Sunday, January 17, 2016
Assignment
After watching the three videos for week 3, write a blog post of at least 250 words in which you respond to the video by sharing what you learned and any questions, thoughts, or reactions to the information relayed in the video. After you write your post respond to 2 classmates posts. Ensure your response is at least 100 words. I will grade the completion of the assignment at the 5:00 on Jan. 29th (which means this should be completed by the end of class time).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The histories of ANAR, NCLB, and Race to the Top brought forth by the videos continue to reinforce and critique the escapist strategies employed by a largely white, and white serving, governmental structure. If the history of education, combined with a history of America peoples, was ever actually invoked by those with access to it, I believe the reform movement would be a lot more… fruitful.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it is clear the way in which people in non government positions have been assessing their own occupations and the children they take charge of. Overwhelmingly, teachers have tangible needs and plans to make school and classroom specific gains with their students. This is juxtaposed to the flamboyant system wide plans set in place by the federal government.
I don’t think anyone would mind this, “flamboyancy,” if the government stayed to watch the show. If they actually made sure it went off without a hitch. But they have not. Instead, the federal government is imposing upon the education system of this country a terrible joke. By demanding higher standards and performance but not being particularly interested in the gritty details – prior performance history, improvement (or lack thereof) from where students entered the reform policy, classroom climates, classroom resources, city climates, city resources, state climates, etc. – the government is trying to put on a production that will never succeed.
At the end of it all, money seems to be the overarching issue. But not in the way portrayed by a woman in the NCLB video; schools and “special interest” groups are not simply interested in lobbying for more funding because everyone needs more money. Individuals are putting in real work around the country trying to rectify the injustice of America’s history. Instead of turning a blind eye to that history and acting with bureaucratic, highly conservative, surface-level program implementation, equity should be the government’s priority. And that’s expensive. And, at this point, looking at the history, no one should really care because it's the right thing to do.
I agree with Sophen and many of the others' comments made in regards to policy makers not understanding or fully recognizing the way teachers and schools are working. They are using this one measurement tool without necessarily assessing a student fully and progressively. Schools that are not demonstrating to have students with high achievement scores are not actually being supported by the government. The government and policy makers are trying to keep schools accountable for their student performance, but they are not doing any supplemental work to balance out the playing field. The schools doing poorly are schools with low-income, minority students in large class sizes and under resourced classrooms. As Sophen mentioned, the woman in the NCLB video claimed that lobbyists will always ask for more money. But is the money that they are spending really being put in areas where schools need it most? How are they stating that a one school fits all model will work, if these learning communities all look differently?
DeleteInteresting post Sophen!
DeleteYou make a great point about the government’s inability to directly help with issues that schools are currently facing. It seems that the government presents intentions to improve schools but mainly through means such as reform. However, it is unfortunate and a bit contradictory that these reforms actually promote more problems in American education such as high teacher attrition rates.
Funding is definitely a large issue with these educational reforms. It also illustrates the contradictory nature of these educational reforms as mentioned in class. For example, are we truly benefiting all schools that really need help by only providing grants to schools that meet national standards? If schools are not meeting these standards, I think that’s a great indicator that the school needs some help to achieve an optimal performance. Taking funding away from these schools, such as proposed in Race to the Top, can only make matters worse.
I think this post hits on a lot of really good points.
DeleteYour point that governmental structures don't account much for the history of the nation, particularly its uglier moments, when devising these reforms definitely rings true in the context of the Obama presentation. Not much of a subtle or detailed analysis is given in explaining how race and class intersect and work to create the inequalities Race to the Top is meant to address.
The second part of your posts brings me to remember the teacher in the No Child Left Behind documentary who desperately discusses how the state is willing to impose strict regulations, but not to listen to the needs of teachers -- particularly regarding issues of money.
Sophen, I really enjoyed your point about how proponents of educational reforms like ANAR, NCLB, and Race to the Top push for these policies in ignorance—or downright avoidance—of America's historical context. At their core, the system and the reforms currently in place perpetuate the oppression and subordination of people of color to a lesser status. With America’s background in mind, how could we examine educational policy in any other way? Our current educational state, as well as our police, political, and cultural states, convey the dangers of remaining unaware. Confronting the perils of black, Hispanic, and Native-American peoples—particularly their youth—is necessary if we truly want to be a nation of the liberties, democracies, and equalities we preach.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe videos about A Nation at Risk, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top portray a legitimate misunderstanding between politicians and school administrators about education reform. Despite the common goal to improve American schools, politicians and educational leaders have conflicting perspectives and approaches to support American education. For example, in No Child Left Behind, politicians supported more standardized testing in order to establish accountability among teachers and schools. However, teachers and school administrators saw the limitations with standardized testing as unnecessary stressors to students and as inadequate measures of true learning and student improvement.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was watching these videos, I was conflicted about the varying spectrum of opinions and feelings about these education reforms. I was not satisfied with the drastic contrast of politicians supporting these reforms (and getting praise for it) while school administrators and teachers were experiencing more hardships. If the common objective is to improve American schools, shouldn’t there be a way to implement this goal that will benefit both politicians and school administrators? Are politicians truly aware and fully informed about the day to day challenges that students and teachers face at every school in order to make a reform policy that will work for the majority of schools? I also wonder if better communication between educational leaders and politicians can contribute in decreasing the gap of misunderstanding and produce more effective, attainable education reform that improves schools? I imagine that when the federal government makes these educational reforms, they can make better judgments by incorporating more views from school administrators and teachers by seeking input through means such as open forums.
I also think that the contrasting definition of success between politicians and educational leaders is another factor that needs agreement. Although politicians may have a sincere intention to improve standards in American schools, their definition of success in NCLB may not be the only right way to look at achievement. Isn’t it success when a low performing school improves by the end of the year? Although there is mass criticism in the media about failing schools, sources like Diane Ravitch in A Reign of Error provide strong evidence for another perspective that American public schools are actually improving. With these differing outlooks, I am curious about the proper way to define success for American schools.
DeleteThe relationship between the government and school administrators/teachers really is a very interesting dynamic to study. Every time I listen to either side, I am thinking about what the other side would say and feel about the subject. They are such opposing forces, both coming from such a different background and understanding of the educational system. It is also interesting because of the general public’s opinions on the groups- I agree with you that it is hard to watch the politicians implement things that hurt the teachers. People do not trust the government and the government does not trust the educational system unless they have their hand in it. I do think that the government could do some good in the educational system but I am not sure if that will ever happen because of the relationship they are currently in with each other.
I agree with your second paragraph about politicians supporting these reforms without well communicating with teachers and school administrators. By doing so, they failed to incorporate what school administrators have to experience through the change. There definitely should have been more communication between the educational leaders and politicians. Your third point about politicians and educational leaders not being on the same page regarding their views on education also could have been came to a better agreement, and this might have resulted in a better mandate or a policy that positively affects the students, the teachers, and the nation. I hope to see better standards to judge our education one day.
