Chapter 7- Power and Control at the State and National Level

            The main theme of Chapter 7 was the misuse of power using federal legislation. According to many critics of national education policies and the current trends towards education in general, the government is far exceeding its Constitutional limits in exercising so much power over students in local schools. According to Spring, the Constitution left this power to the states and only in the past two decades did the state boards of education do more than give vague regulations and accountability to the local schools boards. However, that has all changed since the push towards standardized tests as a way of creating accountability for teachers.

This may sound good when the theory is dressed up as some need that the schools have, but the real aim behind them is far from benevolent. The need for so much testing is actually an effort to fulfill a need to be competitive in the global market on paper. The test scores of other nations are now higher than those in America, and something needs to be done about this. This is a pretty easy see to give to most laymen, but when you talk to someone who is actually int he field of education you can get a different perspective. Also, it is important to remember that no is being critical of these “statistical facts.” How are the students in China being tested? What are their aims in educating their populations? Do we have different aims than they do? Apparently not. The goal seems to be wholly economic in that the U.S. needs superiority on every level even though the meaning of this superiority is never something that is actually translated.

Spring does an excellent job of showing how federal funding is now dictating local schools and education policies.This list includes things such as categorical aid, creating model programs, and forcing schools to comply with certain policies while holding the threat of pulling away fund if states do not follow regulations. However, the most striking example of the federal government using funds for power is that they only support select types of educational research. This point rang particularly true for me since I currently work with a high school marching band and indoor dance programs. The programs are heavily based in the arts with a focus on music and performing. Though the program I work for is far beyond phenomenal, it is entirely the result of fantastic parent involvement. The parents and students raise almost every dollar that the program uses. The program itself gets around $700 a year to education 300 students and they are expected to stay competitive with the area or face being cut. For some perspective, the away football games all 200 band students are required to attend costs us around $10,000 a year.

The reason that we face a complete lack of funding is that there is little to no support for the arts in school anymore even though common sense will tell the average American that exposure to the arts will ultimately improve a person’s perspective and ability to express their own thoughts. There is some education to prove this fact, but there are very rarely extensive studies proving this. This seems ludicrous since virtually every middle and high school has a music program. However, the federal government still refuses to give money to proliferate art programs. Furthermore, research proving what every performing arts teacher and student already knows is almost never funded.

While we are learning resilience and self-sufficiency, it is simply not fair to the kids that a required class for their schooling requires so much funding while Math and Science (grades equally weighted in their GPA) receive more than sufficient research support because they are tested on these subjects about every 10 days.

The authors spend a good amount of time talking about the negative effects of No Child Left Behind and the use of high stakes testing. The research that Spring represents in his article is mixed. We can debate about whether or not these methods are effective over and over again, but until we become policy makers the issue at hand is a bit different. Standardized testing is not going anywhere. Therefore, rather than continuing to be upset about the nature of this system, we as teachers have to find creative ways to make sure our EOC scores are acceptable while still being creative in the classroom. This may sound defeatist or complacent, but you would be hard pressed to find a profession that did not have certain aspects that most people in the profession were consistently upset about handling.

In the profession of teaching (as in life), there is little that we can actually control, but we can always control how we handle things within out own sphere. Most of the teachers that I have observed as well as my mentor use the standards as guides and then get creative from there. Having block schedule with 75 minute classes really does help this, because we have a lot of time to work with the students. Also, this gives an extra little advantage to history teachers, because if there is a time period or chapter that we or the students do not really catch on to, then we can default on the standards to show what is important. Along that same line things that the students actually do really appreciate can get a little bit more focus so that key things stick with the students. It is a bit unrealistic to assume (especially in a class like World History) that everything is going to be interactive and covered in depth. Therefore, using this is strike a balance between those two concepts would be the best way to handle standardized test pressure while maintaining our sanity.