All the Rage - or Rage Against the (Pedagogical) Machine
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein
The purpose of this discussion is to conduct a broad overview of the current climate of education and to embark upon a dialogue that is intended to explore steps toward amelioration of the learning environment and enhancement of overall student success. Few will argue that the education of our youth is in crisis, and at a critical cross-roads (Meyer, 2013). The data are showing a continued decline in teacher and student motivation and success (Ravitch, 2014). Despite this overwhelming evidence, there persists a dogged adherence to the status quo of the last 12 years in the single-minded focus on a curriculum built around obsessive standardized testing, and the survival of teachers and schools hang in the balance based on the results of those tests (Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2016; Vecellio, 2013).
This discourse first addresses the theories of curriculum and their impact on instructional practices, followed by an overview of the curriculum processes and their impact on current educational requirements, in light of the aforementioned crisis. Next, current educational issues as they affect and are affected by the current PK-12 curriculum will be reviewed. Subsequently, an examination of the Oliva curriculum model and the incorporation of technology to support differentiated instruction will be addressed. Lastly, suggestions will be offered to turn the current tide of declining student morale and engagement, and to improve the public view of the school and ameliorate the pedagogical environment.
Theories of Curriculum and Their Impact on Instructional Practices
The educational methods of today are driven and informed by high-stakes, standards-based testing, which are derived from a curriculum that has grown increasingly narrow and disconnected from real-world applications and needs (Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2016; Vecellio, 2013). The current predominant pedagogical approach finds its genesis in the curriculum theory promulgated by Franklin Bobbitt (Waldow, 2015). The inspiration for Bobbitt’s curriculum theory was based on his observation of the scientific management and consequent productivity of the industrial sector. He believed that those principles could be applied to the educational domain as well, with similar results, according to Waldow (2015). The school was likened to a factory, the transference of knowledge was analogized as the “machine”, the teachers and students were the workers, with the educated student equated to the product that would then be ultimately offered to society, who functioned as the “consumer”. Bobbitt emphasized the priority of the customers’ needs and that the resultant “product” had to attain certain predetermined specifications to which the teachers and students were expected to adhere to and strive for (Waldow, 2015). This is in direct opposition to the curriculum theories and approaches championed by Bobbitt’s contemporaries, John Dewey and Maria Montessori. These educational leaders believed that it was incumbent upon the pedagogues to provide an enriching environment out of which the learning objectives would naturally emerge as the pupils explored and interacted with their surroundings and developed into competent individuals and contributing members of society (Peng & Md-yunus, 2014; Thayer-Bacon, 2012; Waks, 2013; Waldow, 2015).
The Impact of Curriculum Processes Supporting Current Educational Requirements
Educators had misgivings with respect to a national curriculum (Oliva & Gordon, 2013), yet the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) could be considered a drastic neomobilistic change (Oliva & Gordon, 2013) in response to the unsatisfactory results of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (Ravitch, 2014). In the process, this country’s education has moved from local and state-based curricula to a national curriculum and an overemphasis on assessment (Pense, Freeburg, & Clemons, 2015; Vecellio, 2013).
The fallout, as a result of the extreme interpretation and application of this particular facet of Bobbitt’s curriculum theory, can be felt throughout the academic world from pre-K all the way up to the certificated professionals graduating from the coveted halls of higher learning. Croft, Roberts, and Stenhouse (2016) reported that studies show already children in pre-K communicate a feeling of failure. The pressures to meet prescribed levels of success have reverberated throughout all the communities and grade levels, but the ethnically and economically marginalized groups have been particularly hard hit, and playtime, even in kindergarten, has been preempted with drill-and-kill preparation for the standardized tests (Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2016; Meyer, 2013).
Children are negatively affected physically, emotionally, and intellectually (Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2016; Meyer, 2013). Stress levels are so high at the time of the test that instructions are included in some test booklets on how to handle exams that have been compromised by vomit. The motivation to learn and student engagement has been negatively impacted and students are choosing to drop out or resort to cheating. Senator Wellstone (D-MN) stated, in reference to student disengagement, that the focus on the test has destroyed the incentive to learn (Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2016). As a result of sacrificing the multidimensional curriculum in order to concentrate on test preparation, the educational system has created students who exhibit a decreased ability to problem solve, think critically, and communicate effectively, all of which are the skills sought out and highlighted by many employers, according to Croft, Roberts, and Stenhouse (2016).