DeleteYour post raises a lot of really fascinating questions. I think the issue comes a bit from the recent hostility that has come about against teachers, as Ravich describes. Working for the benefit of teachers has become separated from working for the benefit of students within the mainstream discourse which creates some of the inconsistencies you point out I think.
DeleteI think your question asking if we could have policies benefitting teachers and politicians leads us to one of the most tragic ironies of the whole reform situation. Politicians think they're acting to benefit the schools and they think so because they are using "data-driven" methods -- the gold standard of reform, apparently. However, as Ravich notes in Reign of Error, many of the reforms were never actually tested and were more or less theorizations regarding how schools would respond and react. This, I think, also contributes to such dissonance.
I agree that it seems like some of the issues in public education reform stem from a fundamental lack of understanding between policy makers and teachers. The relationship between the two has seemed been tumultuous throughout the years because being a teacher is a unique job where your skill set is critically important to society, but you are not paid, treated, respected like it, and you have a large group of people that want to strip away your professional/creative autonomy to top it all off. And the face of that group of people are the politicians that come in and act like they know much about the complexities of a classroom. Both the teachers and politicians serve the public so there clearly needs to be more interdepartmental communication.
DeletePresident Obama mentioned the need for teachers to be heard more but okay and what else? We've heard that before so what's your point? What platform are you giving teachers to speak on? Giving them a survey or something similarly useless is just giving the problem lip service mostly. I know it is a difficult question that I do not even pretend to have the answer to. But then again I am a 21 year old college student, not a policy maker being paid quite well for being tasked with the enormous responsibility of coming up with viable answers to such big questions, so there's that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn his announcement about Race to the Top, President Obama stated that for his reform to produce effective results, there had to be a bottom-up approach, meaning that students, teachers, and schools had to be the ones to put in the arduous work of bringing up the achievement of students for funding. However, I found that claim to be contradictory to how Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind function. These federal laws require that schools and their teachers take on standards for curriculum and federally-mandated standardized testing that take over the classroom. The government and policymakers are overseeing and dictating the classroom through the mandated content and exams. This pushes out local control for a “data-driven” attempt at evaluating student performance thus evaluating teacher performance. However, the irony of NCLB and Race to the Top is that even though their goal is to boost student achievement, they hold the threat of revoking funding to schools that are not meeting adequate yearly progress.
ReplyDeleteThis unjustly pins the blame on teachers and schools that may not have very much to do with the poor achievement of already low-performing student. Other factors, such as the deficits in academically and intellectually stimulating environments and resources in low-income, high-crime households and communities is an obstacle common in American schools. However, we must not forgot which students are our most impoverished—Black and brown kids—who have been systematically oppressed and denied resources given a legacy and active system of racism and racialized classism and capitalism that are large reasons for why they go to severely segregated, under-resourced, and low-performing schools. The privatization of schools and the mandate of federal standards and testing seem to me to be a ill-informed attempt by policymakers and politicians who don’t understand what happens in the trenches of education where many teachers fight every day, despite their constant devaluation, to help the children that are struggling to do their best in a system that is structured in a way that limits, and even blocks, their success.
I agree with many of your statements. When I was listening to the video and reading about the program, it did seem that Obama and his administration were really trying to implement something that would work but everything seemed very paradoxical at the same time. How can something be bottom-up when the emphasis is on federal testing and federal spending. When it comes down to it, the money is the driving force and the money is coming from the federal government, not local schools. I do think that something that can help our poorest neighborhoods in the introduction of charter schools. Right now in our analysis of charter schools, since it is the very beginning of the semester, I am unsure of how I really feel about the situation.
DeleteThe privatization of schools, as Jonathan said, does seem to be ill-informed and understand how the start of the charter school movement in continuing on that same trajectory. As much as attending my charter school helped me catch up and keep up with my affluent white peers, I do not see how creating "new" schools is the solution to this problem. The bureaucracy in public school education is very prevalent so it in some way makes sense to want to leave that behind. But what we can continue to see is there is still that system in place in the charter and private sectors as well. Like Sabrina, I do not fully know if I am on board with the increase in charter schools, but it does seem like if there is an option to attend one versus a public school, many people will likely choose a charter.
DeleteIt surely is saddening to see the achievement gaps not close in after all these attempts to remedy the issue. The white and Asian kids are always standing at the top academically while the students of color always seem to be falling behind. And as you said, to put the blame on the teachers for this very complex issue at hand does definitely feel unjust. One of the goal for Race to the Top was to turn around low performing schools, and I would definitely be very interested to see what the results are so far in terms of that aspect.
Delete“I just can’t handle it….I just can’t handle it” are the saddening words spoken by many third grade children across the country, stressed and unsure if they will pass this year because of governmental impositions in the classroom . One of my biggest points of concern about current educational standards is the change from schools being a place to learn and grow into a place of fear and angst. With pressure starting at the top, in the nation’s capital, and trickling down straight into the classrooms it is no shock that students, teachers, and communities are left in states of great confusion. Who really has the ability to reign in our educational system and figure out a way to represent every student, not just the ones who are represented in these changes but the ones who are left behind. Federal legislation is putting teachers and schools in a bind. Governments are made to govern not teach.
ReplyDeletePutting all money issues aside, a huge point of contention in NCLB was their imposition of standardized testing. The government does this to be able to hold teachers and students accountable for their part of the process. But to what point is this a realistic goal. There is no dispute that everyone has to do their part but how can you expect every student to perform to the same capabilities? After NCLB, Obama’s administration instituted Race to the Top because he wanted our country to be competitive in the global market but we cannot race to the top when a majority of schools cannot reach the starting line. What they do not realize is that these standardized tests do not work for every student, rather they only work for the elite who are already doing well in the American Educational System. There is very little to do when a child who is already three or four grade levels below what they’re being tested for is being tested at the place they’re assumed to be at. I understand that the government wanted to implement something at the lowest level in order to have the greatest affect but I really do not understand how applying something so broad would work in such different communities around the country. NCLB was doing what it could do but there was a major clash between governmental regulations and what is actually happening in the classrooms. It did what it could but left behind many minority students who were not given the extra hand to be at the same starting point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGreat post Sabrina!
DeleteI like how you started off your first paragraph because that quote is an honest reflection of how academics are represented in today’s society. I agree with you that it is disheartening to see how schools have become more stressful than ever. With standards at higher levels than before, it is quite common to see students of all levels stressed. It is also not unusual to hear older generations comment on how they weren’t as stressed when they were in school decades ago. At the end of the day, I think your concern with today’s schools goes back to a great conversation question, “What is the true purpose of education?” Are schools suppose to prepare students for the workforce or are we to develop the skills for students to become inquisitive, life long learners?
I also agree with you statement about the unrealistic expectation of trying to obtain the same performance from all students. Since we are all different people, we are all going to perform differently on exams and thus have different scores. Rather than hitting specific levels of achievement, education reform and policy may need to reconsider their perspective about success. Success can be seen in ways such as improvement in scores rather than just missing the national average.
Yes. I agree in that standardized tests are insufficient to assess student’s ability. As it was indicated in the NCLB video, some students “are very meticulous about their reading and thinking and they can’t finish the test in time”. So I really agree with the teacher in the video and this comment in saying that the standardized testing “shouldn’t be “the” measurement to access the students” (NCLB video).
DeleteI also don’t think it is a realistic goal to expect all the students to perform same capabilities at high standard because everyone comes from a different background. Therefore, the priorities for each student will differ. Their definition of success might not be correlated with school, which explains why some students don’t perform well in school. So making everyone to perform same capabilities doesn’t sound right.
Lastly, I have a feeling that the educational system in the U.S. is focusing on making more people who can work in global market instead of actually educating students to make them as scholars because we are trying to compete in the global market and thrive. So we need to redefine the goals of education. Are we providing education for the sake of trying to make more people to get employed or of getting people to be indulged in the field of academia?
-Dong Yeob Kang-
I agree with Sabrina that the standardized testing does not effectively show students’ ability. The standardized testing, from my perspective, fails to capture students’ imagination and gifted ability. Moreover, I agree that NCLB and Race to the Top’s standardized testing is not working because all students have different starting line. It’s more like giving students the same endpoint but some student starts 100m away from the goal line and other students start 1000m away from the goal line. I understand the government is trying to improve students’ skill and reduce the gab between students. However, government is funding in wrong places. I support that minority students are the one who need more funds and help.
DeleteWatching the A Nation At Risk: 30 Years Later was, in my opinion, the most confusing video to understand because of the differences of opinions many educators, policy makers, and other educational professionals had on this report. I had previously studied A Nation at Risk and its findings, but I found it interesting that while some called it “a challenge to the status quo” and a call to fight a lack of urgency in public education, others called it the beginning of the privatization movement and a “false narrative.” The video talked about how this report highlighted inequity, race and segregation issues before 1983.
ReplyDeleteThe No Child Left Behind video talked about the mandate’s intention of holding schools and teachers accountable for their student’s achievement by using an end of the year test. What I did not agree with was the fact that it was still ignoring issues of equity and poverty within the schools. And one interviewee’s proposal to stop focusing on college and start giving students more vocational practice. In my eyes, I see that as a way to keep certain students, most likely low income minority students, in the same situation they may start off in now. With little support and low expectations for their future. There is a push for schools to fit the needs of the students, but there is a lack of support and acknowledgement of outside factors like community environment, etc.
The grant program of Race to the Top creates competition amongst districts and schools. And although President Obama stated it was no longer about testing, and teaching to the test, there are still assessments and standards that need to be implemented. And it still looks at teacher performance based on student results. In my opinion, there is still a missing piece of equity needed to help failing public schools instead of “transforming” them into other private or charter schools. Although I have been a supporter of charter schools, I do not see them as a solution to address the issues of poverty, race and equity in public education.
I agree that watching the Nation at Risk: 30 Years Later was really confusing to watch. That video entailed so many different views that it was hard to follow what was going on at first, but after the lecture, it made more sense what the professionals were saying.
DeleteYou made a good point about President Obama stating that it will no longer be about testing and teaching to the test, but the reality is that they are working on the standardized test. Schools have to teach around the standardized test after Race to the Top was implemented to get extra funding.
I agree with you in that I think people are ignoring the issues of equity and poverty within schools. Though president Obama have made lots of improvements compared to NCLB, I think that Race to the Top still doesn’t consider the outside factors that come into play.
DeleteWhen I was volunteering and was working with the Clarkston students, it seemed clear that their family wasn’t supporting the children to study. In fact, the family members were encouraging student to get part-time jobs to support the family. Then, the priority for this student becomes earning money instead of studying the books. Then no matter how hard the teacher tries to teach the student, he won’t pay attention in class because he doesn’t consider lectures as valuable. From this student’s perspective, going to school is a huge waste of time considering that he could use those hours to work and earn more money. Therefore, I believe that there are issues that need to be resolved first before blaming the teachers and the school for their bad performance because standardized test scores don’t reflect what is going on in that community. Thus, there needs to be another educational reform that can increase public awareness on the importance of education and can support students when they are in school and outside of school in order to improve American educational system.
-Dong Yeob Kang-
Melissa I can relate to that feeling of confusion you were talking about in regards to a Nation at Risk. It is a video that strongly pulls you in a lot of seemingly conflicting directions. There are so many people of authority doing a good enough job of laying out their views on the topic that it was hard for me to know how to really feel when it was done. That is why I think in that sense it is a very good representation of the limitless range of the inherent subjectivity within learning/education. That limitless subjectivity can make feel feeling with tangible reform an impossible task, but that same subjectivity allows teachers and (people learning about education like us) to follow inject personal selves in the field and really grow to be passionate about it.
DeleteDuring President Obama’s speech on Race to the Top, he emphasizes the phrase “data driven results” by repeating it several times and uses this phrase to announce that Race to the Top is a grant to the schools that show high achieving results. When he refers to data, he uses criteria such as standardized test scores to judge whether the state is ready to do what works for them. Even though I agree with President Obama that results should be measured using data, I find it ironic that the rating of the state is measured using one standardized tests. Each state has such different cultural and socio-economic population that using standardized test across the nation to rate the states’ education does not sound fair. He gives Massachusetts as a state with excelling education and Louisiana as a state that is on the other side of the spectrum. Through Race to the Top “reward,” Massachusetts has a potential to receive more funding by scoring high on standardized tests, but Louisiana will not benefit much from this policy. It is understandable that the goal of this “grant” is to encourage states to provide better education to their students by pushing them, but I do not think it is a realistic way to better the education. Another point that he made that I find to be very ironic is that the Education leaders and the school board are making a collective bargain by working together. What doesn’t make sense to me is that the government does not get the teachers’ input on what they think it would work for the students. It might have been better if there was a way to improve our education after communicating enough with the teachers across the nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that a lot of things that president Obama said sounds pretty ironic. In a way it does kind of feel as if he is repeating the same mistakes made by No Child Left Behind in a way. I also found it kind of confusing that one of the goal of Race to the Top was to turn around low performing schools, but at the same time the goal is to reward the schools that can compete above other schools? The goals of the reform do feel a bit contradictory to each other. Maybe I am just not understanding the whole thing clearly, but I definitely agree that this whole thing does seem a bit ironic.
