What Europe Can Un-Learn From America: The Tragic Transition from the Learning Sciences to the Politics of Control

Author(s):

Jason Margolis(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

23 SES 03 A, Policy Reforms and Teacher Professionalism (Part 2)

Paper Session continues from 23 SES 02 A

Time:

2015-09-08

17:15-18:45

Room:

417.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Marie Brennan

Contribution

Drawing from 30 years of educational history in America, this paper presentation examines both sides of the debate as to whether urban teachers need “structure” or “freedom” to be most effective for the students often most in need—urban students. We also make comparisons to trends in other global educational entities.

First, we trace the 30-year development of American educational policy in the area of structuring teaching. Then, we present research from proponents of structuring the work of teaching, who argue that education, and particularly urban education, needs to be standardized and monitored. We then share literature from teacher freedom proponents who argue that educators need to adapt their curriculum and pedagogical approaches based on students’ needs and their own professional judgment.

In a global context, we note a tilt towards structuring the work of teaching, in part due to a misguided deference to American models of education. This has occurred alongside the rapid spread of the concept of “teacher resilience” (see Day & Gu, 2010) which, in some iterations, calls on teachers to develop coping mechanisms to withstand excessively top-down work environments. We conclude by arguing that urban teaching globally needs to be structured to promote freedom, in light of recent developments in the often-ignored fields of neuroscience and neuropsychology.

Additionally, this paper addresses the specific call of Network 23 in how it “highlights the way education policy and politics is shaped by power relations … that play out through social movements and processes of institutional formation” as we ultimately attempt to better “harmonise policies and politics across and beyond the EU.” Further, we nest this policy-political analysis within the larger ECER 2015 conference theme by examining “the very concept of transition” by critically analyzing American policy shifts over the past 30 years, and their relation to European policies.

For the purposes of this paper, “structure” is defined as policies and practices that seek to: standardize curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and place strict limits on the latitude teachers have to make independent decisions. “Freedom” is defined as policies and practices that seek to: develop the decision-making capacity of individual and groups of teachers; and encourage teachers, within a broad framework, to adapt and individualize their instruction based on local needs and contextual conditions within urban schools and of the individual urban child.

We conclude by taking the stand that the work of teaching needs to be structured to promote freedom. In doing so, we draw from a framework rooted in relevant literature from the field of neuroscience in relation to the work of teaching. The links between neuroscience and educational policy and practice have been relatively weak (see Hinton, Miyamoto, & Della-Chiesa, 2008) even though recent scientific advances “shed light on causal relationships” in ways that could improve learning processes by highlighting the interactive relationship (p. 87-88).

More globally, the larger profession of teaching has been put at risk by excessively focusing on fostering individual teacher resilience rather than changing systems that require such levels of resilience. A byproduct of this has been a tragic transition to neglecting important developments in brain research and how insights it offers can support teaching and learning (see Jensen, 2005). This neglect of the learning sciences has particularly been the case in complex urban school systems, where curricular and assessment agency is often outsourced to “big data” companies, and policies promote structure so that urban students fare incrementally better on these companies’ tests. These statistical instruments are then used to make intra and inter-national comparisons in a race for economic superiority, while individual actors are often reduced to data points.

