Introduction
Gordon F. Vars has advocated student-centered middle level education for decades. Drawing from his extensive research and experience, Vars offers us an important focus for our reflection on standards in our schools. His research has helped educators understand that involving students in the planning of curriculum does not damage learning—in fact, just the opposite is true. Our learners can prosper when they are active creators of the learning experience.
In a climate where so many voices call for students and teachers to be accountable for learning, as measured on standardized tests, it’s a delight to hear a voice calling for us to help students be engaged in learning.
—D.K.
On Standards, Standardization, and Student Engagement
Standards! How do you deal with them in your classroom, school, or district? Do you view them as helpful guides to what your students need to know and be able to do? Or do you see them as an attempt to “standardize” education, imposing uniformity on the curriculum without regard to differences in students, schools, and communities? And what happens to the needs, problems, and concerns of students when we become preoccupied with raising students’ scores on standards-based, state-mandated, high-stakes tests? Opinions about standards and how they should be used have become polarized in recent years. Indeed, the word “standards” has become so politicized today that it might be better if we stopped using it!
A case in point is the article by Anne Wheelock, “Building a Culture of High Standards in the Middle Grades,” published in the Spring 2001 issue of Focus on Middle School. The article reiterates some of the main points made in her 1998 book Safe To Be Smart: Building a Culture for Standards-Based Reform in the Middle Grades. Considering how some politicians use the phrase “standards-based reform,” one could easily jump to the conclusion that Wheelock supports the standardization of teaching and learning.
On the contrary, Wheelock’s picture of a school characterized by a “culture of high standards” is one in which all students can become successful learners. In other words, standards are viewed as goals or guidelines, not uniform minimum expectations. In a recent letter she reaffirmed that she did not mean to imply “that all students would look alike at the end of the day or year or decade they spend in school. The ‘standards’ I talked about are embodied in the exemplars from the real world . . . rather than derived from a district, state, or federal level” (February 15, 2001). This is a far cry from the obsessive test-prep environment in some standards/test-driven schools and classrooms today.
The Standards Movement
Efforts to use standards as a tool for imposing standardization have intensified
in the years since Wheelock’s book was published. At that time, she asked
if schools could “extricate themselves from the oppressive top-down models
of control and standardization inherent in the use of standards for grade retention
and bureaucratic accountability.” She was cautiously hopeful then. She
described the “caring relationships” and “collegial professional
culture” that characterize a school in which it is “safe to be smart.”
The book is enriched by countless examples of schools and teachers who were
responding positively to the challenge of standards. In many respects, Wheelock’s
recommendations parallel those of the National Middle School Association’s
position paper This We Believe: Developmentally Responsive Middle Level Schools
(NMSA, 1995).
Unfortunately, today the phrase “high standards” usually implies that every student is expected to reach the same standards. Failure is the inevitable consequence for students, teachers, schools, and even whole school systems when “high standards” are applied across the board without regard to individual differences. Consider these excerpts from letters I recently received from wise and experienced educational consultants in two different states:
1. They have 115 kids in the middle school and 34 have failed two or more classes for the year. . . . The teachers want to develop a punitive retention plan, but I refuse to help them with that. After interviewing the kids and spending a few days in the building, I think there needs to be lots of work on who the kids are and what strategies we should use to teach them.
2. There’s an incredible amount of anger and embarrassment in the 54 schools . . . [mostly those] with low income and minority students . . . listed as failing. . . . We worry that the listing will continue and hurt the most vulnerable schools and students.
Of course, society has every right to define what it wants students to know and be able to do. But when standards as “goals” are misconstrued as “mandated minimum performance” for all, gross injustice is done to those who, for whatever reason, cannot “make the cut.” Nancy S. Grasmick (2001) reminds us that in doing this we are in danger of repeating the same mistake that scuttled the “minimum competency movement” 25 years ago. As she puts it, “We abandoned the push for higher standards because we allowed sanctions to get out ahead of the hard work of intervening to make sure that teachers and students were prepared to meet them.” She calls this “A Mistake We Can’t Repeat,” but, of course, we are!