DeleteRace to the Top not only factors in meeting standards, but also tracks how well states are improving and are rewarded thus. Lower performing states would apply for this grant in order to secure more funding. In terms of test scores, Tennessee has improved significantly as a result of applying for the extra funding. I am not too sure as to whether teachers are teaching more to the test or whether standardized testing is an accurate way to measure improvement. I believe TN has secured partnerships at local, state, and national levels and has improved resources and support systems for teachers and administrators. Also, TN focuses on priorities and setting attainable goals by allocating ample resources to achieve those goals. Race to the Top also stresses STEM education. In a public elementary school in my neighborhood, the elementary school opened a STEM class for 5th graders. There is an application component to the program.
DeleteAs many of the critics of No Child Left Behind have already stated over and over, I feel that imposing a common standard for all students is not a feasible solution to solving the education crisis. There is no silver bullet solution to fixing the problem at hand, and the reform was too idealistic to start with. It was a bit saddening to see that the standards created by No Child Left Behind led to teachers teaching to the test rather than letting them teach how they want. Although I understand that there needs to be some sort of regulation put into place to control the teachers from doing whatever they want, No Child Left Behind was unable to successfully find a good medium for control. With all this being said, I feel like we still need to be critical about what was present to us, and really view it with a grain of salt. It is so easy to blame a legislation for the lack of results, but the legislation was put into place with good intent. I feel that instead of playing the blame game, it's important to learn from it and try to figure out how to make it better as we go.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to president Obama's Race to the Top speech, I feel that president Obama did indeed learn from some of the failures of No Child Left Behind, and wanted to make a good change in his new reform, Race to the Top. All of the things he mentioned were very reasonable and sounded a bit more realistic than what was imposed by No Child Left Behind. Yes, students should be prepared for college and career, and we should test them in a way to make them be prepared for their future. Yes, we need to make decisions based on good data. Yes we do need to turn around low performing schools. I don't know much about how successful Race to the Top has been so far, but I would really like to know how it has worked out so far, as I feel that there is a lot to learn from it. -Chris Oh
I view Race to the Top in a less critical manner compared to the No Child Left Behind legislation. The reason for my optimism in Race to the Top is due to what it accomplished in producing results for the State of Tennessee. As a Tennessee native from Memphis, I saw the upward trajectory of academic achievement in Memphis public schools at elementary and secondary levels around me as a result of Race to the Top. According to TN's report, the state has literally raced to the top and is continuing setting goals. In the 2013 NAEP report, TCAP (yearly TN state benchmark exam starting from 3rd grade until 8th grade), ACT, PLAN (assessment of preparation for college), and EXPLORE (assessment of preparation for college) tests has shown steady progress.
DeleteI agree with Chris in that Race to the top definitely includes more elements other than just 'standardized tests’ compared to No Child Left Behind. As it is shown in the video, President Obama made changes to the policy in that the States get compensated for turning around the lowest achieving schools. Even though the policy for compensation and reward has been adjusted, the points awarded for turning around the lowest achieving schools are very insignificant compared to other elements and that the States could pay minimal attention to this matter. This is evident situation happening now as we discussed in class; the poor & minority communities are still left behind. I believe the structure of the reform has taken its path to a better way, but definitely has to change more so that everyone can get the same learning opportunities.
DeleteI agree on Chris Oh that imposing a common standard for all students is not the perfect solution to solve education crisis. I believe there should be a different standard on every schools or states that would measure the improvement not the comparison with other students who could be superior. I also agree that it is important to improve the policy. Chris mentioned that Obama learn from the failures of NCLB and implanted Race to the Top. However, I personally think that Race to the Top really didn’t improve the students’ achievement because just like the NCLB, more funds goes to the highly achieving student. So, there will be more gab between the educationally well prepared students and the low-achieving students.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSince the report A Nation at Risk by U.S. Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell was published, the U.S. government has been striving to turn the educational systems around. All of the videos, A Nation At Risk: 30 Years Later, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top, deal with the solutions that have been issued in the past 30 years. Even though the main goal was to improve schools in the U.S. so that U.S can thrive “in an economy where knowledge is the most valuable commodity” (Race to the Top video), there has been many misunderstandings and conflicts between the school administrators and government officials.
ReplyDeleteIn the No Child Left Behind video, Reg Weaver, the president of the National Education Association, expresses his discontent by claiming that they need more funding. He mentions about the independent study conducted in the Ohio, which claimed that in addition to the funding that they were getting, the state of Ohio still needed to provide extra 1.4 billion dollars to implement changes in all schools. Furthermore, Shira Rubenstein, a third grade teacher, expressed her dissatisfaction towards using one standardized test to check the ability of the students and teachers. Though they were working towards the same goal of improving the educational system, the tension between politicians and educational leaders rose.
I felt that president Obama tried to resolve these conflicts when he launched the Race to the Top policy in 2009. President Obama said that he will listen to the voices of the teachers instead of solely relying on test scores to judge students’ and teachers’ performances. Furthermore, funds will be given to the schools as a reward for doing a good job. He also mentions about three strategies to turn failing schools: first is to replace the principal and the school staff, second is to invite a great nonprofit to help manage troubled schools, and third strategy is to convert a dropout factory into a successful charter school.
-Dong Yeob Kang- (Continued in the reply section.I wrote too much and I couldn't fit all of this in the Comment box because there was 4096 word limit.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThough this reform sounded more promising, I still think that it has room for more improvements. First of all, I do not believe that these three strategies are enough to turn the failing schools around. When I was teaching at North Druid Hills High school, I was shocked to see one teacher trying to control all 30 kids in the class because I come from a private school where there are only 8 to 10 students in class. The teacher that I was working with was very passionate and I could see that she was trying her best to bring the class together. However, no matter how hard she tried, she could not control all those kids. When she could make the kids sitting in the front row to behave, the kids in the very back would start to misbehave. And this loop went on and on. So it seemed to me that, in most cases, teachers were failing because of lack of resources not because they were not motivated. Thus, it seems more plausible that more funds are needed. However, the Race to the Top funds will only benefit schools that were already doing well. Schools that have been performing poorly will get even worse because they will obtain less funds. Then we can argue that maybe these failing schools can be turned into charter schools. However, charter schools cannot be the solution since, now with everyone competing to get grants, I believe that the charter schools will withhold information. To be specific, once a failing public school becomes a charter school, it will find the best method to teach students, but it will not share this method with other schools because it wants to get more funds. As a result, the other failing public schools around will either stay stagnant or get worse. This will lead to a domino effect causing every public school to be charter schools. Therefore, I do not think that charter schools are the solution. So I thought that we can turn failing schools around by helping the schools that are in needs first by providing more funds to allow smaller classrooms and more resources. Considering that we cannot rely solely on teachers to improve student’s performance, some funds should be provided to increase public awareness in the importance of school and academics in the community that are performing poorly since parents and peers can bolster to improve student’s performance.
