Since I started teaching in the 1970s, I watched as educators began promoting divisions by pulling students out into ‘special education’ resource rooms. I remember how my classes changed when students were taken out for part of the day to receive services. The separation was social as well as academic. Those students often came back to the class not knowing what had been done in their absence. They sometimes became invisible. Other times they acted out for attention. They were lost. No longer was there unity in the class.
About the same time, Attention Deficit was specified as a disease. Drugs were introduced in an attempt to control students whose behaviour did not respond to the demands of curricula or the classroom environment. Identification of those students who needed the drugs was not scientific. It encouraged teachers to look at differences in students as they tried to make them fit into a mold for learning and behaving in school. If they didn’t fit, drugs were prescribed.
In the United States ‘No Child Left Behind’ came along in the 1990s, an act that promoted testing and standards for learning. The separation of students became even more pronounced. When students were identified with different learning styles or behaviour, accommodations were made so that those students could score better on a test. The common sense was that test scores indicated learning. Teachers and students alike knew who was receiving accommodations. The division may have been unconscious, but it separated rather than brought students and teachers together as one family.
The standards movement exploded in the 1990s and further exacerbated the divisions by pointing out failures of certain students. Curriculum was driven by the need to be successful on tests which measured certain identifiable skills. Neither the curricula nor the tests were designed to reflect real life experiences. Diversity of the classroom in terms of its geographic location (rural or urban) was not considered. Differences in student language, culture or learning style were ignored. It was designated as a ‘one-size-fits-all movement. Labeling of students accompanied specific special education plans. This movement also put undue pressure on teachers to follow scripted curricula and State-mandated objectives. The success or failure of teachers was defined by how well their class performed on yearly standardized tests.
In the attempt to make teaching more controlled, to hold teachers more accountable, and content measurable, students were placed into two categories: Those who can and those who can’t: Successful or failure. The beauty of difference and originality was obscured. The rigidity of curricula took its toll on students. Teachers lost much of their ability to thrive as creative, knowledgeable professionals. In this environment I believe that neither teachers nor learners are promoted to shine.
Education today has unintentionally promoted a population that separates society into groups: Those that see themselves as participants in a democratic society or those that see themselves as outsiders. Thinkers or imitators.
Holding all learners to the same measure of success is nonsense. None of us is an exact replica of a ‘perfect’ learner. The theory of multiple intelligence says some of us are strong in one area of intelligence like math or reading, others in another way like art, music, or sports, but we all have strengths and weaknesses.
The fact is everyone can shine if they are given an opportunity to express themselves in their own style and with their own strengths.
