Funding for Personalized Learning in Schools

Policy, Regulation, and Curriculum

Abstract

In the past two decades, educational policy and practice have been affected by social and political movements that prioritize educational equity and holistic learning. This paper argues that the current education system in the United States is heavily focused on standardized testing and neoliberal policies, which actually undermine educational equity and quality. Based on my own experience as a school principal I can attest to this fact. This paper calls for a shift towards student-centered learning that empowers teachers and students alike. The thesis is that educational policies must prioritize holistic, equitable education over standardized measures of accountability to address systemic inequalities and create more meaningful learning. This paper reviews the literature on the negative impacts of standardized testing and neoliberal policies on education, reflecting on my personal experiences as a school principal. It proposes actionable steps to create an inclusive curriculum and empower teachers to address these challenges actively in a move away from the socio-political factors that have influenced curriculum design in recent decades. In so doing, we may be able to achieve a more equitable education system that serves all students.

Introduction

Educational policies and practices over the last two decades have placed emphasis on standardized testing and neoliberal accountability measures, which have merely resulted in unfair funding across schools for curriculum development. What is needed is for improved curriculum development is a shift towards holistic, student-centered learning that empowers teachers and supports diverse student needs; this would help with creating greater educational equity and more meaningful learning opportunities.

Literature Analysis

The literature consistently criticizes standardized testing for its detrimental effects on education. High-stakes testing, such as that mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), has been shown to narrow the curriculum, reducing opportunities for critical thinking and holistic learning (Hursh, 2007; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Au, 2007). Hursh (2007) shows, for instance, that these policies uphold competition and individual performance at the expense of educational equity and quality. This supports my thesis in terms of showing how current policies prioritize standardized measures over meaningful learning.

While some of the opinion among my own teachers in the school where I am principal is that tests are a bad thing for students because they only make kids learn a few things, not a lot. Au (2007) shows that this is not the real problem—but that tests are unfair because they help some students more than others. He says that tests are made to keep some students from doing well, and this limits the playing field because they are not designed for all learners. Ravitch (2010) agrees and says that tests are about politics, not learning. Instead of teaching all kinds of things, schools just teach for the test. Both sources are helpful, but Ravitch (2010) is actually a very helpful source because her book combines personal narrative with fundamental analysis, and she ends up making a great argument for rethinking current education policies so that they prioritize quality and equity in education. Her conclusion is sound and justified by the evidence supplied, which is not cherry-picked but presented well and with context: what Ravitch (2010) argues is needed is similar to what I propose in my thesis: the solution is not by regulating standards but by simply regulating the support given to the people involved in the process of education, i.e., teachers.

Apple (2004) contends it is a failure of nerve, ultimately. how dominant groups maintain control, and the impact this has on marginalized communities that do not have the power to gain control over a system of inequalities. He also discusses the role of educators in challenging these ideological impositions and calling for a more equitable educational system. This work can be considered seminal in the field of critical education theory, similar to Freire’s work, in that it offers a framework for understanding how education is intertwined with socio-political influences, which reveal themselves in education policies and regulations. Apple (2004) and Ravitch (2000) both look at how what we teach is really about who is in charge. Apple argues that schools are run by powerful people who want to keep the status quo. Ravitch (2000) looks at how different ideas about education have changed over time, but says that many of these ideas do not really work. Researchers like Darling-Hammond (2010) and Orfield and Frankenberg (2014) want schools to be fair for everyone. Darling-Hammond (2010) argues that all students should have the same chances to learn. Orfield and Frankenberg (2014) contend that schools where mostly one kind of student attends are not fair. These resources are somewhat more idealistic in that they do not provide a practical solution but rather condemn the existing structures for lacking in diversity.

Dewey (1938) is different in that he had a different idea. He thought that learning should be about doing things and experiencing life, not just reading from a book—but actually from seeing how education applies in the real world. This is what is needed in research—perspective. Dewey (1938) gives a perspective that is actually echoed by Ravitch (2000) who is basically in agreement with Dewey. Her point is that tests and standards are not the answer. Instead, we should give teachers what they need to help students learn, each to his or her ability. Not all students are going to have the same outcomes because each is different, with different talents and goals, and desires—which is okay. The best way to make sure everyone gets a good education and to help everyone is to serve each one individually as best as possible—and as a principal I am in firm agreement with this conclusion.