DeleteUltimately, I believe that in order to improve the educational system in the U.S., we need to find a mutual ground that the politicians and the school administrators can agree: they need to find how the funds should be distributed and to seek on how to define school’s improvement.
(I wrote too much and I couldn't fit all of this in the Comment box. So it is continued on in this reply section. Thank you)
-Dong Yeob Kang (Jack Kang)-
You make a lot of great points. However, I do not agree with your statement about charter schools not wanting to share their methods if they are producing high performing students. In fact, charter schools are eager to share their results and methods with public schools in hopes of transforming them into charter schools. Charter schools are constantly asking the state to grant them more schools so that they may serve more low-income and minority students (some). Although they are viewed as good and bad, charter schools are providing good resources to low-income and minority students of all grades by implementing different learning methods.
DeleteDong Yeob, thanks for sharing your experience at North Druid Hills!
DeleteI definitely think that class size is a major issue in public schools. Last summer, I worked for the BELL program, whose mission was to combat the achievement gap in students from low-income communities. I worked with kindergartners who, after a full year in public school, could barely read. But, by the end of the five weeks, they were telling me the main idea and making their own inferences about what would happen next in the stories we read together. I think the key with BELL was that there were two instructors, so we were able to split up the children into smaller groups, and also focus on the ones that were having greater trouble. During the school year, teachers do not have the time to go around and check each individual student's progress. At BELL, I could sit with a group of four students and address their concerns individually.
So, I am definitely an advocate of smaller classes. However, I also believe that teachers need better training for when they go into classes with twenty to thirty kids. When we throw our teachers into unorganized environments and tell them they have to do “this, this, and this” and that we expect their students to have learned “this, this, and this,” we are not holding them accountable, but rather, setting them up for failure. Teachers are a key part of the educational system, and they deserve to feel prepared and confident in the roles they play in children’s lives.
What particularly fascinated me was observing the rationale behind each reform. A Nation At Risk made the argument that our failing schools were to undermine the basis of the American economy by stunting the workforce due to under qualified graduates. This report played on many anxieties related to the Cold War. If American hegemony slid, Communists countries would be in the position to expand their power more aggressively -- or so the wisdom went.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Cold War has ended, the logics it produced and the assumptions generated in its time have carried with us to the present. One fantastic example can be seen in Obama's address detailing Race to the Top. Obama makes it very clear that our nation's future economic security is heavily contingent on a well-educated workforce to keep our economy going. While the Soviets have been traded out for China and India, the underlying premise remains that America must educate competitively to work competitively.
The assumption that education is key to national security isn't the only assumption made here. With it carries the notion that schools serve the sole function of manufacturing proper workers to sustain the economy. Even Obama says, as he lists the skills that schools must foster, that a proper education breeds entrepreneurship. Many, including Ravich, would dispute this interpretation of the role of schools. Schools also serve to educate students to become better citizens (a civic function of schools) and more virtuous individuals (a moral function of schools).
This assumption is troubling not because it indicates every student will only learn how to enter the workforce, but due to precisely the opposite claim. While some students actualize their passions and talents, many students within public education are led to solely think about work. These abstract terms do no justice either -- the divide here is often racial and class-based.
Let's circle back to No Child Left Behind. While the documentary doesn't explicitly cover this securitized fear, the fear is implicit in many of the comments made. One moment stands out, however, where a man named Paul Houston discusses how schools have a natural separative function. He articulates that not every person can become manager and that, in the nature of today's economy, many will have to enter more subservient positions. Specifically, he cites that the fastest growing sector of the economy is the service industry. Schools then are tasked with finding and developing talents where they lie and facing the reality otherwise that not every child is 'fit' to become the boss.
Houston cites this comment as a descriptive rather than prescriptive claim but still many problems lie within his remarks. Aside from the fact that it is empirically wrong (children nationwide are essentially at a similar level upon entering their first year of school), the claims here do not adequately reach the nature of these issues regarding education and work force.
By referring loosely to "some children" here and there, Houston can ignore how these issues aren't incidental and are rather part of a more systemic issue. White, affluent children are more likely to both be told their ambitions are feasible and then given the resources to actualize them. Anyone outside these categories, maybe not so much (depending on the field too, gender does play an immensely important role). On a more meta-level, white, affluent schools are able to stick to their old curriculums more faithfully through reforms due to their traditionally higher performance on tests while more underprivileged schools often in desperation will be forced to experiment with new curriculums. Many of these curriculums center on getting kids into the workforce, fueling the service industry with the already underserved (Jonathan Kozol's Shame of the Nation talks about this at length).
Thus, these arguments and rationale become crucially important for understanding how reforms are structured and how inequality plays out under these reforms.
This was really great, Griffin. I tend not to remember the general world history facts that our narrative come from so I really appreciated your Cold War reference/reminder. Really, it reinforces what a "white washed" project American education is. "With it carries the notion that schools serve the sole function of manufacturing proper workers to sustain the economy." This quote was wonderful and so was the argument that followed. We socialize kids into manipulated adults and the locus of education gets extremely murky. Lastly, I was so happy to see your analysis of the language. Language is particularly interesting to me as I believe we let a lot of information slip through cracks because we are only, loosely, listening to each other.
DeleteThe three videos each emphasized the importance of education in relation to a country’s economic growth and stability. These three videos especially highlighted the importance of education in American society as there is some correlation between quality of education and the economy of a nation. A Nation at Risk depicted that the U.S. education system is lagging behind in math and science. I do agree that the U.S. teaches math and science at a slower path compared to some Asian countries, but there is no clear-cut criteria for the quality of education. In America, education is a right and requires every child to attend school whereas in other countries elementary and secondary education is considered a privilege, not a right. However, it is also important to note that despite the slower progress in STEM education in the United States, the U.S. curriculum often provides more room for student exploration and creativity compared to Chinese schools, specifically.
ReplyDeleteThe NCLB video offered great insights from educational leaders on the implementation of NCLB and its effect on the public schooling system. The main goals of NCLB is to raise state standards and uphold high expectations for all students. However, the video’s focus turned from a more nuanced way of viewing this piece of legislation to emphasizing the adverse effects of NCLB. Indeed, one main flaw of NCLB is that it does not measure progress, but only measures the end result. It is integral to factor in the different starting points of students. I believe that although NCLB contains flaws and does not completely solve the inequities and inequalities in education, it did make progress to an extent. In fact, after NCLB’s enactment, more students with disabilities are obtaining a standard high school diploma, more minorities are graduating with diplomas, and there is some increase in reading comprehension and math skills. However, these gains go unmentioned in the video.
As I learned more about the context behind A Nation at Risk, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top, I want to propose a more efficient way of allocating money to the poorest schools since they need the money the most compared to other more affluent schools. Maybe instead of property tax to fund, there could be a better way? Also, I want to know if there is a way to attract highly trained/qualified teachers to the poorest schools and get paid well as an incentive.
You make a lot of great points.
DeleteI especially agree with your first paragraph. In the US education system, there is definitely much more room for student exploration in comparison to other countries’ curriculum. This makes me think of Diane Ravitch's question on why we place such a huge emphasis on comparing our nation’s test results with other countries. Afterall, isn’t the US the leader in innovation?
As for your last question on ways to attract highly qualified teachers to teach in low income neighborhoods, there is a way. In fact, a lot of charter schools are collaborating with organizations such as Teach for America, in order to get smart-fresh-out-of college teachers their way. In addition, these schools also offer benefits such as health insurance, higher pay, quick promotions, and they promise to always hear their concerns.
I agree with your point about many Asian countries moving forward faster in STEM education in early ages compared to that of America. On the other hand, again just like you mentioned, other unprivileged students can't even go to schools, creating a huge education gap. This is widely seen in Korea as well, and I am positive it is the same with many other developing Asian countries.
DeleteIt was interesting to read your comment about NCLB because even though this reform failed to meet the goals of some people, but yet there are numerous amount of people who benefited from it. I agree that the video portrays mostly the negatives of NCLB. However, RTTT came out and has included elements that was missing in NCLB and I would hope that the next reform would continue to move towards allowing every student to have an equal education.
The overview and history of the education reforms that was brought to light by the videos were more entertaining and comical than insightful. I commend President Obama for his speech on Race to the Top because he seemed to be the closest to hitting the nail on the head when it comes to the issue of the achievement gap, especially amongst minorities in low-income schools. His focus seemed to be grounded in our students need a common set of standards and assessments and I definitely agree. The progress of students and teachers alike should not be judged by test results, and students need thoughtful assessments that judge their scope of basic knowledge, skills, problem solving, and creativity. As promising as it may sound to the audiences listening over the televisions, radios, and youtube channels – Obama’s Race To the Top still did not breach the true root of the problem when it comes to achievement in our nation’s schools.
ReplyDeleteHis proposed reform, in my opinion, is light-years ahead of the fallacies Reagan spewed at his A Nation at Risk address and much better than George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind. I’m not saying that President Obama’s remedy to the nations education problems was totally outlandish, but his Race To the Top definitely proves that there is an undeniable misunderstanding between politicians and administration about what our schools really need. George W. Bush attempted to fix the achievement gap by increasing the federal involvement in holding schools accountable and responsible for academic progress. But how exactly were the federal powers being held accountable and responsible for their duties. Was the law ever update or reauthorized by Congress or the federal powers that be? Were low-performing students actually taking advantage of the free tutoring or transfer options proposed in the reform? And, last but not least, is placing more emphasis on math & reading as well as standardized tests really going to deliver us from the academic dumps? Of course not!
Just like Reagan, Bush attempted to propose what he believed the nation needed to become internationally competitive yet again, but that is not going to come from increased standardized tests or even an increase in charter schools. I honestly don’t have an answer or recommendation as to how we can remedy the problem, but like President Obama said we have to start from the bottom and work our way up. We have to start in the low-income and low-performing urban districts in order to bridge the gap between our nations oppressed/minority population, which predominately seems to be any person of color.
I also agree with Obama's bottom-up approach to education reform. However, shifting more focus to supporting communities that have historically been neglected can only be effective if the reforms aim for justice in light of the American government’s criminal history. Setting a national standard that privileges those who are closer to surpassing it from the time they are born is ineffective and unjust. These surface-level solutions fail to address the rampant inequality in U.S. schools, instead zeroing in on a narrow, centrist curriculum and standardized testing as the ultimate solutions. Schools alone cannot change society. These reforms are distracting from the root of the issues.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA common theme of criticism for reforms like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top is that they institute rewards for reform, but do not offer the adequate means to implement the reforms themselves. In the NCLB documentary film, president of the National Education Association Reg Weaver coins the phrase “reform without resources.” He brings up a key case study: Ohio.
ReplyDelete“They did their own study. And through their own study, it was determined that if in fact NCLB was going to be implemented to its entirety in the state of Ohio, the state would have to pay an additional 1.4 billion dollars,” Weaver states.
As a born-and-raised Ohioan the report given by the state piqued my interest. 1.4 BILLION dollars? To institute a reform supposed to bring prosperity to American schools, deemed a savior by the Bush administration…we have to pay? If I am the governor or house representative or whoever makes decisions for Ohio, I am asking myself is it really worth it even to attempt to reach the standards of NCLB.
Directly after this statement, Krista Kafer of The Heritage Foundation states that lobbyists never come to Washington saying “we have enough money.” In her eyes, they never have enough. And in a way, I agree with her. The money given to states and their school districts will never be enough, considering the money does not go to where it is needed but instead to where it is “earned.” And schools with large class sizes, inexperienced staff, and minimal funding do not have a chance. Those in desperate need of finances receive the least. If anything is failing, it is not our schools, but our government and its competition-based policy reform.
This tradition of alarming the nation and calling for widespread upheaval of our educational system begins with A Nation at Risk, and both NCLB and Race to Top perpetuate it. They clamor for innovation in education, and yet, they do not provide the accurate resources to achieve the goals they set, especially in urban, under-resourced districts. The proponents of these policies cling to the idea that they are holding teachers and principals and counselors “accountable.” But, what is accountability worth if within the next decade we have no schools—particularly in the communities which need them the most—left to hold accountable?
But, what is accountability worth if within the next decade we have no schools—particularly in the communities which need them the most—left to hold accountable?
DeleteThis was such a heavy question and I really identify with it. Even scarier to consider are the charter schools run by corporations, and other hidden characters, that are “taking over.” Although charter schools can be, quickly, closed too, its very intimidating to think that the education system will soon blatantly not belong to the people anymore. Privitization will see a new and unique type of neo-slavery induction. And not slavery tailored towards Black peoples alone, but one that will probably effectively trap the entire country under the thumb of the economy in a way that even slavery did not. Which is crazy because the answer to everything in this country is slavery lol.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe three videos highlighted both the positive and negative aspects in the American education system.
ReplyDeleteWhen watching President Obama speak about his Race to the Top program, I realized the intention of the program is similar to what No Child Left Behind wanted to achieve. Both programs wanted to promote higher student standards, close the achievement/opportunity gap, and hold schools accountable for providing a quality education to its students. Although the intentions behind the programs were good, the radical change in the US education system is not one that I agree with.
