Fixing our National Education System Failures:

A Curriculum Based Approach

Thomas Dunbar
22 South St. Apt 1
Bellows Falls, VT 05101
478-396-7151
tdunbar@antioch.edu
www.thomasdunbar.weebly.com
Jimmy Karlan, Advisor
The modern education system in America is broken. This is the essence of the message from
a recent report called the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, that looks at
scores of 12
th
graders in reading and math. The statistics of the report are dismal: 74% scored below
grade level in math and only 40% could read at or above grade level (Sanchez, 2014). These scores
are despite years of efforts in preparing students to take these very tests that students are failing.
National initiatives to improve our global educational standing in the world have focused on how
test scores can be improved but seem to have backfired. If federal programs like No Child Left
Behind and Race to the Top have done nothing to improve these scores, what can be done? The
short answer is quite a lot. The long answer is the rest of this paper.
There is a trend that I have noticed of ever increasing importance being placed on
standardized tests. The same tests that I took as a student that never really seemed to be of any
importance are now stressed over for weeks. These tests are designed to assess how a student is
progressing, not educational quality, and yet these tests are now being used for just that purpose
(Popham, 1999). Teach to the test is a common refrain that is heard in many classrooms and
schools. No one wants to do it, but many feel like it is their only choice because funding and teacher
evaluations are tied to these test scores. So much focus is placed on what should a student know?
and very little is placed on the bigger questions of how does a student learn? and why do they
want to learn? If the only reason a student has to learn material is because its on the test, the
student has little incentive to remember. If we want students to learn, there are a number of
important strategies that should be used instead of teaching to the test.
The standardized tests that have become so prevalent look at each subject in isolation and
reduce a years worth of learning down to 50 questions. Focused on concepts that are easy to grade,
like simple recall of facts and figures, these questions ignore how biology relates to history, or
developments in chemistry affect how literature talks about the world. By teaching to the test, the
material that is covered in school seems far removed from the reality of day to day life. These are the
connections that yield a richer understanding for students and they seem to be all but lost in many
classrooms. Connecting biology to popular culture can shift a dry, boring lesson on DNA into a
lesson that connects genetic code to superhero movies and can create a critical ear for the claims
that people make about genes. This coherent approach tries to show students the relevance of what
is learned in school to the world at large (Beane, 1995). When we compare this approach to teaching
to the test, we see a richness that has been lost. Students can see the value of learning when they see
how it relates to their world.
Students also see the value of their learning when they can see how they can use what they
have learned to shape their world. Learning for the sake of passing a test does nothing to inspire a
student, but if you can show them how understanding protein synthesis can lead to better nutrition
for their school and communities, the students will see and experience what an education can do.
The common refrain heard in many schools is that knowledge is power. If we want students to
believe this, we must show them how much they can impact their world with what they have
learned. By creating a democratic classroom, where the students have a real voice in what they want
to learn and what they want to do with that learning, students are more likely to be an active
participant in their learning (Apple & Beane, 2007). That is not to say that the students should
necessarily be allowed to study whatever they want, but giving them a voice for how they learn
makes a big difference in what they will remember and how they approach school.
When learning is so focused on how the material is going to appear on a standardized test,
the instructional methods often change for the worse (Falk 2000). Teachers often end up presenting
the bare facts to the student without any regard for how they might already think about the world. A
better approach is to challenge what the students think they already know and address these
misconceptions head on. This constructivist approach is based largely on research done by Jean
Piaget regarding human development theory. Learning, Piaget argues, occurs when new information
is presented to a person that doesnt fit their current conception of how the world works. The
learner can either disregard this information or accommodate it and change their concept of the
world. Without knowing what the students already think, there is no way for the teacher to know if
the student has learned. Although it is theoretically possible to address these misconceptions
through lecture, there is no way to know if their misconceptions are really being challenged.
Students learn best when they are allowed to interact with the material they are studying and make
meaning for themselves (Brooks & Brooks, 1999).
Teaching to the test also eliminates the flexibility that is so necessary to spark students
interest. Students natural curiosity in the world often gets squashed in modern classrooms. Teachers
are expected to cover so many topics in a given year that there is little space to allow students to
pursue their individual curiosities. Instead, teachers are forced to jump from topic to topic and
