Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10

Fear and Failure in American Public Education 1

Fear and Failure in American Public Education

There is, at present, a pervasive sense of fear and a culture of failure in American public

education. It can be seen on the streets as teachers, students, and parents protest education reform

measures. It can be heard loud and clear in union meetings. It can be felt as tension in staff meetings. It

is especially noticeable during testing time for students and evaluation time for teachers. This intense

sense of fear and failure is palpable, and while often discussed separately as either fear or failure, or

together as fear of failure, the two have not been often discussed as a cyclical phenomenon impacting

students and today’s teachers. It is important first to understand the history of fear and failure in

American education, then to examine its impact on both students and teachers, to assess what is

missing from the research, and finally to begin searching for solutions to this problem.

Fear and Failure

Fear and failure were discussed prior to the 1980s almost exclusively from the student

perspective. John Holt most notably attempted to address student fear in his 1964 book, How Children

Fail, but while there is no set point at which the cultures of fear and failure were created, many

researchers point to the release of a report titled A Nation at Risk in 1983 that seemed to set in motion

the cycle of fear and failure in education today (Au, 2013; Ginsberg & Lyche, 2008; Granger, 2008; Horn,

2003). Put forth by the National Committee on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk “charged

America with ‘committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament’” (Granger, 2011, p.

214). The major contention in this publication was that America was in the midst of an educational crisis

which would set it far behind as a global competitor. America’s public schools were failing, therefore

America was failing. In their article “The Culture of Fear and the Politics of Education,” Rick Ginsberg and

Leif Frederick Lyche make the case that such fear inducing rhetoric was brought about with the purpose

of creating an excuse to put forth political policies in education with the support of the public, or, as

they state, “solutions often search for problems” (Ginsberg & Lyche, 2008, p. 16). While public

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 2

education has always had its downfalls and opponents, and was often blamed for social problems such

as poverty, “Prior to A Nation at Risk, it was rare that perceived educational failings were depicted as a

national crisis, and certainly any notion of educational problems was not used as a political battering

ram for promoting particular educational objectives” (Ginsberg & Lyche, 2008, p. 13). It was with the

release of this report claiming that America was in crisis that fear regarding education began to mount.

Ginsberg and Lyche found, however, that while the general public was not any more concerned about

education, negative media reports significantly increased, paving the way for widely accepted education

reform. Kornhaber and Orfield reported marked increases in reforms after the report’s release:

This report triggered a wave of reforms: 54 state level commissions on education were

created within a year of its publication. Within three years of publication 26 U.S. states

raised graduation requirements and 35 instituted comprehensive education reforms

that revolved around testing and increased course loads for students (as cited by Au,

2013, p. 10).

These initiatives were the precursors to the creation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) introduced

in 2002 under President George W. Bush, which mandated high-stakes standardized testing and tied

that testing to federal funding, school closures, and teacher and administrator job security.

NCLB introduced the idea of the Adequate Yearly Program (AYP), which set requirements as to

what percentage of students needed to be meeting or exceeding standard in order for a school to not be

labeled as “failing.” As explained by Ginsberg and Lynche (2008), if a school does not meet AYP the

measures taken could include:

(a) threatening to close down a failing school, (b) offering parents the option of

transferring their children out of bad schools and into better ones, (c) funding private

schools as alternatives to weak public ones, or (d) creating a new charter school to take

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 3

up the slack. Each of these options uses fear of a particular punishment as the basis for

getting people to behave as the legislation intends (p. 15).

The higher the stakes in high-stakes testing, the greater the fears of students, teachers, administrators,

and parents. NCLB and AYP came equipped with very high stakes and many were upset about it. NCLB

faced immediate backlash from educators, but "In a talk for the Heritage Foundation, former Secretary

of Education Rodney Paige thus tagged those who resist NCLB 'the real enemies of public

schools'…subsequently vilifying the National Education Association as 'a terrorist organization'"

(Granger, 2008, p. 206). It is this “us versus them” mentality and extreme labeling of those in opposition

to the legislation that increased fear among American citizens, both non-educators and educators alike.

