Opinion
Federal Opinion

National Subject-Matter Standards? Be Careful What You Wish For

By Marion Brady — September 22, 2009 6 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

“American education,” said Buckminster Fuller, “has evolved in such a way that it will be the undoing of the society.”

Fuller, the visionary thinker and inventor whose work spanned fields from architecture to philosophy, was about to address a 1988 conference of business executives at Rockford College in Illinois, but was first reacting to a speech just concluded by the college’s president.

Looking at the president, he continued: “What you fellows in the universities do is to make all the bright students into experts in something. That has some usefulness, but the trouble is it leaves the ones with mediocre minds and the dunderheads to become generalists who serve as college presidents. And presidents of the United States.”

Generalists—people concerned with the “big picture”—don’t get much respect in the modern world. There’s no “generalists” listing in the Yellow Pages, none are on school faculties, and no employment ads request applications from them.

What’s the big picture right now? Clashes on the fault lines between religions, societies, and civilizations. Terrorism. A widening gap between rich and poor. The confusing of national power with national greatness. Boardroom dishonesty. Violence promoted as entertainment. Lobbyist-dominated legislatures. Great confidence in the ability of force to improve the world. Tax evasion and other evidences of a lack of a sense of social responsibility. An education system in disarray from policies driven by ideology and simplistic conventional wisdom.

Big-picture issues are parts of an integrated whole. But what the education establishment brings to bear on them are specialized studies focused on parts of that whole. Ignored is the fact that these might actually be causing problems. We’re unable to see the potential for chaos resulting from millions of experts doing their thing with little or no understanding of how their actions interact.

Generalists—people concerned with the 'big picture'—don't get much respect in the modern world.

The system of education Buckminster Fuller was criticizing—the one now in near-universal use in America and much of the rest of the world—took shape after the Civil War when the new big thing was division of labor, standardization of parts, and mass production. School systems quickly locked in bureaucratic place hierarchical management structures, centralized decisionmaking procedures, and lines of authority paralleling those in heavy industry. The school consolidation movement accompanying urbanization then elaborated and reinforced those arrangements and procedures.

Almost everyone agrees that the industrial model applied to education disregards human nature, stifles imagination and creativity, encourages a preoccupation with minimum standards rather than maximum performance, wastes the potential inherent in human variability, and is at odds with deep-seated American beliefs about individual value. But the industrial model of schooling is so deeply embedded that imagining alternatives has become almost impossible. “Reforms” just shuffle system elements—they change clocks or calendars, add new technologies, alter staffing patterns, tighten procedural screws, fix blame for poor performance on something different. Left unchallenged and unchanged is the assumption that good sense can be made of the world by breaking it into pieces and studying the pieces.

As Fuller said, specialized study “has some usefulness.” We’ve created an exceedingly complex way of life that can only be sustained with specialized knowledge. But introducing learners to a handful of disconnected school subjects and expecting them to weave those together to make useful sense is as unrealistic as showing them a fistful of jigsaw-puzzle pieces and expecting them to describe the whole of which the pieces are random parts. They can’t do it.

That everything in the real world connects in one way or another, and that making useful sense of it requires not just knowledge of the parts but also of their relationships to each other and the whole they compose, is a very old idea. Philosophers, scientists, educators, and other scholars have been saying so for centuries.

Out of the Association of American Colleges’ 1985 Project on Redefining the Meaning and Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees came the blunt statement: “We do not believe that the road to a coherent curriculum can be constructed from a set of required subjects or academic disciplines.”

From John I. Goodlad’s massive study of American high schools came this conclusion: “The division into subjects and periods encourages a segmented rather than an integrated view of knowledge. Consequently, what students are asked to relate to in schooling becomes increasingly artificial, cut off from the human experiences subject matter is supposed to reflect.”

In his best-selling book The Fifth Discipline, Peter M. Senge, scientist, engineer, and founding chair of the Society for Organizational Learning, wrote: “From a very early age, we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole.”

In place in America’s schools and colleges is a curriculum adopted in the 19th century, a curriculum that ignores the fundamental, systemically integrated, mutually supportive nature of knowledge, that has no agreed-upon aim, that lacks criteria establishing what new knowledge is important and what old knowledge to discard. It’s a curriculum so inefficient it leaves little or no time in the day for apprenticeships, internships, or projects; disregards research and common sense about the contributions of art, music, dance, and play to intellectual development; overworks short-term memory to the neglect of all other cognitive processes; costs an appalling amount to administer; doesn’t progress smoothly through ever-increasing levels of intellectual complexity; and is keyed not to learners’ aptitudes, abilities, and interests, but to their ages.

