Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Mr. Chen's Survey
https://spreadsheets0.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGgwSzNJZmlnX2VJbFRyUEc5Ull0YlE6MQ
Friday, April 2, 2010
Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching gap. New York City: The Free Press.
In The Teaching Gap by James W. Stigler and James Hiebert, the two authors present their findings from a year-long video study in which they examine the various teaching methods of 8th grade math teachers in Germany, Japan, and the United States. The primary rationale for conducting this study was to ascertain the reason as to why American students continue to lag far behind their international peers in math and science. What they ultimately concluded from this study was that the key to improving the U.S. education system lay not in increased funding, recruiting more qualified teachers, or instituting sweeping reforms inspired by the latest educational fad; rather, the it lay in investing more time and resources into improving the act of teaching itself, a factor few educational researchers have identified. In fact, the results of their study appears to be consistent with this assertion.
Firstly, Stigler and Hiebert concluded that while there was quite a bit of homogeneity within each country with regards to teaching methods, there was quite a bit of heterogeneity across the countries. In other words, teachers from the same country generally taught in similar manners that were distinct from those of their international counterparts. Whereas American teachers teach in a “learning terms and practicing procedures” manner in which higher mathematical reasoning skills are not encouraged/ developed, German teachers take a “developing advanced procedures” approach in which the teacher parcels out necessary information as he or she guides his students through a proof of the main idea/ concept. Somewhat similar to this, Japanese teachers follow a more “structured problem solving” method in which the teacher fades into the background and allows students to work together in groups to come up with their own methods for solving problems. In this case, the teacher plays more of an intermediary role rather than the classical all-knowing role. In fact, a clear manifestation of this difference lies in the varying responses confusion conjures up in teachers. Whereas American teachers view confusion as a sign of weakness that must be addressed immediately on the spot, their international counterparts are more likely to welcome and encourage confusion as a part of the overall learning process. Why is it then that the Germans and the Japanese employ more challenging teaching methods that welcome confusion? The authors believe this is due largely to the development of different cultures and attitudes toward teaching in each country.
Moreover, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that the two researchers favor the Japanese approach to teaching for a number of reasons. First of all, while the German style of teaching is higher up on Bloom’s taxonomy than the American style of teaching, the authors note that the scores of German 8th graders were not that much better than their American peers. The reason for this outcome, they speculate, is that the German method of teaching is neither as balanced nor as detailed or complex as that of the Japanese style of teaching. (Having said that, one must note that a number of European nations continue to outperform United States in math and science. It follows then that the instruction methods used to teach these students are fairly similar to the German style of teaching). Secondly, Stigler and Hiebert praise the attention to detail that Japanese teachers place on lesson planning as well as the high degree of collaboration and professional development that occurs among Japanese teachers. While in the U.S., teachers generally shun collaboration and approach professional development sessions strains on their time, Japanese teachers allocate a good amount of time each month to kounaikenshuu, a school-wide/district-wide process in which teachers meet up to work on improving their schools. As a matter of fact, a huge component of this process is called lesson study. Lesson study refers to the time in which a certain group of teachers get together to design and test “research lessons” that are carefully constructed and designed to account for even the minutest factors and details. It is because of this careful planning that the authors believe the Japanese students have experienced so much success in mathematics.
Coupled with this, Stigler and Heibert noticed that the Japanese generally adhere to six principles that have enabled them to continually increase the efficacy of their education system. These include establishing the expectation that improvement will be gradual rather than immediate, making student learning the focal point of teachers, emphasizing quality of teaching over recruitment of quality teachers, making the appropriate improvements for each context, establishing improvement as a norm for teachers, and putting a system in place that promotes on self-learning and self-sustainability. The authors argue that because Americans are so accustomed to living in a culture of instant gratification, fixing the U.S. education system is not as simple as many politicians make it out to be; Accordingly, improvement will not occur unless Americans are able to set aside their naïve fantasies about reforming the education system in one fell swoop and replace them with the six aforementioned principles. At the end of the day though, it all starts with continually reevaluating the process of teaching itself.
