Change.
A word that is both a lightening rod and a litmus test.
We hear a lot of about “change” in education. But we need to pause, reflect and be careful. All too often, the minute something is trumpeted as the next new CHANGE in education, we jump on that bandwagon, start retrofitting our schools, change their names, slap on some new paint, invest a lot of money, wait, hold our breath, cross our fingers, hope……and nothing really changes. Then the finger pointing begins, the blame game starts and in the meantime another generation of children, children who depend on the quality of our schools for their future, have been left behind or lost.
So when we talk about “change” in education, we need to be very clear about a few things.
First, what are we changing from?
Second, what are we changing to?
Third, though we’ve changed the school name, the school structure or the focus of the curriculum, have we fundamentally changed what’s going on in the classroom?
Right now, charter schools are all the rage. But before we jump on the metaphorical charter school bandwagon, perhaps we should ask ourselves this—are the pedagogical practices in charter schools are really any different? What is the "base" curriculum? How are modern, interactive tools being integrated into the curriculum and are these tools being used to promote 21st century skills? Are the documented student outcomes from charter schools significantly different than student outcomes from well-funded, well-staffed and well-resourced public schools? Is classroom instruction primarily lecture-based or student-driven?
Is it more of the same, just done better?
I want to be clear here. I am not against charter schools. I am, in fact, personally aware of a number of charter schools that are doing some outstanding and commendable work, especially with at risk children. But we need to be careful about embracing charter schools as a panacea. Could it be that much of the success of charter schools can and should be attributed to smaller classroom sizes, increased accountability and a significantly more motivated and energetic teaching staff? Is the "better" produced by charter schools really better? Though test scores and graduation rates are generally higher, which certainly creates the appearance of progress, are we simply providing these kids more of what they should not be getting in the first place; an education that fails to adequately equip students to compete and succeed in the 21st century because it is still based primarily on pedagogical practices from the 19th century?
There is, in the end, a fundamental difference between a choice and a change.
My question to you is this—what do charter schools represent?
A choice?
Or a change?
A word that is both a lightening rod and a litmus test.
We hear a lot of about “change” in education. But we need to pause, reflect and be careful. All too often, the minute something is trumpeted as the next new CHANGE in education, we jump on that bandwagon, start retrofitting our schools, change their names, slap on some new paint, invest a lot of money, wait, hold our breath, cross our fingers, hope……and nothing really changes. Then the finger pointing begins, the blame game starts and in the meantime another generation of children, children who depend on the quality of our schools for their future, have been left behind or lost.
So when we talk about “change” in education, we need to be very clear about a few things.
First, what are we changing from?
Second, what are we changing to?
Third, though we’ve changed the school name, the school structure or the focus of the curriculum, have we fundamentally changed what’s going on in the classroom?
Right now, charter schools are all the rage. But before we jump on the metaphorical charter school bandwagon, perhaps we should ask ourselves this—are the pedagogical practices in charter schools are really any different? What is the "base" curriculum? How are modern, interactive tools being integrated into the curriculum and are these tools being used to promote 21st century skills? Are the documented student outcomes from charter schools significantly different than student outcomes from well-funded, well-staffed and well-resourced public schools? Is classroom instruction primarily lecture-based or student-driven?
Is it more of the same, just done better?
I want to be clear here. I am not against charter schools. I am, in fact, personally aware of a number of charter schools that are doing some outstanding and commendable work, especially with at risk children. But we need to be careful about embracing charter schools as a panacea. Could it be that much of the success of charter schools can and should be attributed to smaller classroom sizes, increased accountability and a significantly more motivated and energetic teaching staff? Is the "better" produced by charter schools really better? Though test scores and graduation rates are generally higher, which certainly creates the appearance of progress, are we simply providing these kids more of what they should not be getting in the first place; an education that fails to adequately equip students to compete and succeed in the 21st century because it is still based primarily on pedagogical practices from the 19th century?
There is, in the end, a fundamental difference between a choice and a change.
My question to you is this—what do charter schools represent?
A choice?
Or a change?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment