Everyone Should Practice What He Preaches

In a commentary in Education Week, Joseph Renzulli passionately--and somewhat patronizingly--argues that "Engagement is the Answer." In fact, he maintains this so vehemently, it is the title of the commentary itself. Although there are some issues he raises that ring with some truth, the truth is only perceived with one angle. Two points of Renzuli's article will be introduced, and then examined.

Point One: Renzulli lists the implied evils of what education has done in the name of narrowing the chasm of achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students: smaller schools, year-round schools, single-sex classes, charter schools, merit pay for teachers, and a long list of other plans that imply failure. He states, "...these structural changes have focused too much on low-level, highly prescriptive pedagogy intended to improve standardized-test scores" (www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/07/16/43renzulli.h27.html?print=1).

There are at least two major problems with this argument. What Mr. Renzulli doesn't do when he implicitly states that public education, as a whole, is a failure, is list or research its successes. Research in the field of education is an evolving body of knowledge, and this evolving body of knowledge does give proof that year-round schools and single-sex classes do have positive, quantifiable research that offer benefit to why these types of schools and classes exist. And these are only two examples. Granted, it does not mean it is the only answer for narrowing the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students, but to say that engagement is the only answer, too, is short-sighted.

The other problem is that this "prescriptive" pedagogy that Renzulli speaks of is not for the sole result of improving standardized testing. What schools and their districts are trying to do is not only improve testing scores, but show a quantifiable improvement in learning and comprehension. It is not solely the onus of public education that has made it the puppet of forces higher than it. Namely, the government. When state and national legislation involve themselves into things that are not in their field of expertise, public education has to bend itself to their latest demands and whims.

I am not, also, saying that public education is perfect. There are many fissures in its system, but being within that system for many years has shown me firsthand that schools are improving, and that student learning is occuring. Renzulli's use of the word "prescriptive" is almost said as if it were a curse word. It is insulting to true educators to have a word that is connected to the ideas of structure and method, which by the way, are connected to student success, to be bandied about like it is a taboo.

Point Two:
Mr. Renzulli states that alternative, even counterintuitive, approaches should be taken when talking about bridging the distance of achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students. He lists some of the following ideas as to what contributes to the bridging of the gap, but also, to how it relates to the idea of student engagement: monitor understanding and the need for additional information; identify patterns, relationships, and discrepancies; draw comparisons to other problems; transform factual information into usable knowledge; and finally, extend one's thinking (www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/07/16/43renzulli.h27.html?print=1).

It is ironic how listing these truly wonderful objectives are labeled by Renzulli as "counterintuitive," because, guess what? Any teacher who has been teaching in the public education system will tell you that the language and ideas he thinks are counterintuitive are found in the state standards, the standards by which districts, schools, and teachers form and monitor how students are taught!

Not only have I taught all of my years as a teacher with the standards in the forefront of my mind, but I have also performed contracting work aligning state objectives and the state standards. I have done this for several states, and all of these states are states in which I have not resided. I remember being proud that the standards were unified in idea, whether we were discussing North Carolina, Arkansas, or Arizona. And these unified ideas are inculcated into teachers in every teaching college across the nation. So, are the colleges producing teachers that are brainwashed and beaten, like Renzulli's idea of what today's students are, or are the ideas from public education that have been inveterate very similar to Renzulli's "counterintuitive" ones? I vote for the latter.

Mr. Renzulli does bring into light some valid concerns that our society is facing with the problems of public education. However, "engagement" is not solely the answer. Bridging the reality of today's classroom with the teachers and the teachers' support systems--parents and tutors, namely--are also key factors into what will bridge the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students.