Rigidness, Racism, and Fear: How the U.S. is Far Off the Mark

As the Industrial Revolution spread its way across America, changes were being enacted in the education system to model it after successful factories. Scientific management made its way into schools in the late 19^th century, and it has persisted throughout the 20^th and into the 21^st. Part of the education shift in the late 19^th century included a new push for standardized testing, and a redirected focus to preparing kids for certain career paths (Zhao, 2009).

As a result of these reforms class discrimination, race discrimination, and cultural bias became widespread within the classroom. Standardized testing reinforced perceptions that minority students were inherently less intelligent than white students. These tests used, and continue to use, language and situations that are more familiar to middle-class white students (Zhao, 2009). And through the use of tracking, minority students and other low-performing students are never given a chance to rise above these low expectations.

We now have this achievement gap that we are trying to address, but the problem is that we are denying the social and economic causes of this gap (Rothstein, 2010), while simultaneously failing to identify the goals of education. We blame teachers while ignoring poverty and we continue to set vague and unreachable goals. While China, Japan, and other typically rigid societies are attempting to adopt educational models of flexibility, the United States is becoming more rigid.

The increase in high-stakes testing caused by No Child Left Behind and Obama’s Race to the Top has resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum to primarily focus on math and reading. “To accommodate this increased time in English and math, 44 percent of districts reported cutting time from one or more other subjects or activities” (Zhao, 2009). While these are important skills to learn, this narrow focus takes time from other subjects such as social studies/history, physical education, and art, which are also very important. In addition, “teaching to the test” does not prepare students to enter the workforce, it prepares them to take tests. While this is valuable in college and to get certified for certain jobs, when actually working, these gaps in knowledge, creativity, and flexibility become apparent.

Sternberg’s triarchic theory names multiple types of abilities that should be considered important: memory and analytical abilities, creative abilities, and practical abilities (Zhao, 2009). Typical standardized tests and IQ tests focus on memory and analytical abilities, and ignore the latter two. However, all of these abilities are facets of what can make up a successful person. In addition, while memory and analytical abilities are taught in schools (in which minority and low-class students are at a disadvantage), creativity and practical abilities can be gained anywhere and throughout one’s life. In fact, the group that scored as high-creative and high-practical were more diverse socioeconomically and ethnically (Zhao, 2009).

If we are to better our education system, we need to consider a multiplicity of abilities that can make people successful, and develop those. Focusing on one ability over others causes lopsidedness in education, and ignores the diversity of possible talents that people might possess. Conformity is the antithesis of ingenuity; so why are we teaching students to conform to a certain standard of education when what we most need are creative solutions?