Entry #15 - Dec. 14, 1998


"I don't know what that science teacher may have meant when she said, 'We have to weed kids out,' but that sentiment does seem to express a real effect of 'high standards' without meaningful implementation and commitment to student achievement expressed in action, staff, and resources to get the job done."

A chance remark from our principal gave me pause this week. I was giving her a precis of some of the secondary changes that will affect our graduating students, and she mentioned an interview her husband had with their son's ninth-grade science teacher (in another district). The teacher had explained that she marked students' work very severely, because "we have to weed kids out." My principal's husband took umbrage at this, and retorted (with some heat), "That's not your job! Your job is to help kids succeed, not to weed them out!"

This little vignette brought into focus a conflict I see within the high-standards movement, at least in our area. Of course we are here to help kids succeed! (I hope no one would seriously disagree.) But what, exactly, is success? Is it the same for everyone? Surely not. Given that students come with widely varying strengths and potential avenues to excellence, there needs to be a great deal of flexibility in programming, assessment, and evaluation, so that individuals who may be severely challenged in one area -- like my student Marco, who can barely read or write at the primary level but who has real mechanical genius and a flair for invention -- can develop their talents in other areas without being stigmatized.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way we're heading. Accountability is the buzzword: read, standardized tests. Despite all the research that found intrinsic bias in these measures, and their notoriously poor record in measuring such aptitudes as creativity, divergent thinking, synthesis and analysis -- we are more and more coming back to a very narrow view of "skills" that can be summarized in curriculum documents and surveyed in a machine-scorable test. Flexibility? Hah!

The new standards are set quite high -- what formerly would have been above average, B-plus work is now to be considered the bare minimum. What happens to kids who can't meet these new demands, or those who need more time, more differentiated teaching strategies, more individual attention?

If we as a society, or a school system, were truly committed to excellence and serious about achieving these high standards, it seems to me we would also be ensuring that schools and students have the resources they might need to achieve these goals. Every school would have at least basic library materials, science labs, music and art opportunities, and after-school access for students who need additional time to complete work. Courses would be offered at varying levels and pace of instruction to enable every student to master difficult material and meet expectations. Teachers would be assured of professional development to keep abreast of new initiatives, and opportunities to collaborate to ensure that they could meet the needs of their students.

None of that is happening here, however. Just Excellence By Decree. Suddenly, everyone "shall" do this or that, and no resources or backup support is being provided. I see a lot of casualties down the road, as hardworking kids to whom academic success does not come easily find the rug snatched from under their feet, and doors slammed in their face. The education officials I've spoken to say that underachieving students will not be allowed to earn any high school credits. Just why, in that case, should they continue to attend? No plans are in place to offer them the support they need, or any alternative program for those whose academic ability is genuinely severely limited.

This ain't my idea of equality of opportunity! I don't know what that science teacher may have meant when she said, "We have to weed kids out," but that sentiment does seem to express a real effect of "high standards" without meaningful implementation and commitment to student achievement expressed in action, staff, and resources to get the job done. My worry is that we, who ARE here to help the students succeed, are being co-opted into labeling and stratifying them into "winners" and "losers" in spite of ourselves.

We've been talking among ourselves, and morale is very low. We feel we're being set up, and we're actively prevented from doing the job right and genuinely helping our students, especially the ones that need it most. The rigid curriculum guidelines and grade expectations leave little room for creativity and innovation, or for developing units around student needs and interests in order to spark enthusiasm in our many reluctant learners.

What to do? Go along with it, as loyal employees (after all, it's not our business to set policy, right?), or speak up and challenge the powers that be? Or muddle along as best we can? Most of my confreres are compliant, but none too graciously; one has coped by taking what I call "psychological early retirement." He just won't think about it. And me? I'm more the quietly subversive sort. If the prescribed program doesn't fit the students needs -- and often it doesn't -- I will find creative ways to get around it without attracting attention.

I have to smile sardonically when I hear all the lofty debates about teachers as "professionals." Yes, we are, by training and orientation, but -- in what other profession would life-and-death policies and decisions be made, ones with long-range and possibly very negative effects, with no input from the "professionals in the field?"


Read next week's entry >>>

<<< Read last week's entry


Post a comment about this week's diary entry

Find out more about Susan

Back to Middle School Diaries index