What's Missing and What Could Be Better

The literature discusses a lot about problems, but it is not always compelling in terms of how to fix the problems. The research could stand to benefit from more ideas about what to do instead of just saying what is wrong. It would be helpful if they talked more about how students feel about learning and how to make school a place where everyone wants to be. Also, it would be good to see more studies about how different things work in real schools. We need to know what happens when we try new ideas.

The sources show us that tests are not always fair and that we need to think about why we teach what we teach. But we still need to figure out the best ways to make schools better for everyone. International perspectives offer some good insights into alternative approaches to education. Lang (2024) shows how government policies in China support teachers and actually prioritize student-centered learning. This is a good source for beginning to rethink our system in America, and my thesis is partially based on its findings; however, it is limited in terms of its actual scope as the focus of Lang’s (2024) research is China, and it is unclear whether the same approach would actually work in the US where the educative system is totally different. Similarly, Macaponggis et al. (2024) emphasize the importance of addressing contemporary challenges, such as technology use, through the use of supportive policies. Again, this study is helpful but also somewhat limited in terms of scope and feasibility. Not every school has the funding for more technology and if it spends on tools like these it may end up shortchanging students in terms of quality of teachers. These examples do support the thesis by showing successful practices that prioritize holistic learning and teacher empowerment—but they are not enough in and of themselves to be totally convincing.

Another challenge is balancing accountability with equity. Standardized testing is often criticized for perpetuating inequalities, but it remains a widely used measure of accountability. Developing alternative assessment methods that support genuine learning and development without compromising accountability is still wanted by many administrators and policy-makers (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). But at what cost? The studies by Kamara et al. (2024), Nichols and Berliner (2007), and Qurban (2024) help to put this matter into perspective by painting contrasting views. Kmara et al. (2024) look at the problem of economic goals and financial resource allocation, and show how important funding is in determining educational outcomes. Kmara et al. (2024) conclude that funding resourcing educational initiatives is bigger than anything else. However, their emphasis on economic goals—which is my main criticism here: there is a need, in my experience, for a focus on holistic education that prioritizes critical thinking and creativity over purely economic outcomes. Economic outcomes can follow—but not at the expense of creative and critical thinking.

Nichols and Berliner (2007), too, critique the high-stakes testing culture that has permeated the American educational landscape, and their analysis exposes the adverse effects of standardized testing, including curriculum narrowing, increased stress, and even pressure to cheat. The study's critique of standardized testing resonates strongly with me and much of the rest of the literature, which consistently highlights how these practices undermine meaningful learning and perpetuate existing inequalities. However, their work could benefit from offering concrete solutions and alternative assessment methods. These are needed to genuinely support holistic education. Uniquely, Qurban's (2024) study examines the impact of neoliberal policies on education in Pakistan during the Musharraf era, with a particular focus on citizenship education. Qurban's (2024) work shows that these policies promote neoliberal values that may conflict with the bigger goals of education as a means of social and cultural development. This is the problem, in my view. It becomes apparent that educational policies must leave behind standardized testing and neoliberal frameworks to prioritize equitable and holistic education. It may be that Afaq (2024) has the right idea when arguing that policy interventions support educational practices in Islamic schools by creating a value system for teachers. This is the type of regulation that could be supportive rather than harmful. Afaq (2024) also discusses the importance of finding the right balance between religious education and modern curriculum requirements, which is an important point to make because no other researchers are talking about this—the need for balance between culture, values, beliefs, and modern education requirements. Government policies are going to influence these—but they should not be doing it poorly. Afaq (2024) supports the socio-political dimensions of curriculum development by recommending policies that support a student-centered but also inclusive approaches to education.

Personal Reflection

As a school principal, I feel strongly about the negative impacts of standardized testing and neoliberal policies, which in my view put immense pressure on both teachers and students— pressure to perform well on tests, pressure to teach to tests, pressure to not fail, all of which often leads to a narrow focus on test preparation, limiting opportunities for creative thinking. No one feels empowered—not teachers, not students, not me as principal. We all feel handcuffed. This experience seems to be supported by the literature's critique of standardized testing and it supports the thesis that current policies undermine educational quality.

I have also seen the importance of empowering teachers and supporting student needs that comes when teachers have an opportunity to teach in ways that are student-centered, that truly put students’ needs first. When teachers are given the support and autonomy to develop student-centered curricula, students are more engaged and motivated to learn, and I have seen this, too. This experience is what ultimately reinforces the thesis's call for a shift towards holistic, student-centered education that empowers teachers and supports diverse student needs.

