The idea of standardized schooling has been much bandied about since the institutionalization of the "no child left behind policy" in the United States in 2002. That the schoolteacher becomes accountable for the progress of schoolchildren's learning is one of the significant implications of this development. Inevitably, schoolteachers have been saddled with the requirement of accountability as their salaries and promotions are determined by the students' performance in the standardized tests. Whether the application of the principle of accountability in basic education institutions is the right approach is an issue for which satisfactory resolution remains elusive, even in countries that seek to follow the footsteps of America.
It's common knowledge that a good teacher may not always succeed in effecting learning on every student. This observation is not difficult to comprehend as teaching indeed is simply a try or attempt verb like fishing. That is, any teacher may fail to teach even if he/she is teaching in the same way that any fisherperson may also fail to catch a fish even if he/she spends the entire day trying to catch a fish. That’s how it is in the business of teaching. A math teacher may also not succeed in teaching math, especially to non-mathematical students. A philosophy teacher may likewise fail to teach philosophy to non-philosophical students. The same goes for reading teachers; they may also fail to teach a student to read, especially if the student does not have the required capacity to learn how to read. Requiring thus a schoolteacher to be accountable to the learning of all schoolchildren may not do justice to excellent teachers who may fail to teach on the ground that the student has a recurrent learning problem, does not have the mental capacity to learn what is being taught, or is psychologically inadequate to take what is being attempted to transmit.
Knowles and Knowles (2001, in Brynes, 2002) pointed out that “emphasis on accountability fails to take into consideration the single fact of life: children are different” (p. 240). Quite poignantly, with individualized education program and Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory in mind, Knowles and Knowles (2001) said:
Why is it that we insist on calling a child “learning disabled” if he has difficulty reading, but we don’t label a child “disabled” if she can’t compose a song? Educators have set up altars to reading. They worship at its shrine and intone the doctrine “Outside of reading, there is no salvation” (in Brynes, p. 241).
In the US, individualized education has evolved from being learner-customized to being concerned, as the IDEA97 requires, with facilitating access to general education (Brynes, 2002). It is now common thus for special education to be not only focused on the usual academic matters but also on practical and vocational skills necessary to ensure effective functioning in one's future workplace. In spite of this, however, IDEA97 is much more concerned with the student’s acquisition of traditionally taught knowledge and skills in school (Brynes, 2002). To address the issue in view, it is often asked whether a learner-specific education is necessary in view of the differences of learning abilities and deficiencies of schoolchildren with or without special needs.
Requiring all students to learn how to read when some of them are not capable of doing so is said to be a humongous mistake (Knowles & Knowles, 2001, in Brynes, 2002). For there appears to be no wisdom in insisting that a student ought to learn something that he/she is not capable of learning. The time spent in learning the unlearnable is squandered as it could be judiciously devoted to acquiring skills and knowledge that may be more useful to an individual who need not master the ability to read in order to be an effective worker.
Other educationists, however, maintain that students should be made to meet high educational standards to enable them to maximize their opportunity to enjoy high quality life. A learner-customized program and standards are often viewed by its critic with suspicion as it may create an illusion of success. That is to say, substandard education may lead one to overestimate his/her own questionable abilities (Jesness, 2000, in Brynes, 2002). Jesness (2000, in Brynes, 2002) also cautioned that having learning problems does not necessarily mean inability to learn, and that standardized schooling is for children without special needs alone. As for the difficulty that one may experience in the early stage of learning, Jesness (2000) seems to view that as a simple fact of learning, nothing that should keep the schoolteachers from pushing their students to attain what may appear to be an impossibly tough task at the beginning:
Many competent readers had to be dragged, screaming and kicking, through their first novels, and many top math students once had to have the multiplication tables drilled into them. Helen Keller first reacted to Anne Sullivan’s finger spelling lessons by screaming, kicking, and biting (2000, in Brynes, 2002).
Jesness (2000) concluded:
We teachers should imagine ourselves as swimming instructors whose charges will someday be thrown out of a boat half a mile from shore. If we certify that a nonswimming student is a competent swimmer, he will still sink like a stone when thrown from a boat.
In like manner, a graduate who lacks real academic skills, who has only the trappings of scholarly success, will have a difficult time swimming in the real world. Failure is failure, with or without permission (In Brynes, 2002).
Now, as the debate rages on the matter between the philosophies of accountability and difference, it would be helpful for the stakeholders in special education to consider the following problems:
How much struggling is detrimental to a child’s self confidence, and when does hard work lead to success and personal accomplishment? How would you decide whether or not to stop driving for mastery of the skill of reading (or math, or any other academic subject) and shift to teaching skills that are more related to the expected workplace? When would you make this decision? What would the student say about this change now? In 20 years? What options would this open or close? (Brynes, 2002, p. 237)
Well, these immediately foregoing problems are very important, but I think they will never reach the Philippine shores until we decide here whether standards-based test is a necessary element of our own basic education. I believe we should have been deliberating on the possibility of adopting such kind of evaluation as it's probably something we direly and urgently need.
But is it appropriate, regardless of who is taking it, to use the results of the standards-based test to gauge the teaching competence of the teacher? I'll address this matter later.
References
Brynes, M.A. (2002). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in special education. Connecticut: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
Jesness, J. (2000). In Brynes, M.A. (2002). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in special education. Connecticut: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
Knowles, R. & Knowles, T. (2001). In Brynes, M.A. (2002). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in special education. Connecticut: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
No comments:
Post a Comment