Research
3
Journal 5
Latoria Johnson
EDG7692
Professor Iuspa
April 8, 2023
Journal 5
In Chapter 1 of "The Politics of American Education," Ravitch makes the case that altering school structure and governance, such as via school choice and accountability measures, is less successful at raising educational quality than enhancing curricula and teaching (2012). My professional experience as a teacher leads me to concur with Ravitch's viewpoint. While structural adjustments like school choice and accountability standards may be helpful, they do not address the underlying problems that have an impact on students' academic performance.
Increasing curriculum and teaching, in my opinion, is essential for raising student accomplishment. Teachers must have access to an excellent curriculum and get the help they need to apply it successfully. I have seen the beneficial effects of changing the curriculum and teaching on students' learning. For instance, student performance significantly improved when my school implemented a new math curriculum. In addition, chances for professional development centred on effective instruction greatly influenced my teaching and my student's learning.
While structural modifications may seem like an appealing solution, they may cause conflict and often don't deal with the fundamental problems that are harming students' learning. For instance, school choice may exacerbate inequality by enabling wealthy families to choose better schools while excluding others who cannot (Ravitch, 2012). Similar to standardized testing, accountability measures might lead to a restricted concentration on test preparation and disregard the improvement of critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.
I think that structural reforms such as school choice and accountability measures are more likely to receive support from the general public since they are regarded as realistic answers. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of our educators to promote the importance of the curriculum and instruction in increasing student success and to resolve the underlying issues that inhibit student learning.
In Chapter 2 of The Politics of American Education, the author explains how reform based on testing has superseded reform based on standards. Tests, in the opinion of Ravitch (2012), should serve more to complement and supplement curricula than they should to dictate them. The conversation that took place on historical content standards was beneficial to the process of moving from standards to testing. The cornerstone of standards-based education is comprised of the educational benchmarks that specify the knowledge and skills that should be mastered by students by the time they graduate from each grade level. To evaluate whether or not students have grasped the material presented on the examinations, which are developed in line with these standards, these standards serve as a foundation for instruction. Everyday teaching is shaped by the educational standards that, in this era of education that is based on standards, control the process of preparing lessons and making decisions about how to educate students.
To summarise, improving both the curricula and the methods of instruction is absolutely necessary in order to raise educational standards. The fundamental issues that have an effect on kids' capacity to learn are not addressed by structural changes such as school choice and accountability standards, despite the fact that these ideas may seem to be attractive. It is of the utmost importance to bear in mind that educational standards are only a tool for guiding instruction and should not be the primary focus of education. Instruction that is determined by a set of standardized criteria has the potential to be an effective technique for ensuring that all students have access to an education of sufficient caliber.
The habits of mind used for this journal was questioning and posing problems when considering the impact on students’ academic performance.
Reference
Ravitch, D. (2012). The Politics of American Education. Routledge