Read my title again. That's right. There is no single definition of "well-educated." If we can agree on that, we have made major progress in our discussions about education.
I want to give credit where it is due, in this case to someone newly registered at this site, but not yet posting diaries, Deborah Meier. Let me quote the words she offered that prompted this diary:
I am not in favor of arriving at a single definition of being well-educated.
. They were offered in a Bridging Differences, the blog she shares at Education Week with Diane Ravitch, entitled Standards and a Peculiarly 'American' Problem. Deborah is a graceful writer, and the piece is worth reading. In this diary I will explore some of what she says and offer some thought of my own on the subject of national standards and the possible dangers they represent. Most of all, I will focus on the topic raised in the diary title.
Deborah's piece was created in response to a posting by Diane entitled THe Value of Standards in which Ravitch argues
I don’t think it is at all impossible, politically or technically, to arrive at standards and assessments that avoid partisanship and ideology.
While saying that math and science should be the easiest fields in which to reach consensus on standards Ravitch also argues
It is equally possible to set standards for history and assess them, so long as those who are setting the standards draw the line between discussing controversies—an essential in teaching and learning history—and imposing a particular point of view about history.
Here I note that the voluntary national standards for U.S. history drafted by a group led by Gary Nash of UCLA were subject to severe criticism by many, including Ravitch, and were rejected by the person who originally commissioned them, Lynne Cheney. ONe problem with those standards was the content that was included versus that which was excluded. Nash was accused by some of deemphasizing facts others considered an important part of our historical heritage.
Looking back at the dispute over American History standards, I find myself in agreement with a key part of Meier's post in response to Ravitch (and I should note I admire and like both ladies) when Deborah says she disagrees that it is truly possible to reach consensus. Let me quote a key passage:
It is so instantly clear to me that it would be either divisive or silly for us to try! As the Northwest Lab once noted, it would take another eight years simply to cover what’s in most state curriculum guides—or what we now call standards. Could we narrow them down? Sure. It could be based on what I see as the critical turning points in history, for example; the books that I see as having that right combination of appeal and importance; to what I see as what’s at the heart and soul of science (the experimental mindset?); and the mathematical competency that can’t be done on a computer and which every citizen must wrestle with. In short, my standard is indeed related to my aspirations for citizenry—what I wish everyone knew before I got up on the speaker’s rostrum to make my argument in favor of x or y or z. But I know it’s absurd! Because people whose expertise and honesty I very much admire disagree with me! Like you. Or George Will.
Now, the only part of that with which I disagree is the respect Meier shows towards George Will, but that is far from central to what I want to discuss, and I included that part to show the generosity of spirit with which she approaches dialog.
Actually, that is the 2nd of the 5th arguments Meier offers against the idea of national standards. Let me summarize all 5.
- doesn't think there is one definition of well-educated, and that standards at best are aspirational
- impossibility of agreeing upon a usable collection of standards
- political biases of parents sending their kids to a particular school or classroom
not to mention their particular situation, local circumstances, recent history
- there is in a democracy some need to be accountable to the local community
- the need to squeeze in what might appear on SATs and other tests used for college admissions and other purposes(and as a teacher of AP I know how extensive that can be)
- recognition of the individuality of each student and the responsibility of addressing their learning needs over the 60 years after public school in which they will learn far more than during their 12 years of schooling:
My most important contribution requires keeping my eye on that long future stretch of time and how and what my classroom or school did to ignite interest, passion, curiosity, along with a conviction that it’s all important and worthwhile. And do-able.
After a brief discussion of the difficulty, even were a consensus possible (which of course is not the case), the diversity of out population and our history presents us with a particularly American dilemma which prevents our addressing all of the issues Meier has raised. And as she notes:
There is no American Academy that can pass final judgment on what all kids should speak like. Even prestigious scholars disagree. Even if one side "wins" the political battle for preeminence for a time, the other side doesn’t just give up, but fights on, upsetting the apple cart for the next generation.
Meier ends her piece with some words that I see resonating in my own approach to education:
Ideas come in the form of projects, art works, architectural wonders, inventions, information, as well as a new take on an old subject. It’s the "having of wonderful ideas" that all children have a right to, ideas powerful enough to shape their own futures. It’s not something to be put off until graduate school—it starts at birth, and good schools keep it going day in and day out thereafter.
My title is somewhat broader than the question of national standards. It is because I do not believe that can be one definition of well-educated that I oppose the idea of national standards. My position is a product of my life experience and observations. It is specifically shaped by the experience of my own education and my now more than a decade spent as a classroom teacher.
I majored in music, but teach social studies. Half of my students are taking AP (college level) government as high school sophomores. Some are frightenly brilliant. One young lady just got 80-79-76 on the three parts of her PSAT, three others are our school's team for It's Academic, others are already doing original research in science, or winning math and Latin competition. I have taught students who won state titles in Tennis and Golf (the latter a young lady who this year as a senior had a score lower than all the boys in the state). I want to use my background in music as a lens through which to explore why I believe in multiple models.
I would expect all of my students, of whatever level, to have some familiarity with the names of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart. But are they not well educated if they have not heard of Haydn, Schubert and Scarlatti? As a musician I would they had, along with other names like Josquin, Byrd, Dufay, Handel, Schutz, Palestrina, Lasso, Berlioz, Schumann (Robert), Mendelssohn, Brahms, Britten, Mahler, Sibelius, . . . and I have not even begun to scratch the surface. IS it fair to say they are not well educated if they cannot tell the difference between Beethoven and Haydn? Might they say back to me that I lack education that might be more relevant to my responsibilities working with teenagers if I do not know who Marshall Mathers is, or what Lil' Kim does? I think they could make a better case that it is important for me to understand the world in which they operate to fulfill my responsibilities to them than it is for them to grasp that part of the musical vastness I consider important. Although in my class they will hear music, and that music will also include Willie, Nina, Bruce, Miles, Bennie, Marie Chapin, as well as Yo-yo and Jascha (and should I argue that if the first names are insufficient for you to understand that you are not well-educated?). What about learning important aspects of one's own historic culture? Is our model of being well-educated preclude that because we insist on so muchy of what claim should be our "common culture?"
Most states require some education in local or state history. My own responsibilities include teaching about Maryland's state and local governments (and for my AP students I must do that on top of the vast amount of material they need for the national exam). How much flexibility can an approach to national standards leave for learning about the localities in which we live? The cultures from which we derive? Are we 'well-educated' if we lack some sense of who we specifically are in this domains?
We do not as a nation agree on the purposes of education and of school. Some wish most of all to emphasize the economic aspects of education, our preparation for employment in particular. Others seems to think that unless we have the collection of facts necessary to compete on shows like Jeopardy somehow we are not 'educated.' Others, and I tend more towards this school, believe that while knowledge of facts has a utility, it is the ability to apply facts, it is the ability to think critically, to know how to learn, are far more important, even if less easily assessed by computer-scored examinations.
Ultimately, the idea of comparisons - of students, schools, systems, states, national education programs - is the first step towards losing site of what I think is really important: empowering each student in our care to develop as fully as is possible for her, to offer the greatest development of his gifts and interests, even as we challenge all of our students to go beyond their comfort zones.
I am not as concise nor perhaps as cogent as was Deborah Meier in her response to Diane Ravitch. But I thank her for provoking my own thinking.
And I encourage you to now discuss this issue. What does it mean to you to be well-educated?
Peace.