reseņas educativas (Spanish)    
resenhas educativas (Portuguese)    

This review has been accessed times since June 19, 2009

Cuban, Larry. (2009). Hugging the Middle: How Teachers Teach in an Era of Testing and Accountability. NY: Teachers College Press Pp. 104         ISBN 978-0-8077-4936-4

Reviewed by Whitney McComis
Stanford University

June 19, 2009

As a follow-up study to How Teachers Taught, Larry Cuban addresses four new questions (over four chapters) about the current state of American schools in Hugging the Middle: How Teachers Teach in an Era of Testing and Accountability. Using a variety of research methods and resources, including qualitative data, teacher surveys, and even yearbook classroom photos, Cuban examines three different school systems: that of Arlington, Virginia; Denver, Colorado; and Oakland, California. “Hugging the Middle” refers to Cuban’s thesis—that today’s teachers largely hug the middle of a continuum ranging from teacher-centered pedagogy to the more progressive student-centered teaching practices. Cuban has been a professor of education at Stanford University, and spent fourteen years in high school classrooms and seven years as a district superintendent. The reader can rest assured that Cuban certainly knows his stuff.

A commitment to the improvement of public education is evident in Cuban’s heartfelt prose, even as he maintains an objective stance throughout the text. He concludes, “Surely, I have my preferences for the kinds of teaching and schooling that honor students’ strengths…While the temptation to make up facts may be strong at times, I am investigating phenomena that have consequences in people’s lives—the policy-to-practice paradox of teachers being both the problem at the solution to an enduring educational crisis” (p. 68).

In Hugging the Middle, Cuban wants to know if teaching practices, student grouping, and classroom furniture arrangements have changed in response to standards-based reform and increased testing and accountability. He is equally concerned with whether or not low-income and minority students receive more teacher-centered instruction during these times (which has been a fairly loud and consistent assumption), since most practitioners agree that student-centered instruction is far more successful at engaging students and motivating them to learn. Cuban goes on to acknowledge that since the early 1990’s, districts have begun investing heavily in technology for classrooms, but questions whether or not teachers and students are reaping the benefits. And finally, he asks whether or not particular pedagogies are correlated to student outcomes. While Cuban addresses these four different questions over the same number of chapters, the central question that acts as the glue for his research is whether or not pedagogy is shifting in response to increasing accountability.

One cannot deny that the questions Cuban asks are important, because they challenge fairly dominant notions that pedagogy is deteriorating as a direct result of mandated standardized testing. One conclusion he draws is especially intriguing—his research demonstrates that low-income and minority students are not automatically subject to boring, traditional, teacher-centered methods. He warns against “unequivocal statements from policymakers, researchers, and practitioners who claim that teaching practices are determined on the basis of race and class” (p. 41). His research effectively disproves the blanket statement that poor and minority kids receive consistently worse pedagogical practices.

While Cuban’s study is interesting, this second question—about whether or not minority and low-income students receive more teacher-centered pedagogy—seems almost irrelevant. After all, what good is the possibility of student-centered pedagogy (in the form of small groups and untraditional seating) in low-income, minority classrooms, when we know that these same students receive teachers with, on average, far fewer years of experience and lesser credentials? (Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 276). Rookies and long-term substitutes are teaching America’s urban poor, so whether or not they seat students in rows or groups, for example, seems insignificant. Cuban’s second question, while popular in this era of accountability, seems to be the wrong one.

It was also troubling to me that the focus of the study was on pedagogy, rather than content. A central assumption from the accountability era is that teachers are “teaching to the test,” or only instructing students on the material that is likely to show up on the state exam. It appears that Cuban focused most of his energy on what is easily measurable—floor plans and student grouping, for example—which may not be the best markers for good teaching. He notes, “…the reader who remains unconvinced may question whether the three markers I used (teacher’s floor plans, their grouping of students, and their use of particular classroom activities) are, indeed, valid proxies for student-and teacher-centered practices. Precisely because these are markers for pedagogical traditions, what I analyzed misses the content of what teachers taught, the classroom climate, teacher beliefs, and student outcomes” (p. 40).

Hugging the Middle addresses another timely concern—are teachers effectively making use of technology that is being provided for their students? Since the mid 1990’s, school districts large and small have been allocating funds to increase the ratio of computers to students, add SMART boards for classrooms, and even provide document cameras for teachers, in recognition that a new global economy requires technology literacy for the next generations of Americans. The question if of interest to Cuban, because the use of classroom technology is considered a kid-friendly, student-centered pedagogical practice. Cuban’s research indicates that the use of technology in classrooms for the purpose of student learning is spotty at best. He smartly remarks, “Teacher and student use of ICT (information and communication technology) at home and in school is widespread in doing assignments, preparing lessons, Internet searches, and email but lags far behind in routine use for classroom instruction” (p. 45), suggesting that districts are wasting their money by investing so heavily in technology as a band-aid for student disengagement.

The writing is clear and free of excessive field-specific language, making the text approachable for those new to education. When jargon is used, he takes the time (like a true teacher) to quickly and succinctly support the reader in his or her understanding. An example is his detailed but concise description of Open Court, which is a curriculum being used in many school districts: “Heavily scripted toward teacher-directed phonics instruction to the whole group, the teachers manual recommends that teachers arrange the classroom furniture into a square where students face one another and organize reading, math, and writing workshop centers for small groups to follow up on earlier instruction—all indicators of student-centeredness” (p. 31). Cuban also consolidates his data into clean, easy to read tables—something sure to be appreciated by practitioners and education majors who squirm at the sight of too many numbers.

Finally, the organization of the text is user-friendly in that each of Cuban’s questions receives its own brief chapter, complete with a summary chapter that serves to tie together the text into a cohesive argument. An Appendix at the end provides the details of the design and methodology of his study. Cuban is refreshing as he points out his research’s flaws and limitations. He simply states, “Truth in advertising demands that I be clear about what this follow-up study does and does not do” (p. 76). Cuban’s forthcoming nature allows the reader to relax criticism and simply learn from what his research provides.

Reference

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (1997) The Right To Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

About the Reviewer

Whitney McComis is a Masters student at the Stanford University School of Education, studying Policy, Organization, and Leadership Studies. She is also a Teach For America alum. Her research interest is in teacher recruitment, training, and retention.

Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

Editors: Gene V Glass, Gustavo Fischman, Melissa Cast-Brede

~ ER home | Reseņas Educativas | Resenhas Educativas ~
~ overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements | search ~