Wesley Fryer (a Texas educator you should keep your eyes on) wrote a powerful blog entry several days ago. He is Advocating for Educational Deregulation!. Fryer discusses the primary text of his current (and final) course in his doctoral program. The text is Integrating Multiple Literacies in K-8 Classrooms, and he addresses the chapter, Toward a Theoretical Framework of New Literacies on Internet: Central Principles (authored by Donald Leu and Charles Kinzer). Wesley paraphrases…
…the definition of literacy is dynamic, and in order to remain relevant, educators at all levels must begin (or continue) to study, understand, and utilize the wide variety of multimedia as well as text-based communicative mediums available inside and outside the classroom to help students become successful 21st century communicators and netizens.
In my reflection of this statement, I see a world where the nature of information is changing. It’s the “New Shape of Knowledge” as philosopher and NECC keynote speaker David Weinberger says. In this world where information changes, our definitions of literacy must also change. They must be viewed as dynamic, adapting to the changing information environment. Yet coming out of an education environment (In my 30th year) where curriculum was set by textbooks on a five-year cycle, we are going in the opposite direction from the one that should be directing our classrooms. Instead of relying on the textbook industry, curriculum is now set by departments of education (not necessarily a bad thing) who are directed and managed by legislatures, appointed state boards, and the sensationalist rhetoric of partisan politics (a very very bad thing).
I agree with Fryer that we need to rescue education from the amateurs, and give it back to the experts — our teachers. We live in a time where trained, creative, and passionate educators with the resources, technology, and time to do their jobs, might be just the force that we need to move our society into a century were we will remain a “great nation” instead of a “declining nation”.
2¢ worth.
Interesting concept. My assumption is that you and Fryer are both advocates for charter schools since they are heavily deregulated. In fact, many in the charter community hope that through their example, more deregulation will occur in public schools as well. It also strikes me as a bit odd that you focus solely on “gov” regulation and not the “regulations” imposed by union contracts which are another source of counterproductive regulations.
One of the least talked about components of No Child Left Behind is the Ed-Flex provision which allows a certain number of states and school districts to have more flexibility (and deregulation) in exchange for greater accountability (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/flexibility/index.html#prog). Some states have waiver programs through which schools can requests relief from legislative mandates. Pennsylvania has one for example: http://www.psba.org/advocacy-leg/waivehome.asp
You may be overgeneralizing by saying that departments of education establish curriculum. In some states, like Washington and Pennsylvania, the curriculum is determined locally.
The only other challenge to the arguement for less high stakes testing and accountability is that it seems to fly in the face of the most recent NAEP results which show a reversing of the downward achievement gains beginning right around the time states adopted standards and accountability systems.
I would avoid backing charter schools for the same reason that I should not have generalized that curriculum is set by state departments of education (In North Carolina, standards are set by the State Department of Public Instruction). Charter schools can be many different things. I advocate empowering teachers. They are the linchpin.
An oversight on my part. North Carolina is a “Right to Work” state, and unions have little to no sway in the affairs of educators. However, having worked in states that do have unions, I have seen both the conterproductive affects and I have worked with unions in providing wonderful professional development opportunities. Again, the linchpin is the classroom teacher.
True enough. However, it is my opinion that at the same time it is essential that we assure that all children have mastered the basic literacy skills, over-emphasis on testing, as it enters the content and higher order thinking areas, narrow and homogenizes instruction. We teach to the test and teach only what can be tested.
The theme of my post was that we live in a rapidly changing world, where even our sense of literacy evolves practically before our eyes. Preparing our children for test day only teaches them how to be taught. To be prosperous in a rapidly changing world, we must teach children to teach themselves. Today it is less important what children are taught, and much more important how they are being taught.
two more cents and only an opinion, at best 😉
Thanks, PJ!
It may sound wishy-washy at this point, but I am not really sure what my opinion on charter schools is. I do support empowering teachers, and to the extent that a charter school does that, it could be a step in the right direction. However, I am very concerned that the legislative push to expand public funding of charters and privates will (and is) directly taking away needed funding from our public school systems. For many students, their only viable choice IS a public school. We have GOT to fight to improve and reform public schools, rather than just throwing up our hands legislatively and saying in effect, “We can’t change public schools, so let’s just support charter/private alternatives.”
The root of this argument is widespread policymaker frustration over the difficulty they continue to have in reforming education. I agree that a BIG problem in our schools today is the inability of administrators to fire teachers who are not doing a good job and should leave the classroom– but because of legal requirements (see the school section of Philip Howard’s website Common Good for more on this) and teacher unions, in most states (even those like Texas with systems supposedly making the process easier) it can be very difficult.
I had a great conversation this past weekend with a college classmate of mine, Tim Kane, who is now an economist at the Heritage Foundation and writes a team blog titled “Right Economy.” Tim’s view on educational reform is typical of many in current US conservative political circles, I think. They contend the only way to reform education and shake it up is to release “market forces” in the educational environment by supporting charters and vouchers.
I do not necessarily agree. Mainly because I think public tax dollars need to go to support our public schools. Tim points to Washington DC as an example of where tons of tax dollars go to support education, but the results are terrible. I am not sure what the solution is there from a government standpoint, but I am convinced more than anything else what students in Washington DC and everywhere else need are passionate, dedicated teachers who care for them and do everything possible to help them learn and succeed.
The motto for the Stanford University College of Education’s STEP program is “Teach to Change the World.” Isn’t that what everyone in education should be doing? Sadly, I don’t think some teachers are. And the hard truth is, those teachers who aren’t need to leave the profession, or be shown the door.
It is so ironic to me to compare the evaluation systems we have for K-12 versus university education here in Lubbock, Texas. At the university level (at Texas Tech, which I am most familiar with,) the only measure of faculty performance is the student evaluation forms that are filled out at the end of each semester. For K-12 teachers, it is the performance of their students on standardized exams that is a primary measuring stick. Why don’t our K-12 students and parents fill out evaluation forms regularly on their teachers? If we value quality, shouldn’t we do that?
Deregulating education is about much more than simply supporting school charters or vouchers. Those are political proposals that are already “out there” and well known. To me, deregulating education is fundamentally about empowering the teacher to teach, to serve his/her students as a creative artist of engaging instruction, rather than some sort of automoton that can spoon feed the prescribed teacher-proof curriculum of the day.