anything that wont be on the test is completely ignored out of fear of missing something that will
be. These authentic interests that the students have should instead be fostered (Sobel, 1994).
Material should be covered in such a way that allows students the time and space to go more in-
depth. In ignoring the students interests, we are telling them that their curiosity doesnt matter. This
is not the message that we want to give students. By giving them the time and space to follow their
authentic interests, we are affirming the students self-worth.
The last of these approaches involves looking at the world with a critical postmodern eye. It
is less an approach in and of itself like the others, but an important lens for viewing the world at
large. The textbook has always been the final word on what is or isnt right. Most teachers will defer
to what is written in the text and accept it at face value. The bias of the author is largely ignored and
the critical thinking skills of the students suffer for it. Minorities and women are often under-
represented in textbooks, giving an unintended message of intellectual inadequacy. Approaching all
material with a postmodern lens builds critical thinking skills and creates an empowered student
body that is able to evaluate the validity of a statement for themselves.
What does a curriculum that uses these approaches look like? I have attempted this with my
own curriculum on molecular genetics. The traditional unit on this subject is heavily focused on
vocabulary, the rote memorization of the parts of DNA and RNA, and the steps involved in protein
synthesis. They use hands on activities, but they do little to address the desired learning outcomes. It
seems clear that many of these units are concerned with covering the facts that will be on the test
and leaving it at that. The unit I have designed attempts to connect the basics of molecular genetics
with other fields and connects these basics to other subjects like nutrition, health, popular culture,
and art. It allows the students to examine how the genetic code works in a hands on way that should
challenge the way most people think about genetics. It gives the students the space and time to look
at aspects of molecular genetics that are interesting to them in a more in-depth way, and has them
look critically of how the term gene is used in textbooks. Lastly, I have tried to cover aspects of
genetics that may yield a desire in the students to address inequalities in their community and school.
All of this in a unit that is still academically rigorous and still covers the same material as the
vocabulary driven traditional test.
So, will a combination of these five approaches fix our education system? That largely
depends on how you define the problem. If the quality of our education system continues to be
defined by the same standardized tests, then these improvements may not be reflected even though
the quality of education improves dramatically. Many of the tests that are used to determine the
quality of education are norm-referenced tests that are either mostly, or completely, multiple choice
questions dependent on fact and figure recall. By their very definition, half of all students that take a
norm-referenced test will be below average. These are also designed to change from year to year to
reflect what the current average is. Even if a student is making progress it may not be reflected if
everyone made the same amount of progress. Despite this, we still accept these tests as the final
word on how schools and students are progressing. Why? I think it is a lack of understanding and
critical thinking. Most people dont really understand how a norm-referenced test works. They either
assume that it is possible for everyone to get a passing grade or have never thought about how the
process works. For those that do understand how the tests work, many fail to question a system that
necessitates half of the students to fail. If, however, we judge our education system by what
students are capable of doing with their education, then these approaches will go a very long way to
address the concerns that have been raised. Standardized tests can only show what a student knows,
not what the student can do with that knowledge.
The modern American education system is broken, but its not because our students cant
pass a standardized test. It is broken because we have a system that is only concerned with teaching
our students how to pass these tests. The tests have a purpose and real educational value, but they
are no longer being used for their intended purpose. By creating a curriculum that is coherent,
constructivist, democratic, authentic, and postmodern, we are creating situations where students will
want to learn instead of being forced to learn. If we continue to design curriculums around these
tests instead of around our students then we will never fix the problem.



Works Cited
Apple, M. W., Beane, J. A., (Eds). (2007). Democratic Schools: Lessons in Powerful Education, 2
nd
ed.,
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Beane, J. A. (Ed.). (1995). Toward a coherent curriculum: The 1995 ASCD yearbook. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brooks, J. G., Brooks, M. G. (1999). In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Falk, Beverly. (2000). The Heart of the Matter: Using Standards and Assessment to Learn. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Popham, W.J. (1999). Why standardized tests dont measure educational quality. Educational
Leadership, March 1999, pp. 8-15.
Sanchez, C. (2014). Department Of Education Brings Home A Disappointing Report Card. NPR.org.
Retrieved May 11, 2014, from http://www.npr.org/2014/05/07/310476515/department-of-
education-brings-home-a-disappointing-report-card
Sobel, David. (1994). Authentic Curriculum. Holistic Education Review.