Joanne Yatvin has been a teacher, a principal, and a superintendent. She wrote these reflections on what constitutes a good school.
A few weeks ago, a New Hampshire teacher, Shawna Coppola, shared her ideas about what makes a good school, in contrast to the schools that are celebrated because of high student test scores. Although I agree with much that Shawna says, I want to take the challenge she voices at the end of her piece to describe my own view of what a good school is.
I first put my own definition and description of a good school into words a long time ago when I was asked to write a review of a book about a disintegrating school that was rescued by a new principal. I repeat it below with only a few word changes to reflect contemporary terminology and my own growth.
In my view a good school mirrors the realities of life in an ordered society; it is rational and safe, a practice ground for the things adults do in the outside world. A good school creates a sense of community that permits personal expression within a framework of social responsibility. It focuses on learnings that grow through use–with or without more schooling–such as clear communication, independent thinking, thoughtful decision-making, craftsmanship, and group collaboration. It makes children think of themselves as powerful citizens in their own world.
In contrast, an effective school, as defined by today’ standards, looks at learning in terms of test scores in a limited number of academic areas. It does not take into consideration students’ ability to solve real life problems, their social skills, or even their practicality. It does not differentiate between dynamic and inert knowledge; it ignores motivation. When we hear of a school heralded because of its high test scores, should we not ask what that school does to prepare students to live the next several decades of their lives?
A good school has a broad-based and realistic curriculum with subject matter chosen not only for its relevance to higher education and jobs, but also to family and community membership and personal enrichment. It uses teaching practices that simulate the way people function in the outside world. Children are actively involved in productive tasks that combine and expand their knowledge and competence. They initiate projects, make their own decisions, enjoy using their skills, show off their accomplishments, and look for harder, more exciting work to do.
The effective school asks much less. Children who put all their efforts into “covering” a traditional curriculum in order to “master” as much of it as possible are not seekers, initiators, or builders. They are at best reactors. The knowledge they dutifully soak up is not necessarily broad based or useful. It is taught because it is likely to appear on tests. It is quickly and easily forgotten.
Any school can become a good school when its principal and teachers have made the connections to life in the outside world that I have been talking about. It operates as an organic entity—not a machine—moving always to expand its basic nature rather than to tack on artificial appendages. A good school is like a healthy tree. As it grows, it sinks its roots deep into its native soil: it adapts to the surrounding climate and vegetation; its branches thicken for support and spread for maximum exposure to the sun: it makes its own food; it heals its own wounds; and, in its season, it puts forth fresh leaves, blossoms, and fruit.

Unfortunately, few if any of these words are in the lexicon of Cuomo or the rest of the reformers. Let’s just say, they don’t have the ability to read deeply!
LikeLike
managerial entered teaching when growth and “unfolding” metaphors were dominant, along with legacies from the thinking and practical school work of John Dewey–school as community and also a rehearsal space to learn what life might offer and require beyond getting a job and going to college. It is always good to hear these ideas revived with eloquent rhetoric and better yet to see them sustained or revitalized in practice
The jargon-dense rhetoric of today is nothing less than pathetic. The reductive criteria and definitions of “highly effective” whatever–schools, principals, teachers–are indicative of a real poverty in thought and vision for education.
For teachers “highly effective” means that all or most of your students have gain-scores of “more than a year’s worth of growth.” That is the federal definition.
As I have previously posted, there is more of that gibberish. The idea that “a year’s worth of growth” has any meaningful relationship to teaching is silly. It is misleading nonsense. It is intended to replace the idea of multi-faceted growth in human beings—intellectual, social, physical—with a number. Notice also how a calendar year (365 days) is invoked as if that is equivalent to a school year (typically 180 days); or the same as an instructional year (typically 172 days); rather than a typical accountability year truncated by testing and test-prep (130 days from pre-test to post-test).
Teachers are drowning in statistical and pseudo-statistical jargon. Students who have greater “year-to-year gains” in test scores than their classmates have “an accelerated growth trajectory.” A growth trajectory needs a target. Targets for learning need to be set using baseline data so the instruction offered to each student, during a known interval of time, is efficient and has a measurable “impact” on student learning. Sound familiar?
Meeting targets for learning is analogous to meeting a sales target or a production quota by a date certain. Teachers and others who say they are “impacting the growth of their students” are no longer thinking about the meaning of words. They are parroting econometric jargon. And it gets worse.
Experts associated with Metametrics hope to set growth velocity standards in reading. I suppose this is a version of Race to the Top and beyond. These researchers thrive on data. They describe their theoretical mapping of “aspirational trajectories toward graduation targets” in reading skills as analogous to “modifying the height, velocity, or acceleration respectively of a projectile launched in the physical world.”
That analogy is bizarre. It is decoupled from any thinking about education as a complex and unpredictable enterprise with still developing human beings who have good and bad days. It also strikes me as a weird notion that reading skill should be valued, irrespective of what can be learned, enjoyed, imagined, or questioned by learning to read. These researchers are in search of greater precision in setting targets and cut scores for grade-to-grade progress in meeting the CCSS. I think that this is one of many cases of “scientifically” precise thinking gone totally off the rails from any “trajectory” relevant to the key thing about reading–having a love affair with that process.
The contrast between pseudo-scientific, managerial language and the clear, wise, and jargon-free voices of thousands teachers, parents, and scholars needs to be heightened. The very concept of humanity in education needs to be restored, affirmed, nurtured, valued, and allowed to flourish–in our thinking and day-to-day work-for the sake of this generation, for the well-being of our communities, and future of the nation.