While I was already aware that Japanese students have consistently outperformed American students in math and science, I was blown away by Stigler’s and Hiebert’s speculation as to why this was the case. For one thing, while not explicitly mentioned, I was surprised by how little weight the researchers gave programs like Teach for America which are founded on the premise that young, highly qualified teachers can make an immediate impact in the classroom. In fact, they went so far as to disregard the recruitment of younger, more qualified teachers or the retention of experienced teachers as factors that had a direct influence on student achievement. Rather, they argued that because teaching was an occupation that experiences a high rate of turnover, the key to improving the American education system lay in changing the culture of teaching itself through frequent and regular professional development, collaborative lesson study, and a concerted effort to transfer teaching knowledge from one generation of teachers to the next. I was also surprised by the professionalism Japanese teachers brought to their job, specifically in how serious they were in approaching their job. In contrast, U.S. teachers are not afforded nearly the same prestige as their Japanese counterparts. As a result, it has led to a more lackadaisical approach among American teachers when it comes to professional development opportunities. For example, at my school, our training days are few and far between and not nearly as intense or contemplative as Japanese sessions. Moreover, from what I’ve noticed, collaboration among teachers is not something that occurs on a regular basis; when it does occur, it is more on a superficial basis. Finally, I appreciated the way in which Stigler and Hiebert took the time to point out the historical factors that led to the development of our present teaching culture. From what I can tell, John Dewey advocated an educational approach that was more on the lines of the current Japanese learning style than his replacement, Charles Judd. Accordingly, when Dewey was replaced, Charles Judd pushed for a dichotomy between research and education which subsequently led to a general disconnect between educational researchers and educators. This has resulted in the construction and recommendation of policies that do not always reflect the realities of what teachers experience in their classrooms. Overall though, I found this book to be a very interesting read because of the unique perspective it brought to the table. I would highly recommend this resource to anybody who cares about the future of the American education system and is willing to consider alternative options to truly changing it.
In The Teaching Gap by James W. Stigler and James Hiebert, the two authors present their findings from a year-long video study in which they examine the various teaching methods of 8th grade math teachers in Germany, Japan, and the United States. The primary rationale for conducting this study was to ascertain the reason as to why American students continue to lag far behind their international peers in math and science. What they ultimately concluded from this study was that the key to improving the U.S. education system lay not in increased funding, recruiting more qualified teachers, or instituting sweeping reforms inspired by the latest educational fad; rather, the it lay in investing more time and resources into improving the act of teaching itself, a factor few educational researchers have identified. In fact, the results of their study appears to be consistent with this assertion.
Firstly, Stigler and Hiebert concluded that while there was quite a bit of homogeneity within each country with regards to teaching methods, there was quite a bit of heterogeneity across the countries. In other words, teachers from the same country generally taught in similar manners that were distinct from those of their international counterparts. Whereas American teachers teach in a “learning terms and practicing procedures” manner in which higher mathematical reasoning skills are not encouraged/ developed, German teachers take a “developing advanced procedures” approach in which the teacher parcels out necessary information as he or she guides his students through a proof of the main idea/ concept. Somewhat similar to this, Japanese teachers follow a more “structured problem solving” method in which the teacher fades into the background and allows students to work together in groups to come up with their own methods for solving problems. In this case, the teacher plays more of an intermediary role rather than the classical all-knowing role. In fact, a clear manifestation of this difference lies in the varying responses confusion conjures up in teachers. Whereas American teachers view confusion as a sign of weakness that must be addressed immediately on the spot, their international counterparts are more likely to welcome and encourage confusion as a part of the overall learning process. Why is it then that the Germans and the Japanese employ more challenging teaching methods that welcome confusion? The authors believe this is due largely to the development of different cultures and attitudes toward teaching in each country.
