they are taught, are viewed as being too naive and stupid to direct
their own course of study and interest. The goal of Bennett’s recommendations
appears to be the development of some idealized homogeneous educated student,
not one who can truly think about and critically evaluate current beliefs and
customs. If I am to be successful and receive the “rewards” of my endeavors,
my students must know the same things and value the same things. I find this
type of accountability to be frightening. Accountability, as proposed by
Bennett, suggests that students are to learn to think on their own and
appreciate opposing views so long as they meet the standards of the idealized
educated student.
Another major problem with Bennett’s recommendations is the effect they would
have on the instructional process. By enacting a set of standards that must be
achieved by all students, the ability of teachers and students to pursue
different topics becomes limited. As pressure to teach certain outcomes becomes
a reality, the teacher’s job becomes one of imparting a narrow range of ideas
in a very diverse world economy and population. Time to discuss issues and ideas
outside the core curriculum mandates becomes severely limited. The pressure to
conform to a certain standard can have the effect of stifling creativity and
professionalism. The teacher and student are not rewarded for the ability to act
and think independently, but for adhering to some criteria or standard that
those in political power think is the most useful. Bennett refers to teachers as
being professional, but what professionalism is there in a teaching environment
where all the instructional goals have been pre-determined by some unknown
person or group. If Bennett wishes to develop higher thinking skills, I find it
hard to believe that these skills can be developed in this type of learning
environment. Furthermore, until standardize tests can be develop that truly
reflect a student’s ability to think and evaluate, higher standards will only
result in more rote memorization of facts and principles. Students want more
than simply to learn to regurgitate the facts on some standardize test. They
want to be challenged and be able to give meaning to facts in their own unique
way. Whether this uniqueness would measure up to Bennett’s standards is
doubtful.
Granted, certain basic facts need to be learned and imparted in education,
especially in mathematics and science. However, even these facts need to be
presented in the larger historical era in which we live. Mathematical and
scientific principles must be presented in relation to the larger global issues
that we face. The issue for me is not the impartation of knowledge for the sake
of maintaining the status quo, but to engage students with the problems that the
world faces. Then students can take principles and ideas and direct them toward
solving these issues. By doing this, instructional strategies will move students
beyond the simple rote memorization of facts and principles, and produce
capable, educated citizens. For me, this is the essence of an education. If
Bennett wants to impart the character of discipline and hard work in students,
this character will not come by freezing the ingenuity and creativity of a
student, but by involving them in the resolution of global, national and
regional problems. It appears to me that Bennett underestimates the ability of
teachers and students and equally wishes to stifle their freedom.
© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson