EDUTOPIA: January 2008

Sunday, January 20, 2008

PROLOGUE: Summerhill

PART ONE - WHAT IS WRONG WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AMERICA?

A Nation At Risk?

Excellence, Mediocrity, or Both?

The Mission of Public Education

Motivation and Learning: Lack of Interest/Improper Placement/Mediocre Instruction/A Narrow Focus on Vocational Goals/A Rigid, Authoritarian Environment

Our Nation's Children At Risk

Societal Influences

Altering Students' Perception of Learning

PART TWO - MEANINGFUL CHOICES FOR STUDENTS (AND PARENTS)

Reform Proposals: Reduce the Number of Required Classes Within the Typical High School Curriculum and Minimize the Number of Standards and Objectives Within Courses

Reform Proposal: Award Different Types of Diplomas or Certificates to Accurately Represent Different Levels of Achievement

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Select Their Teachers

Reform Proposal: Allow Students (With the Consent of Their Parents) to Elect Not to Be Graded

Reform Proposal: Concentrate Academic Instruction in a Three-hour Block

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend School Full- or Part-time, Days, Evenings, or Week-ends

Reform Proposal: Repeal Compulsory Attendance Laws

Reform Proposal: Remove the Upper Age Limits on Attending Public Schools Free of Charge

Reform Proposal: Remove the Lower Age Limits on Attending Public Schools Free of Charge

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Attend Any Publicly Funded School in the State in Which They Live

PART THREE - IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION

Reform Proposal: Increase Pay for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Make More Effective Use of Technology and Existing Staff

Reform Proposal: Improve Working Conditions for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Develop a More Comprehensive Evaluation System for Teachers

Reform Proposal: Use Pre- and Post-Test Data Properly to Compare Teachers, Programs, and Schools

PART FOUR - PROPER PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS

Reform Proposal: Use Standardized Test Scores As Part of the Process of Determining Grades

Reform Proposal: Utilize Reading Tests to Insure Proper Placement of Students

PART FIVE - SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

Reform Proposal: Govern Schools Individually and Democratically

CONCLUSION: It's Time for a Change

Prologue: Summerhill

Summerhill began as an experimental school. It is no longer such; it is now a demonstration school, for it demonstrates that freedom works. - A. S. Neill

Summerhill is a small private school in Great Britain. It was founded by A. S. Neill in 1921 and since that time has served as a clear and compelling demonstration of the full range of choices that could and should be offered within our system of public education. At Summerhill there are no required classes, no tests, no grades or grade cards. Students are given complete freedom to decide what they want to learn and when they want to learn. Some students have gone months or even years without taking any classes at all, yet numerous studies and reports indicate that the graduates of Summerhill have led happy and productive lives. Even allowing for a good measure of skepticism, it must be admitted that Summerhill’s students have suffered no apparent harm, or been handicapped in any way by the freedom they were given, and may very well have benefitted from the self-directed nature of their educational experience.

Within our public school system the option of an education based on the Summerhill philosophy could be made available by offering students and parents a full range of meaningful choices. Students should be able to attend any public school within their home state. A variety of programs should be offered within each school. We should award different types of diplomas or certification (college prep, a standard diploma, a certificate of completion, etc.), with at least one form of certification that involves fewer required classes and fewer requirements within classes, thereby allowing students more time for self-directed learning. Students should also be allowed to take classes without seeking a diploma. They should have the option of taking classes without being graded, or to be graded on the basis of exhibitions of mastery. Students should be allowed to choose their teachers. The option of attending regular classes at different times of the day, as well as attending part time should be offered, especially to older students who are working during the school year. We should repeal compulsory attendance laws and remove the age limits on attending public schools without charge.

While some parents and educators might react with horror to the idea of students being given this much freedom to determine the nature of their educational experiences, Summerhill offers compelling evidence that allowing students to direct their own course of study is not as crazy as it might seem to some people. It is highly unlikely that many parents would be willing to grant their children the amount of freedom given to students at Summerhill. Many parents might be interested in having their children educated in an environment that is less restrictive than the one that is presently in place, while stopping short of the Summerhill approach. Other options, including the status quo, should continue to be available for those parents who want a more structured educational experience for their children.

We must accept the fact that students differ greatly with regard to their needs and interests, their academic abilities, the degree to which they are motivated to pursue a formal education, their learning styles, and their goals. Rather than waste time and energy trying to agree on a single system or approach, we should simply agree to disagree. Within and beyond a course of study designed to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to be an effective citizen within a democracy, we should allow students to select the educational experiences that most effectively address their individual needs and interests. We should allow students (and their parents) to make the choices that are right for them from a range of options representing the full spectrum of educational philosophies and practices.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Permission is hereby granted to make or post copies of this excerpt from Edutopia for personal, non-commercial use, provided that each posting or printed copy attributes the source and includes the copyright notice.

A Nation At Risk?

For as long as we have had schools, critics of the existing institutions have felt there were better ways to organize and run them. For as long as we continue to have schools, that will be the case. The level of concern ebbs and flows and only occasionally reaches a level that translates into meaningful action.

The most recent cycle of widespread reform began twenty years ago. It endures in large part because the changes implemented thus far have had little impact on the perceived problems within public education. A broad consensus among educators, business leaders, and politicians, that public education was, and is, in a state of crisis, has resulted in a deluge of legislation at both the state and national level and a steady stream of reforms at schools throughout the country. The net result, up to this point, has been small pockets of modest, and often temporary, improvement. We are still searching for effective means of improving student achievement and the quality of education offered by our schools.

The publication of A Nation At Risk in 1983 deserves much of the credit for bringing the present educational crisis to the attention of the political establishment and the media, and through them, to the general public. A federally funded report published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation At Risk included several memorable lines that were widely quoted at the time of its publication: ". . . the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people." "If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war."
The primary concerns voiced by the authors of A Nation At Risk were related to our ability to compete with other industrialized nations within the global economy:

The world is indeed one global village. We live among determined, well-educated,
and strongly motivated competitors. We compete with them for international
standing and markets, not only with products but also with the ideas of our
laboratories and neighborhood workshops.

The report stated that “. . . on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with [students from] other industrialized nations, were last seven times.” While the report also included statements of concern related to our failure to achieve the “. . . high level of shared education [that] is essential to a free, democratic society . . . ” the emphasis throughout was tilted strongly in favor of economic matters.

tudent achievement (more specifically, the lack thereof) was the primary evidence cited to support the fact that our nation was at risk. All of the thirteen “Indicators of the Risk” cited by the commission are related, directly or indirectly, to declines in achievement as measured by standardized tests. The report also echoed and further stimulated the complaints of colleges, business leaders and the military regarding the necessity of providing remedial programs, in reading and other basic skills, for high school graduates who were not adequately prepared for either college or the workplace.

In the wake of A Nation At Risk additional studies were commissioned, and a seemingly endless stream of books and articles were published further detailing and defining the problems plaguing public education in America and proposing various solutions. Among the most influential of these was a series of books by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., beginning with Cultural Literacy, which stressed the importance of being literate in a much broader sense of the term than is typically used. Hirsch maintained that in order to communicate effectively within a particular culture, certain terms, names, and events need to be familiar and understood. An individual lacking knowledge of these common references will not be capable of meaningful participation in civic affairs.

While A Nation At Risk marks the onset of the present cycle of reform, Cultural Literacy and subsequent related titles by Hirsch represent the essence of one of the most common responses to the perceived crisis in public education - the development of standardized lists of curricular objectives.

In Cultural Literacy, Hirsch included an appendix entitled "What Literate Americans Know" containing a rather lengthy list of names, events, titles, terms, phrases, and places with which Americans should be familiar in order to be culturally literate. In response to the interest of many readers regarding the items included in the list, and perhaps reflecting the intellectual laziness of many of those readers, Hirsch and his associates published A Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, which offered brief summaries related to each item, A First Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (for younger students), and a series of books designed to let parents determine the degree of cultural literacy of their elementary school children: What Your 2nd Grader Should Know, What Your 3rd Grader Should Know, etc.

Although questions regarding what should (and shouldn’t) be included in a student’s course of study have always been, and always will be, a topic of debate among educators and other interested parties, the publication of A Nation At Risk and Cultural Literacy inspired educational organizations, school districts, state legislatures, and commissions formed at both the state and national level, to develop and publish detailed lists of standards and objectives for each subject and grade level setting forth the knowledge that should be acquired and the skills that should be developed by a student at each grade level, or in each course.

Many of these curriculum proposals have been adopted by school districts and/or enacted into law by state legislatures. Standardized tests have been developed and/or rewritten to measure whether individual students have mastered the required objectives and met the specified standards. Some states and school districts have begun to hold students accountable if they fail to meet stated expectations.

Approaches such as “outcomes-based education” and “mastery learning,” which make promotion from grade to grade contingent upon demonstrating the accomplishment of stated objectives, have been introduced. (In some districts these strategies have already come and gone.) Exit exams are becoming more common - requiring a student to score at a certain level in order to be awarded a high school diploma.

Improving the quality of instruction offered in our schools has also been the focus of a wide variety of reform initiatives. Research on effective teaching and learning has been conducted and the results disseminated. A plethora of alternative teaching strategies, including numerous forms of co-operative learning, have been developed and introduced. Madeline Hunter rose to prominence as the guru of lesson planning for teachers. Lee Cantor emerged as the “sage on the stage” regarding classroom discipline with an approach he called “Assertive Discipline.” To propagate the wisdom of Hunter, Cantor et. al., and to promote the use of “effective” teaching strategies, workshops, seminars, and other professional development activities have been offered to teachers, and in many cases required of teachers. (Sort of an adult version of compulsory attendance.)

