I’m rather exhausted lately as the school, the new house and the commuting has kicked into high gear. I’m looking forward to getting to Thanksgiving to recharge a bit and reflect on the last few weeks. But as I start planning curriculum, I’m finding myself rereading lots of Alfie Kohn.

So here are three articles to read, if you haven’t read them already. Alfie Kohn is one of people out there in the education policy world who makes powerful and cogent arguments against the current movement in educational policy today. He also is a powerful voice for students and teachers, two stakeholders in the educational field whose voices aren’t always taken into account before policy is enacted these days.

The 500-lb Gorilla is a piece from 2002 that reminds us to follow the money when we look at the current standardized test movement. For me, it’s important to always question the corporate influence in education. And here, Kohn says it best:

Indeed, we might even go so far as to identify as one of the most crucial tasks in a democratic society the act of limiting the power that corporations have in determining what happens in, and to, our schools. Not long ago, as historian Joel Spring pointed out, you would have been branded a radical (or worse) for suggesting that our educational system is geared to meeting the needs of business. Today, corporations not only acknowledge that fact but freely complain when they think schools aren’t adequately meeting their needs. They are not shy about trying to make over the schools in their own image. It’s up to the rest of us, therefore, to firmly tell them to mind their own businesses.

Beware of the standards, not just the tests — September 2001, Ed Week — again, a great piece that suggests we have to be willing to question the standards movement not just in their mode of assessment, but in the very assumptions they make when those on that side of the educational policy aside talk about "high standards." I think the best thing about that movement is how well they have co-opted the language — after all, who could be against "high standards" and "raising the bar" and "closing the achievement gap" or even "data-driven decision-making." But we have to remember that while those are wonderful sound-bites, we have to question what all those terms mean in practice. Here’s a sample of Kohn’s argument:

Guidelines or mandates? There are standards offered as guidelines ("See if this way of thinking about teaching can help you improve your craft"), and then there are standards presented as mandates ("Teach this or else"). Virtually all the states have chosen the latter course. The effect has been not only to control teachers, but to usurp the long-established power of local school districts to chart their own course. If there has ever been a more profoundly undemocratic school reform movement in U.S. educational history than what is currently taking place in the name of standards, I haven’t heard of it.

Getting Hit on the Head Lessons — Sept. 7th, 2005 — Ed Week. I’m not even going to give a synopsis. I’m just going to quote him:

Finally, there is a remarkable callousness lurking just under the surface here: Your objections don’t count, your unhappiness doesn’t matter. Suck it up. The people who talk this way are usually on top, issuing directives, not on the bottom being directed. “Learn to live with it because there’s more coming later” can be rationalized as being in the best interests of those on the receiving end, but it may just mean “Do it because I said so” and thereby cement the power of those offering this advice.

If a practice can’t be justified on its own terms, then the task for children and adults alike isn’t to get used to it, but to question, to challenge, and, if necessary, to resist.

Enjoy the reads.