Archive for the ‘Research and Reports’ Category

It Matters What We Test For

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Ever checked out iTunes U?  It’s iTunes’ collection of lectures and talks by people from around the world on a huge variety of topics.  Basically, it’s like being able to sit in the back of a college lecture hall and hear some pretty smart people talk.

StanfordOn a recommendation from a friend, I listened to a recording of a talk from a 2008 Stanford University Ethics in Society conference.  The topic was “Charter Schools Closing the Achievement Gap: Results from New York City and Chicago,” and the lead speaker was Caroline Hoxby, a Stanford University Professor of Economics and a Hoover Institution Senior Fellow.  Hoxby, who recently came out with a new report stemming from similar data, described how the study found that students at charter schools in New York City and Chicago performed better on reading and math scores than students who tried to get into those charter schools but did not get picked in the lottery (most charter schools use lotteries to select from the large pool of students who apply for limited spots).

From a research perspective, what I like about the study is how it controls for family engagement and demographics, since the group selected randomly in the lottery will be similar to the group that was not selected.

However, I was glad to hear my strong concerns about the study reflected by the speaker who was chosen to respond to Hoxby’s talk, Kenneth Strike, a Cultural Foundations of Education Professor at Syracure University.  Strike questioned the tools used to assess the students, saying that although math and reading are foundational skills that support other educational goals, “being foundational doesn’t make them proxies for other [goals]” (my emphasis).  In other words, we must not forget that there are other educational goals in addition to helping young people learn how to read and do math.

Then came the part I really appreciated.  Strike talked about there being both “Cultural Goods” like citizenship and autonomy, as well as “Economic Goods” such as jobs, income, and human capital.  He was expanding the goal and purpose of education beyond the narrow approach that looks at young people solely as future workers and job-holders, which justifies a standardized educational delivery for all young people and the merging of the fields of economics and education (such that one can’t be too surprised by policies such as monetary rewards for students).

Strike then questions the assessments themselves:

The way we use testing and accountability has a very high risk of goal distortion.  In fact, I think it tends to erode the adequacy and reasonableness of these things [current standardized assessments in math and reading] because it generates so much gaming.

By focusing so much attention on a narrow academic (though important) set of skills, the risk is that we lose sight of other essential educational goals, namely becoming a good citizen, developing autonomy, being creative, working well with other people, etc – Strike’s “Cultural Goods.”

Strike later says that we must look at measures for those cultural sets of skills and try to measure them.  They CAN be measured, he says.

They can indeed.  Here are a few research studies that study qualities like citizenship, autonomy, creativity, self-determination, compassion, and other important skills.  (These often focus more on what kinds of educational environments can best support such skills, rather than a high-stakes test that threatens teachers with firing, students with being held back, and in so doing completely distorting the educational process):

  • Self-Determination Theory: hundreds of studies have been carried out researching how people gain and develop self-determination, including the key importance of autonomy-support and internal motivation in learning as well as the negative impact of control and external motivation on learning.
  • The Hope Study: research showing that “motivation to learn increases when schools give students more autonomy, a greater sense of belonging, and more opportunities to pursue individual goals.”
  • Lives of Passion, School of Hope: a new book that surveys hundreds of graduates of an innovative participatory school, showing that graduates take part in society as active and productive citizens and point to the school as a key reason for that.
  • Moral Development in a Democratic School: describes how young people develop moral behavior through being in an environment where they can choose their own activities and where they are involved in decision-making and conflict resolution, providing students with “opportunities for them to develop and deepen understanding of the balance of personal rights and responsibilities within a community.”
  • Comparison of Freedom-Based and Conventional Learning Environments: a small study I did as part of my Masters degree, which establishes a correlation between freedom-based schools and a positive school atmosphere, high levels of perceived autonomy-support, high levels of student intrinsic motivation and self-determination, and strong development of personal qualities such as self-confidence, responsibility, and compassion.  The results also indicate higher levels of each factor for freedom-based schools as compared to a conventional school.

As Strike says, those important democratic and citizenship skills CAN be measured.  We must be wary of the slippery slope potential that measuring could lead to high-stakes assessments in these areas.  However, by measuring for these skills we recognize that they are indeed important, and we start to expand the very purpose of education beyond economic goals and standardized academics to include the cultural and citizenship goals that value development of democratic citizenship, self-determination, autonomy, confidence, and compassion.

