Considering Family to Prepare Students for their Future

Remember when “21st Century Skills” was the buzzword plastered across every professional development session? Teachers were told we had to prepare kids for jobs that didn’t even exist yet, for industries so futuristic they might as well have been ripped from a sci-fi novel. The message was clear: teach differently or risk leaving students unprepared for the brave new world ahead.

And we bought in. Many of us were mesmerized by those “Did You Know” videos—glossy, fast-cut reels showing how technology would reshape life as we knew it. We imagined our students stepping into careers filled with wonder, solving humanity’s greatest challenges with cutting-edge innovations.

But here we are, a decade later, watching universities launch degree programs in—wait for it—the cannabis industry. Northern Michigan University now offers cannabis studies. Cannabis! Is this what all that futuristic hype was for? Is this the grand payoff of years spent reinventing classrooms, revamping standards, and retraining teachers?

Let’s be honest. This isn’t just about marijuana. This is about whether education has lost sight of its true North Star: the family. Have we become so enamored with “innovation” that we’ve stopped asking the most basic question: Will this strengthen families—or weaken them?

Because families, not industries, are the bedrock of society. Strong families create strong communities. And when families crumble? Communities crumble. Nations crumble. That’s not ideology—it’s reality.

Just look around. Addiction isn’t just a crisis; it’s practically a cultural identity. We toss around words like smartphone addiction, porn addiction, food addiction, opioid addiction. Some days it feels like Americans are addicted to being addicted. Even our politics runs on addiction—to outrage, to emotion, to attacking anyone who dares to disagree.

Where does self-control—the antidote to addiction—come from? Families. Where do children first learn resilience, restraint, responsibility? Families. Yet our education system, in its blind pursuit of “the next big thing,” often undermines the very institution that teaches those foundational skills.

So yes, whether or not you support cannabis legalization is beside the point. The real question is: when universities embrace controversial industries, do they consider the ripple effects on the family? Do K-12 schools stop to ask how their policies, practices, and trendy new programs affect the home lives of the students they claim to serve? Or are families just an afterthought in the race to be relevant?

Education should be more than a conveyor belt to industry. It should be a partnership with families to raise healthy, grounded citizens who can think clearly, choose wisely, and lead responsibly. Otherwise, we’re just fueling cycles of indulgence and addiction while patting ourselves on the back for being “innovative.”

So, let’s ask the question few seem brave enough to ask: what will the next decade’s “Did You Know” videos glorify? More industries that exploit our weaknesses? Or educational choices that finally honor and strengthen the institution most critical to our collective future—the family?

Texas A-F Accountability System - More Questions than Answers

On Aug. 15, the Texas Education Agency released academic accountability ratings for districts, charter schools, and other campuses across the state. In this first implementation of an A-F scale to rate how well school systems are functioning, Texas joined 15 other states across the country that have implemented a similar accountability system.In 1999, Florida became the first state to adopt an A-F school rating system as part of its A+ Education Plan. In 2015, when the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into law, the federal government gave states the authority to meet education standards without hampering them with excessive mandates and stipulations. In response to this new flexibility, several states began implementing accountability models like Florida's. Now that the approach is becoming more widely used, educators all over the nation are debating the merit and implications of an A-F accountability system.

A-F Accountability Proponents

States that have adopted the A-F school rating system claim that it gives students, parents, educators, and communities clearer information regarding how well their schools are doing. Proponents also argue that the A-F system provides a transparent and objective way to communicate school performance to community stakeholders as well as an incentive to compel improvements in low-performing schools.Another attractive feature of the A-F accountability system is its ability to incorporate standardized test data. Texas policymakers believe that standardized tests, which are tailored to the Texas curriculum standards, offer one of the only consistent statewide metrics that can be used. The state assessment should, therefore, be a significant component of the state's accountability system.

A-F Accountability Opponents

Many schools systems counter states' support for an A-F accountability system by arguing that assigning a letter grade to a school system based almost exclusively on quantitative data (e.g., test scores) does not account for numerous other factors that contribute to school performance, including many that are outside of educators' control. According to critics, the lack of clarity about the relative difference between each letter grade and the absence of explanations about the how or why of low performance impede future school improvement efforts. Some opponents also believe that schools or districts that receive a low grade may find it more difficult to attract and retain the highly effective teachers and school leaders necessary to turn around school performance.Finally, in spite of all the support for such a system, there has been little research conducted to determine the reliability or validity of using them for state accountability. Simply put, many A-F accountability system opponents find that a single letter grade for schools does not tell the whole story.

close up of woman working

The Reason for the Disconnect

Regardless of what your opinion is in regards to the national A-F accountability system trend, one has to wonder why we have such divergence between state policymakers and educators. What lies at the heart of this disagreement? I believe it is rooted in the differences between two schools of educational theory that have been in conflict for centuries - progressivism and essentialism.

To give a brief overview, the progressive education philosophy was established in mid-1920's America and was led by major educational philosophers like John Dewey. Those who subscribe to progressivism believe that learning is rooted in the questions that students devise as they experience the world. They also believe that schools should improve the way of life of citizens through offering the experience of freedom and democracy in schools. This multi-dimensional purpose for schools would lead one to support a more comprehensive and descriptive accountability system that goes beyond standardized tests.

An opposing educational philosophy, essentialism rose in response to the progressive movement. With the goal of molding productive citizens, educators with this perspective emphasize academic rigor and focus on teaching essential knowledge and skills and moral standards. This more conservative belief about the purpose of schools would lead one to support a simplified accountability system that is based on the measurement of the essential knowledge and skills students must know (e.g., standardized tests based on rigorous state standards).