“One Size Fits Few”
This phrase, which Susan Ohanian used as the title of her 1999 book, bluntly
reminds us of the folly of educational standards when interpreted as minimum
requirements. Alfie Kohn (1998), another outspoken critic of the standards movement,
points out that this approach is an improper application of an industrial metaphor
to the field of education. Unfortunately, Wheelock used this metaphor in her
Focus article and in her 1998 book. The industrial metaphor is most evident
in Wheelock’s recommendation that we “focus on student work.”
The word “work” is used more than 30 times in her brief article in
Focus, and she devotes 60 pages to that idea in her book.
Kohn would have us stop referring to what students do in school as work. He
says, “In effect, we are equating what children do to figure things out
with what adults do in offices and factories to earn money” (p. 210). In
contrast to businesses, where the focus is on salable identical products and
“the bottom line,” the things that students produce are “by-products
of the act of making meaning. The process of learning is more important than
the products that result,” according to Kohn (p. 211).
Of course the only way to determine if students have learned something is to observe what they do, to look for “behavioral clues,” as George Harrison puts it. But preoccupation with student “output,” like preoccupation with test scores, may draw attention away from the widely varying human beings whose learning is being considered. Even when students help to establish the criteria or rubrics by which their work will be evaluated, the very fact that all students are to be judged by the same criteria flies in the face of individual differences. Carl Glickman (2001) has pointed out that it is this “standardization,” not the standards themselves, that poses a dire threat to democratic ideals.
Alfie Kohn also cautions against adopting the false dichotomy that if something is not “work” it must be “play.” In his words:
Learning is a third alternative, where the primary purpose is neither playlike enjoyment (although the process can be deeply satisfying) nor the worklike completion of error-free products (although the process can involve intense effort and concentration). To challenge the work metaphor is not to abandon rigor or excellence. Rather it is to insist that work is not the only activity that can be pursued rigorously—and play, for that matter, is not the only activity that can be experienced as pleasurable. (p. 213)
Do Students Want To Be Smart?
Wheelock urges schools to become places where it is “safe to be smart.”
Some may question whether students want to “be smart.” Suppose a student
would rather be “cool”? This is especially likely in the middle school
years, when peer approval assumes such great importance. Too often these days,
this appears to be more a matter of the clothes they wear, the color of their
hair, or their body parts that have been pierced, rather than intellectual accomplishment.
It is primarily the parents and educators who want students to be willing “to
take risks, make mistakes, and ask for help, despite fears that their questions
might sound stupid.” Students will not do this unless they trust the people
around them and are genuinely concerned about the problem or issue being examined.
In other words, adult expectations will be ignored unless students are genuinely
engaged in the learning process. Even knowing that “real world audiences
will actually use” whatever they produce will hardly motivate students
who could not care less about the outcome.
Wheelock responds that “lots” of students do care about being smart. Recently, she has been interviewing many students and reviewing their portfolios. She writes:
They treat school very seriously. Being cool with their friends is good, too. And some are learning they can be both. I don’t see these as opposites. . . . In fact, one point I’d hoped to convey in the book is that schools can play a positive role in establishing the norm that being cool and being smart are two sides of the same coin. Kids . . . develop an “academic identity” and a sense of academic competence depending in part on what their schools do to help them. Of course, this is also what detracking is about. In detracked schools, kids don’t have to choose between a “cool” persona and a “smart” persona. (February 15, 2001)
Developing a Culture of High Student Engagement
Whatever persona they may assume, students must see that learning is meaningful to them before they will invest themselves in the learning process. For decades, middle level educators have asserted that education should address student needs, problems, and concerns, not just adult expectations. This is an essential element of a “developmentally appropriate middle level school” as described in the National Middle School Association’s This We Believe statement (1995). Schools can confront students with standards, but if they see little value in meeting them, little learning will occur. How can we get them to “buy into” the process?
