Factors that Perpetuate Test-Driven, Factory-Style Schooling: Implications for Policy and Practice
Keywords:
educational reform, paradigm change, accountability movement, progressive education, school organizationAbstract
This article analyzes the factors that perpetuate test-driven,
factory-style schooling, despite evidence challenging the efficacy of that
approach. Both empirical and anecdotal evidence are presented to illustrate
the failures of test-based accountability in the U.S., including the failures of
specific policies to improve student outcomes, as well as evidence of
collateral damage resulting from those policies. Factors that perpetuate test-driven, factory-style schooling include personal and institutional inertia,
ignorance of the historical roots of factory schooling, ignorance of
alternative educational paradigms, and The Overton Window—a narrow
range of acceptable discourse that precludes discussing more productive
alternatives. Other factors perpetuating factory-style schooling include
misleading language and media coverage, bureaucratic tendencies, the
profit motive, self-fulfilling prophecies regarding student motivation,
traditional academic objectives and linear curricular sequences, and flawed
and misleading research. Accountability policies and practices are discussed
as a strategic political initiative that benefits wealthy and powerful members
of society in multiple ways. Based on extensive experience with progressive
education, the author presents eight suggestions for helping others
transcend the factory model of schooling.
References
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2014). Rethinking value-added models in education. New York: Routledge.
(Author, 2012). Publication details masked for blind review.
(Author, 2013). Publication details masked for blind review.
(Author, 2015a). Publication details masked for blind review.
(Author, 2015b). Publication details masked for blind review.
Bonawitz, E., Shafto, P., Gweon, H., Goodman, N. D., Spelke, E., & Shultz, L. (2011). The double-edged sword of pedagody: Instruction limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Cognition, 120, 322-330. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.001
Buchsbaum, D., Gopnik, A., Giffiths, T. L., & Shafto, P. (2011). Children’s imitation of causal action sequences is influenced by statistical and pedagogical evidence. Cognition, 120, 331-340. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.001
Chamberlin, D., Chamberlin, E. S., Drought, N. E., & Scott, W. E. (1942). Did they succeed in college? The follow-up study of the thirty schools. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Coles, G. (2003). Reading: The naked truth—Literacy, legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Emery, K., & Ohanian, S. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our public schools? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gatto, J. (2006). The underground history of American education. New York: The Oxford Village Press.
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R.M. (2003). Einstein never used flashcards: How our children really learn, and why they need to play more and memorize less. United States: Rodale.
Institute of Educational Sciences (2008). Reading First Impact Study Final Report. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.
Freeland, Chrystia (2012). Plutocrats: The rise of the new global super-rich and the fall of everyone else. New York: Penguin.
Kim, K. H. (2011): The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285-295.
doi: 10.1080/10400419.2011.627805
Klein, N. (2007). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. New York: Picador
Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Lepper, M.R., Corpus, J.H., & Iyengar, S.S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196.
Madaus, G., Russell, M., & Higgins, J. (2009). The paradoxes of high stakes testing. United States: Information Age Publishing.
McNeil, Linda M. 2000. Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing. New York: Routledge.
Musoba, G. (2011). Accountability policies and readiness for college for diverse students. Educational Policy, 25(3), 451-487.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2013). The nation’s report card: Trends in academic progress 2012 (NCES 2013 456). Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Perry, J. L., Engbers, T. & Jun, S. Y. (2009). “Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence.†Public Administration Review 69 (1): 39-51.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. New York: Perseus.
Sachs, J. (2012). The price of civilization. New York: Random House.
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The price of inequality. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Tietze, W. (1987). A structural model for the evaluation of preschool effects. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 133-153.
Springer, M. G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V-N. Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D. F., Pepper, M., Stecher, B. M. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives, Vanderbilt University.
Walberg, H. J. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (3rd ed., pp. 214-229). New York: Macmillan.
Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in an age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Karl F. Wheatley
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
