Follow AAE on:

Subscribe to RSS Feed:

Samuelson: Student Motivation to Blame for Education Woes
posted by: Colin | September 07, 2010, 01:55 PM   

Columnist Robert Samuelson is putting "school reform" on notice. "Few subjects inspire more intellectual dishonesty and political puffery than 'school reform,'" writes Samuelson in yesterday's Washington Post. Why the harsh words for such a popular issue?

The problem is not class size or too few teachers, Samuelson notes, since the number of teachers has increased by 61% since 1970 compared to 8% growth in the number of students and the average class size has been cut in half since 1955. Samuelson also claims teachers are paid well enough and points out that more than half of 3- and 4-year-olds are now in preschool, a five-fold increase since 1965. And yet, the NAEP math and reading tests have been virtually flat-lined since the 1970s.

Samuelson argues that school reform will always fail until the real source of the problem, according to him, is addressed: decreased student motivation. Citing only one relevant statistic, a poll of teachers claiming "student apathy" as their most serious problem, Samuelson lays the blame on the students lack of passion for learning. While teachers may certainly agree that it is a problem, if this apathy does exist, where does this apathy come from? Do students really not make the connection between school and success? Do students show up in the fall each year hoping to be bored and trying to avoid working hard?

Blaming weak student motivation is a cop out. As we learned in the ground-breaking LA Times' teacher effective analysis, good teachers propel their students forward while ineffective teachers hold them back—good teachers motivate, bad teachers do not. And as the writers of that analysis described, Miguel Aguilar, a good teacher, had a classroom was filled with eager young minds. John Smith, down the hall was dealing with discipline problems and a sleepy classroom of unmotivated students. Needless to say, Aguilar's students leap forward each year, while Smith's students languish, year after year.

Is it possible John Smith is getting all of the unmotivated students each fall, and Aguilar the eager ones? And how will John Smith's students perform in the class after his, and next year, will his students carry forward their disappointment in John Smith, compounded with the fact they're now falling behind their peers? John Smith would be nodding his head while he reads Samuelson's article.

This is not to say that all students are motivated. Teachers compete with plenty of distractions when trying to reach their students, but putting all of the blame on the students is as counterproductive as putting it entirely on the teachers.

Read more about the LA Times analysis of teacher effectiveness


How much is student apathy the results of a failing school system?
What role do the parents play?

Comment below.

Comments (0)Add Comment

Submit a comment
 (not published)
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy