Schools today are bureaucratic institutions where educational reform is promoted through a supposedly integrated system of standards-based curriculum, instruction and assessments. The premises of this agenda are straightforward. The curriculum is expected to provide a framework as to what knowledge, skills and attitudes are deemed important understandings. Instruction should guide students through developmentally appropriate experiences that promote learning of the curriculum. And the assessments should provide valid and reliable measures of learning and instructional effectiveness.

The logic of these mandates appears to be valid and reasonable expectations for teacher accountability and student learning. Nevertheless, as is historically the case, the intentions of educational reform tend to get lost, compromised, or misinterpreted when translated into policy criteria. Policy dictates outcome, and policy criteria will define what, how, and why teachers teach and students learn.

Current policies are dictated through the political and economic forces of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Maine’s Learning Results (MLR), Maine Educational Assessments (MEA) and Local Comprehensive Assessment Systems (LCAS). These mandates are defining the purpose, value, and meaning of education. The key issue is that the policy criteria for many of these mandates are shortsighted and do not take into consideration the many factors that affect teaching and learning. There is an imbalanced emphasis to comply and implement, rather than question the purpose, conceptual basis and long-term effects. The quality of student learning and teaching is adversely affected by the very policies intended to improve education. This is happening within the following outcomes:

1. The school curriculum is monopolized by math and reading instruction while other equally important areas of learning

(i.e., social studies) are marginalized or disregarded.

It seems obvious that interacting in a changing and interdependent world requires much more than math and reading competencies. Yet, because of the political and economic pressures of NCLB requirements, teachers are compelled to spend most of their instructional time on math and reading. Recently, I assume as part of the NCLB agenda, social studies was removed from the MEA to allow more time to focus on math and literacy assessments. Disregarding or limiting the teaching of historical, geographic, political, and economic understandings in today’s world is simply educational malpractice.

One may argue that teachers simply need to integrate the curriculum and develop interdisciplinary units. However, a well-developed interdisciplinary unit should involve students in exploring, analyzing, and evaluating specific concepts. Teachers may even need time to attend seminars, other than math and reading, to develop a better understanding of social science concepts relevant to current topics and issues. This point is especially significant to the idea of teachers being highly qualified in the subjects they teach.

2. A “test-generated” curriculum has become the focus and priority of instructional decisions and professional development.

In addition to a monopoly on instructional time, the negative consequences of students not passing places extensive pressure on teachers to “teach to the test.” It could be argued that this is not necessarily a negative outcome. After all, it would be expected that what is tested is actually taught and learned. However, the validity of this logic is only true if all assessments are coordinated into a reliable system that truly measures relevant knowledge and skills, and allows for differences

in individual development.

If education is to be based on a test-generated curriculum, then the curriculum standards and performance indicators must clearly identify what is deemed the most relevant understandings for a particular discipline; these standards must be accurately translated into developmentally appropriate learning experiences; and the assessments must be valid measures of students’ actual learning experiences in relation to the specific performance indicators. This interrelated validity is extremely important because it is these standards that serve as the framework for what teachers teach, students learn, and assessment systems measure.

Maine’s Learning Results is about to go through a review process to determine possible revisions. Ideally, this review will promote a more consistent interrelated system of standards-based curriculum, instruction, and assessments that truly represents valid and equitable learning experiences for all students.

3. The ideal of a “highly qualified” teacher is primarily equated with subject area course credits, or a score on a PRAXIS II exam.

This brings us to a third outcome regarding policy criteria used to define a “highly qualified teacher.” The response to NCLB’s mandate for states to identify highly qualified teachers has focused on a teacher’s subject matter knowledge. The issue here is not with the idea that teachers should have substantial subject matter preparation in the courses they are assigned to teach. There is research that demonstrates a positive correlation between teachers’ subject matter knowledge and student achievement (although, how “student achievement” is defined in some of these studies is questionable).

The issue is with the assumption that 24 hours of credit, or a college major, is the main criterion for a highly qualified teacher. Simply equating college courses or a test, that may or may not provide an orientation to the specific content emphasized in a standards-based curriculum, with the ideal of a highly qualified teacher is a narrow perception of what teachers do and how students learn. Even more limited is the idea that passing a subject matter test (PRAXIS II) indicates high professional competence.

If we have learned anything from educational research, we learned that social, economic and psychological factors affect education. Educators must have a clear understanding of the theories and research that guide educational decisions and insight into the specific conditions that promote or impede student learning. However, in order for educators to translate theory and research into practice, we need to view educators as professionals and provide the time needed for the analysis of classroom conditions and individual learning. To truly have highly qualified teachers, funding and time must be allocated for educators to study and apply professional knowledge when making curriculum, instruction, and assessment decisions.

Each of the previously identified outcomes serves as a source for deficiencies that are potentially just as serious as the problems the reform initiatives are intended to correct. Trading one set of problems for others is not a sign of effective reform, and the improvement of education should not be based on either-or-propositions. If the intent is to definitely effect a positive change in education for “all” students, then criteria need to be developed and implemented in ways that maintain a balanced curriculum that meets the needs of all students.

Rather than simply complying with federal and state mandates, teacher education programs and school districts must advocate for an interrelated validity where the standards-based curricula do provide a clear and balanced framework of important understandings; the highly qualified teacher is one who can interpret and translate relevant standards into developmentally appropriate learning experiences; and state and local assessments provide valid and reliable measures of student learning for all students.

In this way no child is left behind, and equally important. the purpose, value and meaning of education is focused on relevant and meaningful learning, not just political and economic factors.

Edward Jadallah, P.h.D, teaches in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Maine.