Foundations Am Ed- with Dr. King

Critical Reflection: Parental Involvement

2008-07-31T13:30:00.001-04:00

Imagine your inbox and voicemail full of messages from concerned parents, wanting to know how their child is doing in your class. Imagine your room overflowing with parents on the night of parent/teacher conferences. Imagine parents calling you to volunteer for field trips and help in the classroom. Now, imagine that all of this drove you crazy. For many of us teaching in public schools in New York City, this would require a great stretch of the imagination, but for many teachers in suburban school districts this is a somewhat dreaded reality. While teachers appreciate the effort, they can also feel overwhelmed. Joyce L. Epstein of Johns Hopkins University writes, “In affluent areas, parents know they should be more involved, but absent good guidance and a plan, they try to do too much” (as cited in Keller, 2008). The solution to their problem is simple: they must set boundaries and establish protocol for communication. But what is the solution to the opposite problem we face as NYC teachers?

At my school in the Bronx, I’ve often heard teachers and administrators lament the lack of parental concern for and involvement with their child’s education. I’ve felt similarly: why are the parents of my best students the ones who come to parent/teacher conferences? This sad fact only reinforces in my mind that supportive, involved parents lead to successful students. But is it fair to place the blame on parents while concluding that they don’t care? Certainly not. We must acknowledge the circumstances affecting parents. Seitsinger et al identified several factors that influence “parental motivation” for involvement such as, “their belief that they should be involved and that such involvement will positively effect their child's learning, life contexts allow for involvement, and responses to outreach efforts from teachers and schools” (Seitsinger et al, p.477, 2007). As educators, we may not have power over parents’ “life contexts”, but we certainly have power over our own efforts. Through our effort we can try to shape the first factor of parents’ belief, letting parents know how important we believe their commitment to their child’s education is.

A high percentage of our population of students comes from immigrant families. Therefore, New York City educators have additional challenges to overcome in communication with parents, including different languages as well as different cultural expectations. Birman et al points out that instead of assuming immigrant parents are disinterested, educators must recognize that parents may simply be unaware how much they are expected to be involved: “many immigrant parents come from societies where decisions are made solely by schools and they may stay away from contact with schools out of respect and deference for school authorities […] or due to lack of knowledge about how and when it is appropriate to contact the school (Birman et al, 2007). In this way, our problem aligns with affluent school districts’ problem; parents need to be informed of the parameters of parental involvement. Therefore, before we hold parents to a high standard of involvement, we must first explicitly let them know what our expectations are.

One important consideration in communicating with immigrant parents is to not let the burden of translator fall to the child (Birman et al, 2007). Birman et al discuss how the role of the child as “cultural broker” can not only be stressful for the child, but also take away from the parents’ authority (Birman et al, 2007). While this awkward arrangement can be prevented through translators, this resource is not always a reality at our schools. Administrators need to recognize that in emphasizing parent/teacher communication, they must provide the resources for the process to be done effectively with all parties’ needs met.

It is not fair to complain about parental involvement without a school doing as much as it can to inform and involve parents. In particular, teachers need to make the effort of communicating with parents in order to get the results they desire. Seitsinger et al say, “the data suggests that the declines in parental engagement often seen as students move up through the grades is neither inevitable nor fully a function of developmental issues or parental declining interests” (Seitsinger et al, p.504, 2008). Perhaps, then, the problem is that parents are contacted less frequently as their children get older. Seitsinger’s study found that the more often teachers reached out to parents in the later grades the greater academic improvement resulted in students (Seitsinger et al, 2008). It is clear that middle and secondary teachers need to make more of an effort to get parents involved. Of course, it is easier for the elementary teacher, perhaps responsible for 30 students the whole year, to have extensive contact with parents. For high school teachers the number is upward of 150 students. Seitsinger’s solution of “teams of teachers and students, usually about 100–120 students or less shared by 4–5 teachers” would help to alleviate the burden placed on one teacher, but it relies on administrators and scheduling to work—in other words circumstances outside of the teacher’s control (Seitsinger et al, p. 504, 2008).

How can teachers effectively increase their communication with parents without feeling overwhelmed? Technology is one probable answer. By setting up a class blog, teachers can share news, assignment schedules, and announcements with parents and students. A blog or website allows you to “speak” with many parents at once, while also giving families a forum to communicate. The blog could share suggestions for at-home complements to in-school learning. Even for personal, student-specific messages, an email instead of the standard phone call home may be a better option. This format allows both parties more freedom to carefully phrase their communication, and reply in their own time frame. This also allows for more translation options where language differences are a problem. In addition, a teacher’s effective use of an online gradebook, to which parents and students have access, would show parents clearly and immediately when their child’s grades are slipping.

I recognize that there are challenges to involving parents, but it is unfair and unproductive to place the burden and blame on parents alone. We should hold parents to high expectations of involvement, the same way that we hold our students to high academic expectations. But just as we can’t hold students to high expectations without working hard to support their effort, we can’t hold parents to high expectations without working hard to reach them. Just as we can’t test students on material we haven’t taught, we can’t have expectations for parents that we haven’t communicated.

References

Birman, D., Weinstein, T., Chan, W. Y., & Beehler, S. (2007) Immigrant youth in U.S. schools: Opportunities for prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 14(4), 14-17.

Keller, B. (2008). Schools seek to channel parental involvement. Education Week, 27(31), 1-17.

Seitsinger, A. M., Feiner, R. D., Brand, S., & Burns, R. (2008). A large-scale examination of the nature and efficacy of teachers’ practices to engage students: Assessment, parental contact, and student-level impact. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 477-505.

Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education

2008-07-31T08:08:00.002-04:00

The historic case of Brown v. Board of Education is radical in the sense that its legal basis is slim; the conditions surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment made it such that it was limited in scope, and therefore, the amendment had to be—interpreted differently—to accommodate a growing intolerance for discrimination. Chief Justice Warren did not have the means to construct a strictly legal argument, but created an argument nonetheless because he, too, saw the violent consequences of injustice (Schultz, 2001, p. 235). If only Justice Antonin Scalia and other strict “originalists” would come to recognize the necessity of altering the constitution in response to social progress, for it is clear that the original intention of the 14th Amendment certainly did not have the freedom of African-Americans in mind.

During the time of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens and education for both black and white children looked nothing like it does today—white children were not mandated to attend school and, in many states, black children were barred from education. If Warren judged the case in light of the history and the likely limited intention of the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education would not stand today. The fact that “Brown v. Board of Education was justified in part on psychological and sociological grounds” highlights the inherent inequality of the law, and provides a needed reminder that America was founded and shaped for the sole advancement of the white race (Schultz, 2001, p. 235).

Brown v. Board of Education was only the beginning of an arduous attempt to develop a desegregated America. Although The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed the federal government to remove funding for schools and sue school districts that did not comply with Brown, by 1992, when the Topeka district was reassessed, “the court concluded that the district had done little to fulfill the duty to desegregate that was first imposed on it in 1954” (Johnson et al., 2008, p.196). If the landmark case represented a negligent school district, what can be expected of other, less scrutinized school districts? Decades later, after much legislation and protest, many black children still do not receive an equal education.

The legacy of “Separate but equal” continues to segregate children by race and class, and it does more work to maintain the status quo than the Bush administration has done to “help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools” (Bush in Bazelon, 2008). According to the No Child Left Behind Act, the Bush Administration’s poor attempt to close the achievement gap, students may transfer to schools of their choice, schools that may be less segregated, but only if space is available. Most schools are overwhelmed with a growing student body, and therefore NCLB does little to affect change of this capacity (Bazelon, 2008).

Another equally pervasive obstacle to desegregation is the current trend of tracking students by ability. Often it is minority students who are placed in low tracks. These students may be perceived as less able than their white counterparts as a result of test scores, grades, or behavior. Sometimes it is a single test score that dictates a student’s track. If minority students have been denied equal education—a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum, qualified and caring teachers, a familiarity with state exams—then it makes sense that these students would score poorly on high stakes tests. Without time to catch up and without an inclusive model in which students of all backgrounds learn together, minority students will continue to face the legacy of separate and unequal education in America.

Futrell and Gomez (2008) argue that students are well aware of the differences in instruction and access to college preparatory curriculum for students who are placed in a low track. Students of color from a high school in Virginia, who were placed in this track, reported that they were not allowed to take Advanced Placement exams. Many students confirmed the fact that tracking also resulted in the separation of students along racial lines. Students’ awareness of this indirect form of discrimination may contribute to low-self esteem and a sense of inferiority—the very fear Warren had voiced in his Brown v. Board of Education opinion (Warren in Schultz, 2008). It is clear that there is much work to be done in order to legitimately quell this fear, and much more much work to be done to provide all children a diverse and challenging learning environment.

Affirmative action, a hotly debated policy, seeks to provide greater opportunity for minority students. Some claim that affirmative action results in “reverse discrimination” against majority students, creating a climate that values race over merit. Minorities, too, rally against it, asserting that they do not need assistance or a quota to ensure their academic success. In 1996, California citizens voted for Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibits the use of racial and gender “preferences” to determine workforce or college eligibility (Johnson et. al., 2008, p. 198) It is interesting to note that while the issue of affirmative action is yet to be settled in all states, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the use of race to assign students to K-12 schools—it is now considered unconstitutional to consider the race of individual students as the sole factor (Bazelon, 2008). It seems that race should be one of many factors used to determine higher education admissions and K-12 assignments.

For primary and secondary students, socioeconomic standing has been proven to be a critical variable, even more so than race, in the desegregation of schools and the creation of equitable learning environments. It was Justice Anthony Kennedy’s language that allowed for school-district lawyers to consider race, not of individual students but of zoning areas, among other factors such as socioeconomic standing and parental education. If current research is indeed correct, the use of a “class-plus-race formula” may one day fulfill the promise of Brown v. Board of Education (Bazelon, 2008).

But it seems unlikely that minority students who come from underprivileged areas and attend ‘desegregated’ schools, in which they are tracked on the lowest level, will see an increase in their test scores, or more importantly, will feel as equals in an academic environment. According to my colleagues at Fordham University, many high school students prefer to take vocational classes and enjoy the success they experience within this environment. In our attempt to ‘assign’ our students to a school or a classroom that is inherently equal, have we stopped listening to their needs and their experiences? Perhaps we have interpreted equality as always a measure of sameness. All students deserve to learn within a community that values difference, because a community that blinds itself to difference is blind to the most subtle and unintentional forms of discrimination.

References

Bazelon, E. (2008). The next kind of integration. The New York Times. Retrieved July 29,
2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20integration-t.html?

r=1&ref=education&oref=slogin

Futrell, M. & Gomez, J. (2008). How tracking creates a poverty of learning. Educational
leadership, 65 (8), 74-80.

Johnson, J. Musial, D. Hall, G., Golnick, D., and Dupuis, V. (2008). Foundations of
American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson.

Schultz, Fred. (Ed.) (2001). Notable selections in education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.

Ethics and Law- Teacher-student relationships – how to make right decisions

2008-07-30T16:29:00.000-04:00

“The quality of teacher–student relationships is the keystone for all other aspects of classroom management (Marzano & Marzano, 2008).” The boundaries of New York State Teacher-student relationships are guided by the six principles defined by the New State Broad of Education. These are:
· “Educators nurture the intellectual, physical, emotional, social, and civic potential of each student.”
· “Educators create, support, and maintain challenging learning environments for all.”
· “Educators commit to their own learning in order to develop their practice.”
· “Educators collaborate with colleagues and other professionals in the interest of student learning.”
· “Educators collaborate with parents and community, building trust and respecting confidentiality.”
· “Educators advance the intellectual and ethical foundation of the learning community.” (New York State Education Department, 2007)
Learner-Centered largely on a good teacher-student relationships and is essential to the success of our students and ultimately the growth of America; Learner-Centered theory has been repeatedly argued and often encouraged as an effective method of teaching.
However, increasing concerns about teachers' ethics and teachers’ relationships with students have become more of an issue today than ever in the past. With today’s media, a seemingly inappropriate act that would have been overlooked or dealt with by the local community, will quickly become a global issue thanks to the internet, especially via utube. Our profession is held under a discerning microscope both nationally and internationally. The manner in which we teachers conduct ourselves not only reflects on us as individuals, but any negative behavior on our part will tarnish the respect that the profession naturally deserves.
Robbie McClintock, an intellectual historian, claims that teachers have now become mere casual agents in implementing the education production goal. Teachers now have little influence in the process, and in the decision making on behalf of their students. This continues to become the preference of the state and federal government as teachers continue to blur the lines between themselves and students. How do we, as newcomers, change this perception? After all, it is a contradiction to our whole being as a profession. Teachers have historically been perceived as a great positive influence on society’s growth. Without us teachers, the circle of progress will simply collapse. So, how can we, in such a vital link, be perceived as mere agents?
Numerous legislation continues to be passed in support of student-teacher relationships. For example, in 2007, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved a bill that would bar teachers, coaches and other educators from having sexual contact with any students (Forrest, 2007). A 2003 Texas law declared that teachers who have sex with their students would be charged with a felony, and stipulated that a conviction might lead to a prison term for up to 20 years (NBC, 2006). Now that states have stepped in to define student-teacher boundaries, to stop this downward spiral, we need to communicate with and to emulate older and successful teachers. We need to continue to educate ourselves on the ethical expectations held by society, as well as to simply follow the rules and guidelines of our principals and our school districts.
Having sexual relationships with our students violates the law and societal moral codes. The respect that the teaching profession desires and deserves requires us to respect this boundary. Regardless of a teacher’s age, if this moral boundary cannot be understood and upheld, then that individual should not be in the classroom, leading tomorrow’s leaders. Statistics are clear that sex abuse is a “Shadow over U.S. Schools” (Irvine & Tanner, 2007). Sexual misconduct between teachers and students is at an all-time high.
We must hold ourselves to the highest moral and ethical standards, so that we are above and beyond reproach. Ethics are created for us to foster a unique student-teacher relationship while respecting each other’s space. Unfortunately circumstances, events and transgressions have occurred that have led to legislation stepping in, making it a criminal offence for teachers or professional youth workers to have a sexual relationship with their students. It is extremely disturbing that teachers, as the leaders of tomorrow’s brightest, need to be taught or reminded what should be seen as common sense. Teaching should be a highly respected profession as it depends on a broad range of reasoning skills and intellectual abilities which should obviously cover morality.