Method

Articles included in the review were obtained from a comprehensive literature search, and include both empirical research and commentaries that reference the literature to support their claims. A similar review was undertaken related to the neuroscience and neuropsychology literature, as well as studies making connections between these fields and educational policy. Additionally, American and global political documents were analyzed in relation to how they have impacted policy transitions within the educational field, and have complemented or diverged from the learning sciences. These sources show that over the past thirty years, American educational policy has consistently moved towards mandating more “structure” for urban teachers and schools. This has occurred across both Republican and Democratic administrations, with both liberal and conservative support, ultimately leading to the current policy environment where rewards and punishments are tied to the adopting of a national ‘common’ curriculum and assessment system. There are a number of arguments for urban teachers needing “structure,” many of which focus on the role of teachers in supporting student achievement on high stakes assessments. From this perspective, in order to effectively teach urban students, teaching methods and curriculum need to be standardized, organizationally coherent, aligned, and monitored. It is argued that these educational policies have proven to be effective in increasing opportunities for students, narrowing the achievement gap, and providing us with more knowledge about how students learn – as well as the extent to which they are learning (Capps et al., 2005; Fusarelli, 2004; Johnson, 2012; Murnane & Papay, 2010). Proponents of teacher freedom argue that educators need to have the latitude to adapt their curriculum based on students’ needs as well as their own pedagogical methods, rather than simply teaching a scripted, uniform curriculum. In general, this line of research focuses primarily on the view of teachers, and how they believe the high-stakes assessment and accountability measures have negatively affected their profession as well as their ability to effectively teach children (Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Forgione, 2004; Strauss, 2013; Sunderman et al., 2004; Wolter-Gustafson, 2004). Relatedly, focusing on what to teach students rather than how to teach students has taken away much of the passion and intrinsic rewards that used to be accessible to teachers (Strauss, 2013; Wisehart, 2004). Overall, proponents of teachers’ freedom hold that rabid standardization, NCLB, and the emergent Common Core standards are actually harmful to American urban children’s education, as well the profession of teaching.

Expected Outcomes

Ultimately, we argue that freedom – to think, evaluate, form opinions, interrogate knowledge, and create new knowledge – is the goal of urban education. However, while this could easily be posited as a political stance, we instead root these arguments in neuroscience, neuropsychology, and research on how the brain learns. We do this because, as this paper illustrates, political control has infringed on educational quality. While this has occurred most notably in America, it has been emulated to differing degrees globally: and that is a tragic mistake. In America, each centralized policy iteration missed its mark. In our analysis, these policies are inherently misdirected, and therefore will always fail, because they target achievement rather than freedom, justice, or learning. We assert that structures for teachers should support freedom for students, and ultimately it is freedom, and the ability to think independently, that will help urban teachers, students, and communities across the globe achieve. Finally, we contend that improving urban education cannot rest on approaches that the dominant culture and those in power think will “fix those urban kids.” Instead, educational policy and practice must shift from these arrogant and often ill-informed premises of how urban students should learn to how learning actually evolves in the mind. Relatedly, it is time to abandon the vapid refrain that “all students can learn” (which often appears as the deficit model cloaked in a hug). Rather, we must revitalize and create new approaches rooted in honoring variation in the brain and in culture, which call on schools to be organized around the concept that all students – even as they seek to learn – fundamentally have much to teach.

References

Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost. J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The New Demography of American Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf. Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The Narrowing of Curriculum and Pedagogy in the Age of Accountability Urban Educators Speak Out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The New Lives of Teachers. London: Taylor & Francis. Forgioine, P. D. (2004). The Impact of No Child Left Behind On an Urban School District. Retrieved from www.austinisd.org/inside/docs/superintendent_20041019_NCLB.pdf‎. Fusarelli, L. D. (2004). The Potential Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on Equity and Diversity in American Education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-94. Hinton, C., Miyamoto, K., & Della-Chiesa, B. (2008). Brain research, learning, and emotions: implications for education research, policy, and practice. European Journal of Education, 43(1), 87-103. Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Johnson, F. (2012, January 8). Report Card: With help from education experts, NJ grades the landmark No Child Left Behind Act 10 years after its enactment. National Journal. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/grading-no-child-left-behind-20111208. Murnane, R. J., & Papay, J. P. (2010). Teachers’ Views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the Principles, Concerns about the Practices. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 151-166. Strauss, V. (2013, April 6). Teacher’s resignation letter: ‘My profession…no longer exists’. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/06/teachers-resignation-letter-my-profession-no-longer-exists/. Sunderman, G. L., Gracey, C. A., Kim, J. & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Wisehart, R. (2004). Nurturing Passionate Teachers: Making Our Work Transparent. Teacher Education Quarterly, p. 45-53. Wolter-Gustafson, M. (2004). Why I Will Not Become A Teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, p. 85-90.

Author Information

Jason Margolis (presenting / submitting)

Duquesne University

Pittsburgh

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.