Posted in Democratic Education, Education Policy, NYC Education, Research and Reports, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Rewards for Students Questioned in NY Times Article

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

With the growing trend in school districts around the country to reward students and teachers based largely on test scores, it was with great excitement that I saw the following headline on the front-page of today’s New York Times’ Science section: “Rewards for Students Under a Microscope.”  This is especially good to see considering that the NY Times Editorial Page has consistently supported such rewards as good educational practice.

The article, by reporter Lisa Guernsey, opens with a great summary of the critique of rewards for students:

For decades, psychologists have warned against giving children prizes or money for their performance in school. “Extrinsic” rewards, they say — a stuffed animal for a 4-year-old who learns her alphabet, cash for a good report card in middle or high school — can undermine the joy of learning for its own sake and can even lead to cheating.

Guernsey then goes on to mention and quote some of the leading educators and psychologists who have long been publicizing the negative effects of rewards on students’ intrinsic motivation and enjoyment for learning, including education writer Alfie Kohn and University of Rochester psychology researchers Ed Deci and Richard Ryan. Here’s an excerpt from the Times article:

Research suggests that rewards may work in the short term but have damaging effects in the long term.

One of the first such studies was published in 1971 by Edward L. Deci, a psychologist at the University of Rochester, who reported that once the incentives stopped coming, students showed less interest in the task at hand than those who received no reward.

This kind of psychological research was popularized by the writer Alfie Kohn, whose 1993 book “Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise and Other Bribes” is still often cited by educators and parents. Mr. Kohn says he sees “social amnesia” in the renewed interest in incentive programs.

“If we’re using gimmicks like rewards to try to improve achievement without regard to how they affect kids’ desire to learn,” he said, “we kill the goose that laid the golden egg.”

I particularly was interested in this study by Stanford psychologist Mark Lepper:

Why does motivation seem to fall away? Some researchers theorize that even at an early age, children can sense that someone is trying to control their behavior. Their reaction is to resist. “One of the central questions is to consider how children think about this,” said Mark R. Lepper, a psychologist at Stanford whose 1973 study of 50 preschool-age children came to a conclusion similar to Dr. Deci’s. “Are they saying, ‘Oh, I see, they are just bribing me’?”

If there is one thing that my work with young people in both conventional and freedom-based environments has shown me, it is that young people can very easily tell when adults have an ulterior motive for what they say or suggest to students.  And over time, this leads to young people becoming more and more wary of teachers and adults to the point that they find it hard to trust adults and even avoid their gaze, for fear that adults will tell them to do something else or make a critical judgment.

Yet as Guernsey states, it is clear whose influence now reigns in education circles:

.  . . many economists and businesspeople disagree [with the critiques of performance rewards], and their views often prevail in the educational marketplace.

The article presents this perspective, including quoting Roland Fryer, Harvard economist who served from 2007-2008 as Chief Equality Officer with the NYC Department of Education, during which time he promoted and designed student and teacher incentive programs.  (By the way, not to dismiss the contributions of economists, but should an economist be the sole person leading school improvement efforts? At the least an experienced K-12 educator ought to be part of the leadership, no?). Fryer makes the following point,

“We have to get beyond our biases,” said Roland Fryer, an economist at Harvard University who is designing and testing several reward programs. “Fortunately, the scientific method allows us to get to most of those biases and let the data do the talking.”

But what data?  And what other data might we be ignoring?

This is the essential point for me: that the issue here is not whether rewards increase test scores.  As Kohn, Deci, Ryan, and Lepper all point out, any short term gains (and one could question whether an increase in a dubiously-worthy multiple-choice test is actually a “gain” in anything meaningful) pale in comparison to the very real and long-term damage inflicted on many young people who are subjected to rewards systems: namely, that rewards systems very often are associated with diminished student interest and motivation for the activity or topic that was paired with a reward.  And there is a great deal of data to back this up (just Google “Ed Deci” or “Alfie Kohn” to find a ton).

So, sure, some students may increase their test scores when offered a reward for doing so, and certainly more students will take tests that have rewards tied to them, especially students from lower-income families, something Deci points out in his insightful comment, “‘There are suggestions of students making in the thousands of dollars,’ he said. ‘The stress of that, for kids from homes with no money, I frankly think it’s unconscionable.’”

But at what long-term cost to young people? Less interest and intrinsic motivation in the activity, increased stress and competition, even lower quality work, as Lepper’s study indicates.

