Equity Problems in Education Learning

Equity Problems in Education

Learning standards have come under increasing scrutiny with many charging they negatively impact teacher autonomy and curriculum development which, in turn, negatively impacts the performance of certain groups such as minorities and girls. Some opponents of standards-based curriculum argue that schools should have the freedom to set their own academic agenda (Fiske, 1998) Some are even insisting that the answer is to create charter schools that provide even greater degrees of autonomy (Fiske, 1998). Other critics state the demands for standards-based teaching impede differentiated instruction which attempts recognize and address student variance (Tomlinson, 2000). Still others say that creativity is being exchanged for "test drills and a narrow curriculum that coincides with state-established standards" (Lane, 2003). Yet, as this paper will discuss, standards-driven curriculum that is implemented appropriately can avoid these pitfalls and have a meaningful impact on education.

Critics of standards-driven curriculum say that it hasn't worked. National Assessment of Educational Program (NAEP) data show that,

By the time [minority students] reach grade 12, if they do so at all, minority students are about four years behind other young people. Indeed, 17-year-old African-American and Latino students have skills in English, mathematics and science similar to those of 13-year-old white students." (Closing the achievement gap)

On the SAT college entrance exam, the gap between black and white scores was 123 points in math while the gap between Hispanic and white was 89 points (it takes more than testing (closing the achievement gap, 2001). but, these problems start early on with a sizable achievement gap for minority children before they even start school. Family income and a variety of community and home factors are blamed on the achievement gap (it takes more than testing (closing the achievement gap, 2001).

English (2000) makes mention that reformers must be aware of the hidden functions of schools if they are to make meaningul changes. A concrete example of the hidden curriculum manifests in girls that early on have lower scores on math and science tests than boys. Some believe that cultural differences between boys and girls have a negative impact on girls' acquisition of skills or values for achievement in math and sciences (Holladay, 2007). Girls are believed to become sensitive to the roles of men and women in the real-world at an early age and lose interest in math and science where men predominate. Others think that the psychology of stigma, how humans respond to negative stereotypes about their gender group, threaten female students in profound ways (Holladay, 2007). An example of a frequent stereotype threat is "girls can't do math." Hidden curriculum problems illustrate the need for greater consideration of the socialization of students in curriculum development.

Despite various objections, curriculum is rapidly becoming standards driven. The publication of a Nation at Risk in the early 1980s cautioned that the sad state of education threatened this country's social and economic well being and served as a wakeup call for implementing standards that define what is taught in schools and measuring performance against these standards for acceptable performance. "Nearly three-fourths of the teachers who have worked with standards for at least six years say the standards have had a positive impact on their schools." (Ravitch, 1995) as Tomlinson (2000) explains, there doesn't have to be a contradiction between standards-based instruction and differentiation and standards-based instruction doesn't imply the necessity for a narrow curriculum that meets the requirements of state tests. Curriculum guides what is taught while differentiation guides how it is taught. Differentiation can be used to teach the same standard to a range of learners by using diverse teaching and learning modes. Curriculum doesn't have to be narrow to increase chances of success on standardized tests. Rather, differentiation means that teachers can make math accessible, equitable, and exciting to all students by "providing materials and tasks on the standard at varied levels of difficulty, with varying degrees of scaffolding, through multiple instructional groups, and with time variations" (Tomlinson, 2000).

Admittedly, standards-driven curriculum is far behind its goals for ensuring that "no child will be left behind."