Reference
Iowa State University. (1996, September). Expert on sexual harassment policies to speak at Oct. 5 meeting of Iowa AAUP. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from ISU Chapter Newsletter : http://www.public.iastate.edu/~aaup/newslisu/sept96.htm
Forrest, B. (2007, Jone 12). Pro-Creationist Bill Approved by Louisiana House . Retrieved July 12, 2008, from The Ethical Atheist: http://www.ethicalatheist.net/2008/06/pro-creationist-bill-approved-by.html
(NBC, 2006)Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership,61(1),6-13.
Robert O. McClintock, “Introduction: Marking the Second Frontier,” in Computing and Education: The Second Frontier, ed. Robert O. McClintock (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), xiii.
Irvine, M., & Tanner, R. (2007). Sex Abuse a Shadow over U.S. Schools. Education Week , v27, n9 p1.
New York State Education Department. (2007, Jan 25). Code of Ethics. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from New York State Education Department: Office of higher Education: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/resteachers/codeofethics.htm
Lewis J. Perelman, School’s Out: Hyperlearning, the New Technology, and the End of Education (New York: William Morrow, 1992), 25, 20.

2nd Critical Reflection - Lowe

2008-07-30T12:25:00.003-04:00

Anti-plagiarism software: Guilty until proven innocent

RATIONALE FOR ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE

The influx of “technology-assisted academic dishonesty” has led to the manifestation of a neoplagiarism and, in turn, the rise of a severe anxiety on the part of educators (Bishop, 2006, p. 1). As is the norm with modern social anxieties, “the fear of plagiarism is often connected to the new online technologies that allow ways for creating, editing, and sharing texts that were only dreamed of in the past (Williams, 2008, p. 351). While these technologies do indeed offer students innovative avenues of expression, they simultaneously create the temptation for a student to take the facile road to an easy grade. Such Internet technologies complicit in academic dishonesty may include sites that allow a student to purchase a paper, to copy-and-paste all or sections of an online paper, or to resubmit one’s own work or the work of another student. Even more so than offering up such an apple, and perhaps more disconcerting to educators, is that these technologies bring into question the concepts of authorship, ownership and plagiarism itself.

Some critics such as Williams (2008) question the reality of a rapidly increasing epidemic of academic dishonesty; however, the attention from the mainstream media and the near-resounding fears of educators are immutable. As noted by Robelen (2007), a Josephon Institute of Ethics survey found that in a group of “more than 36,000 high school students,” sixty percent of the students admitted to academic dishonesty. Furthermore one of every three students admitted to using Internet technology to plagiarize an assignment. Similar results were deduced by Donald L. McCabe, professor at Rutgers University, in a survey of 18,000 high school students confessing to some sort of plagiarism (Robelen, 2007). According to Royce (2007), “Almost every week there is a report on the prevalence of plagiarism from Internet Sources.” This prevalence, however, is perhaps attributable to a neglected emotional impact and response to plagiarism. When a student has been dishonest a teacher will understandably feel emotions of betrayal, anger and distrust. According to Williams (2008), “the level of trust we feel in someone has a profound effect on our actions towards that person and our reactions to everything that person does,” (p. 351). Naturally academic dishonesty can affect a teacher’s assumptions regarding the integrity of student writing. It may be nothing more than natural human emotion to assume that the introduction of new technology will only play to students’ darker angels based on previous experience. Nonetheless such alarming numbers and ominous forebodings of a new type of plagiarism epidemic have necessitated, some feel, an appropriate, technological response.

Indeed all of this attention towards new-age academic dishonesty as well as its offspring of fear, anxiety and distrust has spurred a technological retaliation—a built up of arms of sorts—as educators have begun to arm themselves with anti-plagiarism software. Any discussion of anti-plagiarism software inevitably leads to a discussion of Turnitin.com. As other technologies have come and gone, Turnitin has been an impressive business endeavor. Founder John M. Barrie has even crowned Turnitin as “the next generation’s spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). Turnitin’s success is likely due to the fact that that it does not detect plagiarism, nigh impossible on the internet, but rather finds “sequences of words in submitted documents which match sequences of words in documents in its database, or sequences of words in documents on the Internet.” Despite its strengths over competitors, however, Turnitin still cannot overcome all of the challenges posed by the vast terrain of the Internet. Technology such as Turnitin, more than anything else, is supposed to be meant as a deterrent, a preventive strike on plagiarism. According to Barrie, the technology has the same function as a test proctor, “students are less likely to cheat when faced with an increased likelihood of being caught” (Robelen, 2007). Similarly Royce (2003) conjectures that just a subscription to Turnitin will suffice for a drop in a school’s “suspected plagiarism” (p. 26). Turnitin boasts to uncover around 3,000 cases of sever plagiarism from an investigation of 10,000 papers a day.

But is such software the panacea to neoplagiarism? Can plagiarist technology be combated with anti-plagiarist technology? Can plagiarism in general be stamped out? Despite the anxiety of educators and the promotions of the creators of such software, anti-plagiarism software is nothing more than a “placebo” (Carbone, 2001). It does not address the significance of teaching about and solving academic, merely catching it. An examination of the use of such software in schools will divulge the following drawbacks: anti-plagiarism software is only a continuation of the attrition building up between an increasingly strained teacher/student relationship; it leads to conflicting ideas of student authorship and plagiarism; it negates the opportunity to teach students increasingly complex literary practices; the software itself is limited and thus impractical. Even under the consideration of modifying the use of such software to a less prominent or last resort tool, the lingering issues of the legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy of such software will determine that Turnitin and similar technologies will eventually surfaces and perhaps exacerbate the issue of plagiarism. Ultimately educators must renovate their approaches to plagiarism, authorship and ownership, necessitating more effective teaching rather than punishing practices.

