Download Educational Policy vs. Educational Theory

Educational Policy vs. Educational Theory
Rachel Bishop
November 2006
Public education in the 20th century and today has seen a substantial increase in the
amount of national control. In the same time period educational theorists and researchers have
made significant insights into the question of how teaching and learning best happens. Too often
though, the recommendations made by politicians and by educators do not coincide. This puts
teachers in a difficult situation where, required to follow educational regulations set forth by the
U.S. government, they are left with little time and energy to incorporate more innovative
teaching methods advocated for by theorists and researchers. This paper will contrast the ideas
about education put forth by the government and by professional educators and examine the
affects that this divide has on teachers.
National control and regulation of education increased in the 20th century for two reasons
and in two ways. The first was first top-down education acts stemming from the government’s
desire to compete in the Cold War. The 1950 creation of the National Science Foundation was an
attempt to assure that schools would be educating enough scientists to compete globally. It has
since had a great impact on the science curricula used in schools. The National Defense
Education Act of 1958 was a more direct attempt to recruit future scientists to serve national
defense. High school students were tested and those that excelled at math and science were given
incentives to continue their study of science. The National Defense Education Act also gave
money to schools in order to improve the teaching of math and science. States were not required
to follow the act, but they were in such desperate need of funding that there was not really a
choice (Spring, 2005). “The categorical nature of aid given under the NDEA reflected the
government’s negative feelings toward professional educators and its decision to take
1
responsibility for establishing educational policies” (Spring, 2005, p. 388). The national
government had started to take control.
National control of education also increased from the bottom up when marginalized
groups demanded federal support and legislation to end discrimination. Teachers requested
federal legislation to financially support school buildings and teacher salaries. After decades of
work, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was successful in using
the court system to prohibit school segregation. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision
did not result in immediate change. The continued struggle of people of color led to the 1964
Civil Rights Act, which states that any program receiving federal money can not discriminate
based on race or national origin. A later court decision ruled that English language learning
students were in need of extra help to receive an equal education. This paved the way for
bilingual education legislation. Although these developments represented great accomplishments
on the part of marginalized racial and ethnic groups, the consequence of them was a large
increase in the federal control over schooling (Spring, 2005).
In 1983, the Federal government released a report on the state of education called A
Nation at Risk. The report claimed that, because of the failing education system, the United
States would not be in a position to compete in the global economy. The notion that schools were
failing was based on standardized test scores (Bracey, 2006). Gerald W.Bracey, author of a book
on how to critically examine educational research and statistics, claims that this report is a
“treasury of selected and spun statistics” (Bracey, 2006, p. 24). Although A Nation at Risk did
not accurately reflect the state of education in the United States, it led to a the widespread
understanding that schools were failing (Bracey, 2006). This set the climate for more
governmental and corporate control of schooling (Bracey, 2006; Spring, 2005).
2
In 2001, the President Bush responded to A Nation at Risk with the No Child Left Behind
Act. This legislation requires that states develop standardized tests and administer them to their
students each year. Schools are required to make a certain level of annual improvement,
culminating in the goal that every student passes the test by 2014 (Spring, 2005). The No Child
Left Behind act represents noble goals. Certainly every student should master a level of reading,
writing, and mathematics. The question remains though, are the requirements of this legislation
compatible with what is known about teaching and learning?
Currently, direct instruction based on lecture by the teacher and recitation by the students
is the most common teaching method used (Arends, 1997; Wolfe, 2001). Teachers tend to do
two-thirds of classroom talking. This type of teaching has its advantages. It is effective for the
instruction of declarative and procedural knowledge. It does not, however, allow for the
development of higher level thinking (Arends, 1997). Declarative and procedural knowledge
may be all that is required to pass the tests required by the No Child Left Behind Act. But the
requirement of these tests means that teachers are under so much pressure to cover what’s on the
test, that there is little time left for teaching methods that cultivate higher level thinking.