Moreover, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that the two researchers favor the Japanese approach to teaching for a number of reasons. First of all, while the German style of teaching is higher up on Bloom’s taxonomy than the American style of teaching, the authors note that the scores of German 8th graders were not that much better than their American peers. The reason for this outcome, they speculate, is that the German method of teaching is neither as balanced nor as detailed or complex as that of the Japanese style of teaching. (Having said that, one must note that a number of European nations continue to outperform United States in math and science. It follows then that the instruction methods used to teach these students are fairly similar to the German style of teaching). Secondly, Stigler and Hiebert praise the attention to detail that Japanese teachers place on lesson planning as well as the high degree of collaboration and professional development that occurs among Japanese teachers. While in the U.S., teachers generally shun collaboration and approach professional development sessions strains on their time, Japanese teachers allocate a good amount of time each month to kounaikenshuu, a school-wide/district-wide process in which teachers meet up to work on improving their schools. As a matter of fact, a huge component of this process is called lesson study. Lesson study refers to the time in which a certain group of teachers get together to design and test “research lessons” that are carefully constructed and designed to account for even the minutest factors and details. It is because of this careful planning that the authors believe the Japanese students have experienced so much success in mathematics.
Coupled with this, Stigler and Heibert noticed that the Japanese generally adhere to six principles that have enabled them to continually increase the efficacy of their education system. These include establishing the expectation that improvement will be gradual rather than immediate, making student learning the focal point of teachers, emphasizing quality of teaching over recruitment of quality teachers, making the appropriate improvements for each context, establishing improvement as a norm for teachers, and putting a system in place that promotes on self-learning and self-sustainability. The authors argue that because Americans are so accustomed to living in a culture of instant gratification, fixing the U.S. education system is not as simple as many politicians make it out to be; Accordingly, improvement will not occur unless Americans are able to set aside their naïve fantasies about reforming the education system in one fell swoop and replace them with the six aforementioned principles. At the end of the day though, it all starts with continually reevaluating the process of teaching itself.
While I was already aware that Japanese students have consistently outperformed American students in math and science, I was blown away by Stigler’s and Hiebert’s speculation as to why this was the case. For one thing, while not explicitly mentioned, I was surprised by how little weight the researchers gave programs like Teach for America which are founded on the premise that young, highly qualified teachers can make an immediate impact in the classroom. In fact, they went so far as to disregard the recruitment of younger, more qualified teachers or the retention of experienced teachers as factors that had a direct influence on student achievement. Rather, they argued that because teaching was an occupation that experiences a high rate of turnover, the key to improving the American education system lay in changing the culture of teaching itself through frequent and regular professional development, collaborative lesson study, and a concerted effort to transfer teaching knowledge from one generation of teachers to the next. I was also surprised by the professionalism Japanese teachers brought to their job, specifically in how serious they were in approaching their job. In contrast, U.S. teachers are not afforded nearly the same prestige as their Japanese counterparts. As a result, it has led to a more lackadaisical approach among American teachers when it comes to professional development opportunities. For example, at my school, our training days are few and far between and not nearly as intense or contemplative as Japanese sessions. Moreover, from what I’ve noticed, collaboration among teachers is not something that occurs on a regular basis; when it does occur, it is more on a superficial basis. Finally, I appreciated the way in which Stigler and Hiebert took the time to point out the historical factors that led to the development of our present teaching culture. From what I can tell, John Dewey advocated an educational approach that was more on the lines of the current Japanese learning style than his replacement, Charles Judd. Accordingly, when Dewey was replaced, Charles Judd pushed for a dichotomy between research and education which subsequently led to a general disconnect between educational researchers and educators. This has resulted in the construction and recommendation of policies that do not always reflect the realities of what teachers experience in their classrooms. Overall though, I found this book to be a very interesting read because of the unique perspective it brought to the table. I would highly recommend this resource to anybody who cares about the future of the American education system and is willing to consider alternative options to truly changing it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
As a teacher, I frequently refer to www.wikipedia.org when I am making my guided notes. This is because sometimes I am not happy with the way that my book chooses to define a certain term or explain a certain concept. Often times, Wikipedia will offer an alternate way of defining the term or explaining a concept. Because Wikipedia is not considered a true academic source in many academic circles, I'll post another online resource just in case. Another online resource I use is www.kutasoftware.com. It has a plethora of free pre-algebra worksheets that are well-formatted and easy to understand/ complete. Every worksheet also comes with an answer key already attached, so you don't have to spend any of your own time making up the key.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Osbourne, Jason. (2001). Testing Stereotype Threat: Does Anxiety Explain Race and Sex Differences in Achievement? Contemporary Education Psychology, 26. 291-310.