THE DRAWBACKS

CATALYST FOR UNHEALTHY TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS

The issue of plagiarism is ultimately an issue of trust. Anti-plagiarism software begins a relationship of distrust between the teacher and student and creates a dysfunctional classroom environment. The opposition to building such a relationship and environment is resounding. As Williams (2008) points out, by even informing students that their writing will undergo a review of authenticity even before a teacher reads them, with or without threat of punishment, the underlying hint is that a teacher does “not trust them to act honorably” (p. 352). Similarly Carbone (2001) contends that such software “assumes the worst about students” who apparently have “no honor” and must be constantly eyed over with “a big brother welcome to academic traditions.” Such software is a clear message from the teacher to students that they are already presumed guilty until proven innocent. Barrie even admits that Turnitin’s main function is to act as a deterrent, almost analogous to a panopticon, a prison system, that serves to detect and punish students. It assumes guilt. Even McCabe, whose survey “exposed” the ominous cloud of a plagiarism epidemic, is opposed to the widespread use of such software: “To me that says to students, I can’t trust any of you” (Robelen, 2007). Whether a teacher assumes student’s efforts as honest or duplicitous can have significant effects upon the relationship, and moreover can influence how students perceive authority figures in general. Anti-plagiarism software, though perhaps well intentioned, shows distrust and positions teachers and students as enemies. This dynamic of adversaries rather than collaborators detracts from good pedagogy. Bishop contends that “A much more effective way of achieving the same goal might be to an atmosphere of respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). By a teacher displaying trust in students’ abilities, their self-esteem and ultimately their “sense of well-being” are stimulated and maintained.

CONFLICTING IDEAS OF AUTHORSHIP AND PLAGIARISM

Along with creating a dysfunctional dynamic, anti-plagiarism software can add to student confusion over the concepts of authorial identity and plagiarism. Students are subjected to a thin rope of social nuances. As Williams (2008) explains, “we want students to draw on their creativity and create original work, yet we want them to become readers and writers who draw from ideas of others” (p. 351). If a student fails to walk this line they are considered “intellectually or morally deficient.” The concepts of authorship, ownership, and plagiarism are constantly in flux; however, exponentially now perhaps because of the possibilities of new technology. This evolution of technology has sparked an evolution of literacy practices, “creating texts as collages and hybrids of other texts” (p. 352). It is arguably intellectually or morally deficient of educators rather then to focus on punishing students (as anti-plagiarism seems intent on doing) for transgressing against evolving literary practices instead of teaching how to cope with their evolution.

LOSS OF TEACHING MOMENTS

Williams (2008) adds, because the issue of plagiarism so often “turns all to quickly to detection and punishment,” an opportunity is lost to “engage students in increasingly sophisticate literacy practices” (p. 352) Anti-plagiarism puts detection and punishment over instruction. Correctly using ideas from others in an original piece of writing according to cultural customs is a skill that must be taught. It is the responsibility of the teacher to instruct proper usage before punishment should even be considered. Carbone (2001) adds that “teaching students how to wisely use other ideas—how to distinguish when to cite a source, how to introduce them into conventions for doing so—is hard enough with adding in the threat of constant surveillance.” Still most teachers approach plagiarism as something that should be scrutinized closely and punished accordingly. This antagonistic approach goes back to the idea of a lack of trust. Important opportunities for teaching evolving literacy practices are lost because students feel the teacher is working against instead of with them. Moreover students never develop their own identities as writers without the nurturing of the teacher. Students constantly view the teacher as a source of punishment rather than guidance.

Regardless of whether a student intentionally or unintentionally plagiarizes, however, “such moments offer important chances to teach students about writing and life” (353). In regards to intentional plagiarism, a teacher should make an effort to discover why a student is academically dishonest, often due to the pressure to succeed or to just not to fail. Obviously the student does not comprehend his or her own strengths as a writer. In a collaborative relationship, a teacher can teach students to discover their own identities as writers. In regards to unintentional plagiarism, it is ignorant for a teacher to assume that this is anything other than a natural teaching opportunity. As Carbone (2001) explains, “Mistakes in using and citing sources -- which can be technical, mechanical, rhetorical, and evaluative -- are in fact a necessary part of learning how to write with and from sources.” When a teacher equates mistakes that are necessary for a student to make to acquire good writing skills with fraud, that teacher is negating the very purpose of learning. Intentional or unintentional plagiarism must both be viewed as opportunities for a teacher to teach good writing. These opportunities are lost when all students are worried about is a software system that denies their authorial worth.
There are sound alternatives that will reanimate such teaching moments, however. Masur (2008) recommends that teachers can “respond pedagogically by offering writing workshops or assigning essays in stages.” Williams (2008) espouses similar tactics, “working with some papers as drafts and approaching each assignment as a process that builds on ideas” will help improve students writing practices (p. 353). In this manner teachers and students develop more a relationship of trust, moving both parties away from “the paranoia of potential plagiarism punishment.”

LIMITATIONS OF SOFTWARE

Regardless of the academic drawbacks of anti-plagiarism software, its physical limitations further negate its use. Both Royce (2003) and Bishop (2006) chronicle a vast and growing set of limitations just on the part of Turnitin alone (supposedly the most effective anti-plagiarism software) to fully detect plagiarism. Turnitin alone has been defunct as it cannot “detect cleverly paraphrased passages,” identify work done by a “ghost-writer,” differentiate between properly and improperly cited text, and nor can it account for the many loopholes that students are still discovering (Bishop, 2006, p. 7). Royce (2003) points out other limitations for the software, such as not taking into account text that has been translated from another language or the plagiarism of diagrams, pictures or graphs (p. 28) Moreover for teachers to just use Turnitin’s “originality report” alone, though many do, is an improper use of the software’s service. The software only points out similarities between texts, it does not detect plagiarism. The burden of proof in a case of plagiarism is on the teacher, and with the grand scope of that the new technology poses, an “originality report” is a superficial indicator of original work at best. In fact, both Carbone (2001) and Royce (2003) contend that a skilled teacher with a search engine is more effective than any anti-plagiarism software developed so far.