Textbooks and supporting materials have been rewritten to conform more closely to adopted standards, particularly the standards of larger states, theoretically making those teachers who rely on them more effective. Some states have introduced competency tests and replaced lifetime certification for teachers with temporary certification, making continued employment contingent upon additional training. Colleges and universities have added additional requirements for prospective teachers.

here has also been a broad range of other responses to the crisis in public education. Schools and school districts have adopted wonderfully inspiring mission and vision statements. Countless books and articles detailing the nature of the crisis facing our schools and offering a wide range of relatively moderate solutions have been published. Although most of the sets of standards that have been put in place seem reasonably demanding, calls continue for expectations to be raised still higher. State legislatures have mandated improvements in education, and have occasionally even increased funding as part of the legislation. The federal government has now weighed in with its own mandate that “no child [be] left behind.”

Nearly all of the goals and objectives included in the standards that have been developed and adopted have some merit. Raising pay for teachers certainly helps to attract a larger pool of qualified applicants to the profession, although compensation for teachers has not been increased to the point that significant numbers of talented individuals are being lured away from other professions. Some of the opportunities for professional growth have helped the teachers already in our schools improve and refine their skills.

Although many experienced teachers maintain that Hunter and Cantor simply re-packaged and re-introduced time-tested methods, their recommendations are worthwhile. Alternative teaching strategies have helped to improve the quality of instruction offered in our schools, although in many cases they accomplish little more than making the classroom a somewhat more tolerable place for non-readers. Now, however, after two decades of earnest, but superficial, attempts to reform public education, we have seen very little improvement. Average student scores on standardized tests - the primary evidence cited to demonstrate the existence of a state of crisis in public education - have not improved significantly. The “crisis” continues.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Excellence, Mediocrity, or Both?

We are not likely to turn the tide in our battle for a more effective educational system until we achieve a better understanding of the true nature of the crisis. Scant attention has been given to the question of what caused a “tide” of mediocrity to “rise” in the first place. Ironically, at least some of the culpability of our public schools, with regard to any increase in mediocrity, is directly related to the success of our efforts to keep students in school.

Throughout the history of public education in America, we have been engaged in a delicate balancing act with regard to the conflicting goals of excellence and inclusion. Maintaining excellence is much easier when opportunities for advanced schooling are limited to the academically talented. Mediocrity is more difficult to avoid when all children are allowed, encouraged, and/or required to remain in school.

Over time the scales have tipped slowly, but surely, toward inclusion. The United States has come tantalizingly close to achieving the goal of a high school education for every member of our society. The percentage of students attending, and graduating, from high school has grown steadily throughout most of the history of public education in America. In 1890, only 6.7% of people between fourteen and seventeen years of age were enrolled in school. By 1970 that percentage had increased to over 90%. In 1890, a mere 3.5% of adults between the ages of 25 and 29 had earned high school diplomas. As recently as 1940 that percentage was still only 38.1%. Between 1940 and 1980 it more than doubled to 85.4%. Since 1980 the graduation rate has more or less leveled off, although efforts continue to lower the drop-out rate still further. At the present time a significantly greater percentage of adults in our society have earned degrees from four-year colleges than had earned high school diplomas in 1920.

This success has not come without a price. Standardized test scores peaked in the mid-1960s and then entered a lengthy period of slow, but steady decline, only recently beginning to rebound ever-so-slightly. It is worth noting, however, that during the period from 1970 to 1980 the percentage of Americans between the ages of 25 and 29 who had graduated from high school rose from 75.4% to 85.4%. Percentage-wise that increase is greater than the decline in test scores during the same period.

The “bell curve” is a reality. Just as some people are gifted with more musical, artistic, or athletic ability than others, some people learn faster than others. Some people are able to retain more knowledge than others. Even within the realm of education some students are gifted readers, but weak in math, or vice versa. While extraordinary effort on the part of students with less natural academic ability can narrow the gap, there are limits to how much each individual is capable of learning. There will always be differences in achievement.

It may well be the case that the percentage of people within our society who are capable of meeting the standards we claim to expect of high school graduates is less than the seventy-five to eighty percent who are presently receiving diplomas. The easiest way to increase test scores would be to stop requiring and/or encouraging students with limited academic abilities to remain in school. On the other hand, making it even easier to get a high school diploma by lowering standards and reducing requirements is the easiest and most logical method of increasing the graduation rate. As much as we might like to achieve both excellence and inclusion, there will always be a trade-off between the two.

Keeping marginal students in school longer has contributed to lower average test scores. On the other hand, the welfare of our children is more important than test scores or other statistics. Convincing students to stay in school is a worthwhile goal when they are putting forth a reasonable effort to learn what is being taught. Keeping students enrolled in school is a hollow victory, however, when they are putting forth little or no effort to learn. We have been increasingly successful in our efforts to keep students in school longer. We have been noticeably less successful in helping marginal students achieve at the levels we claim to expect.

In spite of the fact that published standards have been raised in many states and school districts, de facto standards have been lowered at many schools, primarily through social promotion and grade inflation. To accommodate students who work during the school year and to keep marginal students from becoming discouraged and dropping out, we have lowered our expectations with regard to both the quantity and the quality of work required. Students are passed along from grade-to-grade and given credit for classes, despite the fact that they have not truly mastered the objectives within the approved curriculum for that class or grade level. As a last resort, summer school and night-school classes offer marginal students an easy way to earn credit without having to meet the alleged standards for a particular course. The end result of all these machinations is that many under-performing students are awarded high school diplomas without acquiring the knowledge or developing the skills that we claim to expect of a high school graduate.

The key to striking the proper balance between excellence and inclusion is to stop obsessing about both test scores and drop-out rates. We should do everything possible to improve the quality of the educational opportunities we offer through our public schools. We should make a broad range of meaningful alternatives available to students, especially those who are not succeeding within the present system. We should encourage every student to put forth their best effort in learning. On the other hand, we should allow young people who are not interested in formal instruction to choose a different path. A system of public education that afforded every member of our society the chance to discover and fully develop their gifts and talents would be an “excellent” system, even if some people failed to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

The Mission of Public Education

Freedom can exist only in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their rights, and where learning is confined to a few people, liberty can be neither equal, nor universal. - Benjamin Rush

Assessing the success or failure of our schools with any reasonable degree of validity is complicated by the fact that there is confusion and disagreement regarding the mission of public education in America. Although philosophical matters pertaining to education are rarely discussed, there are fundamental differences of opinion regarding the basic goal of our public schools.

In the early years of the republic, Thomas Jefferson and others who lobbied for the establishment of public schools, argued that educated citizens were an essential component of effective government in a democratic state. The primary justification for educating all children at public expense was that education would make it more likely that voters would elevate the most worthy candidates to office. Jefferson’s plan also called for additional education at public expense for the most talented students, thus grooming them for positions in government. The nation, as a whole, would experience the benefits of good government.

In addition to preparing students for informed participation in civic affairs, Horace Mann and other early supporters of public education saw our schools as a place to combat immoral behavior. As our nation continued to grow, through westward expansion and immigration, this idea evolved into the belief that schools should provide a means of civilizing and homogenizing the burgeoning population of the United States. Public schools were to function as a “melting pot,” assimilating the children of Native Americans, African-Americans, and recent immigrants, into the mainstream of our society, by inculcating the values and beliefs of the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant majority.

Frustration with the gap between the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence and the reality experienced by many groups and individuals led some reformers at the turn of the nineteenth century to attempt to turn public schools into crucibles of genuine democracy. Revisiting the idea that the primary mission of public education should be preparing students for their role as citizens, Margaret Haley, Ella Flagg Young, and others argued that our schools should function as democratic communities. They promoted the idea of democratically governed schools as the most effective means of promoting and protecting democracy within the broader society. They believed that genuine democracy in our schools required the active involvement of both teachers and students in decision-making, as well as a great deal of freedom for self-direction on the part of students.

The Industrial Revolution was the catalyst for the most powerful transformation of our schools. Support for public education, the number of children enrolled, and the number of years of schooling each child received, all began to grow steadily as the idea that our schools should be preparing children for their roles as workers in an industrial society began to take hold. The development of intelligence tests and other types of standardized testing gave rise to an “improved” version of preparing students for their roles in the workplace, providing an apparently scientific means for schools to perform a sorting function. Tests were used to determine what classes students should take to prepare them for their appropriate positions within the economy.

Another level of tracking and sorting was added as American colleges and universities pushed for, and won, the right to act as gatekeepers to the professions. As our institutions of higher education standardized and certified the requirements for entry into a growing number of professions, backed by state laws requiring such certification, they also managed, quite successfully, to dictate standardized curricular models for secondary schools.

Today, more than two hundred years after the founding of our nation, arguments regarding the missions and goals of public education continue. Competing views of the mission of our schools tend to co-exist. Our system of public education has attempted, with widely varying degrees of success, to fill all of the roles described above. Over time, however, vocational goals have slowly, but surely, claimed the dominant role in public education. “Tech Prep,” “Career Pathways” and “School-to-work” programs, as well as other reforms promoting vocational skills, are being implemented in more and more schools and school districts.