LikeLike
Laura,
I totally agree with you!!! I wince when I hear teachers and others using this language. I REFUSE to use this language (effective, etc., data driven, college and career ready, 21st century skills, and all the rest). By the way, I also refuse to call a library a “media center,” a faculty meeting a “faculty communication session,” and administrators a “leadership team.” We need to be cognizant of the words we are using and the underlying philosophy from which they come. As I’ve said before, much of the language that is used is indicative of the technological and business oriented society in which we live. I really feel that we are in a fight for our humanity. I think we must start to question the impact of technology on our lives. Interestingly, this is happening because of the pervasiveness of computerized tests and technological “spying.” We also have to recognize that it is impossible to measure human qualities like intelligence, beauty, etc. on rubrics, “matrices” and scales. These cannot be measured using scientific measurement; it is pseudo-science.
LikeLike
I think that you are on to something when you write about these researchers approaching the teaching of reading like some physics problem. I had never heard of “growth velocity” before. Is that like escape velocity? If the child’s learning accelerates enough, will the child escape into orbit?
We should always be wary when the social sciences start to use the language of physics, chemistry, etc. The social sciences just can’t be that exact because of the complexity of humans and their interactions, as you pointed out. You are right to call this pseudo-science.
LikeLike
“We should always be wary when the social sciences start to use the language of physics, chemistry, etc.”
Quite true even to the extent that you have just used the language of science-the word science itself-to describe what should be “social studies” and not social sciences.
LikeLike
Dr. Ravitch,
Peter Greene has a new piece on his blog that may be of interest to readers:
http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/03/on-not-being-jerk-to-young-teachers.html
I’m biased given my age, but it is certainly a topic that warrants vigorous discussion.
LikeLike
One of the best pieces I ever read on what education is all about was a piece on how teachers must be today’s “catchers in the rye” by Joanne Yatvin. I saved it for years and continued to share it with everyone who cares about education. Diane, maybe you might want to reprint that article as well — it truly gets at what education is all about!
LikeLike
To all conscientious and concerned readers:
People who cannot be the best chef, can enjoy the best gourmet food.
Similarly, although I am not an educator by profession, I am consciously aware of the best or good school as per Dr. Ravitch’s definition in this thread.
I would like to repeat Dr. Ravitch’s definition of GOOD SCHOOL to people who do not take time to read the article in full. Here it is,
[start quote]
…
In my view a GOOD SCHOOL mirrors the realities of life in an ordered society; it is rational and safe, a practice ground for the things adults do in the outside world.
A good school CREATES A SENSE OF COMMUNITY that permits personal expression within a framework of social responsibility.
It focuses on learnings that grow through use–with or without more schooling–such as CLEAR COMMUNICATION,
INDEPENDENT THINKING,
THOUGHTFUL-DECISION-MAKING,
CRAFTSMANSHIP, and
GROUP COLLABORATION.
It makes children think of themselves as POWERFUL CITIZENS IN THEIR OWN WORLD.
…
A good school has a broad-based and realistic curriculum with subject matter chosen not only for its relevance to higher education and jobs, but also to family and community membership and personal enrichment. It uses teaching practices that simulate the way people function in the outside world. Children are actively involved in productive tasks that combine and expand their knowledge and competence. They initiate projects, make their own decisions, enjoy using their skills, show off their accomplishments, and look for harder, more exciting work to do.
…
Any school can become a GOOD SCHOOL when its principal and teachers have made the connections to life in the outside world that I have been talking about.
It operates as AN ORGANIC ENTITY—NOT A MACHINE—
moving always to expand its basic nature rather than to tack on artificial appendages. A good school is like a healthy tree. As it grows, it sinks its roots deep into its native soil: it adapts to the surrounding climate and vegetation; its branches thicken for support and spread for maximum exposure to the sun: it makes its own food; it heals its own wounds; and, in its season, it puts forth fresh leaves, blossoms, and fruit.
[end quote]
In conclusion, it does not take a genius to understand Dr. Ravitch’s wisdom. However, only people who are too dense and dull with illusion in money, ego, and power trip, will deliberately ruin American PUBLIC EDUCATION AUTONOMY. sigh. Back2basic
LikeLike
Effective ≠ Good
LikeLike
Exactly. When something is touted as “effective,” we have to ask what the effects are before we can know whether it is or is not good.
LikeLike
The concept of “effectiveness” as a substitute for other values — say, goodness, truth, or beauty — seems to be everywhere these days. I plan to teach my students to write an analysis of a speech or soliloquy from one of Shakespeare’s plays, so I was looking online to see if any teachers or scholars had shared their ideas about how to approach this kind of work. One prompt I came across asked students to look at the figurative language in Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” (so far, so good) and then determine which use of figurative language “most effectively” conveys Hamlet’s “main idea.” What on earth? We’re talking about literature, about Shakespeare — all of the language, taken in sequence, has a cumulative effect on the listener. I am sad for students if they are getting the idea that the purpose of literature is to efficiently communicate a “main idea.”
LikeLike
This is merely the world before No Child Left Behind (2001).
This passage is only alien to us now and many teachers
who have come after this time. I remember a “field trip” every
month and its integration into a flexible state curriculum.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Dear Diane, Every day I read your posts. Every day I wish you could know the good 🙂 school I have built. I chose to leave public ed to create a thriving lab school, one that runs on very little money. It’s a model for the future of education in many significant ways. In its 6th year, it has so much to teach the world. I would love to share it with you. Hopefully, Jackie (www.orsch.net) jackie@orsch.net
LikeLike