Those who were unaware or limitedly aware of the inner workings of education came to view teachers

as the enemy they were portrayed to be, and teachers felt alienated, victimized, and scared for the

future of their career. NCLB was touted to be the savior of American public schools, a way to increase

accountability of the evil educators, and a method to assess and label “failing” schools. Educational

success was supposed to increase across all subgroups of students in all states, yet in 2011, nine years

after the institution of NCLB, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan estimated “more than 80% of all

US public schools will fail to reach their achievement targets in 2012 (Duncan, 2011), and almost every

school in the nation will fail by 2014" (Berliner, 2011, p. 288).

Duncan’s estimation brings the research to one year ago when, as he predicted, many schools

have been labeled as “failing” under NCLB and President Barack Obama’s Race to the Top (RttT)

initiative. The stakes are getting higher in high-stakes testing, as more tests tied to more rigidly

constructed curriculum are being implemented, the achievement gap is widening, rather than

narrowing, for students of different races and abilities, and more teachers are having test scores tied to

their evaluations. The students and teachers in America’s public schools are “failing,” and they’re more

afraid than ever.

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 4

Fear and Failure in American Schools: A Top-Down Analysis

As education, as with much of American society, operates as a top-down model, it is important

to look for the sources of fear and failure starting at the top with reformers, and analyzing their impact

working down to the students at the bottom of it all.

In their article, “Fear, the School Organization, and Teacher Evaluation,” Conley and Glasman

discuss external stakeholders—those outside the education institution—and internal stakeholders—

those within the institution. External stakeholders who are afraid may, “intervene in school

management, perhaps by invoking a sense of crisis and/or assuming control over the school” (Conley &

Glasman, 2008, p. 65). This is precisely the situation that occurred when A Nation at Risk, NCLB, and RttT

exerted their control over the education system. In response, internal stakeholders fear increased. NCLB

brought increased oversight, creating fear for principals, as the threats of political stigmatization,

reassignment, and dismissal increased (Conley & Glasman, 2008, p. 64).

As principals are directly held responsible for so much of what goes on within their schools, the

pressure on them is immense. The most recent reforms of NCLB and RttT have served to put their jobs

at greater risk, should their schools not meet standard, and as a result, many principals have tightened

their control over teachers. In “Fear and Trembling in the American High School: Educational Reform

and Teacher Alienation,” Brooks, Hughes, and Brooks (2008) state their findings that, teachers felt more

powerless the further they strayed from their classrooms and the more secretive and authoritative the

decision making process became. (p. 51). This pressure-created distance between administrators and

teachers creates heightened fear. The “other” is seemingly unknown and professional and personal

relationships are often stilted. This organization of schools can create an environment in which

“teachers’ contact with superiors is likely to be less frequent, intense, and directive,” which served to

increase uncertainty and fear (Conley & Glasman, 2008, p. 67). This discomfort coupled with the

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 5

pressure for efficiency can lead some administrators to evaluate in a stunted, one-shot manner, leaving

teachers feeling uncertain about their abilities.

Teacher evaluations are a source of great tension, anxiety, and fear in current American

education. NCLB and RttT both strive to tie students’ standardized test scores to teacher evaluations and

both label districts, states, or schools that refuse to do so as “failing.” According to Rice and Crininger

(2005) and cited by Conley and Glasman (2008), quite a few fear inducing have been tied to evaluations,

including possible dismissal of teachers, principals, or entire staff, if schools’ test scores are not high

enough (p. 67). This fear of being fired over standardized test scores is very real and present for many

who work in schools. Conley and Glasman (2008) state, “teachers feel comfortable being evaluated only

on areas they feel that they can control” (p. 70). While teachers control much of what happens in their

classroom, accountability measures tied to standardized testing eliminate quite a bit of control, as

curriculum narrows and standardized test scores are often based more on the particular situation of the

students and schools, rather than the quality of the teacher. Students are also under increased stress as

they’ve begun learning that their scores might be tied to their teachers’ evaluations and, therefore, their

jobs. "A robust finding in the extant literature is that higher test anxiety is associated with lower

academic achievement…” (Putwain & Roberts, 2012, p. 358). Students under higher pressure often

perform poorer, creating the exact negative testing outcome they worry so much about.

Antonio, a learning disabled student whose story was published by Leone and Whitson (2013),

was told his test scores would be tied to his teachers’ jobs. This fear appeal, a measure taken by

teachers or administrators who believe fear is an effective motivator for students (Putwain & Roberts,

2012), caused Antonio to react violently in class, as the incredible weight of that responsibility

overwhelmed him and he sought out punishment for what he assumed was poor test performance.