This study is about the effect that stereotypes have on test scores, particularly for those students who belong to historically under served minority groups. The same is said to hold true for gender although to a lesser extent. What exactly is this stereotype threat? According to the author of this study, stereotype threat is the knowledge and/or awareness of negative stereotypes by a test-taker belonging to a disadvantaged minority group that greatly affects the way he or she performs on the tests. The author claims that these particular test takers experience more anxiety and thus score lower on tests compared to their white and Asian counterparts because they are aware of the negative expectations that society has for them. What Osbourne is essentially arguing then is that knowledge of these negative stereotypes leads to a negative, self-fulfilling feedback loop that causes those belonging to disadvantaged minority groups to routinely underperform on tests.
While I agree with Osbourne’s findings, I am not sure I am convinced by the solutions he proposes. In fact, he seems to spend more time explaining the findings of his research rather than expounding upon the solutions he offers for fixing the problem. Granted this is a research paper (and therefore Osbourne must be thorough in explaining the process and findings of his studies), I think the solutions he postulates at the end of his paper are rather weak in the sense that they seem like band-aid fixes rather than long term fixes as well as the fact that they need more elaboration. Moreover, I was surprised by what the author failed to talk about. Osbourne failed to talk about the pivotal role of the teacher who, in my opinion, is the first line of defense against stereotype threat. As a teacher, I know that I can have a huge impact in my classroom in terms of training my students to recognize stereotype threat and disregard it. All-in-all though, the role of the teacher is something that the author only glosses over, acknowledging it subtly by suggesting that things like progress and the learning curve should be emphasized. However, I also adopt a very realistic (or jaded) view of the world we live in. The role of the teacher may not be enough. As a teacher, I know that I can create a comfortable and welcoming environment for my 90+ students. When they graduate and go into the real world though, the comfortable, positive safety net I worked so hard to create for them will not be around anymore; rather, they are going to encounter stereotype threat head on. My questions are twofold: how do we educate our kids about stereotype threat with this realistic viewpoint in mind? How do we go about eliminating stereotype threat in the grand scheme of things? It would require an exorbitant amount of change to just about every single societal institution. While this is a bold task indeed, the author should spend some time acknowledging this point in his paper. There are some small yet effective things we can do that could go a long way such as fixing the types of images we portray in the media. Either way solving and remedying stereotype threat deserves more than one paragraph in a research paper about the harmful effects of stereotype threat on underserved minority groups.
This study is about the effect that stereotypes have on test scores, particularly for those students who belong to historically under served minority groups. The same is said to hold true for gender although to a lesser extent. What exactly is this stereotype threat? According to the author of this study, stereotype threat is the knowledge and/or awareness of negative stereotypes by a test-taker belonging to a disadvantaged minority group that greatly affects the way he or she performs on the tests. The author claims that these particular test takers experience more anxiety and thus score lower on tests compared to their white and Asian counterparts because they are aware of the negative expectations that society has for them. What Osbourne is essentially arguing then is that knowledge of these negative stereotypes leads to a negative, self-fulfilling feedback loop that causes those belonging to disadvantaged minority groups to routinely underperform on tests.
While I agree with Osbourne’s findings, I am not sure I am convinced by the solutions he proposes. In fact, he seems to spend more time explaining the findings of his research rather than expounding upon the solutions he offers for fixing the problem. Granted this is a research paper (and therefore Osbourne must be thorough in explaining the process and findings of his studies), I think the solutions he postulates at the end of his paper are rather weak in the sense that they seem like band-aid fixes rather than long term fixes as well as the fact that they need more elaboration. Moreover, I was surprised by what the author failed to talk about. Osbourne failed to talk about the pivotal role of the teacher who, in my opinion, is the first line of defense against stereotype threat. As a teacher, I know that I can have a huge impact in my classroom in terms of training my students to recognize stereotype threat and disregard it. All-in-all though, the role of the teacher is something that the author only glosses over, acknowledging it subtly by suggesting that things like progress and the learning curve should be emphasized. However, I also adopt a very realistic (or jaded) view of the world we live in. The role of the teacher may not be enough. As a teacher, I know that I can create a comfortable and welcoming environment for my 90+ students. When they graduate and go into the real world though, the comfortable, positive safety net I worked so hard to create for them will not be around anymore; rather, they are going to encounter stereotype threat head on. My questions are twofold: how do we educate our kids about stereotype threat with this realistic viewpoint in mind? How do we go about eliminating stereotype threat in the grand scheme of things? It would require an exorbitant amount of change to just about every single societal institution. While this is a bold task indeed, the author should spend some time acknowledging this point in his paper. There are some small yet effective things we can do that could go a long way such as fixing the types of images we portray in the media. Either way solving and remedying stereotype threat deserves more than one paragraph in a research paper about the harmful effects of stereotype threat on underserved minority groups.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Sadker, David. (1999). Gender Equity: Still Knocking at the Classroom Door. Educational Leadership, 56.
When I was writing the citation for this article, I couldn’t help but notice that the author was male. The fact that the author is male raises a number of interesting questions. Firstly, does the author’s gender make a difference in the way this article is received? Or maybe the better question to ask is should the author’s gender matter in the way it is received? In theory, it shouldn’t, but unfortunately in the way that our society’s structured, gender (and the stereotypes associated with it) is one of the first identifying markers we are programmed to look for. I automatically assumed that the author of this article was female. To my surprise (and chagrin for engaging in stereotypical thinking), the author was actually a male. Should I be surprised that the author is a man? I don’t think I should have been, but I was. What does this mean? Is this a reflection of greater society as a whole? Moreover, does the gender of the author lend this article more credibility because he’s a man? It shouldn’t (and I think the author would agree with this assertion too), but it probably does in the minds of many Americans even in this day and age. The words or credentials of a man are weighed difference than that of a woman. This helps explain why women continue to be paid less compared to their male counterparts who hold the same types of jobs.
Why is this? Why is there still a glass ceiling for woman? What I think the author failed to acknowledge in his article was the historical roots of gendered thinking. The reason why certain jobs continue to be dominated completely by females or completely by males is because society (and accordingly employment) was stratified by gender back in the day. Women were pushed to jobs that were considered more acceptable for women to hold such as nursing and teaching. Men, on the other hand, were pushed to jobs that were acceptable for men such as finance, politics, and law. As result of this legacy, certain professions continue to be dominated by all one gender or the other. In fact, the power of these social norms is just incredible. Although there are no legal restrictions or laws, these norms continue to guide the way we think about gender roles with regard to occupations. It is breaking this type of bias that the author makes a central focus of his article.
Finally, it was clear that this article was written from a perspective more to the left than its alleged opponents for which the author calls “ultraconservatives”. While I agree with most of the points the author made in his top ten list, I find some of them a bit questionable. Are single gender classroom in public schools really that harmful? The author doesn’t really discuss why this is in much detail. Since this study was conducted over ten years ago, I wonder if the supposed technology gap that the author talks about continues to exist. From my experience, I have seen girls that are just as tech savvy if not more. Moreover, the author’s assertion that 80% of female students claim they have been sexually harassed is extremely high. My question is how he goes about defining what sexual harassment is. This may explain why the statistic is so high. While I find myself in agreement with the author’s overall argument, I question whether or not some of the assertions he includes in his top ten list are most pressing. With greater elaboration, I would like to see the author’s rationale behind constructing the top ten list in the way that he did.
When I was writing the citation for this article, I couldn’t help but notice that the author was male. The fact that the author is male raises a number of interesting questions. Firstly, does the author’s gender make a difference in the way this article is received? Or maybe the better question to ask is should the author’s gender matter in the way it is received? In theory, it shouldn’t, but unfortunately in the way that our society’s structured, gender (and the stereotypes associated with it) is one of the first identifying markers we are programmed to look for. I automatically assumed that the author of this article was female. To my surprise (and chagrin for engaging in stereotypical thinking), the author was actually a male. Should I be surprised that the author is a man? I don’t think I should have been, but I was. What does this mean? Is this a reflection of greater society as a whole? Moreover, does the gender of the author lend this article more credibility because he’s a man? It shouldn’t (and I think the author would agree with this assertion too), but it probably does in the minds of many Americans even in this day and age. The words or credentials of a man are weighed difference than that of a woman. This helps explain why women continue to be paid less compared to their male counterparts who hold the same types of jobs.
Why is this? Why is there still a glass ceiling for woman? What I think the author failed to acknowledge in his article was the historical roots of gendered thinking. The reason why certain jobs continue to be dominated completely by females or completely by males is because society (and accordingly employment) was stratified by gender back in the day. Women were pushed to jobs that were considered more acceptable for women to hold such as nursing and teaching. Men, on the other hand, were pushed to jobs that were acceptable for men such as finance, politics, and law. As result of this legacy, certain professions continue to be dominated by all one gender or the other. In fact, the power of these social norms is just incredible. Although there are no legal restrictions or laws, these norms continue to guide the way we think about gender roles with regard to occupations. It is breaking this type of bias that the author makes a central focus of his article.
Finally, it was clear that this article was written from a perspective more to the left than its alleged opponents for which the author calls “ultraconservatives”. While I agree with most of the points the author made in his top ten list, I find some of them a bit questionable. Are single gender classroom in public schools really that harmful? The author doesn’t really discuss why this is in much detail. Since this study was conducted over ten years ago, I wonder if the supposed technology gap that the author talks about continues to exist. From my experience, I have seen girls that are just as tech savvy if not more. Moreover, the author’s assertion that 80% of female students claim they have been sexually harassed is extremely high. My question is how he goes about defining what sexual harassment is. This may explain why the statistic is so high. While I find myself in agreement with the author’s overall argument, I question whether or not some of the assertions he includes in his top ten list are most pressing. With greater elaboration, I would like to see the author’s rationale behind constructing the top ten list in the way that he did.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Dobbie, W., and Fyer, R. (2009). Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap? Evidence from a Bold Social Experiment in Harlem. Harvard University. 1-53.
I find the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) to be quite a fascinating and admirable experiment that attempts to lift some our nation’s most disadvantaged minority students out of poverty. In reading this article, I have become convinced that the best way to go about reforming our educational system is to promote both community-based and school-based reform. It is my belief that they go hand-in-hand. Test results also appear to support the mission and aim of the HCZ. Studies have shown that HCZ students typically outperform their white counterparts in New York City by a fairly wide margin. In fact, these results are so incredible that they strongly indicate that the HCZ is a proven and effective way of closing the black-white achievement gap. More importantly, the HCZ serves as a model for educational reform that has the potential to be adopted on the national level. In fact, the Obama administration announced that it plans to implement a 20 Promise Neighborhoods program based off the HCZ model. This program will certainly be worth keeping an eye on.
