Cross-posted from the ‘Failing Schools’ blog
status quo: “the state in which”; the existing state of affairs
The education reform discussion (or debate, depending on who’s talking) is filled with buzzwords and terms, most of which (like “accountability” and “reform”) are meant to sound positive, so that we choose to agree with the speaker. (“Well, I believe in holding people accountable for their actions, so yes, I’m for an accountability movement.”) We know that many of these fall apart under closer scrutiny, but at least there’s an attempt to win skeptics over by appealing to commonly shared values.
But some terms are designed to shame us into compliance with the speaker. “Status quo” is the perfect example of this.
People who regularly engage with school reform issues are well aware of the way powerful people have defined the discussion. If you agree with them, you’re a reformer, and if you disagree with them, you support the status quo, which is meant to suggest low achievement. So far, I’ve yet to find anyone who’s giddy about the idea of school failure or achievement gaps.
But have powerful “reformers” ever stopped to consider what the term “status quo” actually means? And in light of that definition– the existing state of affairs– who is actually defending the status quo in education?
For example, in this morning’s Ed Week article about the Save Our Schools March & National Call to Action, Indiana State Superintendent (and well-connected, would-be beneficiary of certain “reforms”) Tony Bennett took a potshot at those of us who are a part of this grassroots movement.
Tony Bennett, Indiana’s state schools superintendent and himself a former teacher and school administrator, voiced skepticism, however, about the aims of the Save Our Schools march, dubbed SOS. “Does it stand for Save Our Schools or Save Our Status Quo?” he said. “They seem to articulate very well everything they’re against.”
He goes on to defend test-based accountability, claiming that it’s vital, and adds that “[w]e are embarking on a journey in education in this country that is a dramatic shift from what we’ve done in the past…but it’s the right shift.”
‘Dramatic shift’? Well, this might have been true when high-stakes testing first became a major feature of education reform, but that push began in earnest during the Reagan administration. Even if you discount the more personal, student-focused sanctions associated with tests, and mark the beginning of this”reform” movement with the passage of No Child Left Behind, that still means that test-based-accountability-as-reform has been the existing state of affairs for a decade. (And the research continues to show that it’s not working.)
Compare that with the goals of SOS March supporters (3/4 of which are, contrary to Bennett’s statement, positively-framed statements of what we are for):
- Equitable funding for all public school communities
- An end to high stakes testing for student, teacher, and school evaluation
- Teacher, family, and community leadership in forming public education policies
- Curriculum developed by and for local school communities
- Most schoolchildren– especially ones in so-called “failing” schools– do not exist in any state in which the curriculum they learn is developed locally. While some schools give teachers a lot of freedom regarding what and how they teach, it is far more common that students learn a curriculum developed by faraway textbook publishers. For the really struggling, curriculum choices– from the program’s design and development all the way down to the scripted words coming out of the teacher’s mouth– are made by the companies producing materials for government programs likeReading First.
- Teachers, families, and communities don’t lead public education policy. Reforms that aimed at increasing our leadership (like the local schools council movement of the late 80s) have been watered-down and undermined as top-down mandates like NCLB have come into vogue, so this also can’t be defined as any kind of contemporary status quo.
- Of course, high-stakes testing has been the thing for a while now.
- And while attempts at equitable funding have been made (usually as a result of lawsuits like theAbbott cases from New Jersey, and Serrano in California), by and large it is the decades-old inequitable funding between richer and poorer districts, and richer and poorer states, that can be more accurately labeled the status quo.
It’s a truly remarkable piece that can first post a standard definition (“status quo: … the existing state of affairs”), immediately abandon it for a more convenient definition (“status quo, which is meant to suggest low achievement”); complain about the trite and facile application of this term while applying the same hatchet job to opponents (the adroit adjective in “high-stakes testing”, the association with NCLB); and finally claiming exclusive jurisdiction to attributes that absolutely no one on either side opposes (“equitable funding”, “teacher, family, and community leadership”). Very well in.
