Schools for Hire?

Recently I was speaking with a friend from college who is an elementary school teacher in upstate New York. Over the course of our conversation we talked about her family, what’s new in life and how things were going at work. It was during our discussion about her experiences at school that things took a disconcerting turn.

Arguably the star of her graduating class in the field of education (she received the school of education’s top honors at graduation), my friend is a paragon of what a committed, intelligent, creative and motivated young educator should be. In the course of her brief career, she has gone above and beyond what was required to reach out to her students and their families, has spent her own money to pay for various supplies when funding was low and has striven to implement a robust vision of comprehensive education that will prepare her pupils for the challenges of life and learning ahead.


The only problem is that her vision, built on the best resources and pedagogical foundations available, no longer matches the extrinsic demands and forms of evaluation that are being imposed by state and federal education departments, congressional bodies and the paid consultants that draft policy.

The U.S. educational system in which she had found her professional and spiritual vocation has been sold from beneath her feet. This new commercialization of American education has inscribed a culture of “evaluation” that is making it more difficult for good educators to teach, more challenging for students to learn and less likely that we will have an adequately educated and critically thinking public in the future.

Diane Ravitch, a research professor of education at New York University, has been a vocal critic in recent years of the system-turned-industry of “education reform” that she herself helped inaugurate decades ago. Ravitch explains in her book The Death and Life of the Great American School System, how she was initially enthusiastic about incorporating some “best practices” of the corporate world into modern education. The idea of developing standardized metrics to help evaluate learning and identify weaknesses in teaching seemed to be a good one.

Yet in time Ravitch became disillusioned with what began with good intentions but ended up creating a multi-billion-dollar consulting and testing industry. Today she is an outspoken opponent of programs that rely heavily on increased standardized testing and so-called objective metrics for evaluating teacher performance.

Some standardized testing is, of course, a good thing, but it should be only a small part of a comprehensive approach. Ravitch told The New Yorker: “If you want people to be creative and entrepreneurial, forget the test scores. It’s character that makes success.” She continued, “Testing should be used for help—to diagnose learning problems—not as a basis for rewards and punishments.”

There are two troubling aspects of this shift in American education. The first is the vicious circle that is created when teachers and students are evaluated by the scores from student testing. To “help” the students and to shore up their own job security, teachers feel pressure to “teach to the test,” leaving students with narrow skill sets that might make them better at taking a particular test but lacking in creativity, critical thinking and imagination.

The second problem is the industry that has sprung up to produce these tests, consult with administrators and tutor children who struggle with the exams. It turns students and teachers into numbers, products of an industry that measures schools in terms of profit. It creates a conflict of interest.

I had already begun to see the devastating effects of this so-called reform when I taught theology in a Catholic college in 2010-11. Otherwise bright students came unprepared for college-level critical reading and creative writing and exhibited a striking unfamiliarity with how to write a paper outside the narrow structure they had been taught for their state English exams.

This situation is both a socio-cultural and a moral concern: to treat students and teachers like objects or commodities to be measured is unjust and unhelpful.

What does it cost to buy back our education system?

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Bob Baker
5 years 5 months ago
The unfortunate consequences of what is occurring in education has also reached into Catholic education, as well, all because most diocesan education offices have embraced the "new" system brought to you by government purse strings for public education. I have seen an entire elementary school repopulate its teachers and principal (less one vice-principal) due to test scores. Teaching to the test in public schools is a reality that won't go away any time soon because it has been going on for a long time. Catholic schools once prided themselves how literate and well-rounded their students were. Classic literature has fallen by the wayside in favor of what the kids are reading today and math and science are increasingly being subjected to videos and having students answer but one question to "check for understanding" - there is no depth, anything to move the school year along. Religion? The touchy-feely, no depth, no understanding of our Faith remains. Catholic administrators feel they must embrace the public school methodologies and new programs because they need to be able to compare their students to the public schools. Why, when we've always prided ourselves in doing better? "Why learn to multiply or learn prayers when we can merely look them up on our computer device. (You) Catholics worship Mary," all stated by a Catholic school principal. Wherein lies a (the) problem. Technology should assist education, we should not become its slave. How are we to produce a generation of thinking adults who can still think when the electricity goes out? There are many problems with today's education, some are of our own creation (as Ms. Ravitch knows).
Ernest Martinson
5 years 5 months ago
Diane Ravitch in initially incorporating corporate practices into education was guilty of transferring practices from the private sector into the public sector. The interactions of standardized metrics in a self-motivated private sector may not be duplicated in the coericive public school system relying on external regimentation. If parents and students are given choice, their self-motivated standards are likely to surpass externally imposed standards benchmarked on the lowest common denominator. Ravitch, however, has more trust in collective control than in individual initiative. She cannot take the chance that students will think independently and critically of her social system.


The latest from america

The tête-à-tête between Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi in Manhattan was like a documentary about a once-popular rock band. (Rod Morata/Michael Priest Photography)
Speaking in a deep blue stronghold, the Democratic leader of the House calls for “civility” and cautiously hopes that she will again wield the speaker’s gavel in January.
Brandon SanchezOctober 16, 2018
The lecture provoked no hostile reaction from the students who heard it. But a media firestorm erupted.
John J. ConleyOctober 16, 2018
Though the current synod appears to lack the sort of drama and high-stakes debates of the previous two, the role of conscience appears to be a common thread.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 16, 2018
When Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists on the Olympic podium, their act drew widespread criticism. Now Colin Kaepernick is the face of Nike.
Michael McKinleyOctober 16, 2018