MODIFYING THE ROLE OF SUCH SOFTWARE

Despite its academic and physical limitations to becoming the plagiarism panacea, could anti-plagiarism software still play some modified role in the classroom? According to Royce (2003), software is still only “a tool, a weapon, a deterrent” (p. 30). As a deterrent, Turnitin founder Barrie still argues, “Our uses have validated us with their use” (Robelen, 2007). According to Barrie, the renewal rate is above 95 percent with an expanding clientele. In this regard, anti-plagiarism software has begun to set up a panopticon status with its proposed omniscient view. Even with its limitations it can still “scare” plagiarists. There is no substantial research that shows this deterrent effect however. Keith D. Klein, an English teacher at Washington Lee High School in Arlington, Virginia, hopes to use the software to create “teachable moments”: "That in itself is a platform for me to talk about plagiarism, and a pretty good disincentive” (Robelen 2007). Turnitin’s role in Mr. Klein’s class has actually evolved from just as a platform for discussion and disincentive, as he typically likes to use the peer review features of the software. Robelen (2007) describes alternative uses of the software by another teacher, Ms. Christel, who limits the use of Turnitin to major papers only, and only when there are suspect citation issues. Ms. Christel uses other tools to supplement this software, however, and stresses that “teachers need to work hard to ensure students under-stand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it.” From this perspective, could then anti-plagiarism software therefore be utilized in a reduced role in the classroom, more as a supplemental device to teaching about plagiarism?

LINGERING ISSUES OF LEGALITY, ETHICALITY, & HYPOCRISY

Despite a near acquiescence by Carbone (2001) to using anti-plagiarism software “as a last ditch attempt to find the smoking gun,” there are still serious issues that negate its use. Most damning for Turnitin are legality issues. Bishop (2006) explains, “By storing the uploaded papers in order to expand its database for comparison to new submissions, Turnitin is potentially violating the students’ copyrights and right to privacy” (p. 7). The nature of Turnitin requires a database, and a database necessitates a copy of a student’s work to be archived. Because a student has no real say in the matter of submitting their paper to the software, they are stripped of their rights as authors of their own work. Turnitin essentially does to the student what proposes to keep the student from doing. Despite the software companies contention that Turnitin loopholes certain legalities, Bishop (2006) contends that ultimately the software violates students’ rights granted by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).

On top of the legality issues of anti-plagiarism software, Carbone (2001) sees any use of such tools as unethical, because it “co-opts students’ intellectual property to sell its service.” Turnitin has indeed been a remarkable financial success, one that banks on the authorial disenfranchisement of students. It is a business plan that has played off the pedagogical misunderstandings and distrust of educators; no wonder Blaire calls it “the next generations’ spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). It has monopolized the theft of student’s intellectual properties.

Pedagogically speaking, teaching students about plagiarism through such software is counterproductive and grossly hypocritical. First of all, anti-plagiarism software frees teachers from making challenging, plagiarism-proof assignments that teach students responsible and socially acceptable good writing. Furthermore Bishop (2006) believes that software assumes students are cheating, so it teaches students that they are “guilty until proven innocent” (p. 9). This idea is contradictory to the democratic values that American education is supposed to instill in its students. Bishop (2006) admits using such software contradicts his philosophies as a teacher and only creates the aforementioned distrust so crippling to teacher/student relationships. Moreover such software teaches students a double standard. Carbone (2001) eloquently explains the message sent to students by using anti-plagiarism software like Turnitin:

Plagiarism is wrong because it's the theft of another person's intellectual property. Yet we don't trust you to follow that ethos, so we're going to violate it ourselves to save you from your own perfidy. We're going to take your property--your writing--and check it here, in this place that will keep a copy of your work whether you give permission for this or not. Sorry, it won't be just your property any more, it will also belong to Turnitin.com's database.
(Carbone, 2001)

Students are basically told that in order to save them from committing plagiarism they must be plagiarized. It is no wonder that cheating occurs out of desperation to succeed or not to fail, because a student is taught not to value his or her own writing by such hypocrisy.

It is Bishop (2006) that points out the greatest hypocrisy of such software. When music companies are allowed to sue individuals for illegally using their intellectual property, it is duplicitous for a student to “relinquish their intellectual properties for others use, in this case for profit” (p. 9). In other words a student is expected to accept that their originality is secondary to the innovations of big business. Obviously, the inherit issues of legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy indicate that educators must abstain from anti-plagiarism software if they want to instruct students properly about academic dishonesty.

ALTERNATIVES TO ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE

In order to combat plagiarism, there must be a paradigm shift in how educators view it. Simple escalation with software that purports to stamp out plagiarism will only continue the attrition, as evidenced by the loopholes already discovered in software such as Turnitin. Bad blood will continue to fester between teachers and students, students will still be ambivalent to the evolving concepts of authorial ownership and plagiarism, teaching moments that could be beneficial to this ambivalence would disappear, and the software will always be limited. As Royce (2003) concludes, “we are not going to beat the cheats,” and such software is impractical (p. 29). Moreover because anti-plagiarism software such as Turnitin creates such legal and ethical faux pas, the only person that it would be ethically reasonable for using such software would be the student as self-check device (Bishop, 2006, p. 10). This use of technology would foster a positive learning environment for students rather than feeling isolated by some panopticon of plagiarism. Royce (2003) espouses this type of environment, and sets guidelines for its manifestation:
We can attempt to set plagiarism-proof assignments; we can make it so that students do not want or need to copy; we can devise alternative presentation methods which minimize the opportunity for plagiarism; we can stress process as well as content; we can ask students to provide originals or copies of the sources used; we can make it so hard for the plagiarist to plagiarize that it is easier to do the real work; we can try to promote honorable and ethical attitudes towards work.
(p.30)

None of these requirements for a more effective approach to plagiarism necessitate a threat of punishment. In fact these requirements seek to circumvent plagiarism by making it obsolete: students becoming autonomous and conscientious writers. Likewise Williams (2008) feels that teachers should “create assignments that engage their lives, interests, and individual intellectual questions” (p. 353). These assignments are certainly the most plagiarism proof. Most importantly teachers need to adopt approaches that work to build a positive relationship, as Bishop (2006) state, one of “respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). Even Mr. McCabe, with his disconcerting survey of plagiarism, endorses the promotion of academic integrity to students as the solution to academic dishonesty. Anything else is just a placebo.

Finally, all of the issues of anti-plagiarism software are all consequence of how teachers have come to distrust students. The success of anti-plagiarism software has been to the manipulation of educators’ fears and anxieties and perhaps a gross exaggeration of a plagiarism epidemic. Teachers must overcome the disillusioning emotions of betrayal and distrust. They must come to see their students as, though obviously flawed human individuals, capable of extraordinary creative and original work. Teachers cannot give into their fear of this neoplagiarism either. The influx of new technology creates unknown dangers but also creates unknown possibilities for students to explore ever-fluctuating literacy practices. No, teachers cannot give into the fear of the unknown because this type of fear manifests prejudice. And when it is students who come to believe these prejudices, then a far greater injustice than plagiarism has occurred.

