Arthur Camins is director of the Center for Innovation in Engineering and Science Education at the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey.
In this excellent article, he notes that the advocates of the status quo are those who are in power and who impose high-stakes testing and privatization on districts and states. Oddly enough, the leaders of the status quo dismiss critics by calling them “defenders of the status quo.”
Camins suggests that real reform would be very different from the current evidence-free status quo.
He argues that: “the pillars of current education reform are more likely to preserve rather than change the status quo. Further, there are alternative policies that are more likely to mediate educational inequity, creating real rather than illusory movement. None of the pillars of reform will address either of these conditions at scale. Instead, they merely give some students a competitive advantage. Even if reforms redistribute these benefits or slightly alter the size of the advantaged group, they are still essentially maintaining the status quo, creating the illusion of movement, without fundamental change.”
One of the pillars of the “status quo reformers” is a devout belief in charters. Camins says this is not real reform: “Current policies that fund increasing numbers of charter schools is not a game-changer because there is no evidence that high-quality charters are a scalable strategy. Some argue that they should be part of a solution. However, since they only serve the few based on comparative advantage, this is in the end a cynical idea- a solution for the lucky few. Others argue that they are the solution. These folks see results-driven competition as a means to weed out ineffective schools through closings. This implies continual disruption in the lives of the disadvantaged children they are meant to serve. Rather than forward movement, it is an exacerbation of current conditions. The publicity around the limited number of effective charter schools creates the illusion of improvement for a few, while everything else stands still. Finally, since the evidence is mounting that charter schools are increasing rather than deceasing class and racial segregation, they are supporting not disrupting the status quo.”
The other pillar of the “status quo reforms” is high-stakes testing. This too is not real reform. “In reality, these reforms preserve rather than challenge the status quo because they do not address the fundamental causes of educational inequity. They preserve the core idea that competition rather than collaboration is the lever for fundamental change. Competition for rewards is only effective for short-term superficial goals while undermining the collaboration necessary for long-term improvement. Since teacher isolation is too often a feature of current school culture, a competitive reward system will only makes this situation worse. Again, we have the illusion of movement while leaving things in place. As many have argued, fostering intrinsic motivation is the only sure strategy for deep sustainable change.”
What would real reform look like? To begin with, it would address the root causes of poor academic performance. Camins says that “A focus on improving the collective culture of schools, rather than individual teachers, has far greater potential for substantive progress.” He has ten specific approaches that would lead to real reform and would liberate students and teachers from the punitive status quo. Read the article.
.

Well, first the word “faith” must be removed from either side of the dialogue. Characterizing education views negatively or positively in terms of faith is counter-productive. Because some view that word in terms of definition one, some see it as simply meaning that reforms now sweeping the country are not based in scientific research and are therefore “faith-based.” But even with scientific research one can still be convinced of something in a way that leads them to have “faith” in a concept. Most often in this dialogue the notion of “faith-based” means rooted in religious principles. In my opinion, one can lead a life of ostensible religious faith and arrive at conclusions on both sides of the reform arguments. So “faith-based” as a descriptor should not be part of the conversation, no matter the definition chosen. Certainly not everything non-reformy is not totally based in scientific research.
faith
/fāTH/Noun
1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Synonyms
belief – trust – confidence – credence – credit
http://www.centerforpublicleadership.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=465:dickson-faith-based-opportunities-in-education-reform&catid=36:cpl-blog
Second: Public education needs to be tied into local industry. I have seen in RTP where businesses sponsor schools (I remember subbing in a Glaxo-sponsored school, for example). Local workers volunteer in the schools, donate materials, serve on leadership teams etc.
Third: Creative reuse. We are a wasteful society. Our coffee shops sell bottles of water that help get clean water to developing nations. Places like 10,000 Villages and Heiffer International focus on flocks of animals and projects that get village people working as artisans etc. We could take some cues from the outreach we offer to developing nations and apply them to our own communities.
LikeLike
too many “nots” in one of my sentences.
I don’t think Unions are based on scientific research, for example. Nor is integration.
LikeLike
Joanna,
Not every thing we value is based on scientific evidence. For example, we value human freedom because we recognize its importance to us all. An authoritarian or totalitarian government might be more “efficient,” might run its trains on schedule and build more highways, but we still believe that freedom and democracy are better. I used the term “faith-based” not to put down faith, but to say that those who believe in a particular policy, despite clear evidence that it has failed and failed again (like merit pay) are acting on the basis of faith, not evidence. One might say the same about high-stakes testing and No Child Left Behind. After 12 years, does anyone seriously believe that no child has been left behind?