Martin and Marsh (2003) would likely characterize this is failure-avoidant behavior, and possibly self-

handicapping. "Based on a need achievement model of motivation, students can be characterized in

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 6

terms of three typologies: those that are success oriented, those that are failure avoidant, and those

that are failure accepting" (p. 31). Those who are success oriented try for the sake of learning, and

continue striving despite failure. Those who are failure avoidant might self-handicap, intentionally

underperform, or over-strive out of fear. Finally, failure accepting students demonstrate learned

helplessness, and often don’t try at all (Martin & Marsh, 2003). Students are under immense pressure

and their coping methods are often destructive. This is common among teachers and administrators as

well. Corruption occurs in high stakes environments, a result of Campbell’s law which states, “any time a

social indicator takes on too much value (be it a stock price, a nation's debt, a sales report or a test

score), both the indicator and the people who work with that indicator are corrupted” (Campbell, 1975;

Nichols & Berliner, 2007, as cited by Berliner, 2011, p. 289). Antonio reacted violently in this high stakes

environment, some teachers and administrators have been caught cheating or manipulating test scores,

and curriculum has narrowed, limiting the education of students to only what is on the test. The

cheating and manipulation serve to fuel the public’s fears about education. Berliner (2011), however,

worries about curriculum narrowing, as his research showed English and math instruction increases post

NCLB: 47% and 37% respectively. Social studies decreased 32%, Science 33%, P.E. 35%, Recess 28%, Art

and music 35%--these are averages. The decrease in certain subjects is even higher in lower income

schools. This curriculum narrowing deprives students of necessary skills required in the work world, and

essential for character development, putting them, ultimately, at a disadvantage as adults. As Berliner

(2011) also says, this is far more common in disadvantaged areas, perpetuating the “school to prison

pipeline.” Those most commonly affected by these “corruptions” are students who belong to

“subgroups.”

Student subgroups consist of students of color, English Language Learners, and students with

disabilities. These students “fail” more often than their counterparts. In her article, “High-Stakes Testing

and Students: Stopping or Perpetuating a Cycle of Failure,” Horn (2003) discusses the racial and ability

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 7

disparities in high-stakes testing. Her research found that students in subgroups consistently

underachieve compared to their classmates who do not fall into those subgroups. African-Americans

are consistently outscored by their peers, and students with disabilities, even when provided reasonable

accommodations, also consistently underperform (p. 31). This disadvantage for these students applies

immense pressure on them, as well as a distinct disadvantage for teachers whose evaluations are tied to

test scores and administrators whose jobs are dependent on those scores as well. "The more student

subgroups schools have, research shows, the less likely they are to meet AYP, resulting in what has been

dubbed a 'diversity penalty' and giving schools a powerful disincentive for diversifying their student

populations” (Balfanz et al. 2007; Meier and Wood, 2004, as cited by Granger, 2008, p. 219). This

“diversity penalty” deprives many students of the education they need and deserve, and those who

continue to receive an education are under extreme pressure. The pressure applied to students, on

whose shoulders rest, in a high-stakes testing society, the fate of their teachers, administrators, and

schools, is overwhelming. Many students do participate in self-defeating measures and some even

choose to drop out. “When Massachusetts implemented a high-stakes test-based accountability system

in the 1990s, it witnessed a 300% increase in dropouts, and with the implementation of a graduate exit

exam, it saw a 4% decline in graduating students” (Au, 2013, p. 11). These high-stakes tests and

accountability measures lead to a perpetuated cycle of failure for students in subgroups (Horn, 2003) as

well as teachers and administrators.

Success Orientation and Other Solutions

Fear and failure are so imbedded in American education that finding a solution seems daunting,

if not impossible. Martin and Marsh suggest a “success orientation.” This orientation stems from four

core criteria: self-belief, learning focus, value of school, and perceived control. (Martin & Marsh, 2003,

p. 34). Each of these criteria helps build student confidence and a society that values learning and

education over success. "There is a need to explore strategies in the classroom and counseling contexts

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 8

to promote the attractiveness of success orientation. This will require addressing such issues as peer

group influence, family background, and even the school culture" (Martin & Marsh, 2003, p. 36). This

change to an entire culture is also reflected in Conley and Glasman’s research, though they focus on the

school culture and teachers’ experiences. They suggest union participation, collaboration and teamwork,

and more cooperative and thorough teacher evaluations as ways to decrease uncertainty and alienation,

thereby decreasing fear (Conley, & Glasman, 2008, p. 76). What is clear is that to make any sort of

change to stem the fear, there has to be a major shift in the mindset of reformers, educators, students,

and the general populace; the whole education culture must change.