Croft et al. (2016) reported that pre-service and credentialed teachers, instead of developing and honing their teaching skills, are consumed by mastering scripted lessons and preparing their students for the looming test, as a result of the narrowed curriculum and emphasis on test preparation. The morale of teachers is at an all-time low with the threat of being handed the pink slip if their students don’t measure up to arbitrary standards. Educators have resorted to filing law suits or publicizing their letters of resignation in an effort to bring to light the educational crisis while coming to terms with their own frustrations and disillusionment (Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2016)
NCLB and CCSS (which resulted from the failure of NCLB (Lauen & Gaddis, 2016)), were touted as the magic bullet which promised to solve the effects of poverty and the lack of student population equity upon literacy. Instead, it should be heralded as more than a decade of disaster that not only exacerbated student population inequity (Croft, Roberts, & Stenhouse, 2016), but also destroyed the teacher-driven literacy programs and autonomy that were summarily replaced by scripted lesson plans and an ever-increasing drill-and-kill approach to learning. All of this has robbed students and teachers of their creativity and motivation, and ultimately, their sense of self-efficacy and success (Meyer, 2013; Vecellio, 2013).
The primary flaw in applying Bobbitt’s approach to specifying and standardizing the student “product” (Waldow, 2015), is that students are not inanimate objects that can be homogeneously manufactured and assembled in order to pass a quality control check prior to dissemination to the consumer. When children come to the “embryonic society” of school (Waks, 2013) they come with varying skills, experiences, and backgrounds (Ravitch, 2014). It is the business of educators to level the playing field for the student so they have equal access to resources and learning opportunities (Ravitch, 2014), but not to standardize and homogenize the children themselves. Contrary to the curriculum theory espoused by Bobbitt which supplants student needs for societal demands (Waldow, 2015), Peter Oliva’s curriculum development model takes into account the intricate balance and interplay between the needs of the student population and society at large in considering the curriculum to be applied in a given pedagogical environment, very much in line with Dewey’s curriculum theory (Thayer-Bacon, 2012).
The Oliva Curriculum Model
Differentiated Instruction
Oliva provided a very comprehensive and detailed curriculum development model. It not only allows for constructing the optimum curriculum, but also addresses the instructional processes and calls for regular assessments (Oliva & Gordon, 2013; Oliva & Henson, 1980). The level of detail permits for ongoing adjustments to the subject matter as well as the method of delivery based on particular student needs and progress.
The Oliva curriculum model offers us the flowchart and framework and the Montessori approach gives us a scientifically proven application for seamlessly developing the foundation upon which student success can be built. Montessori’s pedagogical theories were grounded in scientific observation which has resulted in a quality educational program for preschool and kindergarten children that continues to be popular over 100 years later with more than 4,000 schools in the United States alone (AMS; Ansari & Winsler, 2014; Peng & Md-yunus, 2014). Applying the curriculum theories and practices of progressive pedagogues such as Dewey and Montessori capitalizes on children’s natural curiosity, inquisitiveness, and thirst for knowledge (Meyer, 2013). Peng and Md-yunus (2014) highlighted that the program offers an environment hallmarked by order, child-directed learning, harmony, and independence. This pedagogical framework allows early learners to develop a solid foundation in negotiating everyday life, mathematics, social studies, and language arts, along with a rich sensory experience. The Montessori curriculum honors the child and his desire to learn, offering him an environment replete with prepared materials that encourage the sequential acquisition of knowledge from the simple and concrete to the complex and abstract in a natural progression through developmentally appropriate tasks at a younger age than the non-Montessori counterpart (Ansari & Winsler, 2014; Peng & Md-Yunus, 2014). Meyer (2013) emphasized that experimentation and exploration are encouraged and the arts are an integral and vital part of the quotidian learning experience, manifesting in diverse forms, such as dance, music, and painting. For preschool and kindergarten children enrolled in schools using the Montessori approach, research has shown that there is greater academic, social, and emotional development than demonstrated in their mainstream school equivalents. Fine motor skills and higher executive functioning were also positively impacted in children who attended Montessori programs (Ansari & Winsler, 2014). This foundation was evidenced and carried through subsequent grade levels, even if the children later transferred to a mainstream learning environment.
The Montessori method is known for a pedagogical experience that allows children to learn at their own pace, based on their individual interests and abilities, scaffolded and supported by the “guides”, and older students who are given the opportunity to reinforce their own learning by serving as role models. This environment is of particular value to children who come to the Montessori experience from a non-English speaking or learning disadvantaged background because it allows them to acquire skills that they will need for later academic success in a positive, supportive environment, instead of being marginalized as they typically are in more conventional programs (Ansari & Winsler, 2014; Meyer, 2013). Conventional programs are structured in such a way that children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are mainstreamed into the pedagogical environment before they are academically ready, which can be emotionally and scholastically detrimental, instead of allowing them to build on their existing skill sets and transitioning at their own pace (Ansari & Winsler, 2014).