Within education the term “tracking” refers to the practice of sorting students into different courses of study based on their academic abilities. Brighter students are enrolled in a “college prep” curriculum that includes more of the elements of a traditional liberal arts education. Students with limited abilities are tracked into classes focused on the development of job-related skills. Tracking has come to be viewed as discriminatory, and the term itself has fallen out of favor. In reality, the practice is alive and well. The difference is that more and more students are being tracked, and are tracking themselves, into “vocational” classes. Wood shop, metal shop, and homemaking have been replaced by programs that have a more direct connection to the job market of today. Computer programming, appliance repair, auto mechanics, and other career-oriented classes are very popular. Even students who are preparing for and attending college are focused on vocational goals. An ever-increasing number of community college programs have a career focus. The primary goal of most students attending four-year colleges is acquiring the certification necessary to enter a “profession.” For all intents and purposes, our colleges and universities have been converted into “vocational” schools.

At both the high school and college levels, some elements of a liberal arts education remain in place, but the primary focus of most students is on preparation for the job market. Although a few lone voices cry out in the wilderness, very few students, parents, educators, or politicians seem to question the dominant view that the primary purpose of public education is to prepare our children for the workplace. The original justification for educating all children at public expense has been relegated to the back burner. There is very little discussion about the importance of developing the skills necessary for informed citizenship. Our schools and the school day are structured and designed to simulate the workplace and help students develop the habits that they need as workers in an industrial society: arriving, eating, and being dismissed by bells, working diligently at assigned tasks (no matter how boring or irrelevant those tasks might seem), and following orders.

While the contention that higher levels of formal education are necessary to meet the requirements of the modern workplace is reasonable up to a point, there is a continuing demand for unskilled and semi-skilled labor. Our factories may have more and more robots scattered in among the workers and typewriters may have been replaced by desktop computers, but there is still a need within our economy for workers with limited skills, but good habits, workers who will be in their assigned place on time and who will follow orders without question, workers who are not stifled to the point of ineffectiveness by jobs that are repetitive and boring. Although there is always room for improvement, our economy seems to be doing reasonably well. There may be some structural unemployment as a result of the rapid pace of technological change, however, a bit of skepticism seems to be in order when employers bemoan the lack of qualified workers and then lay off workers with college degrees and/or years of experience in the process of “downsizing” to improve profitability.

Our system of public education is doing a fairly effective job of cranking out dull, uncritical individuals who will quietly accept their role as cogs in the machinery of our economy. A sufficient number of reasonably talented individuals are developing the skills and acquiring the knowledge needed to service the machines that are taking over the workplace. And a fortunate few are surviving their journey through our educational system with their curiosity intact. The work of this elite group continues to fuel the expansion of the frontiers of human knowledge. Much of that knowledge is applied to the marketplace. There are winners and losers, of course, but our overall level of material wealth is impressive. If the essential purpose of public education is to prepare our children for their role as workers, neither the low test scores of many students, nor the elements of coercion and control that dominate our present system of public education, need trouble us too greatly.

On the other hand, if we are attempting to prepare students for the role of citizens in a democracy, we should be greatly concerned about our present approach to education. Effective citizenship requires the acquisition of a broad base of knowledge and the development of the critical thinking skills necessary to make informed decisions. We are in grave danger of seeing the electoral process in our country turned into a political version of “The Jerry Springer Show.” The ability to listen to, or read, opinions that are contrary to our own, with an eye toward understanding the perspectives of others, has always been rare. Today, open-minded individuals, capable of considering a range of viewpoints before formulating an opinion on public issues, are rapidly becoming an endangered species.

Developing the skills necessary for informed participation in civic affairs is a lengthy and difficult process. Students must be given frequent opportunities to read and discuss opposing viewpoints related to a variety of contemporary issues. Furthermore, they need opportunities to engage in authentic decision-making. Students are almost never involved in the decision-making process within a school, even when those decisions impact their own schooling experience. Our schools are administered in a bureaucratic, top-down manner, with students on the bottom level of the pyramid . It is difficult to acquire the skills necessary for informed participation in civic affairs within a dictatorial environment. They are much more likely to be fully developed in an environment that encourages freedom of thought and allows students to be meaningfully involved in the government of their schools.

When considering the purpose of public education, we must also weigh the public good, as opposed to the private good, of various missions. Our nation as a whole should benefit from schools that are funded with tax revenues, particularly considering the fact that a sizeable percentage of those revenues are generated from levies on people who have no children enrolled in school. On an individual basis, the financial benefits of staying in school and getting good grades are beyond dispute. There is a strong correlation between income and level of education. Money, in and of itself, is a powerful incentive to develop job-related skills. Students whose educational focus is on enhancing their marketable skills, and the businesses and industries that will profit from their labors, should pay for the cost of classes that are directly related to preparation for the job market. There is also some benefit to our nation as a whole, in having each individual acquire the skills needed to succeed in the workplace. As the percentage of the population properly prepared for gainful employment increases, crime and violence decrease and productivity increases. Still, taxing all members of our society so that some individuals can get better-paying jobs, is an approach that could be questioned and challenged.

As a nation, we will derive a much greater benefit from doing a better job of preparing our children for their role as citizens. If more voters are capable of informed participation, we are more likely to elect public officials who will rule wisely. We will all enjoy the benefits of better government. Taxing everybody, including individuals with no children enrolled in public schools, is therefore, much more justifiable, if effective citizenship is the primary mission of public education. Furthermore, the critical thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills acquired as part of a liberal arts education in a democratic school environment also prepare students for any type of job training. (This is important in a society where workers may change jobs and careers a number of times during a lifetime.) An education focused almost exclusively on preparation for the job market, does not include the skills and knowledge needed for effective citizenship.

The character of our society is greatly affected by the attitude toward learning of the populace. A narrow focus on vocational goals has blinded students (as well as parents, educators, and legislators) to the value of being well-educated in a broad sense of the term. Although we claim to value education, the truth of the matter is that we have come to view education as nothing more than a ticket to a good paying job. Although most of the adult members of our society have the skills needed to engage in life-long learning, the inclination to do so is extremely rare. Very few of us survive our journey through the present educational system with our love of learning intact. If we are to be a well-educated society, citizens of all ages must not only be capable of self-directed learning, they must also be motivated to pursue learning opportunities without being compelled to do so. The primary mission of our schools should be to develop an educated and informed citizenry capable of, and interested in, active participation in civic affairs.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Motivation and Learning

The heart of the problem with our present system of public education is discussed in a section of A Nation at Risk that has never been widely published or commented upon. The report included the following message to students (a message few students, parents, educators, or politicians have ever seen or read):

You forfeit your chance for life at its fullest when you withhold your best effort in learning. When you give only the minimum to learning, you receive only the minimum in return. Even with your parents' best example and your teachers' best efforts, in the end it is your work that determines how much and how well you learn. When you work to your full capacity, you can hope to attain the knowledge and skills that will enable you to create your future and control your destiny. If you do not, you will have your future thrust upon you by others. Take hold of your life, apply your gifts and talents, work with dedication and self-discipline. Have high expectations for yourself and convert every challenge into an opportunity.

Very few students work to their “full capacity" or "with dedication and self-discipline" within our present system of public education. Most students seem to view learning as an unpleasant task - a chore to be completed as quickly as possible so that they can get back to more enjoyable activities. Many students do not have the benefit of parents who provide the "best example." Some teachers do not put forth their "best efforts." These problems are critical and must be addressed, but in doing so, we must not lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, it is the effort put forth by each individual student that determines "how much and how well" she or he learns.

Effective learning requires the active involvement of the learner. Even relatively "passive" forms of learning, such as listening to a lecture or watching a videotape, require the mental involvement, and to some extent the physical involvement, of the student. In order to learn effectively, a student must be paying attention to the source of instruction (the speaker, videotape, etc.), concentrating on and thinking about what is being said and/or shown. When a student is having trouble understanding any part of a lesson, she or he must ask questions.

There is a direct relationship between the amount of time and the quality of the effort a student devotes to learning and the achievement level of that student. Students who are motivated to learn will learn more, learn more efficiently, retain more of what they learn, and ultimately attain a much higher level of achievement than students who are doing little more than going through the motions.

Finding more effective means of motivating students to consistently put forth their best effort in learning is the key! Nearly all of the problems and shortcomings of our present system of public education are related in some way to the central problem of a lack of motivation on the part of many students to learn what is being taught. We must identify, understand, and address the factors within our schools, our families, and our society that contribute to the fact that very few students consistently put forth their “best effort in learning.”

Understanding the nature of the motivation to learn and why some students are more motivated than others, is a complex matter. Myriad combinations of a number of variables affect the degree to which students are motivated. Within the parameters of public education, the most important factors are: a lack of interest in what is being taught, improper placement, mediocre instruction, a lack of appreciation for the intrinsic value of being well-educated, and the institutional environment within schools. To further complicate matters, the relative importance of each of these factors varies from student to student and may also change over time.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Our Nation's Children At Risk

The fact that the schooling experience of many students contributes to a diminished interest in learning is a matter that should be of great and immediate concern to all of us who care about our children and the future of our country. The failure of our schools is typically measured in terms of the things our students don't know and the dismal performance of our students on standardized tests, especially as compared to students in other industrialized nations.

While it is indeed lamentable that a substantial percentage of our students emerge from thirteen years of education with little knowledge and few skills to show for their efforts, the most basic failure of our schools does not lie in the things our children do not learn, but rather in one thing that far too many students do appear to learn. They come to associate “learning” with school and to believe that learning is a boring, tedious process that has little, if any, intrinsic value.

That is a very damaging misconception. There is a great deal of value in being well-educated, and the benefits go well beyond the size of the paycheck one can eventually earn as a result of a diploma or degree. The educational experiences of students should be structured to work in harmony with our natural curiosity. If we allow students the freedom to learn what they want to learn, or recognize a legitimate reason to learn, we could eliminate or minimize the elements of compulsion and control that tend to diminish students’ motivation to learn.