I’ve been to all your links, Sabrina. And your blog. And SOS. I found some of the information sound and some of it, wanting for more. And I have a question: how is the agenda of SOS different from home schoolers or those who would turn public schools into politically partisan educational versions of FOX News? It sounds great to return schools to teachers and parents but in the world I see, there are any number of other marches, initiatives, groups, and other assorted interests who would use the rhetoric of “saving” or “public” to serve specific agendas.
With SOS, you may argue you are positive but even after visiting the links, I still don’t know what your group would really want to do that is all that different from a dozen others. SOS wants to “reclaim our schools”, which is great and all…if you and I are in agreement as to what that means within our own little in-group. To a Tea Partier, “reclaim our schools” would probably mean something very different. The SOS Guiding Principles are generally vague but are indeed clear about a progressive political agenda. I use the word political because even though you and I would consider the Principles just good, research-informed education, it doesn’t come across that way and so, conservatives and others will be free to label and pigeon-hole the SOS project.
Personally, I will tend to reflexively reject any admonitions for me to join anything by using words or phrases such as: save this or that; reclaim our blank; or ending a vaguely worded threat to the public welfare. I get the need to raise public awareness but in a system that is already too politicized for its own good, I just have a hard time doubling-down on the political rhetoric and tactics. On my planet, teaching and teachers would look more like medicine and doctors. We would begin with making teacher training as rigorous as possible, not saving our schools or some vague notion of even equitable funding (laudable as that may be): http://progressivefix.com/healing-the-teaching-profession If we could make our training really demanding we would not need to fear scaring off enough grads to fill the classrooms, that’s not how I think human behavior responds; I think we would attract the quantity and quality that would really raise the bar on teaching, on learning and even on salaries.
Know what sticks in my craw, Alexander? It’s when business-model folks tell me that I’m status quo because I don’t believe in wholesale firings of teachers that aren’t properly evaluated in the first place, as if I take my shots, a la Happy Gilmore, because I’m “giddy” about what we have.
To wit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_hz14A6XqA
How about some win-wins, Alex?
The above discussion reminds me of a “business model” advocated by W. Edwards Deming. I wonder what he would say about the current “status quo” in education? I encourage readers to take a look at Deming’s 14 Points and ask how they would apply to education: http://www.lii.net/deming.html
I would argue that the current status quo of high stakes testing is counter to his Point #3 wherein he states: “Eliminate the need for mass inspection as the way of life to achieve quality by building quality into the product in the first place.” (Think testing vs. investment in quality.)
Also, Point #8: “Drive out fear.” (Think consequences based on test results vs. investment in quality.)
Also, Point #11: “Eliminate arbitrary numerical targets.” “Eliminate work standards that prescribe quotas for the work force and numerical goals for people in management. Substitute aids and helpful leadership in order to achieve continual improvement of quality and productivity.” (Again, think consequences based on test results vs. investment in quality.)
Finland, for example, invests in quality, placing less emphasis on results, but look at their results. Sometimes beginning with the end in mind puts the cart before the horse and causes us to lose sight of the forest for the trees. We need to front load the system by attracting and retaining quality educators, by addressing early childhood health care and nutrition, and by addressing parenting quality so that students enter school healthier, happier, and ready to learn.
We also need to face the fact that standards, benchmarks, and so-called grade-level targets have a measure of arbitrariness built into them, and that aiming at those targets en masse for students A through Z in grade X leads to boredom for students at one end of the curve, frustration for those at the other end of the curve, and irrelevance for the majority (differentiation helps but is limited in its effectiveness).
The best argument for charters and privatization is that such schools are relatively free from the very rules and laws and mandates that politicians seem to believe will improve public education. Yesterday’s dream is today’s status quo. Deming would say that quality cannot be forced; it must be fostered. The U.S. system is increasingly putting educators and their students under the thumb rather than elevating them through the strength, wisdom and guidance of those who should lovingly help them improve. The results have been (and sadly continue to be) predictable.
Point #14: “Permit pride of workmanship.” Just read it…
Correction: Point #12 (not 14) is “Permit pride of workmanship.”
It states: “Remove the barriers that rob hourly workers, and people in management, of their right to pride of workmanship. This implies, among other things, abolition of the annual merit rating (appraisal of performance) and of Management by Objective. Again, the responsibility of managers, supervisors, foremen must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.”