There is not and will never be “one kind of student.” There is no “one-size-fits-all” formula that schools can adopt to teach and serve all of its students. Afterall, there are multiple types of intelligence according to education theorists. What both Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind promoted, was teaching to the test (regardless of President Obama saying not to do this), competition among schools and states, the creation of new curriculums, and changing school faculty. This also meant that teachers would be limited to what they could teach their students. Thus, eliminating creativity from the classrooms.
A lot of people in the videos kept mentioning that although standardized testing is a way to “measure progress and intelligence,” it is certainly not the only way to do so. This got me wondering about alternative methods to hold all schools, students, and teachers accountable for progress and intelligence in the US. Besides testing, I can’t really think of other ways to assess student achievement at a national level. In my high school, we rarely took tests because we believe that testing will not help us acquire the skills demanded from our generation in order to thrive in today’s world. However, because of this philosophy, it was hard to track student progress. So I still wonder, what are other ways to measure progress at a national level?
I agree with you when you spoke on how there is no one kind of student and therefore there is no one standard that will fit all students. In addition, I think it is sad that we can not think of other ways of assessing growth. Tests are useful for seeing if the child knows how to apply the material that they have learned. However, because children learn differently it only makes sense that they apply differently. They probably apply differently because their encoding process is unique for them. Maybe tests are not the issue, just how we use the tests.I don't know. This would be a great question to pose to the entire class though. Without tests, what do we do?
DeleteA Nation at Risk is a report that US education is failing to educate their students compared to other nations. However, this is definitely not true. From my perspective, US education has the better system compared to the other nations’ which are known as ‘more achieved’. For example, in Korea, we are trying to adapt US education system by letting students to choose what subjects they want to take. Moreover, many parents choose their kids to go study abroad because Korea’s education system is not efficient. So, Nation at Risk? I don’t think so.
ReplyDeleteWhen I played the video of the No Child Left Behind, I became very emotional. The elementary students read their feeling about their upcoming test of filling bubble. It was very depressing that students are forced to take the test, which does not properly capture the students’ abilities. I don’t think the standardized testing is bad but the government should not punish the schools by their students’ grade on the test. The score is compared between every student that does no consider students’ background or financial problem. In the video, a person mentioned that their students’ scores go to the military. Seriously, what is the connection between military and K-12 education? I really think NCLB will result in decrease of imagination of students because the teachers are forced to prepare their students for the test.
The Obama’s new educational policy ‘Race to the Top’ sounds good from his speech. However, for reality, I believe I don’t see it is a good policy because it forces the common standard. This hurts students’ imagination and potentials to learn what they want. They are forced to prepare for the test. Also, giving more funding to the top states seems weird because academically weak students are the one who really needs help and it requires more funding. I think this policy would be a lot better if the policy changes little bit. The academically successful state competes with other states just like them. The academically unsuccessful state competes with other states just like them. I mean it would be better if there are different pool level of education.
I really like what you said in your last paragraph. I had never thought of it in that way, but I think that that is a great idea for those starting at the same to compete against each other. I still don't know if I agree with competition is the solution in general, but if it is to be used that makes the most sense. I would love to hear like what you think should be the deciding factors on what is considered "academically successful" or "academically unsuccessful". I also agree that students' imaginations are affected, but also the teachers' imaginations as well. It is a dictatorship of what and how they can teach. The rules are made by people who will probably never meet their students or know their stories.
DeleteI honestly do not follow politics particularly closely. While I do have my reasons for that, I know it can leave me at a knowledge deficit on topics that are really important to me. Education is one of those important topics to me, but because I don’t follow politics closely I really could not even tell you the type of educational rhetoric and ideas that President Obama typically communicates in his conference or interviews. So for me, in many ways watching the President Obama conference for this assignment was the most eye opening video amongst the three.
ReplyDeleteFrom the language and concepts that he chose to keep coming back to you can draw some conclusions about his broader views on education. The most concerning view he seemed to share was regarding the role of the federal government in cultivating more acceptable social conditions in the environments/neighborhoods that our poor and black/brown children try to develop in. He acknowledged that certain chronically under performing schools would require extra effort to see positive growth. He recognized that these children grow up in very challenging environments. Then he followed that up by immediately shifting the responsibility of addressing that specific issue to outside of Washington. The communities themselves need to come up with creative solutions, the teachers need to go that extra mile, and he even explicitly said change comes from the bottom up.
By themselves none of those statements are inflammatory or concerning (and there’s some truth in all of them individually) but when taken together in this context it means a lot. First there is the irony of an elected official who made his campaign buzzword “change” using that statement about change coming from the so casually once he was actually elected. On top of that, we know how important social conditions and life outcomes are when it comes to learning. Communities do need to take a proactive role in addressing issues like this, but when it comes to education the core of the issue is not that teachers need to try more or communities to do better. The core of the issue is that we’re still trying the force feed the remnants of an educational system that L.I.T.E.R.A.L.L.Y was not made for the needs of black or brown students. And then they wonder why we’re not doing well comparatively. And then they stereotype and label us as unintelligent and unmotivated as students which leads to lower level tracking and more discrimination and etc. And then they freak out and doing a bunch of counterproductive ridiculous things (see a Nation at Risk and the hysteria that followed) because America refuses to honestly confront its racist roots and current reality. Race to the Top is not change. It’s a re-shuffling of the deck and I wish there were strong enough words to describe how tired am I of that.
Hello!
DeleteAll was nicely stated! The first thing I noticed about the ANAR video was that the only non-Caucasian was Michelle Rhee. One gentleman talked about how for so long education reform was focused on equity, race and desegregation and that educational excellence was kind of put of to the side. He believes that now we have to focus on academics. It is as if equity, race and segregation are no longer issues and more attention should go to academics. I believe that focusing on such issues is what is going to help America move forward. Non-Caucasian students are the ones that struggle the most. Therefore, the focus should be on meeting the needs of these kids! America is trying to forget about these big problems, but they are belittling the same problems that are affecting educational achievement the most! I am right with you Dante.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA Risk at Nation put everyone in ‘alarm’ mode to consider education more seriously and introduced the idea of standardized testing. No Child Left Behind set a bar for every school to maintain in order to get properly funded by imposing standardized tests. The government thought by having standardized tests and reward program (the funding) would motivate schools to do their best and raise the level of education. But achieving such level of education is a two way street between the teachers and students that they need to be in line with each other. The rich communities didn’t have a problem meeting these standards because they weren’t below the set level beforehand. It was the poor and minority communities that had major problems and setback to begin with, but in fact NCLB caused their education level to decrease even further by cutting the ‘already not enough fund’. The poor students had problem focusing on education due to their environments and NCLB caused the teachers to be unmotivated by reducing funds each and every year. Politicians failed to realize the discrepancies that already existed and did not make a proper provisions to account that.