Student Concerns and Standards, Too
It has been demonstrated over many decades that one of the best ways to engage
students is to involve them directly in helping to establish class and individual
goals, define curriculum, select learning activities, and establish criteria
for assessment. This process was called “teacher-pupil planning” when
described by Giles way back in 1941 and by Parrish and Waskin in 1958. Miel
(1952) used the phrase “cooperative procedures in learning,” and James
Beane (1997), its most vigorous advocate today, refers to it as “collaborative
planning.” By whatever name, inviting students to help shape their own
learning experiences in school epitomizes the “respect for the worth and
dignity of each person” that is one of the hallmarks of democracy. At the
very least, this fundamental value mandates that “those who will be affected
by a decision must participate in making that decision.”
Might this approach result in a curriculum focused on trivial matters? Not if students are sincerely invited to share their genuine concerns by adults whom they trust and if their privacy is respected in the process. Anonymous surveys of almost 500 Wisconsin middle level students revealed a wide array of concerns (McDonough, 1991). Of course, many of their responses reflected typical young adolescent anxiety about physical changes and their relations with peers, family members, and the school. Yet they also revealed deep concern about issues that bedevil adult society, such as war and peace, the environment, fairness and justice, prejudice, and the future. When Mee (1997) surveyed 2,000 students in grades 5 through 8, she found that their worries followed a similar pattern, from “getting bad grades” to “pollution” to “World War III.”
Establishing Priorities
Teacher-student planning is a means of meeting the dual obligations assumed by every educator: to help students in their efforts to meet adult-determined standards and, at the same time, to enable them to address their individual needs, problems, and concerns. But first we must be realistic in what we expect of ourselves and our students. It is impossible to ensure that all students will master all of the standards that have been proposed. Robert Marzano and associates at McREL have documented the utter futility of trying to teach all of the standards set forth by professional associations and other groups. They concluded:
A high school diploma would require as much classroom time as has historically resulted in a master’s or professional degree. Even the brightest students would need nine additional years of schooling to master the nearly 4,000 benchmarks experts have set in 14 subject areas. (Marzano, Kendall, & Gaddy, 1999).
Schools have always had too much to teach, so it is no surprise that it is necessary to be selective. It may seem presumptuous for teachers to select and prioritize subject matter standards that have been recommended by experts in prestigious national organizations and sanctioned by state departments of education. But, as Nel Noddings reminds us, subject matter specialists are bound to recommend too much because “they cannot control their passions” (1999). Besides, who is better qualified to design curriculum than those who are closest to the young people being served—teachers, parents, and, of course, the students themselves?
Curriculum Planning
When state and national standards are viewed as guidelines, not absolutes,
then it is perfectly appropriate for local curriculum committees to adapt those
guidelines to suite local conditions, making sure to allow schools, teams, and
individual teachers to make further adaptations to fit specific students. Procedures
for building curriculum around preplanned, but open-ended, instructional units,
sometimes called “resource units,” were refined years ago. Most often
recommended to give some structure to integrative curriculum, the process is
equally suitable in any subject area (Van Til et al., 1961, 1967; Vars, 2000,
in press). Further fine-tuning of these guidelines then takes place in each
school as teams or individual teachers brainstorm specific instructional units
that address standards and that also seem likely to be meaningful to the students
in their current classes. But even these “tailor-made” units may not
generate much enthusiasm if merely presented to the students.
Instead, teachers first must find out who their students are as persons and
what needs, problems, and concerns are uppermost in their minds. Of course,
a reasonable level of trust must be established before students will share their
concerns and aspirations with either peers or teachers. Small group discussions
can then lay the groundwork for identification of the most-prevalent questions
and concerns in a class or team. These should be posted in the classroom, along
with the major standards to be addressed during the year.
When students understand which standards are to be met during any particular
year, they can suggest many creative ways to address them. Posting both lists
reminds everyone that their task is to cooperatively plan learning experiences
that deal with students’ major concerns and also address mandated standards.
The lists should be revisited from time to time during the year, both to check
on progress and to adjust for changes that take place in the students, the teachers,
and the world.
Some teachers or teams then move directly into the unit-planning stage, building
the units around students’ major personal and social concerns (Alexander,
Carr, & McAvoy, 1995; Pate, Homestead, & McGinnis, 1997). Others share the tentative
unit plans developed by the teacher or team and invite the students to help
identify ways the unit may be modified to incorporate student concerns. In either
case, the final curriculum design evolves through democratic negotiation by
teachers and students, seeking a balanced attention to adult expectations and
student concerns. Above all, teachers must be sincere in inviting students to
help design a course, unit, or learning experience. This is the key to developing
“ a culture of high student engagement.”