Teachers, new teachers especially, tend to underestimate the time it takes to teach something
(Arends, 1997). The pressure to cover the predetermined curriculum means that “covering is
often all that happens” (Wolfe, 2001, p. 128). Real learning takes time.
Piaget theorized that learning occurs when a person encounters something that does not
fit their current understanding. In the brain is a cognitive structure called a schema. This
represents the current understanding. A person either understands new information in the context
of the schema, or if the new information is not compatible with schema, the person changes and
adapts their schema to fit the new information. So over time schemas become more complex and
3
accurate (Singer & Revenson, 1996). This theory implies that learning in an active process.
Children must be given experiences that allow them to encounter things that do not fit their
current schema, so that their schemas can develop.
Piaget’s theory is in line with what has since been discovered about brains and learning.
When a person encounters something new, a neural structure is created in his/her brain (Wolfe,
2001). This neural structure is comparable to Piaget’s conception of a schema. A person’s first
neural networks are based on concrete experiences, the things that they actually see and do.
Concrete experience lead to the strongest neural networks, but it is not possible to experience
directly everything that must be learned. Neural networks can also be developed through
representational or symbolic learning, for example by looking at a picture. But this type of
learning is dependent on the neural network created by the concrete experience. If a learner does
not have access to enough concrete experience, they will not have the context to understand
symbols and pictures rendering them meaningless. For older students with strong neural
structures, it is possible to further develop neural networks through the use of imagination and
the contemplation of abstract ideas. But, once again, abstract learning is dependent on the
development of neural networks based on more tangible experiences (Wolfe, 2001).
The more the neural structure is used, the stronger it becomes. If it is used enough, over a
period of time, a process called consolidation happens. This is when the neural structure is
copied into long term memory (Wolfe, 2001). This is what educators are going aiming for. But
the process of consolidation can take as much as couple of years (Wolfe, 2001).
The insights from brain research can inform teaching. They suggest that learning best
happens when it is meaningful and based on concrete experiences. Learning should not be
rushed. And new concepts should build on old ones, so that neural networks are strengthened.
4
The educational theorist John Dewey had very similar ideas. Although he lived before the
current understanding of brain functioning, his ideas anticipated the discoveries of brain
research.
Dewey thought that students should not spend their time in school preparing for life as
adults. Instead school should be relevant to the daily lives of children. Children should be
allowed to learn through experience, and it was the job of the teacher to arrange experiences that
would be educative for the child. Dewey was critical of the traditional notion of curriculum
(Dewey, 1938/1997). “It is not the subject per se that is educative or that is conducive to growth.
There is no subject that is in and of itself… such that inherent educational value can be attributed
to it” (Dewey, 1938/1997, p. 46).
Dewey’s ideas are popular among educators. During his lifetime prospective teachers
were trained in his ideas (Spring, 2005). But although his ideas are in line with educational
research and respected by teachers, they have not been put into practice in a widespread way.
There are a handful of schools using progressive teaching methods based on Dewey’s ideas. But
the political climate has generally not allowed for more systematic incorporation of his ideas in
schools.
Using Dewey’s ideas requires trusting teachers. It requires letting go of ideas held by
politicians such as the notion that there are certain things that students should learn by a certain
age, or even that every student should learn the same thing. For, until these ideas are embraced
by politicians, and legislation is changed to reflect them, teachers will remain in a conflicted
place. Although they may wish to run their classrooms in a way compatible with educational
theory and research, it is difficult to impossible in the current political climate.
5
Refrences
Arends, R. I. (1997). Classroom Instruction And Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bracey, G. W. (2006). Reading Educational Research: How to Avoid Getting Statistiacally
Snookered. Portsmith, NH.
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Singer, D. G., & Revenson, T. A. (1996). A Riaget Primer: How a Child Thinks (Third ed.). New
York: Plume.
Spring, J. (2005). The American School: 1642-2004 (Sixth ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain Matters: Translting Research into Classroom Practice. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6