Technology in the Classroom
The revolution of technology in our society has transformed the pedagogical environment from just the pencil and book modality into a more digitally interactive format, which also allows pedagogues to better tailor the learning experience to the students’ needs. It is incumbent upon educators to stay on the leading edge of pedagogical methods incorporating digital devices in order to give students the opportunity to be competitive in the global marketplace (Marchant, 2014). The children of today are bombarded by technology in diverse forms, according to van Hooft and Swan (2004), and because of its pervasiveness it is critical that our children are competent in the effective use and application of the various types of technology. Examples of digital media that are becoming more common in the classroom environment include: laptops for the instructor and the pupils to establish a 1:1 ratio, wireless online access, interactive whiteboards, and remote devices which allow the students to enter responses to real-time assessment tools (Maninger, 2006; Olivia & Gordon, 2013).
Educators have various resources at their disposal which they can introduce and apply in the classroom setting to enhance and tailor the learning experience (Olivia & Gordon, 2013). These include social media, online news sources, web-based multi-player games (Smolčec & Smolčec, 2014; Squire, 2013), and website development software (Maninger, 2006). These resources support increased opportunities for the application of the imagination and collaborative learning, transcending the classroom and providing access to other cultures and ways of life (Rodney, 2013). Online learning opens up a whole new avenue of information access, retrieval, and assimilation. It creates the potential for a whole new dimension in critical thinking and authentic learning (Hubbell, 2006; Rodney, 2013). There are numerous educational websites that can enrich the learning experience for early learners as well, such as the National Wildlife Federation website and the Dorling Kindersley online E-encyclopedia (Boyd, 2008).
The diversity of digital resources available to the teacher allows for more effective differentiation in the delivery of instruction in order to be able to personalize and tailor the pedagogical experience for the student while still meeting prescribed standards (Olivia and Gordon; 2013). The technology is not intended to replace teaching, but rather to enrich the instructional process and learning experience (Maninger, 2006; Olivia & Gordon, 2013). Educators can leverage technology to structure the learning experience in such a way that it applies directly to the lives of learners today and in the future.
Educational Issues and Their Impact on the PK-12 Curriculum
Educational “issues”, negatively impacting the public school arena, have emerged as a result of the current PK-12 curriculum and instructional practices employed in the public school system. In the same decade and a half that NCLB, followed by the CCSS have held sway, parents have turned to alternative schooling, such as homeschooling, to compensate for what they believed was a serious deficit in the American school system. Until 1995 families cited religious beliefs as the reason they chose alternative schooling for their children, according to Lines (2000). Since then, more and more families have chosen to withdraw their children from the public school setting due to increased dissatisfaction with the curriculum that their children are being exposed to (Lines, 2000). Homeschooling has more than doubled from one million students in 1997 to 2.2 million in 2015 (NHERI) creating another budget deficit source for public schools that are already suffering fiscally (Fetzer, 2006).
A vicious cycle has been created because NCLB and CCSS offer financial incentives to schools that show an improvement in test scores (Kreh, 2015), but as parents continue to remove their children from the public school environment these schools have had to further reduce enrichment classes such as art and music, and increase class sizes to compensate for the loss of the per student daily attendance subsidy. This, in turn, impacts the degree of success on the standardized tests, which negatively affects federal financial support. In response, Kreh (2015) reported that districts have either modified the tests to make them easier to show an improvement in test scores, or have segregated the better performing students from those that don’t perform as well academically.
Turning the Tide and Reassessing Priorities
As a public school that receives federal funding, it is reasonable and to be expected that a measurement tool that demonstrates educational accountability on the school’s part is required. It cannot be denied that successful demonstration of accountability needs to be provided in order to continue receiving federal support (Meyer, 2013). Currently, that entails complying with CCSS, unfortunately.
There also exists a responsibility that needs to be honored in relationship to the community that the school is a member of. Public relations must be improved and the partnership must be re-established and strengthened between the school, the parents, and the community at large. Schools must find a way to provide manageable class sizes staffed with skilled and trained education professionals, and a curriculum that honors all the children from those with learning challenges to the gifted. Unlike the neomobilistic introduction of the CCSS, schools can achieve their stated pedagogical goals through homeostatic change (Oliva & Gordon, 2013).