Some people will argue that students will not learn as much if they are given the freedom to direct their own learning. With some students this might be true. However, as long as an individual maintains an inquisitive nature, growth and development continue, gaps in knowledge can be closed, and missteps or mistakes can be overcome. (In many cases, we may even learn from our mistakes.) When the motivation to learn is diminished or destroyed, realizing the goal of a happy and productive life can be considerably more difficult. Our schools should be actively nurturing our love of learning. At the very least our schools should not be run in a manner that contributes in any way to a diminished desire to learn.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Societal Influences

Our schools do not operate in a vacuum. Some of the catalysts for the lack of interest in schooling evident in many students fall outside the domain of our educational institutions. While addressing these concerns may not be the responsibility of public education, our schools can help to draw attention to, and increase awareness of, the effect of societal factors on students.

The percentage of high school students who work during the school year has increased dramatically in recent years. Some of them work because their families need the extra income, but in most cases they are working for “spending money,” to keep their wardrobe up-to-date, or to support a car. We live in a materialistic and consumption-oriented society. Billions of dollars are spent every year convincing us that we “need” things we don’t really need and that we need them right now, not at some point in the distant future. Furthermore, even the things we already own are considered to be “obsolete” the moment a newer version of the same product becomes available.

Teenagers are not immune to the effects of the barrage of advertising, much of it specifically directed at them, promoting the idea of having it all and having it now. Many teenagers are mortified at the thought of being forced to go to school in anything but the latest fashions. How can we expect a teenager to get by with a Nintendo 54, when a Sony Play Station offers superior graphics? And what good is a Play Station, once Play Station 2s are available? Every self-respecting teen wants his or her own car to drive, and wants it to be nicer and newer than the cars the other kids at school are driving. After all, don’t we, as a society, compete with (and judge) each other on the basis of, the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, the things we own, and the amount of money we earn? There was a time, a generation or two ago, when owning a new car and accumulating material possessions was typically deferred until one left school and began working full-time. That time has passed.

After World War II, to avoid having our economy lapse back into depression, we made a concerted effort to keep teenagers out of the job market. Keeping them in school longer helped to accomplish that goal. Now, while most parents and educators continue to encourage students to stay in school, some business owners are actively recruiting them to work during the school year. The fast-food industry, movie theaters, retail stores, and many other employers, rely on students working evenings and week-ends.

Students who work twenty or thirty hours per week (or more), while attending school full time, cannot possibly devote the amount of time and attention to school work that is necessary to perform at the level we claim to expect. Their lack of achievement in school often comes back to haunt them. Six or seven dollars an hour provides a lot of spending money for teens who are still living at home and not expected to contribute any of their wages to the family budget. Trying to live on that amount after you leave home is a completely different manner.

Play, as well as work, has contributed to a decline in the performance of students. School-age children and young adults today select from a cornucopia of entertainment options only recently available. Once upon a time there were three television networks dividing up the viewing day into programs designed to appeal to different age groups, with most of the programming aimed at children limited to a few hours each afternoon and Saturday mornings. Today, the number of channels seems to increase daily. Programming aimed at school-age viewers is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and very little of it is educational. Playing video games, watching movies on videotape or DVDs, and listening to music on headphones, are also popular entertainment options. The Internet, which began as a research tool for universities, has evolved into a marketplace and a source of entertainment. Many school-age youngsters spend a considerable amount of time on-line. Little, if any, of that time is spent in educational activities.

An increase in recreational drug use has also contributed to the lackluster performance of some students. Smoking marijuana has been shown to have an adverse effect on memory. Altered states of consciousness typically impair the ability to concentrate. Drug use also affects the motivation to learn. Students who use drugs are less likely to attend school regularly or devote time to schoolwork outside of class. It is not merely a coincidence that scores on standardized tests began to decline at the very moment in our nation’s history when the use of marijuana and other mind-altering drugs became much more commonplace.

As a result of these enticing alternatives, most young people spend less time reading. People who don’t spend much time reading tend to be poor readers. Students who read poorly tend to have difficulty with schoolwork, since (despite our best efforts to accommodate “non-readers”) reading with comprehension is still the key to academic success. We are not likely to turn back the hands of time. On the other hand, our educational system, if it were operating more efficiently and providing students with a better education, could have a positive impact on our culture. We could help students consider the consequences of rampant materialism, the use of mind-altering drugs, the over-valuation of being entertained, and the under-valuation of education.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Altering Students' Perception of Learning

When these variables combine to lead a significant percentage of students to “withhold [their] best effort in learning,” it is not only the students themselves who suffer. Our present system of public education is not effectively serving the interests of students, parents, or society. The basic assumptions of the system are flawed. We are attempting to force children to learn and/or coerce them into learning, instead of harnessing the power of their natural curiosity.

What little success we do achieve with the present system comes at a steep price. Students become so focused on grades and points that they fail to develop an appreciation for the intrinsic value of being well-educated. Their natural desire to learn often gets lost in the process. We need to rise to the challenge of constructing an educational system that promotes and nurtures the devotion to learning that is an essential ingredient in a good education and a prerequisite for life-long learning.

For the most part, students seem unconvinced of the need to alter their behavior or attitude. With few exceptions, they seem blissfully unaware of the fact that our educational system is considered to be in a state of crisis. They are extremely complacent about their own educational progress, however meager that progress might be. Realizing significant improvements in student achievement will be impossible unless we succeed in changing the attitudes of students toward school and learning.

Altering students’ perceptions and modifying their behavior can only be accomplished through the enactment of meaningful reforms. We will not achieve significant improvements with superficial changes or by simply encouraging students and teachers to try harder within the present system. All of the reports, books, articles, goals, aims, objectives, and mission statements in the world will have little effect on student performance if we can not convince the intended beneficiaries of the system (and its primary participants) to devote more time and greater effort to learning.

We must reexamine the philosophical foundations of our public education system. We must enact reforms that offer meaningful alternatives to those students who are not being well-served by the present system. At the same time, we must remember that there are students and parents who are happy with the system that is in place. Even if they are offered meaningful alternatives, some students, perhaps even a majority of students, would choose to follow the same basic course of study that is mandated for students at the present time. An educational program consisting of the current comprehensive approach found at the vast majority of American high schools should continue to be one of the basic choices offered to students and their parents. There is nothing in the reform proposals that follow that would force any student or parent to accept changes with which they disagree. Those students and parents who prefer the status quo would be free to continue with our present approach to schooling.

The reforms proposed herein can be divided into four basic categories: Providing a full range of meaningful alternatives to students and parents who are not satisfied with, and do not feel well-served by the present system, improving the quality of instruction, eliminating practices that result in students being promoted beyond their ability to do the work expected of them, and restructuring the governance system within our schools to give students, parents, and teachers a more active role.

These reforms are based on three self-evident truths: We learn most effectively when we are learning something we want to learn, or recognize a need to learn. There is intrinsic value in being well-educated. The primary mission of public education should be the development of the skills necessary for informed participation in civic affairs.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Reduce the Number of Required Classes and the Number of Standards and Objectives Within Classes

Every adult likes to be respected and enjoys being given responsibility. Truly controlling one's own destiny is a powerful attraction. Adolescents are no different from us in this respect. Therefore, set them a clear goal, give them some sensible guidance...and put the burden of learning on them. Such responsibility will liberate energy now lost because of the impersonality and the patronizing inherent in the lock-step approach of many schools. - Theodore Sizer

We learn most efficiently when we are learning something we want to learn, or recognize a genuine need to learn. The myriad elements of compulsion within our present system of public education stand in direct conflict with this simple reality. Within the normal school day, so much time is absorbed by meeting externally imposed requirements that students rarely, if ever, have the opportunity to pursue topics of personal interest. While it is true that talented educators can stimulate interest on the part of students, self-directed learning, fueled by curiosity, is a considerably more reliable means of promoting effective learning.

The best way to provide students with more time for self-directed learning, is to reduce the number of required classes and the number of requirements to be met within each class. Although there are some “reformers” who favor lengthening the school day and/or the school year, considering the nature of the problems within public education, “more of the same” is not the answer. An over-abundance of required courses and mandated standards and objectives within courses, combined with an emphasis on preparing students to do well on standardized tests, can only result in a standardized education. That is not a satisfactory approach to the education of free individuals in a diverse and democratic nation.

Mandated standards fall into two categories - content standards and process standards. Content standards are related to specific subject matter knowledge. Process standards measure a student’s ability to gather, process, and utilize information, and to communicate effectively. Proficiency with regard to process standards can be demonstrated with topics chosen by students, without regard to specific academic departments. Depending on the nature of the topic a student has selected, a single project could include content knowledge and process skills from any combination of the core subject areas - Social Studies, Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science.

Content standards and the objectives related to them are subject-matter specific. They represent "essential" knowledge (in the opinions of the various educational "experts" who have served on the committees charged with writing them). In the process of developing content standards, there is a tendency for the educators on a committee to readily indulge each other with regard to what constitutes “essential” knowledge. By the time each member of a committee has tacked on his or her treasured bits of information, the list of mandated content standards is typically long enough to consume all of a student’s time within a course.

Developing an objective means of assessing the degree to which a student has met content standards is relatively simple. In most cases, a series of multiple-choice questions, with right and wrong answers, will suffice. Process standards do not lend themselves so readily to objective assessment. While a panel of educators may be capable of achieving some reasonable level of agreement with regard to the quality of expository writing, educational displays, videos, or other means of demonstrating the skills involved with process standards, a certain degree of subjectivity is inherent in judging these types of products. Thus it is difficult, if not impossible, to devise a standardized test to measure mastery with regard to process standards. Although an effort is made to test both content and process standards, content standards tend to dominate most test instruments. The old chestnut - that not everything worth knowing can be tested and not everything that can be tested is worth knowing - applies here. Process standards involve skills that are critical for life-long learning and effective citizenship, yet we allow content standards and objectives to dominate instruction in most schools.