REFERENCES

Bishop, Jack (2006) Using Turnitin at UCLA. Retrieved July 29th, 2007, from www.oid.ucla.edu/training/trainingarticles/ turnitin/index.html

Carbone, N. (2001). Turnit.com, a pedagogic placebo for plagiarism. Retrieved June 30, 2007, from bedforstmartins.com/technotes/techtiparchive/ttip060501.html

Robelen, E.W. (2007). Online anti-plagiarism service sets off court fight. Education Week, 26 (36) 16-17).

Royce, John (2003). Has Turnitin.com got it all wrapped up? Teacher Librarian, 30 (4), 26-30.

Williams. Bronwyn T. (2008). Trust, betrayal, and authorship: Plagiarism and how we perceive students. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 51 (4), 350-354.

Parental Involvement in Education

2008-07-30T12:17:00.002-04:00

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 67 percent of the nation’s 73.7 million children younger than 18 lived with two parents in 2006. Perhaps the more revealing statistic is that there were about 12.9 million one-parent families in 2006. This is an alarming figure when you consider its impact on education. Not to get off track with an extended preamble about tangential issues, but it is fitting to point out that Barrack Obama raised this issue of single parents, particularly on the topic of black fathers, in a recent Father’s Day speech in front of the NAACP. In weighing in on this issue, to the chagrin of several African Americans, Obama stated that “more than half of all black children live in single-parent households,” calling for more responsibility from black fathers. Certainly this topic is not exclusive to African Americans, but this population takes up a large part of the dialogue. While I will not offer any scathing remarks on the absence of a father figure in the lives of many children, it is evident that the family structure has changed substantially over the past 50 years, when it was customary to have two parents (Johnson et al., 2008, p. 77). To say that the lack of parental involvement in school is entirely responsible for the decline in educated children is unwarranted and inadequate. There are a variety of factors ranging from funding to class size to curriculum planning that complicate the matter. Parental involvement is only one such contributing factor, but a very important one nevertheless. As we look towards raising the level of education in this country, the overriding concern is whether parental involvement will improve in order to ensure the well being of our children and this country.

I can say, almost unreservedly, from my experience in this profession as a first-year teacher that the vast majority of educators are committed to helping students achieve success on a variety of levels, whether it involves academics, athletics, arts, among others. The pervasive and highly disparaging belief that teachers are putting in sub par effort in the classroom is somewhat unfounded. The incessant finger pointing in playing the blame game to isolate who is responsible for poor student achievement must stop. It is not only unavailing, but it fails to solve pressing matters that demand our attention. At any rate, most people can agree that communication is the best means to affecting change. Through a synergistic effort of combining educators and parents, I believe that we can redirect struggling students.

Having grown up with two supportive parents who always attended my concerts and sporting events and did not miss a beat when it came to asking about the school day to check up on me, I am inclined to believe that parental involvement is integral to the academic, personal, and emotional growth of a child. Some might misconstrue my parents’ nurturing as sheltering me from the many dangers of the outside world, but they kept me in line and helped me sharpen my reading and writing skills. The myriad issues that confront teens only seem to be growing, but the major problems linked to drugs and unsafe sex persist. I do not wish to suggest that there have not been nor will there be naturally self-sufficient children, but we desperately need to make sure that education takes place both inside and outside the classroom. Educators only see teens for a limited amount of time, which means that they need reinforcement from parents or guardians so that they do not give into peer pressure and resort to such things as violence or skipping school. Positive roles models can help students stay disciplined. Parents can help in reinforcing essential strategies acquired in school by having their children apply what they have learned in completing homework assignments or studying for tests (Lenz et al., 2004, p. 272-273).

Without the help of the family, getting students to genuinely buy into their education is an ongoing struggle and one that continues to become progressively difficult over time. Students need the solid support structure of the family to make intelligent decisions about their futures. Some might argue that many parents of students in high-need schools are uneducated and thus will be ineffectual when it comes to taking part in school-related work. While those in favor of this argument would not be entirely wrong, it is essential to note that parents can provide moral support and help with the ever-important personal growth of adolescents. If parents are left out of the equation, teachers along with guidance counselors end up being overburdened by taking on the role of therapists in addressing student needs that require parental support. Much more of the onus has been placed on teachers in delving into personal issues for students. Dealing with the sheer number of student concerns takes a toll on educators mentally. I cannot tell you how many times I have called the home of a student only to get the wrong number or to leave messages that never get through to parents. It is quite frustrating and students who are struggling or have missed several school days often do not receive the help that they need to get back on track. Parent-teacher conferences do not constitute a great deal of parental involvement. Aside from the meager amount of parents that show up, the brief five-minute conversations are ostensibly helpful in reversing poor student performance, but in fact they do little to ensure student success for the long run.

I am not convinced that teens fare better without parental support and neither is the National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education, an organization that spearheads a national initiative to foster strong relationships between families and schools. The NCPIE insists that by building the relationship between families and schools, the quality of student life improves on an academic and personal level, teachers develop more confidence, parents become empowered, schools ultimately improve, and communities become stronger. Project Appleseed is one other organization that is currently at the forefront of strengthening the relationship between families and schools. Project Appleseed strives for the similar goals in revitalizing schools and communities by “mobilizing parent, family, and community volunteers inside and outside schools” to increase student achievement. One additional organization that works toward enhancing the relationship between families and schools is the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University, which has implemented a process called Teachers Involve Parents in Schoolwork (TIPS) to get families more involved in their children’s education. The very fact that these taskforces exist solely for this cause is not only impressive, but it indeed speaks to the significance of this issue right now.

There are innumerable advantages of cultivating meaningful relationships amongst educators and families. The National Conference of State Legislators contends that “parent participation in education is positively and significantly related to student achievement.” A publication sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education entitled Family Involvement in Children’s Education: Successful Local Approaches Idea Book concurs that active parental involvement leads to long-term academic achievement, better attendance, more completed homework assignments, and more positive behavior for students as compared with students that have less invested parents. Most of my students do not maintain consistency when it comes to completing homework assignments. By simply having an adult keep their child disciplined with school tasks, more work can be accomplished during the school day rather than squandering precious time trying to bring these students up to speed with the work. Perhaps even more valuable, if parents and educators work collaboratively, parents will be able to improve their own knowledge. Given the number of immigrant families that struggle with the English language, it would be beneficial to get parents invested in their child’s learning so that they can learn the language. The educational process could conceivably act as a kind of trickledown system in teaching parents the idiosyncrasies of the English language as well as the basics regarding emergent technology.