This, then, is what happens when there is a dominant economic and business influence in education: increased student output through whatever means are necessary, without much regard to the fact that young people are human beings with personalities, emotions, and rights that ought not be dismissed or abused in the name of increased performance.

Yet now with the massive economic crisis stemming from the deplorable business practices of late, we should be ever-more critical and wary of economic- and business-driven reforms throughout society, most especially in the social sectors such as education.  I’ll end with a provocative comment from “a.r., Los Angeles” on the NY Times website from a reader of the article:

Isn’t the recent financial debacle proof enough that a) money as a motivator can lead to very bad things and b) economics does not provide a perfect model for human behavior? And why are poor kids our de facto guinea pigs in this social science experiment?

Indeed, why?

Posted in Education Policy, General Education News, Research and Reports, Youth Voice/Youth Rights | 2 Comments »

News and Notes – Feb. 22, 2009

Sunday, February 22nd, 2009

A few news and notes related to Democratic Education:

  • Parker Palmer, the wise teacher and author of many books on education and living including The Courage to Teach and Let Your Life Speak, was on Bill Moyers Journal this past Friday, February 20.  The conversation is one not to miss, touching on the tension between what is and what might be, the potential for social change movements, and what we can teach to bring about what might be.  You can watch a view of the conversation and read a transcript here on the Bill Moyers’ website.  (Thanks to David Leo-Nyquist for alerting me and others to this interview).
  • The Gotham Schools blog, a prolific blog largely about education in New York City,  reported on a research study that showed that rating a school with a D or F (all schools in NYC are now given such a mark, based largely on test scores) was correlated with fewer projects and essays after the rating was assigned and a greater emphasis on direct instruction.  The scary thing, as Gotham Schools reports, is that the authors of the study support this change.
  • On the Change.org Education Blog, Clay Burrell has written a great deal about Bill Gates’ recent appearance at the TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) gathering.  Check out the video of Gates’ talk, as well as Clay’s insightful commentary.  His most recent response also discusses how Nicholas Kristof has joined the Gates bandwagon, both talking about the necessity of “good teachers” and asserting that we can improve schools mainly through better teaching.  Clay echoes some of my own thoughts, questioning this notion of “good” in teaching and whether test score results ought to be the determinant of a good teacher (and therefore what is “good” in learning).
  • Finally, the New York City Student Union is holding a Student Government panel this Thursday, February 26 at 5pm at the UFT building (50 Broadway between Exchange and Morris in downtown Manhattan), to “develop connections between existing student governments and collaboratively create a basis of what a successful student government is and how it is run in different institutions.”  This is a great student organization, come and check it out.  Read more here.

Posted in Democratic Education, Education Policy, NYC Education, Research and Reports | No Comments »

Democratic Education in the Media

Friday, February 13th, 2009

Two great articles appeared yesterday about democratic education and student-directed learning.  Check them out.

1. The most popular newspaper in Oregon, the Oregonian, wrote a very good piece on the Village Free School, a 4-year old democratic free school in Portland.  The article gave a fair impression of the freedom and student-directed learning inherent in the school, while also broadening the picture to include the deeper goals of democratic education, describing the school as “trying to create its own unique blend of community, student choice, student responsibility and emotional and intellectual development.”

One sidebar included a well-written definition of democratic schools: “Students’ experience is based on many of the core values of a democratic society: participatory decision-making, individual freedom, personal responsibility and social justice. Students can make decisions of significance — even bad ones.”  I love that clear statement of how these schools are based on the values of our democratic society, and believe that is a great way to talk about this approach so that people new to democratic schools can understand what they are all about.

The sidebar also teased out a definition of a free school: “Students choose how they spend their time — in play, activities, classes. Staff are available to guide and help students explore what interests them. Lessons are offered but optional. Focus is given to students’ physical, social, emotional and intellectual well-being.”  Recently, I described schools such as Village Free School as part of the Democratic School Movement, so as to differentiate them from the broader term, Democratic Education. I’m hesitant to use the term “free school” as I think it makes it easy for critics to dismiss these schools as being permissively free.  But then again, perhaps we can reclaim the word freedom not just for adult-based human rights efforts but for young people as well.

2. I recently discovered the Freedom to Learn blog by Peter Gray, a research professor of Psychology at Boston College.  I’ve known about Peter Gray and his work for a bunch of years.  His research and articles about Sudbury Valley School and psychological learning theories supporting democratic education constitute some of the limited but powerful academic research into democratic schools and educational alternatives.

Peter’s blog post that appeared on February 12 focused on Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Emile, and how this book, often looked to as a pioneering contribution to progressive education theory and practice, contains several deep problems.  He describes that while the tutor seemingly gives the young student freedom to be and learn in his own way, the tutor is actually controlling and determining what the student does.  The text of Rousseau bears this out, it’s quite fascinating.  However, in an excerpt from an earlier lesser-known writing, Julie, Rousseau backs off that subtle controlling approach and has a mother explain how and why young people ought to be free to learn.  You can read both Emile and that excerpt from Julie in this Rousseau compilation on education.

And you might want to check the archives of Peter’s blog, or RSS or otherwise track it, he’s done some great writing about the philosophy, psychology, and practice of democratic education.

Posted in Democratic Education, Research and Reports | No Comments »

Youth on Schools – YRNES report 2008

Tuesday, September 9th, 2008

I first saw the Youth Researchers for New Education System (YRNES)’s report a few months ago, but came across it again yesterday and just sat down to read it cover to cover.  It is expertly done research with incredibly valuable findings.  Most importantly the research was completed and led by youth, collecting the views of young people about their schools and education.

The YRNES study (direct PDF link), initiated in 2007 and published in 2008, is highly valuable because it brings youth voices to some of the core educational issues we need to think about if we are to bring about democratic educational change, education aligned with the dignity and human rights of young people.  Those core issues include: the purpose of schooling, access to resources, relationships among students and teachers, and the extent to which young people are meaningfully involved in educational decision-making.

The youth researchers, primary investigator Eve Tuck, and the partnering organizations, The National Center for Schools and Communities (NSCS) at Fordham University, the Independent Commission on Public Education (iCOPE), and the Collective of Researchers on Educational Disappointment and Desire (CREDD), all deserve huge credit for this report.

I urge you to read through the whole study, though I wanted to cite some of the more powerful results.

FYI, the study surveyed 546 youth ages 14-22, reflecting racial and economic diversity of NYC public school students, and including a focus group of 18 youth activists.

The three major findings:
1) Young people in New York City believe their schooling is important to them
2) Resources and access to opportunities are unfairly distributed in our school system and in our schools
3) Young people in New York City want more meaningful opportunities to participate in decision making about schooling.

Some of the interesting stats:

  • In response to the statement, “My classes give me useful preparation for what I plan to do in life,” only 46% of young people surveyed agreed, while 54% disagreed.
  • Responding to, “I am getting a good education at my school,” 61% agreed and 39% disagreed.  But take a look at the data from this question disaggregated for socioeconomic status and school type:

Low income Youth – 48% agreed  52% disagreed
Middle-High income Youth – 70% agreed  30% disagreed
Large/converted school – 54% agreed 46% disagreed
Specialized school – 66% agreed  34% disagreed

  • The most common response to the question, “When do you feel safe in school?” was “Never.”
  • “I think that my school’s rules are fair”  39% agreed  61% disagreed

And especially take a look at these about youth participation:

  • “I would want to participate in setting the rules and policies of my school” – 80% agreed  20% disagreed
  • “Seventy-six percent of youth told us, ‘I know the changes that need to be made in my school, but the power to make these changes is out of my hands.’
  • “Members of my community have good ideas for programs or projects that would help solve the problems in my school” – 65% agreed,  only 35% disagreed.

Finally, this quote by one of the youth in the focus group:

“I agree that sometimes we don’t pay attention [to fliers and announcements about existing opportunities] but I think that if we believed that they really cared about us, cared about us participating in these opportunities, we would look.  If they actually cared, we would care too.”

How true.  Why would anyone make an effort to participate unless they believed the opportunity was authentic and that their perspective was wanted?

Check out the report (and the Problem Tree they created), send it along to others.  Show it to your principal or teacher or parent.  Present it to your school board.  Give it to a local or state politician.  If you live in NYC, show it to anyone and everyone – it is increasingly relevant given the recent discussions over whether the law should be changed to give Mayor Bloomberg another term.

And let’s do more research, following YRNES’s excellent approach not only in research design – quantitative (numerical) and qualitative (quotations, stories, etc.) – but also involving youth as researchers and leaders in building an education system based on our democratic values and human rights.