LikeLike
So many inaccuracies in this piece, it’s impossible in a short response to list, much less respond to all of them. A few points:
The Obama administration has urged more funding for high quality early childhood education programs. The Obama administration has worked tirelessly to help expand and improve health care. The administration sees the importance of working outside as well as inside public schools. So have many people who support expansion of charter public schools, as well as many people who work in district public schools.
Some charters have provided terrific opportunities for educators, students and families. Moreover, in some places (such as Boston, LA, Minneapolis and St Paul, the fact that charters exist has encouraged districts to turn to teachers and parents to ask for their ideas about how to improve schools.
Having spent about half of professional 40 year career in urban public schools, and about half in colleges or universities, I am disappointed by the unwillingness of some people in higher education to see the complexities. This is a prime example of over-simplication.
LikeLike
I see your point here. There are not two sides to the education debate–it’s not Star Wars with the Jedi and the Empire (though many like to paint it that way). We are already seeing noted view-sharing between self-proclaimed progressives and tea partiers with the caution around Common Core (case in point).
Charters don’t have to be either cynical or THE solution–they can and might be both.
Just like with most things, rather than strengths and weaknesses, it is far more productive to consider that strengths ARE weaknesses–rathe,r distinguishing characteristics will have aspects that contribute to the end game positively and contribute to the end game negatively. It’s good to identify them so priorities can be set. I think the author of the article linked to this post was trying to get a bird’s eye view of some key points. So simple or not, it is good to step back and try to organize and compartmentalize all that is going on.
Synergy and bridge-building are in order for improving the public’s education for minors and those who will teach them in each of the United States.
LikeLike
To paraphrase FDR, real reform begins with chasing the money changers (and their hounds) out of the Temple of Learning.
LikeLike
Ideas matter. In part, the faculties of education schools and state and local education administrators have brought the current education deform movement upon themselves by imagining that it’s a simple matter to derive and then apply, in the human sciences and humanities, generalizations of the kinds that are the goal of mathematics and of “hard” sciences like chemistry and physics. The accountability movement is based upon the notion that one can promulgate standards, test kids on their achievement of these, and then evaluate teachers and schools based on them. Have a look at these standards, and what do you see? Well, the standards are abstractions, generalizations: The student will be able to recognize the main idea. The student will be able to draw inferences. The student will be able to determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze in detail its development over the course of the text. In English language arts, the CONTENT of what is studied is treated in the new standards AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. We are told that students should be reading substantive, grade-level appropriate works. Some examples of these are given in an appendix. But the standards themselves are simply a list of abstract skills and “strategies.” They don’t even include ANY descriptions of procedures that students might learn for carrying out tasks. So, they completely ignore both world knowledge (knowledge of what) and procedural knowledge (knowledge of how), though they occasionally make vague references to what would result if one had (miraculously, by what means they do not say) acquired the latter.
Back in 1984, Palinscar and Brown wrote a highly influential paper about something they called “reciprocal learning.” They suggested, in that paper, that teachers conducting reading circles encourage dialogue about texts by having students do prediction, ask questions, clarify the text, and summarize. Excellent advice. But this little paper had an enormously detrimental unintended effect on the professional education community. All groups are naturally protective of their own turf. The paper by Palinscar and Brown had handed the professional education community a definition of their turf: You see, we do, after all, have a unique, respectable, scientific field of our own that justifies our existence—we are the keepers of “strategies” for learning. The reading community, in particular, embraced this notion wholeheartedly. Reading comprehension instruction became MOSTLY about teaching reading strategies, and an industry for identifying reading strategies and teaching those emerged. The vast, complex field of reading comprehension was narrowed to a few precepts: teach kids to identify the main idea and supporting details; teach them to identify sequences and causes and effects; teach them to make inferences; teach them to use context clues; teach them to identify text elements. Throughout American K-12 education, we started seeing curriculum materials organized around teaching these “strategies.” Where before a student might do a lesson on reading Robert Frost’s “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” he or she would now do a lesson on Making Predictions, and any text that contained some examples of predictions would be a worthy object of study.
