Reaching a Business/Education Equilibrium.

Problems between educational visionaries and business leaders arise from a lack of meaningful dialogue about accountability, Messrs. Funk and Brown maintain. Accountability is both the key and the lock to the door of school reform. WHAT BUSINESS wants from education is not so different from what educators themselves want when they attempt to transform education. Business wants people who can solve problems, think critically, write and speak effectively, research information, use new technologies, and listen to and understand the concerns of others. These are the very kinds of people that progressive education reformers want to see graduating from the schools. Thus there would seem to be great potential for a partnership between business and education. According to Kenneth Hoyt, People from the private sector have knowledge regarding the nature of the emerging workplace and the kinds of competencies and skills that are required for success. Educators can contribute knowledge regarding how to organize materials for effective instruction, how to relate with pupils in positive ways, and how to help students learn. The sharing of expertise is the bedrock for effective relationships.[1] Despite their complementary knowledge and shared ideals, however, business and education have yet to establish a successful symbiotic relationship. Problems between educational visionaries and business leaders arise from a lack of meaningful dialogue about accountability. Whenever increased funding for education is considered or provided or whenever real educational change is proposed, the private sector immediately demands tangible evidence of an investment well spent. This is a natural and logical expectation. Unfortunately, many people fail to realize that instruction cannot change without changing evaluation. If we continue to rely on a product-oriented, quantitative system of assessment, educational evolution will grind to a halt. In spite of the constant calls by business leaders for imaginative efforts, risk-taking, and breaking the mold, the mere mention of such statistics as test scores from the U. S. and Japan is enough to squelch any venturesome impulses on the part of educators. Standardized testing drives the curriculum. The basic misunderstanding of the relationship between instruction and evaluation is not solely the fault of the business/government establishment. Educators must shoulder a significant share of the blame. How often have educators sat down with business leaders and community-based education advocates and thoroughly explained their positions relating to school change and assessment? How many jump-on-the-bandwagon school reform movements have been met by the higher education positivists rubbing their hands at another lucrative opportunity to develop a new test that can be widely marketed? How many superintendents have lacked the courage to stand before a school board composed primarily of businesspeople and attempt to explain why tests designed for efficiency are rarely appropriate for facilitating growth in children? Business leaders did not develop and adopt standardized tests -- educators did. There is no chance that the dilemma of school transformation and accountability will be resolved without meaningful dialogue between the different constituencies involved in the funding and implementation of educational services. Until progress occurs in this area, it is difficult to imagine how widespread change will occur in American schools. Educators who believe this dilemma exists and who are dedicated to providing better learning environments for children must begin the process of discussing the real impediments to change with business and political leaders. This dialogue could focus on five simple premises that are often misunderstood: 1) children are not products; 2) content and process are not distinct entitles; 3) school flexibility is a two-way street; 4) educational goals are innate and natural; and 5) comparative statistical measures are virtually meaningless. …