Posted in Democratic Education, Education Policy, NYC Education, Research and Reports, Youth Voice/Youth Rights | No Comments »

Richard Rothstein’s newest focus

Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

Economic Policy Institute Research Associate and former New York Times education columnist Richard Rothstein is getting into some interesting territory in an article entitled “Leaving ‘No Child Left Behind’ Behind,”published in The American Prospect. Specifically he’s talking about (and will be talking about on February 21 at Teachers College in NYC) the need to incorporate quantitative educational measurements, including “critical thinking, citizenship, physical- and emotional-health habits, arts appreciation, self-discipline, responsibility, and conflict resolution” into our national conversation about assessment.

Great going, Rothstein!  We need more education writers and analysts realizing that education and learning is about a great deal more than simply academics and training for the workforce.  I wonder if Rothstein knows of The Hope Study, which assesses the ability of schools to provide conditions (autonomy, belongingness, etc) for students to be intrinsically motivated and goal oriented, and other efforts at assessing these skills and qualities?

Albeit, he advocated for those assessments in addition to quantitative measures on academic-based tests, but even there he is quite critical of the deception of NCLB’s universal achievement mandates, the focus on only math and reading, and especially the fact that all learners are different and that a single achievable and challenging standard is impractical and damaging to students.

In addition to pushing the qualitative aspects of education, such as responsibility, citizenship, and critical thinking, I hope Rothstein might consider assessments directed towards schools on important aspects such as school climate, youth engagement, and autonomy-support.

Rothstein also strongly advocates for the federal government to take a larger role in devising a plan for adequate and equitable funding for all students throughout the country. That is, in my opinion, the central role of the federal government in education. While Rothstein and I may disagree on the extent of the federal role in assessment, his endorsement of non-academic-based assessment is encouraging and can move us in the direction of a more human rights-based, personalized, and democratic educational system.

Posted in Education Policy, Research and Reports | No Comments »

Youth Democracy and Participation

Monday, July 16th, 2007

Recently, Carnegie Corporation reported that it is giving $10 million to New Visions for Public Schools to create “New Century II: High Schools for College and Career Success” – a 4-year initiative to strengthen college readiness programs. The emphasis is on “high achievement” regardless of the individuality and interests of the young person, and the initiative supports a top-down required set of academic standards for all students.

What especially caught my eye is that the main mechanism for this flawed program furthers disrespect for and alienation of young people – the so-called Scaffolded Apprenticeship Model (SAM), which “creates teams comprised of a principal, teachers and school counselors who are trained to analyze data and develop tailored strategies to improve instruction, especially for low-achieving students.” As expected, there is no inclusion of young people in the process created to help young people.

This authoritarian approach and lack of youth participation in policies and activities that affect them is becoming in my eyes more and more not only disrespectful, offensive, patronizing, and of course ineffective (at leading to public empowerment and good decisions), but also downright criminal. Frankly there should be laws on the books to that effect, just as there are laws protecting the rights of black people and women to participate and vote in decisions that affect them.

There are of course examples of young people not being involved in decision-making in all sectors of society, not to mention the fact that young people generally between 14 and 18 can work and have to pay taxes but cannot vote about that and other issues (taxation without representation – one of the prime motivations for the founding of this country!)

This disrespect and disempowerment of young people in the United States is especially incredible to me when I compare what I have been reading about in a report on the extensive student and youth democracy and participation in several European countries:

The EURIDEM Project is a book-length report of a study by Lynn Davies and Gordon Kirkpatrick assessing pupil and youth democracy in Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Germany, and comparing it to the UK (since the report was sponsored by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England). It documents that in these countries there are laws requiring pupil councils at the school and regional level, students legally required to be part of local school boards, government issued reports on the importance of student democracy, and generally the spirit of respect for the voice of young people and the need to include them in decision-making.

For a summary of the report, read this article entitled “Pupil Democracy in England” by co-researcher and author Davies.

Yet at the same time we in the U.S. have virtually no recognition for the value of student voice in school decision-making, school boards, and of course on the larger policy level as well. There are thankfully a good number of democratic schools and educators here and there throughout the country creating democratic practices within schools and classrooms.

However, we need to start working on all fronts to promote youth democracy and participation in schools and in all areas of society.

Here are a few organizations leading this work in this country:

Common Action: http://www.commonaction.org

Free Child: http://www.freechild.org

Sound Out: http://www.soundout.org

National Youth Rights Association: http://www.youthrights.org/

Youth on Board: http://www.youthonboard.org

At The Table: http://www.atthetable.org/

Posted in Democratic Education, Education Policy, International News, Research and Reports, Youth Voice/Youth Rights | No Comments »

Again with the business model in education!

Friday, June 8th, 2007

When will we stop talking about young people, learning, and education in the terms used to describe the production of widgets or the development of an investment fund? Human beings, and young human beings especially, must be considered in a completely different manner from business production – unless, of course, we wish young people to become as lifeless and standardized as the widgets we produce. And perhaps that is what some officials and education leaders want to create, so that their own children (often sent to private schools or elite public schools and school districts that use more innovative methods) have less competition to become the leaders of tomorrow.

A report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education finds that there are wide differences in standards across states, creating (according to the NY Times’s Tamar Lewin) “a patchwork of educational inequities around the country, with no common yardstick to determine whether schoolchildren are learning enough.” Certainly if we take a business model to education, then of course we need to standardize standards across states, to ensure that the product (”every student”) is at the highest possible level (”learns enough”). [You can read the entire report on the DoE website]

But human beings, including young people, are composed of a brain, heart, emotions, intellect, compassion, insight. We are NOT simply conglomerates of metals and plastics like the widgets our companies produce. Every human being and young person is unique: we have different strengths and weaknesses, we learn different things at different rates, some of us are stronger in some areas than other areas. Moreover, the exploding information age is leading to a whole new set of skills and qualities that are important to succeed and lead a fulfilling life, including creativity, independence, innovation, collaboration, and critical thinking.

It is time to end our use and abuse of the business model in education, and instead take up the more humanized framework of Educational Human Rights and that of respecting the individuality of each young person.

Using this Human Rights framework we replace standardization, competition, and authoritarianism with personalization, collaboration, and democracy. This is the present and the future of education.

Posted in Education Policy, Framing and Public Outreach, Research and Reports | No Comments »

Education and Human Rights

Monday, April 30th, 2007

The notion that every child has a right to education may seem so obvious that we actually end up ignoring the deeper ramifications of what this statement means. Simply having a system of public schools is not sufficient.

Several organizations and groups are doing powerful work to frame educational discourse within the context of human rights. Yes! Magazine’s recent issue features an article describing the efforts of the Independent Commission on Public Education (ICOPE) towards whole school reform in New York City based on the human rights of students, parents, and local communities.

The Human Right to Education Program of the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI), which is working with ICOPE on New York City reform, has a wealth of resources available on their website including links to the various international agreements ensuring the right to education. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26 reads:

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

The section in italics is particularly interesting, as the current educational focus on a rigid academic curriculum, standardized testing, disrespectful attitudes to young people, little opportunity for empowerment and self-direction, and a hierarchical governance structure are completely at odds with the rights of young people and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. NESRI provides references to other international documents that provide for the right to education in similar terms, including the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

A recent research report by NESRI entitled Deprived of Dignity shows how middle and high school students in New York City and Los Angeles are mistreated and disrespected, and discusses how a human rights framework can help understand the harm being done to young people as well as provide a framework for changing these practices and creating an education based on human rights.

So what does an education based on human rights look like? Here are the principles NESRI sets out:

Individual Rights: Every individual child must have equal access to a quality education adapted to meet his or her needs.
Aims of education: The aims of education must be directed toward the development of each child’s personality and full potential, preparing children to participate in society and to do work that is rewarding and reasonably remunerative, and to continue learning throughout life.
Dignity: Schools must respect the inherent dignity of every child creating an environment of respect and tolerance in the classroom, preventing practices and disciplinary policies that cause harm or humiliation to children, and promoting self-confidence and self-expression.
Equity: There must be equitable distribution of resources in education across communities according to need.
Non-Discrimination: The government must ensure that the human right to education “will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Participation: Students, parents and communities have the right to participate in decisions that affect their schools and the right to education.

The only suggestion I would make to this excellent list is to draw on the tradition of Democratic Education, which calls for democracy and human rights in education, and add the following:

Self-Determination: Each young person has the right to direct his/her own education and to have a voice regarding all decisions that affect him/her.

Without that last principle, educational settings would violate the basic principle outlined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Posted in Democratic Education, General Education News, NYC Education, Research and Reports | No Comments »