Why I Despise Student Learning Outcomes
by Jen Hurley
At the English department meeting on Friday morning, I felt the old tug of despair, the feeling of being pushed under, of drowning. What we talked about did not matter, but the way we talked about it, using the language of points, mattered a great deal. If I call the current education system a toxic culture, what I mean is that it reinforces the notion of teachers as powerless and unimportant, except for in our role as gatekeepers. It especially reinforces the notion of students as powerless and unimportant, except for those who glorify our methods by conforming perfectly.
The system achieves this by elevating bureaucratic ideas of education as the rule of law — and by consistently rewarding teachers and students who fall in line. In this sphere, teachers must adhere to the idea that “teaching” primarily involves ensuring that students demonstrate “student learning outcomes.” Under such a system, teachers must punish students who do not conform appropriately to the learning outcomes by way of withholding points, points being the only currency in education.
On the face, student learning outcomes may seem like reasonable requirements meant to protect students from bad teachers, like the teacher I had for high school Spanish, who napped in a Lazy Boy while students listened to tape recordings of Don Quixote. Student learning outcomes may seem to ensure more learning, thus benefitting the students as well as the institution’s integrity. In theory, such outcomes give teachers a concrete, easy-to-follow road map for our lessons.
In practice, these learning outcomes do far more damage than good. They “measure learning” with the same degree of accuracy as a cardiogram measures love. Outcomes keep teachers and students in defensive mode, teachers poised throw a flag and students either hyper-vigilant or disengaged. The “smart” students understand that education is merely a game of trading conformist behavior for points. “Smart” teachers use points to coerce students to do “what’s good them,” a way of forcefully stuffing broccoli down an unwilling child’s throat and defending the practice as healthy.
In such a system, students are not allowed an individual experience of learning. They must instead, “get with the program” and mold themselves into an idealized view of a student, one who “studies” how to get points and then performs to collect those points. In my field of English Composition, students are allowed to have opinions as long as they are framed as “arguments” and supported by evidence that the teacher deems to be credible. Having an opinion that cannot be supported by the authority’s sanctioned sources is disallowed, and such ignorance must be punished by way of lost points. Students who don’t hold a firm opinion or who may hold multiple, paradoxical opinions at the same time are punished as well, so that students know that uncertainty, empathy, and reconsideration are weak. Teachers, too, are weak if they feel for their students and or make judgments based on emotion. Such a system would come down hard on me for passing a student who did not live up to the student learning outcomes, even if that student clearly exhibited a true passion for learning. This happened to me recently at the Elmwood Jail, where I teach college composition. I berated myself for being a “bad teacher” for passing a student whose knowledge of English was quite limited. The reason I passed him, if I’m being honest, is because I saw a light in his eyes during class, and my heart could not bear to disappoint him.
To read the rest of this article, please visit my Substack here.
