Join the conversation

You could add low expectations for:

standards -- the draft "common core," at least in English (well, reading, writing, etc...) is clearly inferior in a side to side comparison with the standards of Texas, Mass., Indiana, etc., not to mention other countries. If anyone would like to try to refute that, I'd love to see what they'd come up with.

discipline -- many of the most high-flying gap-closing charters have clear, strict and consistent disciplinary policies, yet there is little discussion (let alone implementation) of how this can be brought to a wider range of schools.

Heck, I could keep this up all day...

Tom why do you think the common Core standards are worse than other states and countries? They're getting good reviews. As for discipline it's up to regular public schools to create better discipline programs, so I don't see why that's a problem with the reformers.

How about low expectations for kids inasmuch as no one really expects them to think, struggle, strive, try, or challenge themselves?

I had a student tell me today, for example, that he had trouble with last night's homework.

"Miss Eyre, I had a problem with last night's homework."

"Okay, well, I'll take a look at it and see how I can help you."

"Well, I didn't write anything down."

What this student means is that he either (a) forgot or (b) didn't try. How can I help this student if he doesn't even *try* work that is supposed to give him a (gentle, appropriate) challenge? The work was explained in class, I offered examples, and then the students had to try it on their own for homework. But there are too many students who are unwilling to try, even when it is made explicitly clear that an assignment is being graded on effort and not perfection.

The problem with the phrase “high expectations” is that it can mean two very different things: high standards and high hopes. Compare “We suspended him because he did not meet our high expectations regarding behavior.” with “Incoming 9th graders had high test scores, so we have high expectations for the test scores in 9th grade algebra.” It is simply more precise and helpful to replace “high expectations” with better language. I have stopped using it altogether and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

Great post and comments. I've really enjoyed reading this blog over the past few weeks.

I want to echo what Tim said about using more precise language. I avoid using the words "high expectations" in my classroom/correspondence unless it is used in conjunction with something very specific and attainable. I worry that the term has become another kind of hollow ed-buzz word. We want our lesson objectives and procedures to be crystal clear and measurable. So should the same be with out expectations...for our kids, policymakers (totally agree!!!), parents, etc.

Miss Eyre--Perhaps those who speak of high expectations should speak of student engagement or motivation in the same breath. You're unlikely to get the one without the other. Often, people blame unengaged students on unengaging teachers, but that strikes me as unfair in many cases. Worse, they blame discipline problems on uninspiring instruction--another half truth. Tom strikes me as right when he implies that few reformers even touch the critical discipline issue.

Tim, I agree that the phrase "high expectations" is terribly vague--all the more perfect for PR purposes, because you don't have to be held accountable for the rhetoric. And at least in Washington, we're all guilty of taking refuge in such phrases.

RPOA--welcome, and thanks for the nice note. I look forward to exploring your blog. And you're quite right. Buzz words obscure more than they reveal.

I think we'll look back at this period as the worst time in the history of American education. Not only are we failing to educate many of our poor and minority students, but we're pulling down the vast majority of students who have traditionally received an excellent education from our public schools. Also, to my knowledge it's the first time we're allowing our entrepreneurs to get their hands on taxpayer money without any oversight. As the nuns used to say, "It's time for prayer."

Huzzah! A great post. Tim--well observed as well. It's an easy phrase for politicians without any real meaning--much like "all children can learn." Obviously, since 100 years ago Pavlov taught us that dogs can learn. So do they mean that "this stuff is so easy that no matter what else is going on in life, you should be able to master this in nine months"? Or do they mean that "our teachers are so talented that they can get everyone to highest heights, no matter the obstacles"? I may actually vote for a politician with the courage to utter one of those phrases. Until then, I guess I just have to admit that I'm forced to suffer the soft bigotry of low expectations toward what passes for "leaders" nowadays.

Thanks, Linda and Nick. 

One of the reasons why I'm dismayed by the undisciplined use of the phrase is that the idea is really so important. For years, we made our low expectations for certain students explicit--we even enforced them. As you note, Linda, we failed to educate many poor students and students of color--and so many still end up so ill served.

The fact that we even speak about high expectations for all students represents at least some progress. But now we have ot be more honest about what we mean--though I doubt politicians will ever be able to say what they mean, NIck. But if we're willing to be honest about our tradeoffs, perhaps the phrase would regain its power. If we say, for example, that we have to focus on reading and math first before we go into any richer curriculum, then we should acknowledge that circumstances or resources are limiting our expectations.

But, geez, let's have at least have an explicit and inspiring long-term vision for what poor children should know and be able to do when they leave school. Let's not pretend that basic skills represent high expectations..

Huzzah! A great post. Tim--well observed as well. It's an easy phrase for politicians without any real meaning--much like "all children can learn." Obviously, since 100 years ago Pavlov taught us that dogs can learn. So do they mean that "this stuff is so easy that no matter what else is going on in life, you should be able to master this in nine months"? Or do they mean that "our teachers are so talented that they can get everyone to highest heights, no matter the obstacles"? I may actually vote for a politician with the courage to utter one of those phrases. Until then, I guess I just have to admit that I'm forced to suffer the soft bigotry of low expectations toward what passes for "leaders" nowadays..