In the case of state-sponsored standards, the degree to which students have mastered the objectives or met the standards is often determined by means of a standardized test. The results of these tests are often cited as a means of comparing the effectiveness of various school districts, schools, and even individual teachers. As a result, most school administrators and teachers take the tests very seriously. Students are expected to devote a significant amount of time and effort to mastering objectives related to the bits of knowledge that are likely to be tested.

While the content standards and objectives that have been adopted throughout the nation represent knowledge that has some value and may be worth acquiring, it is important to understand that very little of what is mandated is truly "essential" in any meaningful sense of the term. Throughout history people have managed to lead happy and productive lives without knowing how to solve a quadratic equation or being familiar with the works of Shakespeare.

Every adult member of our society knows full well that, as adults, we make little or no use of much of what we learned in school and that, as a result, many of the skills we develop atrophy, and much of the detailed knowledge we are forced to learn, quickly fades from our memories.

While there is a great deal of intrinsic value in being well-educated, the memorization and regurgitation of isolated facts hardly qualifies as a good education. A brief review of the required classes that are included in the typical high school curriculum, and some consideration of the degree to which each of these requirements are truly essential, will indicate the possibilities for reducing requirements and allowing students to direct more of their own learning without sacrificing the quality of the education acquired by students.

Most high schools require two or more years of math - which typically includes algebra and geometry, at a minimum, and sometimes trigonometry and calculus, as well. Outside of the classroom very few students are called upon to utilize any but the most basic math skills.

Knowing how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and how to work with fractions and percentages are useful skills. Functioning independently in modern society requires the ability to balance your checkbook and to complete, or at least understand, your tax returns. Other skills requiring a basic understanding of math also come in handy, for example, being able to compute the cost per unit of items in the grocery store, or to measure ingredients while cooking or baking.
On the other hand, the vast majority of individuals in our society make no use whatsoever of the concepts and processes that are taught in advanced math classes.

Our nation needs individuals who are gifted in math and science in order to maintain our position as a leading economic and military power. A relative handful of talented mathematicians and scientists have made the discoveries and done the work that has kept us at the forefront of the technological revolution. Individuals with the potential to contribute to scientific and technological progress, tend to be self-motivated. They do not need to be required to learn. They may, in some cases, need financial assistance to pursue post-secondary studies. It is in our national interest to see that individuals who are blessed with the ability to expand the frontiers of human knowledge be given the opportunity, and the financial support if needed, to fully develop their abilities. More than anything, they need as much time as possible to engage in projects and activities generated by their own curiosity.

Many of the most interesting and best-paying jobs in our economy require advanced math skills. This type of work is challenging and stimulating, and tends to be amply rewarded, both in financial terms and in terms of job satisfaction. It is certainly in the best interest of an individual with the potential to meet the requirements of these jobs to fully develop his or her mathematical abilities.

On the other hand, there are some students who struggle with math, no matter how hard they try. We do not need every member of our society to develop the skills, or acquire the knowledge, needed to be a rocket scientist. There is no rational justification for forcing youngsters who have not been able to master basic math skills to take advanced courses in mathematics. A student who has great difficulty mastering basic concepts is never going to succeed in advanced classes where basic skills and knowledge are prerequisites. They are not likely to find themselves involved in a career or occupation requiring the knowledge or skills gained in higher level courses. Forcing them to take such courses is not only unnecessary, it is cruel.

Science classes should focus on process standards. The most important objective in science is an understanding of scientific methods. This understanding can be developed by allowing students to utilize scientific methods as they conduct experiments and study self-selected topics. They should be encouraged to report results and share what they have learned with other students. In this way students will learn from one another, developing their communication skills in the process. Qualified instructors should be available to advise students as they design and conduct experiments. Adequate supervision would be necessary in some cases, to avoid dangerous or harmful unintended effects.

We should entice, rather than force, students to study science. Students should have the opportunity to attend lectures, labs, and demonstrations, but attendance should not be mandatory. Videos should be available for students to view individually, or in groups, with a teacher available to lead a discussion of the video or to answer questions, if called upon to do so. Any individual with a shred of curiosity will be able to find plenty of food for thought within the broad subject matter of science.

The natural focus of English/Language Arts classes is also process skills. Increased proficiency in communication skills is both an integral part of becoming well-educated, and one of the most important benefits of a good education. Any person involved in the process of getting a liberal arts education should be reading and writing continually, and doing so under the tutelage of a qualified instructor is beneficial for most students. The typical requirement of three or four years of Language Arts instruction is, therefore, not particularly onerous.

The problem in Language Arts courses, is that we fail to take advantage of the freedom, inherent in process standards, to allow students to decide what to read, or to select the topics about which to write. Most of the books, short stories, and poems that are to be read and discussed by students are selected by teachers or committees of teachers. Typically an entire class reads the same selections at the same time. If the reading is done during class time, the entire class reads the material at the same pace. The teacher then lectures about, and/or leads the class in a discussion of, what has been read.

There are three serious flaws in this approach. First, no matter what reading selections are assigned to a class, they are not likely to be of interest to all of the students in the class. Secondly, some students might need more time to read (or perhaps re-read) the selections in order to understand them, while others will not. Finally, discussing what has been read is critical to deriving as much meaning as possible from a reading selection, but the typical high school English class has far too many students to facilitate the active participation of all of the students in a discussion. In most classroom discussions only a few students participate actively and enthusiastically. A few more participate if called upon by the teacher. Many students only listen. A few may not even bother to do that.

The primary improvement we could make with regard to Language Arts requirements would be to allow students more freedom to select the books they read and the topics about which to write. This could be done within each English course or by offering a variety of courses focusing on different areas of literature and different types of writing. We should develop lists of recommended readings. We should encourage students to contribute suggestions of their own to these lists and to write short reviews in the process. We should allow groups of four to eight students to select a reading and then lead them in a discussion of the material. Students should be guided through the process of conducting a discussion - learning to formulate questions and select ideas and concepts within a reading selection that they would like to discuss - so that they could engage in meaningful discussions on their own.

Self-directed learning is often difficult or impossible without the ability to read challenging materials with a reasonable degree of comprehension. Many young people today do not read anything beyond what they are required to read in school. In some cases, they are unwilling or unable to do even that amount of reading. Reading aversion is a serious affliction and it is a growing problem. Many students are caught in a vicious cycle. Since they do not read well, they do not like to read. Since they do not like to read, they rarely do. Since they do not read regularly, they do not read well. Requiring them to struggle through materials that do not address their needs, and that they do not enjoy, only reinforces their negative perceptions of reading. If we hope to help them break out of this cycle, we need to help them find books and magazines that match their interests, leaving the final selection to them. That is the most effective way to develop and nurture a genuine appreciation for reading.

The freedom to select topics to write about is even more important. It is difficult enough to write well when you care about what you are writing. The writing process can be excruciating when you have no interest in the subject matter. If students are allowed to select their own topics, they are much more likely to invest the amount of time and effort needed to develop the ability to communicate effectively in writing.

Coaching is the critical form of instruction related to writing. When students have taken the time to write an essay, poem, story, or paper, they deserve much more feedback than a few brief comments and/or letter grades on a paper, when it is returned to them. Teachers should provide constructive criticism in a one-on-one session with each student who is interested in developing his or her writing skills. On the other hand, students who want nothing more than a grade, should be given nothing more than a grade. If students do not wish to be graded, they should not be graded.

Humans are social animals. We want to communicate with one another. If we hope to cure students of reading aversion and nurture a love of reading, we must make the reading process enjoyable and/or thought-provoking. Giving them more freedom to select topics to read and write about is the surest means of accomplishing this important objective.

We must also eliminate the arbitrary division of learning into math, science, language arts, and social studies. Intra-disciplinary projects and assignments should be encouraged. We should encourage students to select topics to study that include various combinations of any or all of these disciplines. If students are being graded, they should be awarded credit in all of the classes related to a project. Teachers from the relevant departments should work together to providing coaching or other assistance, as needed or requested. While Language Arts teachers may focus more specifically on developing communication skills, reading and writing effectively is important across the curriculum.

The social sciences address most directly the goal of helping students develop the skills and acquire the knowledge needed to function as an informed citizen in a democracy. It is in our common interest as a nation to promote an understanding of, and appreciation for, the values and ideals that are necessary for democratic government to be effective. The social sciences are also the most logical place to address the task of socializing individuals. An understanding of the “social contract,” including both our rights and the limits on those rights, can be learned through encounters with the police and the judicial system, but our schools offer a less expensive and less painful way to learn these same lessons. Even with these vital tasks to be accomplished, there is considerable room to reduce requirements.

At most schools, history classes dominate the Social Studies curriculum. As a result, the primary contacts of most students with the social sciences are long, slow, forced marches through history, memorizing names, dates, and isolated bits and pieces of knowledge along the way. Most students are introduced to both world history and American history in the upper elementary grades. At the middle school (junior high) level and/or in high school they are required to take classes in both world and American history again. Students who go on to college after high school are often required to take survey courses in history yet again. A survey course in history can be helpful in providing a framework for understanding the chronology of the development of the modern world and the human race, but instead of forcing students to repeat this journey, albeit at a somewhat more complex level, two or three times, we should pick an appropriate age for a single pass through the history of the world, with a particular emphasis on American history as part of the course. This would allow more time for other courses within the social sciences that have more relevance to the lives of students.