Of course, the time spent cooperatively designing these learning experiences will inevitably reduce the amount of content that is merely “covered.” Instead, students who are genuinely engaged in learning will gain depth of knowledge, refine their learning tools, and develop the higher-order thinking skills that too often are slighted in this era of high-stakes testing. Student effort and motivation are greatly enhanced when they realize they have a say in what is studied and how it is approached.
Conclusion
Anne Wheelock has addressed the challenges confronting all educators today
and has suggested that we respond by developing a “culture of high standards.”
I have pointed out the ambiguity of the word standard and how its use may reinforce
application of the “industrial metaphor” to education. I propose,
instead, that we develop “a culture of high student engagement.” We
can do this by involving students more directly in shaping the learning process.
We should tap into their concerns and invite them to help us design curriculum
that is both meaningful to them and that meets important societal expectations.
This shows students that their ideas are valued, thereby demonstrating a key
principle of democracy, and it helps students to see that education is a matter
of serious concern for our entire society.
Above all, in dealing with standards we must not lose sight of an even greater challenge: To cultivate in all students a deep commitment to democracy and to a lifetime of learning. Preoccupation with standards and with passing “the test” may seriously undermine our efforts to achieve these noble purposes. Students are human beings and must not be treated like “widgets” coming off an assembly line!
Resources
Alexander, W. M., Carr, D., & McAvoy, K. (1995). Student-oriented curriculum:
Asking the right questions. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Giles, H. H. (1941). Teacher-pupil planning. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Glickman, C. D. (2001). Holding sacred ground: The impact of standardization.
Educational Leadership, 58(4), 46-51.
Grasmick, N. S. (2001). A mistake we can’t repeat. Education Week,
20(16), 88.
Kohn, A. (1998). Students don’t “work” - They learn. In A. Kohn
(Ed.), What to look for in a classroom, and other essays (pp. 210-214).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marzano, R. J., Kendall, J. S., & Gaddy, B. B. (1999). Deciding on Ôessential
knowledge.’ Education Week, 18(32), 68, 49.
McDonough, L. (1991). Middle level curriculum: The search for self and social
meaning. Middle School Journal, 23(2), 29-35.
Mee, C. S. (1997). 2,000 voices: Young adolescents’ perceptions and
curriculum implications. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Miel, A., & Associates. (1952). Cooperative procedures in learning.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
National Middle School Association. (1995). This we believe: Developmentally
responsive middle level schools. Columbus, OH: Author.
Noddings, N. (2000). Educational standards in a liberal democracy. Presentation
at the 55th Annual Conference of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Alexandria, VA.
Ohanian, S. (1999). One size fits few: The folly of educational standards.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Parrish, L., & Waskin, Y. (1958). Teacher-pupil planning for better classroom
learning. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Pate, P. E., Homestead, E. R., & McGinnis, K. L. (1997). Making integrated
curriculum work: Teachers, students, and the quest for coherent curriculum.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Van Til, W., Vars, G. F., & Lounsbury, J. H. (1961, 1967). Modern education
for the junior high school years. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Vars, G. F. (1997). Student concerns and standards, too. Middle School Journal,
28(4), 44-49.
Vars, G. F. (2000). Lessons from the eight-year study for high school methods,
guidance, assessment, and the change process. Voices from the Field,
2(2), 4-11.
Vars, G. F. (In press). Can curriculum integration survive in an era of high-stakes
testing? Middle School Journal.
Wheelock, A. (1998). Safe to be smart: Building a culture for standards-based
reform in the middle grades. Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.
Wheelock, A. (2001). Building a culture of high standards in the middle grades. Focus on Middle School, 13(3), 1-6.
Another article included in this Focus Newsletter issue is:
To learn more about how to subscribe to this Newsletter, click in the following link: Focus on Middle School.
Return to ACEI home page.
This page is copyright 
2000-2001
by the Association for Childhood Education International. Please send any comments
to Marilyn Gardner at aceimemb@aol.com.