Having said that, the biggest question I have about this particular initiative (and future initiatives like it) is the amount of input that is required. Putting together something like the HCZ requires quite a bit of money and resources which are not always readily available. There aren’t enough wealthy businessmen around like Geoffrey Canada to bring about the widespread changes that the HCZ model promises. If the federal government were to provide this funding, then my question is whether or not the impact will be far-reaching enough. In other words, will the 20 Promise Neighborhoods program serve a large enough of population of people to warrant investing millions of dollars in taxpayer money in these programs? This is a question that is certainly worth asking. In my opinion, I believe it is worth a shot. With the less-than-stellar state many of our schools are in (particularly those schools in low-income, minority communities), the HCZ is like a lighthouse in the darkness beckoning people to it by its promises of change and hope. If we as a country can truly make this happen, then I believe it will completely reform the way we go about educating our children. Honestly, it’s about time we started doing something different!
I find the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) to be quite a fascinating and admirable experiment that attempts to lift some our nation’s most disadvantaged minority students out of poverty. In reading this article, I have become convinced that the best way to go about reforming our educational system is to promote both community-based and school-based reform. It is my belief that they go hand-in-hand. Test results also appear to support the mission and aim of the HCZ. Studies have shown that HCZ students typically outperform their white counterparts in New York City by a fairly wide margin. In fact, these results are so incredible that they strongly indicate that the HCZ is a proven and effective way of closing the black-white achievement gap. More importantly, the HCZ serves as a model for educational reform that has the potential to be adopted on the national level. In fact, the Obama administration announced that it plans to implement a 20 Promise Neighborhoods program based off the HCZ model. This program will certainly be worth keeping an eye on.
Having said that, the biggest question I have about this particular initiative (and future initiatives like it) is the amount of input that is required. Putting together something like the HCZ requires quite a bit of money and resources which are not always readily available. There aren’t enough wealthy businessmen around like Geoffrey Canada to bring about the widespread changes that the HCZ model promises. If the federal government were to provide this funding, then my question is whether or not the impact will be far-reaching enough. In other words, will the 20 Promise Neighborhoods program serve a large enough of population of people to warrant investing millions of dollars in taxpayer money in these programs? This is a question that is certainly worth asking. In my opinion, I believe it is worth a shot. With the less-than-stellar state many of our schools are in (particularly those schools in low-income, minority communities), the HCZ is like a lighthouse in the darkness beckoning people to it by its promises of change and hope. If we as a country can truly make this happen, then I believe it will completely reform the way we go about educating our children. Honestly, it’s about time we started doing something different!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Gay, Geneva. (2007). The rhetoric and reality of NCLB. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10. 279-293.
“The rhetoric of NCLB is enticing but its realities are frightening (Gay 290).” What I appreciate the most about Gay is the cold, hard-look she gives NCLB. She doesn’t doll or cover anything up. She doesn’t write in such a way so that no one’s feelings will get hurt. She just hands us the conclusions she has arrived at based off the information she has athered. Among the criticisms she includes in this article include the following: NCLB places overburdening demands on teachers that many feel that all they can do is teach to the test, NCLB is a political and economic instrument used to favor some people groups over others, NCLB is not increasing student learning in the way that it was designed to do, NCLB has caused kids to drop out earlier than in the past because of the pressure and stress it gives them, and NCLB isolates rather than helps low-income, students of color despite the fact that it was designed with them in mind. Quite possibly the most profound argument she makes though is that if we continue to follow this law we run the risk of widening the achievement gap instead of closing it.