Now, the problem with working at such a high level of abstraction—of having our lessons be about, say, “making inferences,” is that the abstraction reifies, it hypostasizes. It combines apples and shoelaces and football teams under a single term and creates a false belief that some particular thing—not an enormous range of disparate phenomena—is referred to by the abstraction. In the years after Palinscar and Brown’s paper, educational publishers produced hundreds of thousands of lessons on “Making Inferences,” and one can look through all of them, in vain, for any sign of awareness on the part of the lesson’s creators that inference is enormously varied and that “making proper inferences” involves an enormous amount of learning that is specific to inferences of different kinds. There are, in fact, whole sciences devoted to the different types of inference—deduction, induction, and abduction—and whole sciences devoted to specific problems within each. The question of how to “make an inference” is extraordinarily complex, and a great deal human attention has been given to it over the centuries, and a quick glance at any of the hundreds of thousands of Making Inferences lessons in our textbooks and in papers about reading strategies by education professors will reveal that almost nothing of what is actually known about this question has found its way into our instruction. If professional educators were really interested in teaching their students how to “make inferences,” then they would, themselves, take the trouble to learn some propositional and predicate logic so that they would understand what deductive inference is about. They would have taken the trouble to learn some basic probability and techniques for hypothesis testing so that they would understand the tools of inductive and abductive inference. But they haven’t done this because it’s difficult, and so, when they write their papers and create their lessons about “making inferences,” they are doing this in blissful ignorance of what making inferences really means and, importantly, of the key concepts that would be useful for students to know about making inferences that are reasonable. This is but one example of how, over the past few decades, a façade, a veneer of scientific respectability has been erected in the field of “English language arts” that has precious little real value.
I bring up the issue of instruction in making inferences in order to make a more general point—the professional education establishment, and especially that part of it that concerns itself with English language arts and reading instruction, has retreated into dealing in poorly conceived generalization and abstraction. Reading comprehension instruction, in particular, has DEVOLVED into the teaching of reading strategies, and those strategies are not much more than puffery and vagueness. There is no there there. No kid walks away from his or her Making Inferences lesson with any substantive learning, with any world knowledge or concept or set of procedures that can actually be applied in order to determine what kind of inference a particular one is and whether that inference is reasonable. Why? Because one has to learn and teach a lot of complex material in order to do these things at all, and professional education folks have decided, oddly, that they can teach making inferences without, themselves, learning about what kinds of inferences there are and how one evaluates the various kinds.
The retreat into generalization by education professionals in reading and English language arts is one example of a more general phenomenon—the desire by social scientists and politicians and a few wealthy plutocrats to do social engineering based upon abstract principles—you get what you measure, for example. Beware of people and their abstractions because the social sciences are MUCH harder than the so-called hard sciences are. Valid, true abstractions in the social sciences almost always have to be hard won and to be highly qualified. A quick glance at Greenberg’s book on language universals is instructive in this regard. Almost every one is an abstraction followed by pages of exceptions. Ideologues love political, social, and economic abstractions. They love to think that there are simple answers to every problem and that these can be encapsulated in generalizations.
Amusingly, the new Common [sic] Core [sic] State [sic] Standards [sic] are totally schizoid on this issue of abstraction and generalization in education and social engineering. On the one hand, the supporting materials around those standards [sic] call for a great RETURN TO THE TEXT—for having our students read substantive works with higher Lexile levels and having them do close reading of those texts. The supporting materials around the new standards also call for subordinating skills and strategies instruction, for making these incidental to emphasis on the text. Well and good. But the standards themselves are more of the same. They are lists of abstract, general skills and strategies, and they encourage the continuation of a kind of schooling that focuses on form rather than on content (knowledge of the world and knowledge of procedures). And so the new [sic] standards [sic] are, sadly, more of the same. However, lists of abstractions have appeal to those who think that they can confidently implement their social engineering based upon their own abstract principles like “you get what you measure,” so it’s not surprising that the social engineers would LOVE the new CCSS in ELA.
We need to return to reading “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”—to focusing on this poem, this essay, this novel, and what it communicates, and we need to retreat from having our students read to practice their inferencing skills or their identifying the main idea or context clues skills. We read because we are interested in Hedda Gabler or Madame Bovery and the plights they are in, not because we wish to hone our understanding of the structure of the novel IN GENERAL. That will come, but it can come ONLY as a result of first READING the novels. In our rush to make ELA education scientific, in our emphasis on abstract form over content, we’ve forgotten why we read. We don’t read to hone our inferencing skills. We don’t read because we are fascinated by where, in this essay, the author has placed the main idea. Our purpose in reading is not to find out how the author organized her story in order to create suspense. We read because we are interested in what the text has to say, and the metacognitive abstraction about the text is incidental. It grows out of and relates to what this particular text does and takes meaning from that. The Common Core State Standards in ELA is just another set of blithering, poorly thought out abstractions. And starting from there, instead of starting with the text and its content, is a mistake.
Beware the social engineer and his or her abstractions.