What is Missing

While there is plenty of research surrounding fear theory and failure in schools, certain relevant

and necessary material is still missing. The question of why students fear failure is not answered in peer-

reviewed literature. In 1964 John Holt published the education standard How Children Fail in which he

explains his theory that children fail because they are afraid and most often it is the adults they’re afraid

of. Holt (1964) states that children fail because, “they are afraid, bored, and confused. They are afraid,

above all else, of failing, of disappointing or displeasing the many anxious adults around them, whose

limitless hopes and expectations for them hang over their heads like a cloud” (p. xiii). Despite Holt

publishing an entire book about this theory, there is little academic research to support it. Holt provides

compelling anecdotal evidence in his text, and while his work is respected and well-known, it is not

researched, though it is the major work which explains why children are afraid. Even Holt's work,

however, does not delve deeper than "students are afraid of disappointing adults," but considers that an

explanation, rather than questioning the need for success that motivates both adults and children.

Absent from this paper’s research is fear and failure in education as perceived and felt by parents

and caregivers. This is important work to conduct, as it is often the parents and caregivers who can

create immense change in education but are frequently an afterthought in the process. Much of

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education 9

education is thrust onto the shoulders of teachers, but education first begins at home, and continues at

home when the school day ends. If students’ parents do not get involved, then the possibility for a

school community and cultural shift remains limited.

Finally, the lack of current and up-to-date literature on these topics is surprising. With high-stakes

testing, value-added measures (VAM), and the many recent news reports of threats against teachers,

students, and parents involved in the opt-out movement, there is a clear and growing culture of fear in

American education, yet the current literature to support that is nearly impossible to find. This may be

the most important piece of the puzzle, as it would highlight the current state of American Education,

perhaps leading to more up-to-date solutions. In Craig A. Mertler’s (2014) Action Research, he reminds

the reader of the importance of educators producing research in their field as a way to have a direct

impact, rather than be impacted upon. Current research done by teachers on issues impacting their

classrooms now is the only way for educators themselves to gain ground in the battle over education

reform, thus increasing their sense of control, decreasing feelings of alienation, and thereby reducing

their fears.

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015


Fear and Failure in American Public Education
10

References

Au, W. (2013). Hiding behind high-stakes testing: Meritocracy, objectivity, and inequality in U.S.
education. The International Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 7-19. Retrieved March
14, 2015, from www.iejcomparative.org

Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the
harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287-302. Retrieved March 31, 2015,
from EbscoHost.

Brooks, J., Hughes, R., & Brooks, M. (2008). Fear and trembling in the American high school: Educational
reform and teacher alienation. Educational Policy, 22(1), 45-62. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from
Sage Publishing.

Conley, S., & Glasman, N. (2008). Fear, the school organization, and teacher evaluation. Educational
Policy, 22(1), 63-85. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from Sage Publishing.

Ginsberg, R., & Lyche, L. (2008). The culture of fear and the politics of education. Educational Policy,
22(1), 10-27. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from Sage Publishing.

Granger, D. (2008). No child left behind and the spectacle of failing schools: The mythology of
contemporary school reform. Educational Studies, 43, 206-228. Retrieved March 28, 2015, from
EbscoHost.

Grodsky, E., Warren, J., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in American education. Annual
Review of Sociology, 34, 385-404. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from University of Washington.

Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York, New York: Pitman.

Horn, C. (2003). High-stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating a cycle of failure? Theory
into Practice, 42(1), 30-41. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from Sage Publishing.

Leone, B., & Whitson, S. (2013). Too conscientious: "It's my fault, they are going to fire the teachers"
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 21(4), 55-61. Retrieved March 27, 2015, from EbscoHost.

Martin, A., & Marsh, H. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38(1), 31-38.
Retrieved March 27, 2015, from EbscoHost.

Mertler, C. (2014). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Putwain, D., & Roberts, C. (2012). Fear and efficacy appeals in the classroom: The secondary teachers’
perspective. Educational Psychology, 32(3), 355-372. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from Taylor &
Francis Group.

Sara Derdiger Action Research March 31, 2015

S-ar putea să vă placă și