While I will not go so far as Gay and argue that the NCLB will widen the achievement gap in the long term and lead to an immoral and chaotic society, I do find myself in agreement with most of the points she makes. As a first-year teacher, I have also faced the challenge of teaching to the test. While my curriculum is certainly not scripted, I recognize the fact there is a certain expectation of me to produce the desired test scores from my students. Accordingly, with less days on the school calendar as a result of furloughs and this continuous pressure to ensure my students are performing, I (like many teachers) feel that my creativity as a teacher has been stifled. Furthermore, I found Gay’s analysis of NCLB’s accountability/ enforcement mechanisms particularly enlightening. While there is some merit in holding teacher and students accountable, I wonder if the current system is the most effective way to go about doing so. As it stands the federal government requires the state to police themselves to ensure that they are meeting their standards. This has amounted to a weak hands-off approach which Gay says has led to some unexpected consequences. These consequences have included some states lowering their standards so that they can be in compliance, an increase in dropout rates, an increasing number of low-performing students who are placed in special education classes (so that their scores will not tarnish their schools’ achievement profiles), and the added pressure placed on schools that do not meet standards to make even greater gains despite the fact they lack the funding and support to do so. When such consequences occur, it suggests that something needs to give. I, like Gay, agree that the federal government needs to put its money where its mouth is. Making states police themselves to ensure they are in compliance amounts to a half-hearted, money-saving cop-out. To ensure that NCLB is truly working, the federal government needs to demonstrate its real commitment to education and back it up with funding.
In general, I agree with Gay’s underlying premise that NCLB in its current form is the solution to our country’s educational woes. It either needs to go through some major revisions, or we should go back to the drawing board and start over. While I haven’t quite reached the point of painting it as villainous and cataclysmic which Gay appears to do, I will say that it is severely misguided and certainly will result in more stagnation (if not regression) in the long run.
“The rhetoric of NCLB is enticing but its realities are frightening (Gay 290).” What I appreciate the most about Gay is the cold, hard-look she gives NCLB. She doesn’t doll or cover anything up. She doesn’t write in such a way so that no one’s feelings will get hurt. She just hands us the conclusions she has arrived at based off the information she has athered. Among the criticisms she includes in this article include the following: NCLB places overburdening demands on teachers that many feel that all they can do is teach to the test, NCLB is a political and economic instrument used to favor some people groups over others, NCLB is not increasing student learning in the way that it was designed to do, NCLB has caused kids to drop out earlier than in the past because of the pressure and stress it gives them, and NCLB isolates rather than helps low-income, students of color despite the fact that it was designed with them in mind. Quite possibly the most profound argument she makes though is that if we continue to follow this law we run the risk of widening the achievement gap instead of closing it.
While I will not go so far as Gay and argue that the NCLB will widen the achievement gap in the long term and lead to an immoral and chaotic society, I do find myself in agreement with most of the points she makes. As a first-year teacher, I have also faced the challenge of teaching to the test. While my curriculum is certainly not scripted, I recognize the fact there is a certain expectation of me to produce the desired test scores from my students. Accordingly, with less days on the school calendar as a result of furloughs and this continuous pressure to ensure my students are performing, I (like many teachers) feel that my creativity as a teacher has been stifled. Furthermore, I found Gay’s analysis of NCLB’s accountability/ enforcement mechanisms particularly enlightening. While there is some merit in holding teacher and students accountable, I wonder if the current system is the most effective way to go about doing so. As it stands the federal government requires the state to police themselves to ensure that they are meeting their standards. This has amounted to a weak hands-off approach which Gay says has led to some unexpected consequences. These consequences have included some states lowering their standards so that they can be in compliance, an increase in dropout rates, an increasing number of low-performing students who are placed in special education classes (so that their scores will not tarnish their schools’ achievement profiles), and the added pressure placed on schools that do not meet standards to make even greater gains despite the fact they lack the funding and support to do so. When such consequences occur, it suggests that something needs to give. I, like Gay, agree that the federal government needs to put its money where its mouth is. Making states police themselves to ensure they are in compliance amounts to a half-hearted, money-saving cop-out. To ensure that NCLB is truly working, the federal government needs to demonstrate its real commitment to education and back it up with funding.
In general, I agree with Gay’s underlying premise that NCLB in its current form is the solution to our country’s educational woes. It either needs to go through some major revisions, or we should go back to the drawing board and start over. While I haven’t quite reached the point of painting it as villainous and cataclysmic which Gay appears to do, I will say that it is severely misguided and certainly will result in more stagnation (if not regression) in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
