buzzing words and catchy phrases.

In the early and mid 2000s, the "achievement gap" was the main focus of education reform. This phrase, commonly used to describe the differential outcomes between students of different racial groups, has since saturated the market and served as a rallying cry for reformers on both sides of the ideological aisle. On the surface, this seems like an appropriate place to focus energies (and monies), but dig a little deeper and the phrase becomes more than a little problematic.

The W. Bush administration created the term "achievement gap" around the time that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was being pitched to the public. While data has shown a significant skills gap for decades (forever, really), up until this administration came to power, the issue was framed as an equity gap rather than an achievement gap. Indeed, one of my professors often points out that there is evidence that the W. Bush administration doctored pre-2000 documents to reflect this new language. (When I find the article, I'll link it!) Now this may not seem like an issue since the terms are describing the same phenomenon, it is more then just semantics. Here's why...

The concepts of 'achievement' and 'equity' are very different, and are thus tackled differently. The equity camp focuses on addressing the issues that cause the differential gains of students, such as more funding and resources for the low income areas that tend to educate the majority of students of color. The belief is that the problem can be solved with inputs, meaning things should be put into the school and community to (hopefully) fix them. The word achievement, however, focuses the mind more on the school: What is the school doing wrong so that this gap both exists and persists? Interventions, then, are more output based, meaning things are taken away from the school until it is fixed. Under NCLB, for example, schools were punished for not improving by the withdrawal of funding, the removal of electives in order to focus on "basic skills", and, eventually, the closure of the school.

See the difference? Same problem. Different words. Different solutions. But at lease we knew what was being discussed.

Right now, the Obama administration's educational buzzwords are "college and career ready." As part of Race to the Top (the reformed-yet-still-broken version of NCLB), it is the responsibility of schools to graduate students who are ready to either go to college or enter a career. Again, as we saw above, the concept seems rather obvious... and commonsense. How can I, a former high school guidance counselor, be arguing against this?? Here's how...

As a general goal, it is fine. As a mandate that is to be used as a marker for a successful school, it is rather problematic. And, given the vague political language of the official explanation, the phrase "college and career ready" begs quite a few questions. What type of college? Community? Four-year? Technical? Should students be prepared for any specific majors? (STEM is the push right now, but do humanities get credit, too?) If a student is prepared for college upon graduation but can't pay for it, does that still count as ready? And then the career piece... What careers should students be prepared to enter? Will a school be penalized for the lack of employment opportunities that face diploma-only applicants? How can schools achieve these goals in the limited curriculum allowed by high-stakes testing? Is this really education?

(I could go on, but I'm sure you get it.)

My point with this post is this: Words aren't just words. We all need to get in the habit of questioning these buzzwords and catchphrases, and do the work of understanding the meaning behind them. Education is far more politicized than most people realize, and no decisions are made without some sort of ideology driving them. Buzzwords and catchphrases are constructed with the sole purpose of being blindly digestible, and it is about time that we read the ingredients of what we are being fed.