The imminent future of public education, and more importantly the vitality and moral fabric of this nation, hinges on our capacity to establish outreach programs that bring parents and educators together. I firmly believe that such an enterprise is pivotal in the ongoing effort to reform public education. This begs the question as to how such a tremendous undertaking will be successfully implemented across the country. With a society that consists of 12.9 million one-parent families with single parents who are taking care of multiple kids and working numerous jobs to make ends meet, it is easier said than done in trying to help these individuals find the time to take an active role in the educational process.

References
Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundations of
American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. 14th ed. Boston:
Pearson Education.

Lenz, B.K., Deshler, D.D. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston: Pearson Education.

National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.ncpie.org/

National Conference of State Legislators: The Forum for America’s Ideas (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/PInvolve.htm

National Network of Partnership Schools (2006). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from Johns Hopkins University
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/tips/index.htm

Project Appleseed (2008). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from
http://www.projectappleseed.org/index.html

Single-Parent Households Showed Little Variation (2007). Retrieved July 27, 2008, from U.S. Census Bureau News http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/families_households/009842.html

The Rise of 21st Century Learning Skills: The Brainchild of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills

2008-07-30T12:16:00.001-04:00

In an age in which the purposes and effects of school are incessantly measured, weighed, evaluated, and reevaluated by various individuals and organizations, the skills that students acquire in schools are also constantly observed and assessed through educational and societal lenses. One rather obvious reason why these key educational issues are continuously explored in the United States is that society is questing for more real-world, educational experiences that can stay abreast with the advancing world technologies while simultaneously producing more conscientious, productive, effective, global citizens. This idea is, of course, not a new one as John Dewey stated several decades ago in “Education and Social Change” that “we are all familiar with the pleas that are urged to bring education in the schools into closer relation with the forces that are producing social change and with the needs that arise from these changes” (Schultz, 2001, p. 334). Despite one’s inclination or opposition to the idea of aligning schools more closely with the forces and needs of society, the rise of 21st century learning skills is beneficial for a spectrum of educational philosophies and importantly recognizes the student as an individual and as a member of society.

According to a national survey of 800 registered voters in the United States from September 10-12, 2007, which was conducted for the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, “an overwhelming 80 percent of voters say that the kind of skills students need to learn to be prepared for the jobs of the 21st century is different from what they needed 20 years ago” while “a virtually unanimous 99 percent of voters say that teaching students a wide range of 21st century skills” is “important to our country’s future economic success” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Moreover, “an overwhelming 88 percent of voters say they believe that schools can and should incorporate 21st century skills into their curriculum” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Although these statistics are seemingly compelling, especially in light of the fact that the voters surveyed represented a variety of socioeconomic classes, age groups, and political affiliations, the understandable question that surfaces, at least for those that are not yet familiar with the ideas of 21st century education, is: What exactly are the “21st century learning skills”?

As outlined in The Intellectual and Policy Foundations of the 21st Century Skills Framework by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, which is “the leading advocacy organization focused on infusing 21st century skills into education,” the 21st century skill sets are: 1) learning and innovation skills, which include critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, communication, and collaboration; 2) information, media, and technology skills, which enable students to access, evaluate, and make sense of data in a variety of modes; and 3) life and career skills, which involve flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, and leadership and social responsibility (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007). Perhaps interestingly, these skills are not positioned in a uniquely different content curriculum from the one that already exists in public schools. Rather, they are integrated into and to be taught from the very same content areas that were identified by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Hence, the core subjects of English, reading or language arts, world languages, arts, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government and civics along with the themes of global awareness, financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, and health literacy are the framework within which the 21st century skills are taught, learned, and utilized.

Although heavy emphasis is placed on the themes of global awareness, financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy, civic literacy, and health literacy, it is clear that the 21st century skills have not been developed and emphasized simply to declare that the function of a school should be to prepare students for the workforce. Instead, these skill sets can serve many functions, which include focusing on the personal growth of students as well as students’ interaction and engagement with society. In my opinion, the 21st century learning skills are easily adaptable to a variety of educational philosophies because they work to develop students’ creative, critical, and independent thinking capacities, connect content areas with real world experiences, provide students with meaningful opportunities to observe and value the connections that exist between their learning and world experiences, and enable students to strengthen and enhance their awareness of society.

Regardless of one’s position on the function of school and whether or not education should be aligned to America’s future economic success and global competitiveness, the emergence of 21st century learning skills suggests, in a deliberate manner, that 20th century learning skills no longer meet the needs of students and American society. This is not to say that traditional, basic skills such as reading comprehension are no longer valued, but the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has stated that a broader range of skills, beyond the basic skills of reading, writing, math, and science must be incorporated into core academic content so that all students can have “the skills needed to be effective citizens, workers, and leaders in the 21st century” (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).

In reflecting on the 21st century skills, I am convinced that schools in the United States should be focusing on these competencies because they are comprehensive and enable students to see the inextricable connection that exists between education and society. In truth, what can serve as preparation for society other than education? In my opinion, there seems to be no realistic alternative and adopting an education system which fosters the acquisition and application of 21st century learning skills is ideal because the skills are firmly rooted in core content areas, stress the personal growth of students, and remind students that they are citizens of the world who are constantly building an awareness of society. Although the Partnership for 21st Century Skills states that American schools “must align classroom environments with real world environments by infusing 21st century skills” in order to provide students with the means to “successfully face rigorous higher education coursework, career challenges and a globally competitive workforce,” the skills sets, at the very least, help ensure that all children are prepared for life in the 21st century (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2007).

In my single year of experience as an English teacher at a large New York City public school, I have noticed that students constantly question how the skills they learn in school can be applied to real-world situations. I have also noticed that many students often feel lost in the applicability of the basic skills of reading, writing, math, and science and wish that their academic experiences could offer more direct preparation for the world experiences that await them. With the 21st century learning skills, the majority of students would likely be more engaged with the education process because they would have more opportunities to apply their skills to real-world experiences. For example, small learning communities such as the Business Enterprise exist in my high school, but at the moment this community is simply like any other small learning community in the school and does not focus on business literacy and teaching students how to make appropriate economic choices. With the embedded theme of financial, economic, business, and entrepreneurial literacy, I feel that students would be more motivated to learn and to develop their own thinking while preparing for their futures. Many students would be inspired to learn because they could have opportunities to focus on their personal growth while building an awareness of the business world. While some of the obstacles to 21st century learning include the availability and effective use of technology and also the reality that “educators and staff members must themselves master 21st century skills to be effective in their roles,” as noted in “21st Century Learning: ‘We’re Not Even Close’” (Nagel, 2007), the skills sets, perhaps more than anything else, should be in place to develop global citizens that can work collaboratively and think critically to improve society.