The curriculum has no built-in mechanisms forcing it to adapt to change; isolates educators in fields, discouraging professional dialogue about the state of education and collaboration in its improvement; is so at odds with the natural desire to learn that laws, threats, and bribes are necessary to keep kids in their seats and on task; fails to explore questions essential to ethical and moral development; emphasizes minimum standards rather than maximum performance; and snubs major sources of America’s past strength and success—individual initiative, imagination, and creativity.

This is the curriculum that’s played a leading role in bringing the institution to crisis. And it’s the curriculum that just about everyone—including many who should know better—now seems to think should be locked in permanent place with national subject-matter standards.

Big mistake! Standards? Of course. But standards not for a random handful of specialized studies, but for learners, for what we want them to be and become.

Here’s a prediction: If implemented as it’s being advocated by spokespersons, the national standards-reform effort will fail. Period. It won’t fail because subject-matter specialists can’t agree on standards. And it won’t fail because of teacher incompetence, weak administrators, “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” union resistance to change, parental indifference, inadequate funding, lack of rigor, failure to employ market forces, too few charter schools, too little technology, or any other currently popular explanation of poor performance.

It will fail for the same reason the No Child Left Behind Act failed—because it will be driven by data derived from simplistic tests keyed to simplistic standards keyed to a simplistic, dysfunctional, obsolete, 19th-century curriculum.

Related Tags:

A version of this article appeared in the September 23, 2009 edition of Education Week as National Subject-Matter Standards? Be Careful What You Wish For

Events

Recruitment & Retention Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: Chronic Teacher Shortage: Where Do We Go From Here?  
Join Peter DeWitt, Michael Fullan, and guests for expert insights into finding solutions for the teacher shortage.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Science Webinar
Close the Gender Gap: Getting Girls Excited about STEM
Join female STEM leaders as they discuss the importance of early cheerleaders, real life role models, and female networks of support.
Content provided by Logitech
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Achievement Webinar
Mission Possible: Saving Time While Improving Student Outcomes
Learn how district leaders are maximizing instructional time and finding the best resources for student success through their MTSS framework.
Content provided by Panorama Education

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Federal Q&A Boosting 'Pathetically Low' Teacher Pay Is Top of Mind for Bernie Sanders
The progressive senator from Vermont spoke with Education Week as he prepares to chair the Senate's education committee.
6 min read
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., talks with reporters outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2023.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., talks with reporters outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, in late January.
Susan Walsh/AP
Federal What’s Behind the Push for a $60K Base Teacher Salary
When reintroduced in Congress, a bill to raise teacher salaries will include money to account for regional cost differences.
5 min read
Teachers from Seattle Public Schools picket outside Roosevelt High School on what was supposed to be the first day of classes, Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2022, in Seattle. The first day of classes at Seattle Public Schools was cancelled and teachers are on strike over issues that include pay, mental health support, and staffing ratios for special education and multilingual students.
Teachers from Seattle Public Schools picket outside Roosevelt High School on what was supposed to be the first day of classes, Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2022, in Seattle. The first day of classes at Seattle Public Schools was cancelled and teachers are on strike over issues that include pay, mental health support, and staffing ratios for special education and multilingual students.
Jason Redmond/AP
Federal Teachers Shouldn't Have to Drive Ubers on the Side, Education Secretary Says
In a speech on priorities for the year, U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said teachers should be paid competitive salaries.
5 min read
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona delivers a speech during the “Raise the Bar: Lead the World” event in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 24, 2023.
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona delivers a speech during the “Raise the Bar: Lead the World” event in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 24, 2023.
Sam Mallon/Education Week
Federal A Chaotic Start to a New Congress: What Educators Need to Know
A new slate of lawmakers will have the chance to influence federal education policy in the 118th Congress.
4 min read
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., talks on the House floor after the first vote for House Speaker when he did not receive enough votes to be elected during opening day of the 118th Congress at the U.S. Capitol, Tuesday, Jan 3, 2023, in Washington.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., talks on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 3 following the first round of voting for House Speaker. McCarthy fell short of enough votes to be elected speaker in three rounds of voting on opening day of the 118th Congress at the U.S. Capitol.
Andrew Harnik/AP