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 problembut 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...

…teachers can see where students may need additional support. The more they follow, the more likely they are to intervene when necessary. That is what personalized learning is all about.

Resource Allocation and Funding

We still need to prioritize funding for schools and programs that support diverse student needs and educational equity. Policymakers will need to be found who will support equitable funding to provide all students with access to quality education, regardless of their socio-economic background. Equitable funding can help with this approach to personalized learning because schools in under-resourced areas tend to lack basic educational materials. If students who are digital natives want more technology, where is the money going to come from? We need policymakers behind us. We need support for extracurricular programs, which may come from community engagement. We need resources to level the playing field and provide all students with opportunities to succeed. Funding should also be directed towards hiring and retaining qualified teachers, training the ones we have, developing them professionally, offering professional development oportunities to all, and reducing class sizes whenever possible to support more personalized learning. We need more equitable resource allocation to make sure that schools can implement and sustain innovative teaching practices and programs that cater to all the needs of students.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the literature and personal experiences of myself as a school principal support the thesis that educational policies must prioritize holistic, equitable education over standardized measures of accountability. We need to be shifting way from the neoliberal approach and the standardized testing approach towards student-centered learning that empowers teachers and supports students. We can thus begin to address systemic inequalities and create more meaningful learning opportunities. The proposed actions in this paper are a beginning course for implementing these changes in educational settings, but we have to keep working towards a…