StickWithANose

It doesn’t take a genius to discover that, despite the rhetoric of reformers, the driving impetus behind current trajectories in education reform is a simplistic narrative of neo-liberal market ideology. At the core of the reforms being pushed by Team Obama is an un-critical belief in the power of market competition and external accountability systems as being the principle tools of education reform that in reality operate as little more than a simple carrot and stick methodology that ignores the profound complexity of human psychology, American society, and public education. As I’ve noted here and here, the science behind what motivates individuals [students, teachers and administrators alike] is far more complex and involve intrinsic motivations that policies such as merit pay and accountability simply cannot supplant.

In a post at EdWeek’s Inside School Research, guest blogger Debra Viadero points us toward more evidence of the failure of this simplistic narrative in a study that attempts to flesh out the importance of student motivation and academic success.

“Learning, Performance and Improvement,” in the latest issue of the London-based Institute of Education journal Research Matters finds students learn and behave differently if they—and their teachers—focus on improving their knowledge and competence rather than proving it. Yet simply talking about learning won’t overcome a classroom atmosphere focused on meeting test benchmarks.

In a review of more than 100 studies from the U.S. and across the globe, Chris Watkins, Institute reader in education at the University of London, ties the current discussion over how to teach modern critical thinking and problem-solving skills back to the decades-old discussion of students’ motivation in the classroom.

The research suggests two parallel motivations drive student achievement: “learning orientation,” the drive to improve your knowledge and competency; and “performance orientation,” the drive to prove that competency to others. Watkins found the highest-achieving students had a healthy dose of both types of motivation, but students who focused too heavily on performance ironically performed less well academically, thought less critically, and had a harder time overcoming failure.

Two guesses which orientation develops under a U.S.-style assessment accountability system, and the first doesn’t count.

As I and many others have repeatedly pointed out, the obsession of American education reformers with assessment and accountability is not simply mis-guided in the sense that it does not raise student achievement but that, more importantly, it undermines students ability to develop the critical and constructive thinking skills they will need to be successful in what reformers refer to as the 21st century knowledge economy. The education reformers populating the D.C. vortex inhabit a world of almost pure contradiction, and yet they continue to win the day. The reason for the dominance of this cabal of edu-philanthropists and think tank trolls…? There is a lot of money to be made in public education. It really is that simple. Follow the money and all will become clear.