The Value of Questioning Conventional Wisdom

At the risk of revealing just how bad I am at keeping up with the next must-read book, I’ll admit that I only recently finished Freakonomics. The 2005 book offers, among many other things, an interesting (if not terribly satisfying) exposé on teachers who cheat on standardized tests, as well as a report on the negligible effect that school choice has on student performance in a large urban school system.

More than any of the specific case studies, though, I came away from the book thinking about the need to question conventional wisdom, the concept defined by John Kenneth Galbraith as a version of reality constructed not out of truth, but out of convenience, self-interest, and the desire to preserve self-esteem. The far-reaching, often negative, effects of unquestioning adherence to conventional wisdom permeate the scenario that Kylene Beers presents in her recent report, The Genteel Unschooling of America’s Poor.

The viewpoints held by the administrators and teachers in Beers's report are informed by the accepted truth that the students at the under-resourced urban school do best with (and, in fact, need) highly structured, rule-based, rote learning and aren't the “right kind of kids” for learning experiences that require or lead to higher level critical thinking.

In some ways, it’s difficult to blame the individual participants in the processes Beers describes. After all, what teacher or administrator wouldn’t be tempted to cling to a version of the truth that props up his or her self-esteem and seemingly validates the work he or she is doing—especially when federal, state, and district mandates and initiatives seem to be supporting that view?

Education, however, has never been about the self-esteem and validation of the ones at the front of the classroom. It’s certainly gratifying to be able to reach the end of a class period or school day and think, “I did a really great job with my kids.” But if success is measured in silent compliance and if hard work is gauged by completion of skill-and-drill worksheets, the teacher’s esteem and validation are as empty as the education the students are receiving.

Beers's report also reminded me of something from an even older must-read book, a passage from Hamlet that a colleague displays prominently in her classroom: “We know what we are, but know not what we may be.” Don't these lines reveal what’s truly unfortunate about the instance of conventional wisdom Beers discusses? Just as teaching shouldn’t be about the validation of the teacher’s worth, education should never be about who students are when they walk in the door. The focus has to be on what they will know, what they will be able to do, and who they may be when (and after) they leave.

Becoming an Educational Advocate

President Bush urged for NCLB renewal and a new program to provide “Pell Grants for Kids” in last night’s State of the Union address. If you’re a teacher, both of these ideas may ultimately affect the work you do every day—as well as the lives of the many students you teach.

As a teacher, you are highly qualified to talk about how such programs in the past have affected you and your students. The challenge is determining how to make your voice heard as educational legislation is discussed by state and national legislators. NCTE has the answers!

Every spring, NCTE sponsors an advocacy event on Capitol Hill. This year, NCTE’s “Education Policy and English Language Arts Day” takes place on April 17. Participants can learn more about how educational policy decisions are shaped, talk to NCTE leaders about advocacy efforts, and learn how to schedule meetings with Congressional representatives and staff.

If you can’t make it to D.C., you can still participate in advocacy efforts by visiting members of Congress in your home district to discuss your feelings about NCLB and other education initiatives. NCTE provides step-by-step guidelines to help you get your voice heard.

Sandra Hayes, currently the chair of NCTE’s Middle Level Section and a teacher at Becker Middle School in Becker, Minnesota, has attended NCTE Advocacy Day in the past and knows the value of talking to legislators personally. “I think these kinds of meetings give face, voice, and context to the issues,” she explains. “We know that narrative is a powerful way to learn and these meetings are another kind of learning situation.”

So I urge you to speak out! Visit with your state and federal legislators, and tell them what you think about NCLB and other educational reforms and funding. The narratives that you share can make a powerful difference.

David Christensen, a former NCTE Executive Committee member, explains that the stories teachers tell to elected officials “become powerful testimonies to what works and what does not work in classrooms. They want to hear those stories—especially the legislative aides who do the lion’s share of investigating issues so that they can inform their senator or congressman. I urge everyone to tell their stories and advocate for effective literacy practices.”

To read reflections from Susan Houser, one of last year’s Advocacy Day attendees, check out the “First Person” column from the SLATE Newsletter.

For even more information on ways you can advocate for the best educational legislation, visit the NCTE Action Center, where you'll find additional tips and resources.

Defining Reading for the 21st Century

Last week, President Bush said he was open to changes as he urged Congress to reauthorize NCLB legislation, but he stood firm in his interpretation of the program’s goal. In his press conference, Bush said, “There can be no compromise on the basic principle: Every child must learn to read and do math at, or above, grade level.”

I heartily agree. The world would be a wonderful place if children could achieve at or above grade and ability levels in all their subjects. The problem is that current government programs to improve reading aren’t likely to make that happen. The NCLB FAQ page explains that Reading First, the NCLB-related reading program, is “an ambitious national initiative designed to help every young child in every state become a successful reader.” How does Reading First go about this?