As educators, instruction that meets the demands of the student population needs to be the priority. Vecellio (2013) emphasized that the pedagogy must be modified in order to provide a more powerful and engaging means of delivery that exposes the students to content that is authentic and, at this time, supports CCSS content guidelines. Students will better learn and retain the information if it can be applied directly to their lives.
The curriculum objectives for 4th grade math, for example, on the Common Core State Standards Initiative website includes, under the “Measurement and Data” subheading, that students are able to represent and interpret data. The sources of data used can be things that are relevant to the students, like how many shirts compared to pants they have and how many different outfits can be created (for the fashion conscious); which social networking sites (FaceBook, Instagram, Snapchat) students use and have them track how many minutes (or hours) per day they access each one for a specified period of time. For those who play video games the scores, time played, and personal bests can be recorded. The students will then translate these data into various types of representations. Instructional objectives reflecting this lesson can be expressed in the following manner: Students are able to demonstrate understanding of how to describe and organize data distribution by various formats such as bar and line graphs, histograms, scatterplots, and stem-and-leaf displays (Vecellio, 2013).
This is just one example of how committed educators can tailor the learning experience to students’ interests while still complying with prescribed standards. The more authentic and engaging the delivery is, the more successful the learning will be. In this instance, it is also possible to make students aware of the role that math plays in their everyday lives.
Educators can identify any learning gaps and progress toward attaining instructional objectives through regular and targeted assessments. The completed assignment itself will be utilized as a means to determine the degree of understanding of the concepts that were taught. Not only do these examples allow for assessing the extent of comprehension of the material by the student through the finished product, it also entails an interdisciplinary mode of knowledge assimilation and production. The students are demonstrating math skills, but they are also employing critical thinking skills in the process of deciding on and setting up the project. They need to be able to organize the information, determine if there are any patterns, and draw conclusions based on the data collected. By requiring an oral or written report to be included with the completed assignment, language arts and communication skills would also be incorporated into the finished product.
Since pre-K and kindergarten are not yet a state-mandated requirement, schools can explore incorporating a Montessori early education program. This would not jeopardize the requirements that need to be met with respect to the CCSS, and would enhance the school’s value to the community by offering a more robust curriculum. According to the National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector (NCMPS), as a result of the CCSS, more parents and educational leaders are looking to the Montessori approach to be able to offer an education that honors a child physically, emotionally, and intellectually. The program is research based and has been empirically proven over the last 100 years to help children gain superior social and intellectual abilities. More than half of the public Montessori schools that exist today were opened in the last ten years in response to the high-stakes, standards-based curriculum that is so prevalent in the public school environment (NCMPS).
NCMPS offers assistance and guidance to existing public schools with respect to starting a public Montessori program. Schools would do well to inquire about the consultation and professional development that is offered in order to create and sustain a Montessori early learning program that can be offered to the parents and children of the community. This would go a long way in improving the school’s standing within the community and help the parents realize the respective school is indeed sensitive to its community’s needs.
In Summary:
Corporations, irrespective of academicians, have foisted their brand of “educational reform” on the hapless guinea pigs of the teacher and student population as a result of “evidence-based” findings (HSLDA; Ravitch, 2014). Ravitch (2014) asserted that there is no evidence to support the merit of NCLB and CCSS, but rather were the result of money’s siren song (HSLDA; Howell, 2013), which obfuscates and denigrates the needs and input of the student and teacher population subjected to the educational reform. Ask any child their opinion in a mainstream school under the oppressive cloud of the CCSS, and their response will be “boring”. How can learning be effective if it is not engaging? Children are pressed to slough through the dense underbrush of disconnected sound-bytes of information that will culminate in a standardized test score that demonstrates understanding of facts that will be forgotten as soon as the last bell of the school year rings to unleash the exuberance of youth on the playground of summer. A Google search will reveal several songs celebrating the conclusion of school with less than flattering lyrics, but none that celebrate the institution of school. In the words of Alice Cooper, of the rock ‘n’ roll counter-culture in School’s Out for Summer:
School's out for summer
School's out forever
School's been blown to pieces
No more pencils
No more rule-books…
As educators, was this really the lasting impression we intended to make when we started on this trajectory to positively impact the world and do our part in shaping the future? The goal is to once again offer a robust curriculum which includes art and music. Standardized tests should not be the focus of the pedagogical exercise, but rather serve as a diagnostic tool, which is developed by the teachers, not self-serving corporations (Ravitch, 2014). Education does not exist to create a homogenized, standardized product that we will sell to the consumer, as Bobbitt maintained, but rather to expand the minds and horizons of those who will step out onto the precipice of life and fly as innovators, creators, and game-changers. The reality of tomorrow lies in the dreamers of today. Educators, it is time to take back your power and exercise your passion. In the words of Maria Montessori (Bagby & Sulak; 2016):
“We must help the child to act for himself, will for himself, think for himself; this is the art of those who aspire to serve the spirit.”