Proposed Actions for Implementing Holistic, Equitable Education to Address This Issue

To address the challenges identified in the thesis and literature, I propose the following actions in my educational setting: curriculum development, teacher empowerment by means support and professional development opportunities, stakeholder engagement, assessment options, and improved funding.

Curriculum Development

There is a need for a curriculum that emphasizes critical thinking, creativity, and holistic learning that is student-centered. This will help to bring about educational equity in the sense that everyone is being given an opportunity to learn. It is not a matter of teaching to the test or standardizing approaches but rather seeing the potential of each student and helping that student see it, too. It would be about motivating in the right way and in the right direction.

Such a curriculum redevelopment would require some input from those who have done this approach before, but overall it should focus on student-centered learning, where students are able to confer one-on-one with the teacher to figure out the plan for them for that course. This would promote accountability and buy-in from the student and give the teacher a feeling of true empowerment as there is no more pressure to teach to the test. Obviously, we will need to figure out funding if we are going to go against the system like this, but such a challenge is really what is needed at this point. People are not really taking to what the system has to offer and the inequities are all too apparent at this point.

Teacher Empowerment and Professional Development

Providing professional development opportunities for teachers to develop student-centered teaching practices is essential. Empowering teachers to design and implement curricula that meet the diverse needs of their students will foster a more equitable and effective education system.

Professional development should focus on helping teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary to apply student-centered teaching practices, which put the needs and learning styles of individual students first and foremost in the classroom. This can be a trying approach to education and it can completely upend the classical curriculum development model, but it does go back to what Dewey (1938) argued for—which is the experience of the learner. This approach would likely mean moving away from traditional lecture-based methods, and encouraging teachers to incorporate collaborative, inquiry-based, or experiential learning opportunities in their classrooms. There should be training and resources to support this approach so that schools can help teachers become familiar with helpful pedagogical theories and become confident in applying them to real-world classroom settings. This is what I would recommend for my school situation.

Empowerment does not stop with training, however; it involves granting teachers the autonomy to design and implement curricula that resonate with their student populations. So everyone’s room is going to be different, and that needs to be accepted as okay. Parents need to be told what is happening and we need their support. When teachers are empowered to make curriculum decisions, and are backed up by parents, they can tailor learning experiences to reflect the cultural backgrounds, values, beliefs, interests, and learning needs of their students, and thus create overall an environment that is inclusive and responsive in terms of being a genuine educational environment. Such empowerment can help, too, in bringing about a sense of ownership and accountability among teachers and students and families. There would also likely be higher job satisfaction among teachers and, consequently, better educational outcomes for students. Ultimately, this is the goal. We want to be empowering teachers to be innovators and leaders in their classrooms so they can break down systemic barriers, and help all students to reach their potential.

Stakeholder Engagement and Advocacy

Stakeholder engagement matters, which means we need to be involving parents, students, teachers, administrators, community members, and local leaders in conversations about curriculum changes and educational priorities. All of this should be helpful in bringing stakeholders on board and in support of the vision. It can help to create a sense of shared responsibility and collective action. This way, schools can build trust and keep educational initiatives transparent.

Building support for holistic, equitable education requires demonstrating its benefits not only for individual students but also for the community at large. For example, we can publish the success stories from schools where student-centered approaches have been used. This will help reinforce what we are doing. It would show that these methods can improve student engagement, that they are good for developing critical thinking, and that they do prepare students for life past school.

Advocacy is also needed for promoting policies that prioritize holistic education over standardized measures of accountability. We should be working with policymakers, and advocacy groups, so that our schools can push for legislative changes that support our goals. We need everyone on board with our objectives. Effective advocacy can help to dismantle the system as it exists today.

Alternative Assessment Methods

Alternative assessment methods can help to bring genuine learning and development. Traditional standardized tests often fail to capture the full range of a student's abilities. They focus instead on memorization and test-taking. To address this limitation, teachers can use portfolio assessments, performance-based assessments, peer assessments, or whatever methods work best for the students. Portfolio assessments let students create a body of work over time, and thus demonstrate their growth. This method encourages students to take ownership of their learning. It is a way for them to reflect on their progress and set personal learning goals.