Through Reading First, funds are made available for state and local early reading programs that are grounded in scientifically based research. In such programs, students are systematically and explicitly taught the following five skills identified by research as critical to early reading success. The definitions below are from the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000):

• Phonemic awareness: the ability to hear and identify sounds in spoken words.
• Phonics: the relationship between the letters of written language and the sounds of spoken language.
• Fluency: the capacity to read text accurately and quickly.
• Vocabulary: the words students must know to communicate effectively.
• Comprehension: the ability to understand and gain meaning from what has been read.

Unfortunately, these represent a limited understanding of what it takes to be a reader. And it’s not just me who thinks so.

eSchool News Online reports this week that a Partnership for 21st Century Skills poll shows U.S. voters believe students are ill-equipped for the 21st century and need to strengthen critical thinking and problem solving, communication and self-direction, and computer and technology skills. Basic definitions of reading will not adequately fill students’ needs. Those polled indicated that schools need to focus on a much wider range of skills—they need to focus on what reading means in the 21st century.

The literacy demands that students face today have changed greatly from those which students met even five or ten years ago. 21st-century students read texts that include alphabetic- and character-based print, still images, video, and sound. They listen to podcasts, play Second Life, and analyze YouTube videos. Whether we like it or not, they read Wikipedia, MySpace, and Facebook.

Reading for them is no longer just about words on a page. It’s a complex, multidimensional act that includes skills such as interpreting visual design, recognizing nonlinear organizational structures, and identifying video and oral storytelling techniques. It’s an evolving ability to understand the many ways that humans communicate and how the media affects the message. Last week, President Bush said he was open to changes. What he needs to realize is that in the 21st century, reading is “open to change.”

Every Child is Average

The current No Child Left Behind legislation is based on the idea that every student is capable of being proficient, with performance that falls “in the middle,” between basic and advanced achievement. Regardless of educational background, available family and community support networks, and the in- and out-of-school environment, every child can reach this average level of performance.

The problem is that striving for an average level of proficiency actually dilutes student achievement. As the Education Week article “NCLB Seen as Curbing Low, High Achievers’ Gains” reports, the focus on teaching to the average level of student proficiency leaves students who achieve at higher and lower levels behind. Teachers work to to ensure students reach the mandated adequate yearly progress scores, but in the end, students who are above or below average lose. High achievers aren’t challenged to move beyond average performance, and struggling students are not given the support they need to reach proficiency.

In the NCLB classroom, curriculum is structured to focus on helping the average student do well on a single win-or-lose test. The result is that the literacy skills that all students bring to the classroom can go unacknowledged and unsupported. The only literacy skills that matter are those that apply to the test. Teachers of the youngest students actually take class time to instruct students on how to fill in bubbles on test forms. Learning to color in the lines becomes curriculum instead of true literacy instruction.

We must demand change. No Child Left Behind needs to live up to its name. We need a program that supports the wide range of literacy skills students need in the 21st century and the vast differences among students in the classroom.

To move beyond a system that encourages teaching aimed at the average student and average proficiency, we need to demand the following characteristics become the goal in ensuring every child succeeds:

• Student achievement should be measured by locally created performance assessments, not one-size-fits-all tests that ignore students who don’t fit in.
  
  
• Curriculum and performance should focus on teaching the full range of literacy skills, not just the literacy of test-taking.
  
  
• School experiences should prepare students with the deep knowledge necessary for success in a global society, not success in filling in the right bubbles on test forms.
  
  
• Assessment should provide timely, concrete feedback to teachers, parents, and students, not numbers with no context and no process for learning from past work.
  
  
• The growth and achievement among English Language Learners should be measured with multiple sources of evidence that document the full range of students’ literacy abilities. English Language Learners should not be assessed with premature tests of English skills that result in misjudged or underrated results.
  
  
• Curriculum and testing should be based on scientifically-valid research that fits the best methods to specific questions. Research is not one-size-fits-all either.
  
  
• Instructional decisions should be based on an archive of powerful research gathered from direct observation of student learning in a range of authentic school settings, not on research that inadequately represents how students learn to read and write.

In the current test-driven environment, students are simply statistics moving through the system. Every child is treated as capable of average proficiency. Individual abilities and knowledge are lost in this constructed vision of students. Children who need more challenging curriculum and children who need more scaffolding and support are left behind. Every child is average in the NCLB system—an average of all the students in the classroom and an average achiever in the world of standardized testing.

In truth, no child is average. Every child is different, and we must demand legislation that recognizes that fact. You can help by taking a few minutes to write your members of Congress and letting them know how they can make the NCLB law work for students, teachers, and schools. Take action now and help ensure that no child is treated like an average student.