Are Reformers Willing to Involve Students in "Cultivating a New Culture of Accountability?"

Written by Jack Hassard

On March 13, 2009

With the election of a new administration in Washington, one of the major areas of “change” will be education. More than $100 billion will be invested in education as part of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In a speech earlier this week, President Obama has called for sweeping changes in American education calling for the removal of limits on charter schools (laboratories of innovation), improving early childhood education, and linking teacher pay to (student) performance. In fact, the President went on to say that we need to “cultivate a new culture of accountability in America’s schools.”

But there is a serious omission in the current focus on education by the new administration (and past ones, as well), and that is the consideration of a valid and viable student culture. According to research reported in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching by Wood, Lawrenz, and Haroldson:

U.S. students have been largely ignored in discussion and planning for their own, presumed futures.

In their study they clearly show that students’ values are fundamentally different from those of their teachers. On one hand students value schoolwork that is interesting, seems productive, and straightforward. While, teachers, on the other hand believe that students need [science] for the future, that content is important, and that they [teachers] have responsibilities in the classroom. Furthermore, students look at the classroom and their experiences within classrooms in ways that are strikingly different from teachers’ views. For example teachers might say that science is important for the future decision-making capability of students, while students say repeatedly that school science is uninteresting, and seemingly irrelevant to their lives.

As Wood, Lawrenz, and Haroldson point out in their research, common knowledge has it that science education is justified as preparation for later life. The National Science Education Standards defines what this science should be, and provides the rationale upon which we plan the science curriculum informing students that it will be good for their future. We then design examinations that will be used to “measure” student achievement in science, and we are consistently disappointed with the results. On national tests there are disparities by race and class, and on international tests, U.S. students “lag” behind their counterparts in other nations. This picture has remained in freeze-frame for years. The usual claim is that our educational system is failing. Or the teachers are failing. Or, the students are failing.

But, hold on.

The policy- & decision-making apparatus that directs U.S. educational policy tends to ignore student culture, and assumes all students should learn the same body of content, typically to prepare students for the future. Aikenhead has shown that the traditional science curriculum effectively is unconnected with students’ lived-worlds, and more often than not turns students away from school science. As I reported in a weblog post earlier in the week, Svein Sjøberg, director of the Relevance of Science Education Project (ROSE) suggests that the lack of relevance of the science & technology curriculum is seen as one of the greatest barriers for good learning and as the reason for young peoples’ low interest in the school subject and lack of motivation for pursuing the subject in their higher education.

Wood, Lawrenz, and Haroldson refer to Dewey’s argument in his 1916 book Democracy and Education that a future-oriented approach to curriculum results in an oppressive learning environment. They describe Dewey’s four evils of the preparation-for-the-future-focused education:

  1. It undermines motivation by diverting focus from the present interests of the student to preparing for an unknown and intangible future.
  2. It breeds ‘‘shilly shallying’’ and procrastinating, because the future for which students are being prepared seems far off.
  3. It emphasizes the average over the individual, making the future for which the student is being prepared seem even more remote and abstract.
  4. It requires extrinsic rewards and punishment, because it is divorced from the present interests of the student.

We need to take into consideration the nature of student culture in any reform efforts, be they charter schools, tying teacher pay with student achievement, or infusing the classroom with new methods of teaching. Without knowing how student culture develops and how it impacts classroom practice and learning, we will be left wondering why achievement test scores have either remained the same, or have dropped.

We have to do more than simply tell students to study hard, and do their part. The new “culture of accountability” has to take into consideration the culture of students.

You May Also Like…

Beyond the Scientific Method by Charles R. Ault

Beyond the Scientific Method by Charles R. Ault

The guest post by Dr. Charles Ault, an Emeritus Professor of science education, challenges the current scientific educational approach. He critiques the traditional “unity” view that suggests science processes are universally applicable across all scientific disciplines. Dr. Ault advocates for recognizing the diversity and uniqueness of methods within each scientific discipline. He demonstrates this using examples of how geology and physics operate uniquely. He also introduces his concept of “scientific diversity,” which emphasizes that the interpretation and implementation of core scientific ideas should be adaptable to the specific discipline they are applied to. Furthermore, he suggests rethinking the traditional scientific method and adapting it to the disciplinary contexts.

A Letter from A Teen Living in 2051 about Education and the Climate Crisis

A Letter from A Teen Living in 2051 about Education and the Climate Crisis

This post focuses on education and climate as seen by a teen living in Atlanta in the year 2051.  I originally published it on April 21,  2012.  Although a work of fiction, it is presented here as a reminder of the consequences of making decisions based on faulty reasoning and ignorance.  I am re-publishing it today ahead of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Glasgow, Scotland

0 Comments

We would enjoy reading your comments

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Citizen Jack

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading