A Critique of the Uniform Public School System
I found this really popular video on YouTube about the problems with school.
Of course, the students still need to own their learning, and they need to remember some content to be able to develop skills with that content. But, overall, I think this video is a good reminder for teachers and schools. I know he hits on many of my problems with school - both when I was a student and now as a teacher. Much of this is from the way the school system is structured where they have one size fits all standards. If the content would be more at the students’ levels, then they would be able to build the needed skills. But when the content is too high above their level, then they are stuck with just trying to grasp the content and not moving on to higher ordered thinking, or you might have more talented students in the class but the students are grouped with lower level students, so the class doesn’t get to applying the content at a higher level that is appropriate for them.
I know the answer many would give is the easy, just differentiate and provide scaffolding and so on. But at some point, there just needs to be a different curriculum for students that matches their level. If a teacher gives a student a different assignment that would be more appropriate for the student’s level, the teacher can be criticized for not being inclusive and not providing the same access to the curriculum as other students. Many times, these classes focus on just knowledge/information because that is a way to deal with the extreme range of mixed abilities in class and with curriculum that is not appropriate for the students’ levels. That is why mastery learning is not implemented fully in public schools. The pre-assessments, formative assessments, enrichment, and all of that just doesn’t work as well in these public school classrooms with a wide assortment of abilities, classroom management issues, inappropriate curriculum, and one-size-fits-all standards.
The guy in the video talks about having to know about mitochondria and other esoteric knowledge. Now, it wouldn’t be esoteric for some students who are at that developmental level. But for many of these students - like ESL Newcomers - that just is not relevant to them, and they won’t develop with that knowledge. Newcomers are just learning the very basics. There are Newcomers who cannot read or understand very basic words like “he”, “she”, and “the”. However, they have to read classic literature, learn about mitochondria and other parts of a cell, and do algebra … when they cannot even do basic addition and subtraction. So then, this video really hits home to so many students. A student who struggles with reading but is not given the proper reading instruction for his level because he is given “grade-appropriate” material, will think that his classes are irrelevant.
The speaker in the video also talks about the need for schools to focus on life skills. Before schools did not address these issues as much, but over time schools increasingly devote more time to these issues. As parents have neglected their duties to raise their children properly increasingly over time, schools have had to address these issues increasingly over time.
Here is another video by the same author voicing his discontent with the school system.
I understand if people have some minor disagreements. For example, it makes sense to have students raise their hands. The alternative is a bunch of students all talking over each other, and the students interrupting the teacher to the point that it is hard for the teacher to say anything to the class. Raising hands also gives students needed wait time to think. If shouting out answers and thoughts is the modus operandi, then the classroom thinking and discussion will be isolated to just a few of the same students and at a more shallow level. But overall, I agree with the message of the video. It’s the educational system at fault with uniform schooling. Yes, they tell teachers to differentiate. But we need differentiation at the school-wide system level.
So, we addressed some problems. Let’s now brainstorm some solutions. You may disagree with some of my ideas, and that is fine. Feel free to leave a respectful comment with your thoughts. So, some possible solutions ….
Students could be assigned to English classes based on lexile level. The class would then guide the students in acquiring literacy skills, and it can actually do that because the students are all around the same level. Currently, there is a wide range of levels, so then much of the material is not appropriate for the students, and even if the material is appropriate for some students, the class is not conducted well because there are students in the class for which the material is not appropriate. English is geared around reading/text, vocabulary, and grammar. And those three parts are based on lexile level. Do you expect a SIFE ESL Newcomer to read a classic text that is meant for native English speaker 9th graders who have had non-interrupted schooling since kindergarten?
There are students who cannot read the most basic words like “he”, “she”, and “the”. However, they are put in regular classes with native English-speaking students, and they are expected to meet the state education standards for that regular subject.
What if, instead, we grouped students based on lexile level? The class could then be based on building literacy skills and the emphasis would be less on just absorbing information. It would also be less about marking the correct multiple choice answers. And yes, teachers will just put the Google form assessment on unlimited tries so that students can keep guessing on the multiple choice questions until they get a score they want. Other times the Google form gives the student the correct answer underneath their missed questions, and the student can then take the test again with a vague idea of what the correct answer looks like. This is not what mastery learning intends. This is how teachers get around the conundrum of teaching ESL Newcomers (and SIFE Newcomers at that) grade-level standards without having them all “fail”. Teachers are gearing their teaching around the messed up bureaucratic rules of public schools instead of what it good developmentally for their students.
Instead, classes would have a progression of levels with associated skills to be mastered before moving to the next level. The beginning literacy classes (even in high school if the students need that level) would focus on the basics that are usually focused on in elementary school like phonics, sight words, manipulating word sounds, etc. These skills have to be developed and explicit instruction is needed for good education. Schools cannot just give reading beyond students’ zone of proximal development and expect the students to catch up. Leveled readers and literacy curriculum can be used. Extending beyond the beginning levels are the struggling readers, who can have their own curriculum for their level. And the higher level readers could be given an appropriate curriculum as well in which they can focus on more advanced literacy skills like making inferences, critically assessing texts, etc.
There are ESL 1 students in English 1 who are just starting to learn English, and they do not even know the most basic English words, like colors. However, they are taught ACT vocabulary like “numismatist”, which means a coin collector. Yes, this is one of the vocabulary words that students in English 1 learn during the first week of school, and there are ESL 1 students in the class who do not know a single word of English, and it is their first day in the American school system. Doesn’t it make sense to provide more relevant/appropriate vocabulary given the level of the student? And more appropriate instruction and curriculum can be given if students are grouped by lexile level.
This method might not be accepted by some people. I talked to one teacher about differentiating vocabulary in English 1 for Newcomers. I asked if we should really be teaching ACT vocabulary to ESL 1 students. She responded that ESL students eventually have to take the ACT as well. My response is yes, of course, they can grow and build their English knowledge. But it is important to sequence the learning properly and operate within the students’ zones of proximal development. If it’s just a matter of having high expectations and rigorous standards and the students will always rise to the highest expectation, let’s just all have them write a PhD dissertation and expect them to use graduate school quantitative analysis in their dissertations. Of course, no one would expect this from all students. On top of that, this ESL teacher told the English teacher I worked with that I was questioning her instructional methods. The English teacher then proceeded to berate me about the need for ACT vocabulary for all students. Of course, these two teachers are not just wrong on the wisdom of this approach, but it’s just socially and professionally wrong to act this way toward a colleague. I was in a master’s degree in Teaching English as a Second Language at this time, and my professor discussed the need to provide appropriate vocabulary for the level of the students. They were termed Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 vocabulary. I asked the professor about the English class vocabulary, and she agreed with me that ESL 1 students who are just starting to learn English should not be learning level 3 ACT vocabulary.
Another time when I worked toward more appropriate materials for ESL 1 students was in world history. The materials were more modified with more simple sentences for ESL 1 students. However, the same ESL teacher from the last story thought that I was making the material too easy and was not having high enough expectations. She created her own materials by basically copying and pasting the same material the other students had into Google Slides and adding pictures. There was a ton of information on those Google Slides with a ton of slides. It looked like a monumental task for the ESL 1 students, so much so that I think the thin packet to the non-ESL students would have been more manageable than the huge Google Slides assignment. This teacher then arranged a meeting with me, her, and the principal to discuss how I was making the material too easy and not having high expectations and other instructional problems she had with my materials. Moreover, I went into the meeting not knowing what it was about, and she had not discussed her problems with my instruction personally. The meeting just came as a surprise. Again, this is all wrong not just academically but also socially and professionally. I was doing what was desperately needed at the school (differentiation), and that is when these teachers created the most drama.
We can continue to offer these uniform classes, and the unprofessional teachers I described can continue to teach these uniform classes. However, we need to provide our teachers, parents, and students choices. They should all be given the choice to build their skills in classes that are designed specifically for their current skill level, which will then move them to the next level.
I also have a problem with the way classes within public schools are evaluated. Much of the criteria is based around higher-ordered thinking. I agree that it is important to strive toward higher ordered thinking in classes, in general. I thought and wrote extensively on this throughout my own education. However, for Newcomers and students way behind grade-level, this criteria does not make as much sense. It’s important to develop basic skills with these students. Students who cannot read basic words like “he”, “she”, and “the” should not be in a class that asks them to make an inference about some classic literature. Instead, an effective class would build these students’ basic literacy so that they can first read basic words like “he”, “she”, and “the”. Teachers are evaluated based on observations of their classrooms and whether they have a lesson with higher-ordered thinking. They are not evaluated on whether the students in their class actually improved any skills, like improving in lexile levels.
A teacher could help ESL 1 students improve their reading skills so that they can read simple words, but if anyone found out what that teacher was doing, the teacher would get in trouble for not teaching the required standards and teaching higher ordered thinking. On the other hand, another teacher could have students who cannot read at all and this teacher does not make a difference in improving the students’ reading levels, but that teacher teaches the standards and asks many higher-ordered questions (which the low-level students of course don’t understand). That teacher would be seen by the school as doing a good job by meeting the requirements. And then we wonder why the scores at our school are so low. And the country wonders why the achievement gap continues to widen. Of course, there are many problems to address at school and ways to help struggling learners. But providing an appropriate curriculum is one big issue.
Parent organizations and other education organizations call for more accountability on education institutions. There is accountability on the school as a whole, but there isn’t really accountability on teachers, just observations of their lessons - one time to three times a year. (And can you fully understand teacher quality by popping in once to a few times a year?) Now, I understand how it cannot be completely fair to teachers to be held accountable for student performance if they just have a student less than ⅙ of the school day. And of course, the student has developed attitudes about schooling from the rest of the school day and the prior years of schooling, etc.
But I wonder if teachers could self-select to be on teams of teachers and accountability would be directed at the team. The team of teachers would have the same group of students for the whole day. And in order for this accountability mechanism to work, teachers would feel like they are given the freedom to develop the students in their care. For example, a teacher should be able to develop the literacy skills of non-readers without having to worry that they would be evaluated lower because they are not developing higher ordered thinking. And teachers would have the flexibility to give students the needed, appropriate curriculum for students, even if it is at a grade level lower than what is stated on the students’ records … because students passed on from one grade to the next are not actually academically on the level stated on the records. And a SIFE ESL student who is in the USA for the first year does not actually perform at the 9th grade level. Teachers would also not have to work with co-teachers with whom they think they cannot be effective (maybe due to differing teaching philosophies, clashing personalities, etc.).
If no teachers want to work with certain teachers, no one should have to work with that teacher. That teacher should just be assigned to non-co-teaching classes and other teachers should be recruited for co-teaching, or the school should work toward having teachers with multiple certifications in content and working with special populations. Then the class would just need a teacher and an aide. And then when accountability is based on teacher teams, PLCs would be much more productive and dialogue among teachers would have much greater gravity centered around student development.
Finland has often been used as an example of a country getting their education right. Here is quote from Hidden Potential: The Science of Achieving Greater Things by Adam Grant:
“The overarching value we place on education doesn’t only affect schools; it permeates societies. In the United States, if you ask people what career they respect the most, the most common answer is doctor. In Finland, the most admired profession is often teaching.
It might seem like an enviable accident that Finland’s culture happens to nourish excellent education. But a country’s values and assumptions about education aren’t a given—they’re chosen. Starting in the 1970s, Finland launched a major reform to professionalize education. As the education expert Samuel Abrams explains, they advanced a core value of “education as an instrument for nation building.”
The reform began with overhauling how teachers were recruited and trained. Unlike Norway, Finland started requiring all teachers to complete master’s degrees offered at top universities. That attracted highly motivated, mission-driven candidates. They got advanced training in evidence-based practices, many of which were pioneered in other countries. They also paid teachers well.
These values and practices didn’t transform the culture overnight. In the early 1990s, a new leader came in and called for another set of dramatic changes to create “a new culture of education.” Policymakers started engaging teachers and students in a collaborative effort to define their ideal culture. They articulated a new assumption—teachers were trusted professionals—and supported it by introducing practices that gave teachers freedom and flexibility to shape a previously rigid curriculum.
Today, Finnish teachers have a great deal of autonomy to use their judgment to help students grow.
…
To discover and develop the potential in each of their students, teachers make a fundamental assumption that education should be tailored to individuals. Surprisingly, that doesn’t require small classes; a typical Finnish teacher has around 20 students. It involves a set of practices for personalized learning. Finnish schools create cultures of opportunity by enabling students to build individualized relationships, receive individualized support, and develop individualized interests” (pages 160 - 161).
They key point is that teachers are giving students what they need, not what standards require. Giving a Newcomer ESL student content on esoteric grammar and vocabulary that a native speaker doesn’t understand would not fly in Finland.
I wonder if we could have standards more based around leveling up skill levels. I wonder if our classrooms could be directed less by information standards but rather an assessment of where the student is at and then what is the next level to achieve and what corresponding skills are needed to master, and the classroom could have a curriculum that guides the teacher and class in this progression. (And answering multiple choice tests randomly until a good score is achieved does not count as mastery.)