While history offers some valuable lessons, a history course is not the only way to learn those lessons. Examining contemporary problems in courses such as Economics and Government frequently involves examining how those problems have been addressed in the past. Most of the important political and economic issues we deal with have a long history. When placed in the context of contemporary issues, the lessons that history has to offer often seem considerably more relevant. Comparative studies of political and economic systems should include frequent opportunities for students to discuss and debate issues of interest to them.

Psychology and Sociology are typically offered as electives, if they are offered at all. Psychology courses help explain why people think, act, and feel the way they do. Comparative studies of cultures and religions can nurture an appreciation for diversity, as well as providing students with an opportunity to examine their own values and beliefs. The dominance of history courses in the social science curriculum leaves little room for the study of these other disciplines. Many high school students would undoubtedly find some of the topics covered in elective courses very interesting and relevant to their own lives.

We would be well-advised to shift our emphasis away from the study of inert knowledge that characterizes most history courses and toward process standards within the broad range of social studies topics. Fully developing the skills needed for informed and effective participation in civic affairs is considerably more difficult than most people realize. Spouting opinions is easy, reasoned consideration of a variety of viewpoints is much harder. Anyone can shout down someone with whom they disagree, or engage in name-calling. It doesn’t require any special skill to simply contend that the person with whom you disagree is wrong, simply because you are “right.” Listening carefully and patiently to the ideas and opinions of people with a point of view that is in conflict with your own is much more difficult.

We need citizens who are capable of disagreeing reasonably, who can discuss and debate an issue in a rational manner. People with these skills are rare in our society. The ranting, raving, and name-calling that dominates many of the “talk shows” on television and radio, purporting to provide a discussion of civic issues represent a serious threat to democracy. Our schools should take a leading role in providing an effective antidote to the venom that is spewed on these types of programs.

The give and take of a well-moderated discussion is an excellent way to develop critical thinking and communication skills. Students should be exposed to, and given the opportunity to participate in, reasoned debates on a regular basis. Social Studies classes are a logical place for these discussions to take place. Here again, the element of compulsion is not necessary. By sponsoring forums and debates (open to the community, as well as to students) and ensuring that they are conducted in a civilized manner, our schools could accomplish what is needed in this regard. We should allow students to select the issues and topics they wish to study and discuss, as well as the forums they wish to attend.

Beyond the core academic subjects, high schools typically require students to take a number of other classes including physical education, fine and performing arts, foreign languages, etc. These requirements should be eliminated entirely. We don’t need to require students to participate in sports, sing or play music, receive art lessons, or learn “practical” skills. If we provide them with the opportunity to engage in these activities, nearly all of them will do so of their own volition.

We should organize intramural leagues in various sports, open up the swimming pool at schools that have one, let students join a choir or band, give them access to instruction in the fine and performing arts, and let them enjoy these activities without being coerced into participating.

The educational opportunities we offer should be available upon demand rather than presented as a series of demands. There is a world of difference between encouraging students to take a class and requiring them to take a class. There are only so many hours in a school day. Reducing the number of required classes and mandated standards is an absolute necessity if we are going to allow students more time for self-directed learning. This does not mean that students will be left on their own. Effective guidance from teachers, counselors, and parents should be available and students should be encouraged to take advantage of such guidance, but ultimately the choices regarding what to study at a given time should be left to individual students. Allowing students the freedom to direct their own course of study is the key to nurturing the love of learning that is an essential component of effective and efficient learning.

With freedom comes responsibility. Minimizing the number of required courses and mandated objectives would shift a considerable amount of responsibility from teachers and administrators to students and their parents. Students have grown accustomed to being told what to learn. They will need time to adjust to a system that lets them make important decisions about the nature of their educational experiences. At Summerhill, Neill noticed that new students went through a period of “lesson aversion” and that there was a direct relationship between the length of that period and the degree to which a particular student had come to hate school and learning.

There are certain to be some students, particularly students who are already in middle or high school, who will be unable to make the adjustment. It is even more likely that, at least initially, few parents will have enough faith in their children to allow them to participate in a Summerhill-type program. As mentioned previously, parents would have the option of keeping their children in a more structured program. That does not alter the fact that students who are self-motivated, who are able to handle the responsibilities that come with freedom, and who are truly interested in becoming well-educated, should be given considerably more latitude to direct their own learning. We should allow those parents, teachers, and students who believe in freedom the opportunity to demonstrate that coercion and compulsion are not necessary components of the educational process.

We should focus on process standards, rather than content standards. Educators have always debated, and will always debate about, what knowledge and which skills are most essential, but even if we could temporarily reach a consensus on the matter, the fact that our knowledge is constantly expanding, combined with the limits imposed by time, precludes a final resolution to the discussion and debate about what students should know and what they should be able to do. As we continue to add to our knowledge, and as history continues to unfold, the choices about what should be taught can only become more and more difficult. This will be the case regardless of whether it is students, parents, teachers, or curriculum writers making the choices.

Reducing the number of required courses and requirements within courses will not alter the fact that life has a tendency to impose requirements of its own. Our focus should be on helping students learn how to learn. People who know how to gather and process needed information, have the ability to acquire the additional skills and knowledge that prove to be truly "essential" as they live their lives.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Offer Different Types of Diplomas or Certificates to Accurately Represent Different Levels of Achievement

The clash between the conflicting goals of excellence and inclusion reaches its climax with the awarding of diplomas. Academically talented students often cruise through high school, especially their senior year, earning good grades and a diploma almost effortlessly, falling far short of the degree of excellence they could attain with a full effort. Academically challenged students may put forth considerably more effort and still fail to meet stated standards and expectations.

Within our society there is a stigma attached to dropping out. As a result, students often face intense pressure to complete high school. Many teachers feel sorry for students with below-average abilities and pass them on the basis of “effort,” even if they have not mastered the objectives for a given grade or course. Some parents and students have come to regard a high school diploma as an entitlement. Schools and teachers often face intense pressure from parents to pass students along.

There should be requirements within any system that awards diplomas. The acquisition of a high school diploma should represent the attainment of a certain level of education. This is not the case under our present system. Graduates who have excelled are given the same certificate as students who perform at a much lower level.

As part of our attempt to see that every student graduates from high school, the de facto standards for a diploma have been lowered. We have awarded high school diplomas to so many poorly educated individuals that earning a high school diploma has been rendered nearly meaningless. In response to this situation there has been a movement to raise standards. In reality, actually expecting all students to meet the standards that are already in place would represent “higher standards” for many students.

Anyone who professes to believe that we can simultaneously raise standards and lower the drop-out rate is either out of touch with reality or speaking rhetorically. When you raise standards, you increase the likelihood that students who are unwilling or unable to meet the higher standards will drop out. On the other hand, allowing students to move from grade to grade in elementary school, when they have not met the standards for that grade level, or to receive credit for classes in high school when they have not mastered the objectives related to that class, may decrease the drop-out rate, but represents a lowering of standards, even if the published standards remain high.

Maintaining high standards can be effective and productive in cases where the higher standards motivate and challenge students who are capable of meeting the challenge. Raising standards is a cruel practice when it punishes students with below average ability for failing to achieve what is, for them, impossible.

The solution to this dilemma is to award various types of certificates and diplomas representing different levels of learning. A portfolio of each student’s work, demonstrating their level of mastery with regard to process standards should be evaluated by a panel of teachers. A standardized exit exam should provide an objective basis for assessing mastery of content standards. Various types of diplomas and certificates could then be awarded based on each student’s overall performance.

The "elementary" portion of a student's education should culminate with the awarding of a "Basic Skills Certificate," which would indicate the fact that the student had achieved the basic levels of literacy and numeracy necessary to function independently, as well as to succeed in high school. At the high school level we should allow students to work toward a diploma representing the completion of a program similar to the present curriculum, a program similar to the present one, but with fewer required subjects, or to earn a college preparatory diploma by completing a more rigorous course of study designed to meet the entrance requirements of colleges and universities. Students should also have the option, during the regular school day, of taking classes designed to help them pass the exam for a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) without taking any more classes than necessary to do so successfully. Students who attend classes regularly, but who are unable to meet the standards set for a diploma because of learning disabilities should be awarded a “certificate of completion.”

Many schools and school districts already offer some of these alternatives. If a student successfully completes a course of study that includes the courses recommended or required by most colleges, a stamp or seal is placed on their diploma or transcript certifying that they are adequately prepared for college. The G. E. D. is already an option for students who drop out of regular high school programs. By offering different types of diplomas representing different levels of achievement we could legitimize and maintain the value of each type of diploma, while offering students a much broader range of meaningful choices with regard to formal education. Under such a system, students of varying abilities would all be motivated to put forth their “best effort.”

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Select Their Teachers

The nature of the relationships between a student and his or her teachers has a great effect on that student’s attitude toward school, and on how well a student performs in a particular class. Genuine respect for a teacher on the part of a student makes the learning process a more positive experience. A series of problematic relationships with teachers can lead to a very negative attitude toward school and learning. Some students, who do quite well with some teachers, have problems with other teachers that interfere with the learning process.

A teacher has a great deal of control over the atmosphere in the classroom. Some teachers prefer, and some types of learning require, tightly controlled surroundings. Other teachers function quite well in a less structured setting. Some students need, or their parents prefer, the support that a rigid, disciplined classroom offers. Other students perform better in an environment that allows more freedom.

