The Problem with Standards: Why Present Strategies for Educational Reform Will Not Work George K. Cunningham University of Louisville Wed, 13 May 1998 07:25:24 -0400 The Problem with Standards: Why Present Strategies for Educational Reform Will Not Work Intelligence A lot of interest in the writing of Alfie Kohn has been evinced on this list, particularly what has appeared in the Phi Delta Kappan. There is more in that magazine that should raise concerns. In the May issue there are four articles on the topic of intelligence, each of which emphasizes the idea that intelligence can be taught. The lead article begins with the following statement: "If we know that intelligence is emotional, then it makes sense to use visceral books. If we know that intelligence is nurturable, then it just makes sense to create rich environments. If we know that intelligence is experimental, it makes sense to provide tools for the mind. If we know that intelligence is multiple, then it just makes sense to target many dimensions. If we know that intelligence is modifiable, then it just makes to mediate learning. If we know that intelligence is elusive, then it just makes sense to very the way we measure it." (Fogarty, 1998) No evidence in support of these assertions is provided and they are made as though no right thinking person could possible disagree with them. Intelligence is not emotional, nurturable, experimental, multiple, modifiable, or elusive. The quote from Phi Delta Kappan flies in the face of what scientist have carefully learned during this century. Of course these are not intended to be scientific statements, they are political statements that must be true because social justice demands it. I doubt that many readers were surprised that such nonsense would appear in the Phi Delta Kappan. If you read this magazine even occasionally you will recognize how typical it is. However, these are not just the innocent ramblings of leftwing educational ideologues. These beliefs are right at the heart of modern educational reform. The entire standards-based approach to educational reform is predicated on the assumption that students don't differ in their ability and that their performance can be easily enhanced with the appropriate instruction. The essence of the standards-based approach to educational reform is a commitment to the belief that one standard is appropriate for all students. To say that all students should reach the same level in math or reading is the same as declaring that all golfers must be able to shoot par. If they can't, the fault is not with their ability, the problem is with how they were taught to play the game. Blame the pro. What is very obvious when we are considering athletic prowess is that people are endowed with different levels of ability. The same is true with music, dance, artistic or any number of other abilities. This is pretty obvious to most people. Why is there so much resistance to the idea that cognitive ability works the same way? To grasp this, you need to understand that while there are some areas of convergence progressive child-centered philosophies of education and school to work are not the same. One of these convergences concerns how they deal with variability in ability and academic achievement. The dominating issue in the leftist educational agenda is an obsessive concern about the implications of the existence of a wide range of academic performance and the horror that must be faced when it is recognized that those performing the worst are non-Asian minorities. The only way these inconvenient facts can be rationalized is by chanting "students don't differ in ability, they only differ in their opportunities to learn," over an over. I guess if you say it enough times and in enough ways maybe it will become true. Now along comes the School to Work agenda (STW), which is really about helping businesses, acquire cheap malleable labor. What they would like schools to do is select the best candidates and brainwash them into cheerfully accepting low wages and few benefits. One way of achieving the first part of this goal is to have schools do the selection using difficult academic tests. Normally leftist educators would scream bloody murder and some of them are doing just that, because they know that such a policy is going to have a devastating impact on non-Asian minorities. However, they are now caught in their own trap. They have spent years declaring that ability is mere ephemera created by rightwing psychometrists. How can they object to a program that proclaims that all students should and can achieve high academic success. This philosophy is articulated in a quote from an article defending STW and sup-porting the use of certificates based on standards that appeared in the April issue of Phi Delta Kappan (Lewis, 1998): "…the certificate would be based on standards of achievement in core subjects that are benchmarked to what countries with the highest performance on interna-tional comparisons expect of their 16 year olds. This would mean an end to tracking and remediation: it would mean that everyone would be qualified to go to college, they argue. The use of the certificate would end the practice of setting different expectations for different groups of students. The common mantra "All Kids can learn" would finally become policy, and what they would be expected to learn would for the first time be explicit." This is a perfectly silly idea completely divorced from reality. There has been skepticism about story of the school board in Arkansas or Alabama that voted to change pi to 3 to simplify computations for students. Believe me, that is no more outlandish than the above quote. If cognitive ability varies and can not be raised through instruction, then achieve-ment will also vary. Good instruction will increase achievement, but it will benefit those students with the most ability more. Good instruction does not eliminate differences in achievement it exacerbates them. The existence of variable cognitive ability makes the setting of the same standard for all students irrational and doomed to failure. References Fogarty, R. (1998). The intelligence-friendly classroom: It just makes sense. Phi Delta Kappan . (79) 9, 655-657. Lewis, A. (1998). School to work certificates of mastery, and standards. Phi Delta Kappan . (79) 8, 563,567. George K. Cunningham University of Louisville