You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The intellectually lazy use of “status quo””.
The intellectually lazy use of “status quo”
Written by Sabrina Stevens Shupe on Jun 27th, 2011. | Copyright © EdNewsColorado.org
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.”