There are significant and honest differences of opinion among educators with regard to which educational approaches and instructional strategies are most effective. A particular technique or approach may work well with some students and not so well with others. Some people have been taught to read through the whole language approach, others have learned through the phonics method, and still others through a combination of the two methods. Some students work best in groups, others prefer to work independently. Some students learn very effectively from lectures and discussions, other students seem to benefit more from simulations, role-playing, or other alternative methods. Students who read poorly may need alternative approaches more than students who read well.

Just as learning styles vary from student to student, some teachers are more comfortable with, and/or more adept at utilizing, certain strategies and methods as opposed to others. Teachers should be free to employ the techniques they feel are most effective. Most teachers also have areas of expertise that may or may not match the interests or needs of a particular student.

It is very important to do everything possible to ensure a good match between the personality and learning style of a student and the personality and teaching style of a teacher. Students, with the consent of their parents, should be allowed to select the teachers with whom they want to work. This is done at the college level without noticeable problems. There will be practical limits to the range of choices that can be offered within a particular school, but we should offer students as much latitude as possible in making this important decision.

As long as teachers are assigning grades subjectively, some students would elect to take classes from teachers with a reputation for being less demanding. In some cases, parents might even side with their children in this regard. In that situation it is the student who is being short-changed. Little, if any, harm would come to the institution of public education from acquiescing in this matter.

Of course, this problem could be eliminated if grades were based, at least in part, on standardized test scores. Students would then have an incentive to select the teachers who could best help them master the material in a given subject area. By employing pre- and post-tests in each required subject and providing students and parents with information regarding the average improvement shown on the tests by groups of students as a result of working with a particular teacher, we could help students and parents make informed decisions. We would develop an effective evaluation tool for one aspect of a teacher’s performance in the process.

One potential flaw in this regard is that if standardized testing is the primary basis for assigning grades, there would be even more pressure on teachers to focus exclusively on the aspects of a course most likely to be tested. Concepts and topics beyond the minimum requirements enrich the quality of the education offered by our public schools. The best teachers are those who have the skill and knowledge to take students well beyond minimal expectations. This is another reason it is important to keep the list of standards and objectives to be tested as short as possible.

Considering the importance of the relationship between a student and his or her teachers, as well as the need to fundamentally alter students’ perception of school, the benefits of allowing students the opportunity to select their teachers far outweigh the risks.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

Reform Proposal: Allow Students (with the consent of their parents) To Elect Not to be Graded

The philosophical foundation of our present approach to education is based on the assumption that students must be forced to learn and/or enticed into learning with a system of external rewards. This is a very damaging misconception. When we are learning something that we want to learn, or recognize a genuine need to learn, learning can be a joyous process.

It can also be an arduous process, but when we have a true interest in learning, we put forth the effort necessary. The satisfaction that comes from a job well done is usually greatest when learning requires a substantial effort. A good education is a valuable asset in the pursuit of happiness. If we do a better job helping students develop or retain a genuine appreciation for the intrinsic value of education, we will not need to rely on grades to motivate them to learn.

We are all quite familiar with the system of external rewards that is in place within our schools. Teachers award points and/or grades for each assignment, test, paper, or project. These points and grades are then averaged or combined in some way to determine a student’s grade for each grading period. In the short term, good grades may earn recognition and praise from the school and from teachers, as well as money or other rewards from parents. In the long term, a high grade point average, combined with high scores on college entrance exams, will help a student gain entry to a “good” college.

Students whose grade point average ranks near the top of their graduating class may also be awarded scholarships to help pay for college. Good grades from a good college will be rewarded with a good job, in other words, a job that rewards marketable knowledge and skills with higher pay and with duties which may be more varied and interesting than those associated with other jobs.

This system of external rewards is most effective when parents reinforce the school's actions with their own short-term rewards and punishments. Some students work harder to get good grades than they otherwise might because they receive money or other incentives from their parents. Positive reinforcement is more effective when the rewards are short-term and tangible.
At the other end of the spectrum, the most immediate concern of many students who receive bad grades is the anticipated reaction of their parents and the negative consequences that are likely to follow at home.

In response to this system of external rewards based on points and grades, most students do a number of things they might not otherwise be motivated to do. They listen to lectures they don't want to hear, read books they don't want to read, and watch videos they don't want to watch. They answer questions (generated by teachers, textbook authors, and test developers) that they have no real interest in answering.

This system is not without its merits. The long term pay-off of a more interesting career and a higher income is sufficient to get the majority of students to do what is expected of them. Despite occasional grumbling about the boring nature of the work assigned, the work gets done because the rewards offered at the end of this lengthy process are seen as tangible and worthwhile. In the process of doing what is required to earn diplomas and degrees, students are often surprised at some point to discover that the basic liberal arts education they have acquired is more valuable than they may have realized. While students are focused on earning points, grades, and the pieces of paper that certify them as being adequately prepared for entry into financially lucrative professions, they often become fairly well-educated.

This is a mutually beneficial arrangement for students, for teachers, and for our society. The students gain a greater understanding of themselves, other people, and the world we live in. Teachers benefit when students follow rules, participate in class, and complete assignments no matter how irrelevant or uninteresting the material involved may seem to them. In most cases, society gets reasonably skilled and productive workers, moderately capable citizens, and individuals who are effectively socialized.

There are, however, a number of problems with this system. One fundamental flaw is that grades are notoriously subjective. Standards and expectations vary considerably from one teacher to the next. Each teacher has his or her own method of awarding points and calculating grades. Everyone who has attended school knows that some classes and teachers are harder than others where grades are concerned. A student who takes difficult classes with teachers who set high standards may actually learn more and have more highly developed skills than another student with a higher grade point average who has taken less-demanding courses from less-demanding teachers. The ACT and SAT tests were developed in response to this very problem. Colleges and universities found that grades were not a reliable means of determining which students were best prepared for the academic rigors of a college education.

A second problem with the present grading system is the fact that the competitive aspects of the system are a primary factor in the diminution of the motivation to learn that is evident in the actions and attitudes of many students. In any competitive situation there are “winners” and “losers.” Not surprisingly, the individuals who win are more likely to enjoy competing, and to consider the rules of the game to be fair and reasonable. People who lose consistently are not likely to enjoy competing and eventually their interest in participating wanes. Academic competition is no exception.

The basic difference between the academic competition that takes place in our schools and many other forms of competition is that it is more difficult to avoid. Individuals who are not blessed with athletic ability tend to avoid participation in sports. People with little or no musical ability tend to avoid singing or playing an instrument. Compulsory attendance laws force students to attend school and non-participation within school is not an option in most cases. Furthermore, within our schools students are graded on nearly everything they do.

The academic playing field is not level. Just as some people are blessed with more athletic or musical ability than others, academic abilities vary significantly from one individual to the next. The abilities of a given individual can be improved with effort, but that does not alter the fact that success comes easier when you have a natural aptitude for a given activity. As much as some people might wish it were not so, the ability to learn is not equitably distributed.

There is a direct relationship between academic ability and the nature of the educational experience for students within the present evaluation system. Students with below-average academic ability often struggle to keep up and the fact that they are mastering the material at a slower rate than the rest of the class, if they are mastering it at all, is reflected in low, often failing, grades. For these students the classroom becomes a frustrating and demeaning place to be.

The problems of slower learners are often compounded by policies of social promotion and an aversion to ability grouping. Many students are promoted from grade to grade despite the fact that they have not mastered the basic skills necessary to succeed at the higher grade level. With each promotion, they slip further and further below grade level and doing the work expected of them becomes more and more difficult. Within each grade level any grouping of students on the basis of ability is often avoided because of the perception that "ability grouping" will stigmatize slower students. The students who are the supposed beneficiaries of these well-intentioned policies frequently find themselves in classes where their previous failures come back to haunt them and they have less and less hope of succeeding.

As long as there is some hope of graduating, these students may remain motivated by grades. They continue their often futile attempts to earn passing grades and to meet the requirements for graduation because they believe that getting a high school diploma will make it easier for them to get a decent job. In many cases this is a false hope. The grim reality is that even with a diploma, unless they possess marketable skills, the only positions available to them are likely to be low-paying, dead-end jobs.

Doing away with grades would erase the stigma of failure that often makes the process of getting an education a negative experience for students who are below average in terms of academic ability. These students might have a more positive attitude toward school and learning if they were not forced to suffer the humiliation of constantly being reminded of their lack of ability. If we stop using grades to label students as failures, we might be in a better position to help them understand and appreciate the value of working throughout their lives to discover and develop their talents. When realizing our full potential is the purpose of education, the only failure is to stop trying.

Our system of external incentives based on grades is kinder and gentler in some ways for students with above-average academic ability, but the destructive effects of competition are also evident within this group of students. They compete with each other with regard to rank in class, for scholarships and for admission to the most prestigious universities. The competition among these students can be intense. They know that ultimately they will be competing for the best jobs based, at least in part, on their academic record. At every step of the way there will be winners and losers. Someone will rank first in their graduating class, the others will fall short.

Some of these students will be accepted at the university of their choice, others will be forced to attend institutions that are less prestigious. Ultimately, when they compete for jobs, one person will be hired for each position. Some of our best and brightest students will be hired as the CEOs of major corporations, or be promoted to partner in prominent law firms, others will lose out. The consolation prizes may be more lucrative within the academic elite, but losing can be painful nonetheless.

Competition may be unavoidable in a market economy, but education is not, by its nature, a zero-sum game. It is not necessary for some students to learn less in order for others to learn more. Our schools do not need to divide students into “winners” and “losers.” Although limitations of space at a particular school, or legitimate prerequisites, may make it unrealistic for some students to enroll in certain classes, we should do our best to offer alternative opportunities of some sort to any student who wants to pursue additional knowledge related to topics and courses of study in which they are interested.