LikeLike
In brief, abstraction is enormously valuable, but an abstraction of value has to be earned through lots of concrete work. Promulgating a list of abstractions as a list of standards encourages attempting to leap-frog the process. Let’s cut to the chase. Let’s skim lightly over “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” and get to the real stuff–has the student demonstrating his or her inferencing skills.
Wrong from the start.
LikeLike
Now, to be entirely fair, I have met a great many English teachers, over the years, who were actually interested in texts–who were themselves readers, who cared deeply about Mary Shelley or Emily Dickinson or Frederick Douglass and what these folks had to say–ones who could give a rat’s tushy for lessons on “inferencing skills.” Those professionals need to be left alone to teach. They don’t need social engineers with no concrete, real-world experience of kids and books issuing lists of abstractions to describe what they should be doing in their classes.
LikeLike
Introduction to Poetry
By Billy Collins
I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide
or press an ear against its hive.
I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,
or walk inside the poem’s room
and feel the walls for a light switch.
I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author’s name on the shore.
But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.
They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.
LikeLike
This might be a wonderful poem by a former national poet laureate, but it’s unacceptable.
Informational texts only, please.
LikeLike
Well said, Michael!!!
LikeLike
One could implement the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts perfectly and have students entirely miss what reading literature is about. They would not come away from their literature classes with the understanding that when they read a literary work well, they enter into an imaginative world and have an experience there, in all its concreteness and specificity, and it is then THAT experience that has significance, that matters, that has “meaning.” You can’t skip the experience and go directly to the meaning, and that’s what students are encouraged to do if their lessons concentrate on abstract, formal notions from some list of standards rather than upon reading as experiencing. Now, when I say that reading literature is experiencing, I do not mean that all readings are therefore equivalent. Literature makes use of conventions and inventions designed to give people particular imaginative experiences that will be common to readers, with, of course, some variation. But someone tells a story because there is something that he or she wishes to communicate. The Vietnam vets used to say, “You wouldn’t know because you weren’t there, man.” Well, reading literature well is about going THERE. It’s about having that experience, carefully arranged so that you will come from it with certain learnings, often with wisdom.
Find THAT in the Common Core State Standards for literature.
Good luck.
LikeLike
Pardon me, but I want to fix a couple of things in that last post:
One could implement the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts perfectly and have students entirely miss what reading literature is about. They would not come away from their literature classes with the understanding that when they read a literary work well, they enter into an imaginative world and have an experience there, in all its concreteness and specificity, and it is then THAT experience that has significance, that matters, that has “meaning.” You can’t skip the experience and go directly to the meaning, and that’s what students are encouraged to do if their lessons concentrate on abstract, formal notions from some list of standards rather than upon reading as experiencing. Now, when I say that reading literature is experiencing, I do not mean that all readings are therefore equally good. Literature makes use of conventions and inventions designed to give people particular imaginative experiences that will be common to readers, with, of course, some variation, experiences that will mean something, not mean anything at all that the reader takes away from it. Literature counts on the fact that when people have an experience like this, they will take away common learnings. Like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner, a person tells a story because there is something that he or she wishes to communicate. The Vietnam vets used to say, “You wouldn’t know because you weren’t there, man.” Well, reading literature well is about going THERE. It’s about having that experience, carefully arranged so that you will come from it with certain learnings, often with wisdom.
Find THAT in the Common Core State Standards for literature.
Good luck.
LikeLike
The Fish Rots from the Head is what it is all about. Schools are led by leadership and in a school directly that is the principal and on the larger scale it is downtown administration meaning the superintendent and board of education. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the board of education as they are SUPPOSED to CONTROL the superintendent. In the age of Gates and Broad that is questionable anymore as it is at LAUSD maybe until Monica Ratliff comes on board. You never know until you see the Beef as they say. Administration and the General Counsels Office is where the action is at. Teachers are merely soldiers in their army especially when their unions do nothing according to the contract as at LAUSD with UTLA. In Chicago you have the proper situation wherein the union, CTU, is doing their job for the parents, students and community as a whole and have those sectors lined up behind them against the billionaires slopping at the troth. So we need to focus on the administrators and who they owe and are controlled by and what they do as teachers and staff have to follow their orders. This is the reason they are ganging up on teachers so as to take the blame away from the guilty parties and those are the administrators as they spend the money, determine curriculum and where teachers and principals will be placed and the rules of the game not teachers. They can have input like everyone else but when push comes to shove they do not have the power without a powerful dedicated union to gather the forces. One thing for sure and that is that unions will never have the money and political pull of the billionaires. They must have the message that vibrates properly with the public and that is a message like that in Chicago now.
LikeLike