ReplyDeleteIn the video “President Obama Race to the Top”, the president states the positives of this reform and how this will enhance the schools, States, and furthermore America as a nation. This reform, unlike the NCLB, doesn’t measure success based just on the standardized test and include many other emphasis such as how the States turnaround the lowest achieving schools. I believe RTTT made a lot of progress from NCLB because this reform definitely include broader elements than just tests. However, we learned in class that this reform showed the same problem; the poor and minorities are still getting left behind. I think the problem is still imminent because the portion of ‘how the states turnaround the lowest achieving schools’ is only one tenth of the total points awarded by this reform and I believe the States are emphasizing more on other elements that have more weight and criteria points.
“We should not have to be this nervous so young.” In the introduction of the No Child Left Behind documentary, a young New York public school student may have just made the wisest statement out of all three of the videos that we watched. A simple statement, not “data-driven”, but It captures my opinion on the videos that just took up the past two hours of my life to watch. Videos full of adults eloquently bragging about how their solution is the best for children that they have transformed into the form of numbers, statistics, and good PR moves to introduce them at speeches. Please don't get me wrong, I love President Obama. However, I have to admit that was a good emotional touch.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the main issue that I have with the videos was the avoidance of the real task at hand. The problem is not that teachers and parents do not care about or do not know how to close achievement gaps. There are students who personally improve every year, but still fail to meet the new standards set for all children. The real beast our education system is battling is the opportunity gap widened before children even enter the classroom. Poverty and racial minority groups were mentioned, but they weren't delved into how they should have been. Perhaps poor Latino and Black children can not see the “path to success” because of the roadblocks that have been set just because of their race or because of how much their parents make. Since all of the videos loved data so much, perhaps they should have spent more time discussing the correlation between socioeconomic status, race, and academic performance. If this were done, it would be made more evident that with all of the odds against poor and minority children, improvement should be the standard.
Standards should ironically not be standardized. They should be more personal, therefore, the real expert is the government's favorite culprit: the teachers. They know the student they received in the fall and the student leaving their classroom. They know better than anyone if that child has become the best version of theirself. Also, for one child the government could have come up with a new fancy slogan for their definition of what it means to be “smart” when they were in elementary school, that changed when they went to middle School, and was revised again for high school. Comparing the United States to other country's economy and educational system, comparison of states’ educational achievements, comparing children against each other is not the answer. Education is about each child having more knowledge today than they did yesterday. We consider where they’ve come from, measure their growth, and thank the parents and teachers for helping them reach a new top.
I remember when high stakes testing was introduced in the early 2000s. It drastically increased anxiety and diminished self-worth in a lot of students. I still can't understand the logic behind using scantrons tests to determine a students' knowledge of subjects. No Child Left Behind was a lazy reform at best: a prime example of the federal government shifting blame onto teachers. I especially agree with this excerpt from your post: "There are students who personally improve every year, but still fail to meet the new standards set for all children. The real beast our education system is battling is the opportunity gap widened before children even enter the classroom."
DeleteAll three videos "A Nation at Risk", "No Child Left Behind" and "Race to the Top" touch on the critical issues of public education in the United States. A Nation at Risk, like the name suggests, explains that American public education is failing because our test scores are lower than other countries and many Americans are illiterate even though America is considered to be one of the "leaders" in this world.
ReplyDeleteSo how do we fix this? The two other videos of No Child Left Behind and, Race to the Top attempts to put our nation back together. No Child Left Behind utilizes standardized testing in order to assess achievement and the biggest criticisms it suffers is that we are teaching kids to test not to learn. A teacher in the video says, “I feel like I am producing children who are exactly the same quality and that is unfair to the children and unfair to the people who are trying to help children” and I couldn’t agree more.
In the Race to the Top Video, Obama states “In a world where countries that out-educate us today will outcompete us tomorrow, the future belongs to the nation that best educates its people” but he hopes to educate Americans better by giving schools standardized tests and essentially make schools compete with each other for federal funding. However, I believe this system wrongfully justifies a system where we reward those who are already wealthy and doing well and ignore or even punish those schools that are poor and not doing well. It excuses us from helping those who need help the most. We need to acknowledge how unfair this system this is because we all know that these states did not start off on the same line. States are in fact racing to the top but without starting at the same starting line. If something is not done to level out the starting point of these schools, race to the top is not going to help public education to the extent of this nation’s hopes. With no child left behind combined with Race to the top, the underperforming schools seem to be caught deeper in poverty.
The A Nation at Risk report and responses to it underscore the largely reactive nature of U.S. education reform. A closer look at its historical context proves how entangled U.S. education and foreign relations are. Published in 1983, the most dangerous year of the Cold War, A Nation at Risk is the cry of a federal government that has been more engaged in an international power struggle than domestic affairs - much less educating its youth. The report emphasizes improved instruction in science and math, investing in technical skills and advancing technology, all of which are viewed as gateways to global dominance. Marking the beginning of a new focus on achievement and results, it entirely neglects the systemic inequality so deeply rooted in the U.S. This country does not live up to its promise as a land of opportunity, especially as those most likely to attend failing schools are economically disadvantaged and minority students. A Nation at Risk focuses on the achievement gap, entirely ignoring the opportunity gap, and assumes that raising the bar for everyone is the answer to the failing American school system. The American school system did not improve as a result. Years later, in 2001, President Bush signed No Child Left Behind into law - essentially expanding upon the mistakes of his predecessors - introducing high stakes standardized testing which led to more anxiety than academic success. It measured adequate yearly progress, holding all students to the same timeline. Again, this is unrealistic and unfair, especially considering the history of this country.
ReplyDeleteI was a bit overwhelmed by watching these videos. I feel like the more in depth I learn about the past reforms, the more confused I am by them. I understand that NCLB and Race to the Top are reform movements that were a response to ANAR. Coming into this, I am not a big fan of either of these reforms. I also understand that ANAR only had one actual teacher in the committee of about 15+ people. That is a huge problem to me. But then I hear Obama talk about Race to the Top, and it just sounds somewhat more appealing than disgusting to me. The fact that it is a competition grosses me out, but he made it sound feasible. So I stand shaken, and certainly divided. The last portion of the ANAR video, where educator experts talked about their hopes and dreams for education. I smiled with the idea of our K-12 public schools being more like higher education in that the schools are more autonomous and a broad range of choices are embraced. I smiled when they said decision making should make its way out of Washington and into the hands of the state, local and even schools, that which knows exactly what their students need. I smiled when Obama talked about making the pathway to “success” more visible to the children by nonprofits and businesses investing in the schools of their communities or of the communities that are struggling the most. This to me brings community into the family that a school should be. But yet, I cringe when I hear about competition, and tests, and desks, and limited freedom, and benchmarks. Therefore, I am very interested in learning more about charter schools, of which I have heard great things and not-so-great things. Charter schools seem to be the answer. But why then are there caps? Who made these caps?
ReplyDelete