The grades associated with schoolwork are a primary source of stress in the lives of students. To a large extent that is by design. While we offer the adult members of our society tips on how to avoid stress, there are times when we deliberately place students in stressful situations to see how they will respond. Particularly at the college level, many departments have “gateway courses” designed to weed out those with less aptitude in a given field. At the high school level, grades are no longer used quite as openly as they once were to “track” students into various courses of study - college prep for some, vocational classes for others - but they are still the primary means by which our schools provide a “sorting function” which is both insensitive and unnecessary. Life does a pretty good job of sorting us out, without any help from the grading system that is in place within our public schools.

Whatever sorting is necessary or unavoidable can be accomplished outside a system of grades in school. As mentioned above, the SAT and ACT tests are more effective than grades as a means of determining which students are best prepared for higher education. In the competition for jobs, tests and other forms of evaluation can be utilized when necessary to determine whether or not an individual is qualified for a particular job. Certain vocations do require abilities that not all of us possess. If the Human Resources departments of various companies are operating efficiently, the most qualified person for each position will be hired.

In a market economy, the marketplace operates with the ruthless efficiency of the law of the jungle to determine who wins or loses in the competition for jobs and income. Some abilities have more economic value than others. In a society that is often guilty of judging people by their occupation and income level, we do not need to use grades to pour salt on the wounds our children suffer prior to their entry into the workforce. Students know when they are struggling. Issuing report cards regularly and relentlessly to notify them (and their parents) that they have failed is a cruel practice. While parents deserve to be informed of the educational progress of their children, there are more constructive means of providing that information. Our schools should be helping students fully develop their gifts and talents, not labeling them as “failures.”

A closely related problem with using grades as the primary means of motivating students is that some students are not motivated by grades. Some students are simply not interested in the subjects and topics being taught in school. Others are simply lazy. In many cases, however, non-motivated students are masking a history of failure by no longer attempting to succeed academically. They have become disheartened and discouraged by a history of academic failure.

Although grades are supposed to motivate students, a steady stream of failing grades may actually become a disincentive for continued participation and effort. Rewards must be seen as attainable in order to effectively modify behavior. When good grades, or even passing grades, seem to be an impossible goal, many students see no reason to go on doing work that seems to be rewarded only by grades.

At some point they stop trying. Once they abandon any realistic hope of graduating, the use of grades to motivate students to participate in academic activities is totally ineffective. For students who see no hope of earning passing grades, lack of effort is often a means of saving face. Some struggling students seem to feel that it is better to give the appearance of not caring, rather than make an effort to do the work only to receive a failing grade.

The most serious flaw with our system of using grades as the predominant means of motivating students to learn is that students get so caught up in earning points that they fail to appreciate the intrinsic value of what they are learning. When external rewards are the principal source of motivation, the primary interest of the learner is earning the reward. Since the main objective of most students is to earn points and grades, there is a tendency to work only as hard as necessary to get the grade or the number of points desired.

There is broad agreement among motivational theorists that intrinsic sources of motivation are more powerful and effective than extrinsic sources. External rewards are effective only to the extent that they are desired (typically because they are directly or indirectly related to intrinsic needs) and are seen as attainable.

Furthermore, behavior that is conditioned upon extrinsic sources of motivation typically ends when the reward is no longer given. Our schools are a prime example of the relative ineffectiveness of external rewards as compared to intrinsic motivation. Consider the behavior and attitude displayed by creative individuals, and by teenagers with regard to getting a driver's license, then compare their work habits with those of students in a typical classroom.

Obtaining a driver's license has become an important rite of passage in our society. Having a driver's license is necessary if teens are to drive legally. Most teenagers are highly motivated to study for both the written and the driving parts of the test that is required to get a license. Even students who are failing most of their classes in school usually manage to learn what they need to learn in order to pass the driving test, including the written portion.

We don't have to require teenagers to learn how to drive. They are very eager to get behind the wheel of a car. They prepare for the test on their own initiative. Parents do not have to bribe them to get them to study for the test, or threaten to ground them if they flunk the test. Those who do fail the test go right back to work, studying for the written test and/or practicing for the driving portion of the test. Eventually almost everybody gets a driver's license. The drop-out rate for that particular course of study is nearly zero. Once they learn how to drive, they don't forget. The knowledge acquired and the skills developed are utilized immediately and continuously.

Creative individuals are motivated by an intrinsic need to give expression to their ideas and feelings, and to experience the joy they derive from utilizing their abilities. They are driven to create and/or perform. Although external rewards (money, praise, recognition) often accrue to talented individuals, they are incidental, or at least secondary, to true artists, who paint, compose, take photographs, sing, dance, or write, in order to express themselves. They do not have to be forced to practice or study. They want to develop their creative abilities because they love what they are doing. They work hard to develop their talents to the fullest, with little regard to external rewards. They strive for perfection and are never content with less than their best effort.

The level of involvement and effort typical of students within our present educational system pales in comparison to the type of dedication and effort exhibited by intrinsically motivated learners in these examples. The common denominator among top students competing for class rank and scholarships, students struggling to pass enough classes to graduate, and the full range of students in between, is that the vast majority of students work only as hard as they believe they need to work in order to attain their own limited objectives within our educational system. Since few students are motivated to consistently put forth their best effort, most students do not learn nearly as much as they are capable of learning.

Most students are willing to play the game pretty much by the rules. They do the work that is assigned and do it as well as they can without straining. They enjoy getting good grades, but will settle for average or passing grades if that is as much as a modicum of effort will get them. There are also significant numbers of students who are quite willing to bend or break the rules. They take any short-cuts available to them, copying the work of other students, attempting to answer review questions without actually bothering to read the material the questions cover, cheating on tests, plagiarizing liberally when writing papers, or passing off papers written by others as their own. Many students see nothing wrong with these practices.

While it may be true that cheaters never win, in our schools, cheaters quite frequently pass classes and ultimately are awarded diplomas with the help of the methods listed above. For students with limited academic abilities these tactics may be the only way to earn a diploma. While students may not value education, most of them want a high school diploma, and they are willing to use any means necessary to get one. Donning a cap and gown and walking across the stage to the cheers of friends and family is the ultimate external reward for high school students.

Babies learning to walk would never be satisfied with being awarded certificates stating that they were able to walk even if they were not actually able to do so, yet many students in our schools are only too happy to be given a diploma, even if they have not acquired the knowledge or developed the skills a diploma is supposed to represent. Clearly, they do not appreciate the intrinsic value of being well-educated.

As with many of the reforms proposed herein, doing away with grades will work best if students are given more freedom to choose what to learn. When students are learning something they want to learn, or recognize a need to learn, mastery is its own reward and students learn for the sake of learning.

Instead of attempting to force students to learn, or to entice them into learning, with a system of external rewards, our schools should be organized in a manner that works in harmony with our natural love of learning. We need to develop an educational system founded on principles and practices that harness the intensity of the motivation demonstrated by babies learning to walk, toddlers asking endless questions, teenagers learning to drive, and artists striving to express themselves.

Grades and other external incentives are poor substitutes for an intrinsic desire to learn. When we have a genuine appreciation for the value of education, we are more committed to learning and are more likely to cultivate the habits and attitudes that make the learning process more effective and efficient.

Self-motivated learners take responsibility for their own learning. They retain more of the curiosity typical of early childhood, which makes it more likely that they will have a broader range of interests and be more open to learning in general. Self-motivated learners recognize that school is only part of the overall process of becoming an educated person. Although they typically derive some benefit from any reasonably competent classroom instruction, much of what they learn is learned outside of the classroom. Life-long learning is a pleasant habit and not an empty phrase for those of us who have a genuine appreciation for the value of education.

Some parents, and some students, prefer a competitive environment. The option of being graded on a regular basis should continue to be available within our educational system. On the other hand, those students who would prefer not to be graded should (with the consent of their parents) be allowed to attend school without being graded.

There are also improvements that could be made in this area short of doing away with grades completely. We could develop standardized tests for subjects that are required for graduation. Some part of a student’s grade in these courses could be computed based on a student’s score on such a test. This would alleviate, to some degree, the problem of grades being subjective. Parents or schools could also decide to continue grading students in required classes, but do away with grades for elective classes. Students should be allowed to play sports, learn to play a musical instrument, or paint without being graded on their efforts.

It may well be that very few parents would elect to dive into the deep end by doing away completely with the practice of having their children graded on the work they do in school. Those few brave souls who do have faith in their children’s ability to appreciate the intrinsic value of learning should be able to act upon that faith. They should be given the option of sparing their children the stress and, in some cases, the humiliation of being evaluated relentlessly as they attend school.

Excerpt from:
Edutopia: A Manifesto for the Reform of Public Education

EDUTOPIA

Sunday, January 20, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prologue: Summerhill

A Nation At Risk?

Excellence, Mediocrity, or Both?

The Mission of Public Education

Motivation and Learning

Our Nation's Children At Risk

Societal Influences

Altering Students' Perception of Learning

Reform Proposal: Reduce the Number of Required Classes and the Number of Standards and Objectives Within Classes

Reform Proposal: Offer Different Types of Diplomas or Certificates to Accurately Represent Different Levels of Achievement

Reform Proposal: Allow Students to Select Their Teachers

Reform Proposal: Allow Students (with the consent of their parents) To Elect Not to be Graded

EDUTOPIA

To buy the book search "Edutopia" at

Contact information

READ MORE

Blog Archive

About Me