References
American Montessori Society (AMS). Retrieved from http://amshq.org/Montessori-Education/Introduction-to-Montessori/Montessori-Schools
Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014). Montessori public school pre-K programs and the school readiness of low-income black and Latino children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1066-1079. doi:10.1037/a0036799
Bagby, J., & Sulak, T. (2016). Connecting Montessori practice and entrepreneurship. Montessori Life, 28(1), 13-13.
Boyd, B. F. (2008). Assistive technology for every child. Montessori Life, 20(1), 30-35.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. Grade 4 math content standards.
Croft, S. J., Roberts, M. A., & Stenhouse, V. L. (2016). The perfect storm of education reform: High-stakes testing and teacher evaluation. Social Justice, 42(1), 70-92.
Fetzer, Jim. (2006). The Senator Wellstone assassination. Retrieved from
Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). Building the machine. Retrieved from www.hslda.org/commoncore/Video.aspx
Howell, C. (2013). Hostility or indifference? The marginalization of homeschooling in the education profession. Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X), 88(3), 355-364. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2013.798510
Hubbell, E. R. (2006). Authenticity & technology in Montessori education. Montessori Life, 18(2), 16-20.
Kreh, A. (2015). Where do we belong? A call for consistency in homeschooling regulation. University of La Verne Law Review, 36(2), 237-273.
Lauen, D. L., & Gaddis, S. M. (2016). Accountability pressure, academic standards, and educational triage. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 38(1), 127-147. doi:10.3102/0162373715598577
Lines, P. M. (2000). Homeschooling comes of age. Public Interest, (140), 74-85.
Maninger, R. M. (2006). Successful technology integration: Student test scores improved in an English literature course through the use of supportive devices. Techtrends, 50(5), 37-45.
Marchant, G. J. (2014). Voices in education: Technology. Teacher Educator, 49(4), 225-231. doi:10.1080/08878730.2014.944447
Meyer, R. J. (2013). The truth behind manufactured malpractice: The impacts of NCLB upon literacy teaching and learning. New England Reading Association Journal, 49(1), 1-6.
National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector (NCMPS). Implementation assistance. Retrieved from http://www.public-montessori.org/what-we-do/implementation-assistance
National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI). Growth of home schooling in the United States. Retrieved from http://nheri.org
Oliva, P. & Gordon, W. (2013). Developing the curriculum. Boston: Pearson
Oliva, P. F., & Henson, K. T. (1980). What are the essential generic teaching competencies? Theory into Practice, 19(2), 117.
Peng, H., & Md-Yunus, S. (2014). Do children in Montessori schools perform better in the achievement test? A Taiwanese perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood, 46(2), 299-311. doi:10.1007/s13158-014-0108-7
Pense, S. L., Freeburg, B. W., & Clemons, C. A. (2015). Implementation of Common Core state standards: Voices, positions, and frames. Career & Technical Education Research, 40(3), 157-173. doi:10.5328/cter40.3.157
Ravitch, D. (2014). Hoaxes in educational policy. Teacher Educator, 49(3), 153-165. doi:10.1080/08878730.2014.916959
Rodney, B. D. (2013). The one-to-one moment: Digital-age tools and the challenge of democratic education in a post-No Child Left Behind era. Journal of Philosophy & History of Education, 63(1), 19-34.
Smolčec, M., & Smolčec, F. (2014). Using Minecraft for learning English. Tesl-Ej, 18(2), 1-15.
Squire, K. D. (2013). Video game–based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(1), 101-130. doi:10.1002/piq.21139
Thayer-Bacon, B. (2012). Maria Montessori, John Dewey, and William H. Kilpatrick. Education & Culture, 28(1), 3-20.
van Hooft, M., & Swan, K. (2004). Special issue on ubiquitous computing: Introduction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 275-279.
Vecellio, S. (2013). How shall I teach thee? An uncommon pedagogy for the Common Core. Schools: Studies in Education, 10(2), 222-241.
Waks, L. J. (2013). John Dewey and the challenge of progressive education. International Journal of Progressive Education, 9(1), 73-83.
Waldow, F. (2015). From Taylor to Tyler to No Child Left Behind: Legitimating educational standards. Prospects (00331538), 45(1), 49-62. doi:10.1007/s11125-014-9334-x