The "Real" Secretary of Education--Plans that will hurt more than help

Yesterday, Jim Horn posted an excellent entry onto "Schools Matter", a blog that, on the most part, discusses many of the prominent political issues surrounding the current educational reform strategies. In the post, properly titled, "Gates, Duncan, Friedman: Connecting the Dopes", Horn discusses many of Bill Gates' (who Horn titles the "real" Secretary of Education) proposed revisions.  Horn quotes Gates as saying, "Schools [will] save money by increasing class size. U.S. student-teacher ratios dropped to 15-to-1 today from 26-to-1 in 1960, without improving student results. Schools would save more than $10,000 per classroom by increasing class size by four pupils". This is an exemplary example of why individuals who have had no true, authentic experiences within schools in the United States should have absolutely no say in regards to the actions that should be carried out to reform the system--in my opinion, as a future special educator, increased class sizes are exactly what we don't need. Gates, as an internationally respected public figure, wishes to play a role in the changing of the current education system in his country, and that is fine. But, consider this--we have discussed all semester that, once we step into each of our respective classrooms, we will not be teaching a "class". Rather, we will all have a group of individual students, each of whom will have a different, unique set of learning needs that will need to be attended to. Saving money is all fine and well, but when it comes at the expense of the well-being of our students, in my mind, that is not a risk that we should be willing to take.

In addition, as a means of placing more pressure on classroom teachers, Gates has proposed that instructors' annual pay and job security be dependent upon the cumulative scores of their students on their state's standardized exams. Essentially, he believes that, if the salaries of teachers around the country seemingly rely upon the test scores of students, teachers will be forced to "perform to their highest ability" to ensure that students will be successful. If students achieve success, the teacher's job is safe, the school receives funding and resources, benefiting all involved. That is, except for the students themselves--if instructors are (implicitly) forced to teach only certain units and disciplines in order to prepare students for tests that determine their job statuses, valuable, authentic, and meaningful learning experiences are thrown to the wayside, thus negatively impacting students in their intellectual progression.

I would be lying if I were to say that I fully understand all of the parameters surrounding the education system reform, but I certainly agree with an excerpt posted in August on "Seattle Education 2010" . In the excerpt titled, "The Fallacy of 'Merit' and 'Performance Pay'--they don't serve ANYONE well", the author states, " High-stakes testing for our kids and teachers, and a superintendent who is accountable to no one, is a poisonous and unacceptable proposal". 

Punishing teachers and forcing them to base their instructional decisions on an annual, intimidating, standardized exam cannot be part of the proposed reform--by doing this, the students will be the ones who ultimately suffer the consequences.