With philosophical differences in mind, it appears that the A-F accountability system, supported by many politically conservative states, is mostly based on a belief that schools and districts should focus in teaching students the essential knowledge and skills addressed through state standards. Conversely, opponents of an A-F accountability system seem to believe that such a system oversimplifies school performance and ignores the fact that schools today are multi-dimensional institutions charged with teaching students much more than what can be measured on a standardized test.

photo of woman teaching

How to Solve the Problem

It is abundantly clear that there are real differences between how proponents and opponents of the A-F accountability system understand what it means. Those differences go beyond what each side argues for: a system that makes it easier for parents to know how schools are doing; or a system that provides comprehensive ratings that don't make it difficult to recruit good teachers and administrators.

A more in-depth analysis should lead us to shift the debate over accountability systems to a debate over what kind of education we want for our children. At the heart of the argument, we should be debating the answer to these questions: what should be the purpose of public schools today? Should schools focus on teaching students the essential knowledge and skills, or should schools and districts focus on preparing students to be productive members of a democratic society? Of course, anyone could conclude that both are necessary for schools. However, people might take a more nuanced perspective when considering the traditional role of the family and public schools have had in educating children.

Such an analysis should also force us to take a more critical look at how educational philosophies like essentialism and progressivism have manifested themselves in our modern educational programs and accountability systems today. Educators should not overlook how relevant these fundamental theories impact what we do in public education and what we believe the role of public schools should play in educating our students today. If we are more explicit about the purpose of our public school system, then we can be more precise about how to measure its effectiveness.

I encourage you to share your thoughts below on what the role of public schools and districts should be in educating children today.

Public School Accountability: The Death of Student Learning

boywithbooks

Satisfying the demand for highly skilled workers is the key to maintaining competitiveness and prosperity in the global economy.  For this reason, many educational policymakers strive to craft policies that assist educators in developing a stronger workforce.  This was the intended aim of the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act put forth by the Bush administration. However well intended the NCLB Act was, the consequences of several key requirements have turned out to be counterproductive.

In terms of direct impacts, the NCLB Act has eclipsed the following state and local education policies in the areas of (1) Standards and Assessment; (2) Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP); (3) Corrective Action; (4) Staff Qualifications; and (5) Parental Involvement (Federal Register Part IV, Department of Education 2013).  More specifically, the NCLB Act strengthened Title I accountability by requiring States to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students. These systems are required to base their accountability systems on challenging State standards in reading and mathematics, grades 3-5 annual testing for all students, and establish annual statewide progress objectives so that all groups of students demonstrate proficiency within 12 years. According to the United States Department of Education (2005), the assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency, and if school districts and schools fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide proficiency goals over time they will be subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures.  Schools that meet or exceed the AYP objectives or close achievement gaps will be eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards.

In the analysis of the NCLB direct impacts to state and local education policies, two key unintended consequences stand most prominent in the overall impedance to student learning.  The first unintended consequence is that of accountability.  Diane Ravitch (2011) makes the case in her book The Death and Life of the Great American School System, that there are many questions can be made about the true origins and implications of NCLB and accountability.  Ravitch (2011) goes on to claim that many educators falsely believed that the NCLB was an outgrowth the standards movement when in fact, “the new reforms had everything to do with structural changes and accountability, and nothing at all to do with the substance of learning.” (Ravitch, 2011, pg.39).  The structural changes within NCLB, mentioned by Ravitch (2011), have frequently been stated as being politically motivated with little to do with a real substantive impact on student learning.  Today the effect of the accountability movement has not brought about the much-desired growth in student learning (Ravitch, 2011).  The second unintended consequence of NCLB Act was the imposed requirements for schools that consistently fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) targets.  According to Floch, Taylor, and Thomsen (2006), this requirement of NCLB could lead to schools dismantling years of comprehensive school reform efforts by implementing a new curricular program, restructuring the school day, or dismissing staff, all of which are possible courses of action under the legislation.   Floch, Taylor, and Thomsen (2006) go on to explain that,

Frequently, NCLB accountability is perceived to focus only on AYP targets, potentially diverting attention from comprehensive improvement strategies. However, AYP and comprehensive improvement strategies should be linked, not in conflict: If schools do not make AYP, administrators should seek sound, research-based strategies to attain higher academic performance. However, this connection is often obscured by a “drill-and-kill” reaction to test pressure, a focus on more mechanistic components of AYP (e.g., attendance rate), or developing strategies to “game” the system. Such conditions could indeed persuade teachers that they can no longer take time to focus on all the components that are traditionally assumed to be a part of CSR, such as participation in shared governance structures, professional communication with peers, and parent involvement.

With these types of unintended consequences of the NCLB Act permeating the educational landscape, it is hard to see how the educational legislation, in its current state, can help schools improve student learning and assist educators in developing a stronger workforce. 

References

Federal Register Part IV, Department of Education. (2013). Title I—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; final rule. 34 CFR Part 200.

Floch, K. C. L., Taylor, J. E., & Thomsen, K. (2006). Implications of NCLB Accountability for Comprehensive School Reform. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 11(3-4), 353-366. doi: 10.1207/s10824669espr110304_8

Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: how testing and choice are undermining education (Apple iBooks ed.). New York, NY: Perseus Books.U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Introduction: No child left behind. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html