References
Nagel, D. (November 5, 2007). "21st century learning: 'We're not even close.’" T.H.E. Journal.
Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.thejournal.com/articles/21543_1

Schultz, F. (2000). SOURCES: Notable selections in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Beyond the three Rs: Voter attitudes toward 21st
century skills. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/P21_pollreport_singlepg.pdf

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The intellectual and policy foundations of the
21st century framework. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/route21/images/stories/epapers/skills_foundations_final.pdf

2008-07-30T11:14:00.001-04:00

American schools promise to educate every child in the nation. The population of students entering American public schools is as diverse as the country which creates unique challenges for educators. In an urban classroom students have varying levels of skills, language fluency, motivation and a range of experiences that influence their behavior and learning. A child in a Bronx classroom may have widely different needs than a student sitting beside him. Schools in New York City subscribe to a process of inclusion, meaning that students are placed in heterogeneous classrooms despite level of ability. Inclusion is a “ philosophy that brings diverse students, families, educators, and community members together to create schools and other institutions based on acceptance, belonging, and community. Inclusion recognizes that all students are learners who benefit from a meaningful, challenging, and appropriate curriculum delivered within the general education classroom and from differentiated instruction techniques that address their unique strengths and challenges” (Salend 2007) This practice was instituted to end the process of tracking in which students were grouped by ability from a very young age and given different educational opportunities on the basis of that grouping. For example, a student who has performed poorly in the fifth grade will be placed in remedial classes and only given the opportunity to receive a vocational diploma (LeTendre, Hofer, & Shimizu 2003).
The catchall solution for the challenges of a diverse inclusive classroom is differentiation. The one room schoolhouse is frequently cited as the model for successful differentiation in which classrooms are structured around students learning at their ability. The reality of differentiation is that the needs of the students are so varied that even the most proficient teacher must struggle to keep up. In a New York City classroom students who are at or above grade level sit next to students who are just beginning to learn English. Who is really served by this arrangement? The students? Or the school board and administrators who supply no additional resources. With inclusion as it now exists the onus for educating falls solely on the teacher’s shoulders.
In theory inclusion allows students greater freedom, while in reality the implementation of inclusion is tested at every turn. Inclusion requires that each student learn to the best of his or her ability, but students are then given a standardized test at the end of the year that measures their ability against their classmates, their state and the country. Standardized testing stands in opposition to full inclusion (Mastropieri & Scruggs 2001). Because teachers and administrators are held accountable for test scores students are force fed test material.
The unfortunate truth is that schools and teachers do not necessarily receive what is necessary to educate every student. The education that every American child should receive in the philosophy of equality and as defined by legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act should allow each child to perform to the best of her ability and to acquire the skills that will allow her to be successful in her future endeavors. Unfortunately our system is frequently unable to provide children that which we have defined as the standards for public education. The responsibility for finding and implementing methods that enable these children to achieve is both in the school administration and in the individual classrooms of both special education and general education teachers. Sometimes it seems that we are not educating anyone. Heterogeneous classrooms are the way to proceed in theory. In reality, however, we must acknowledge that the education system is flawed and does not promote academic success, especially in the inner-city. No matter how students are grouped students will have a range of needs and abilities, but the range as it currently exists is too large. In schools with small budgets inclusion is manifested as a series of mediocre classrooms, with students not having the opportunity to go farther by taking honors classes or to be in the company of peers who will challenge their thinking. While the dangers of tracking are real, so are the possibilities of stifling students who can go far.

References:

LeTendre, G.K., Hofer, B.K., Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in the United States, Germany, and Japan. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 43-89.

Linchevski, L. & Kutscher, B. (1998). Tell me with whom you're learning, and I'll tell you how much you've learned: Mixed- Ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 533-554.

Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265-274.

Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices for all students (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Mixed-Ability Classroms

2008-07-30T11:09:00.001-04:00

Federal Involvement in Education, by Meghann Rosales

2008-07-30T11:00:00.000-04:00

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was reauthorized in 2002 and No Child Left Behind came roaring to the forefront of the education debate, it continued the fifty-year trend of increased federal involvement in America’s school system. As a public school teacher in the second-poorest congressional district in the nation, I certainly feel the strain of federal mandates and sanctions.

While the goals of NCLB are laudable—to raise student achievement while closing the achievement gap—it has caused an undeniable strain on teachers, schools, districts, and states. Supporters of the federal government’s role in education note, “when the national government has intervened, it has generally been a force for progress—ending de jure segregation, instituting Head Start, Title I, subsidized school lunches and other programs for children in poverty, the GI bill, the rights of children with disabilities, and so on.” Opponents, however, feel that “the regressive parts of NCLB are the exception rather than the rule.” (Casey, 2004) Now, in addition to state standards and testing methods, schools are required to fulfill federal guidelines, with compliance tied directly to federal funding. State and local agencies would suffer a mighty blow if the millions in federal dollars were taken away, and as a result states have reviewed alternatives to full compliance with NCLB (Schwartzbeck, 2004). By fulfilling only the parts of NCLB that are required to receive federal funding, states are exercising their traditional power in education. Minnesota, Arizona, Virginia, Texas, Connecticut and others have expressed concern about the federal government’s infringement on states’ rights (Association for Supervision, 2005). In 2005, Connecticut announced that it would cost them $41.6 million to align their practices with federal requirements through 2008, and in 2003 Minnesota was fined $113,000 for refusing to comply with NCLB (Association for Supervision, 2005). States argue that they already had rigorous standards and testing methods in place, and NCLB impedes the implementation of effective programming. Increasingly, states have sought alternatives that will give them more control and flexibility without the loss of millions in funding. While states are allowed to choose which particular test will be administered to their students, the requirements for what is tested is mandated by Washington.

High-stakes testing with prescriptive, one-size-fits-all measures for success generates additional pressure for educators and administration. Teachers in urban schools are already working with high student-teacher ratios, too few resources, limited curriculum supplements, sub-par facilities, and large numbers of English language learners. Schwartzbeck (2004) and many of her contemporaries criticize NCLB legislation that “is rooted in a flawed educational strategy that does not address the out-of-school roots of the achievement gap and…fails to look beneath the data and address the reasons a child might be falling behind academically.” While all schools should strive to improve the level of education for all students, regardless of socioeconomic status and other factors, and there should be a measure of accountability, there should also be constructive consequences in place to build schools that exact social change through access to quality education. NCLB, rather, generates fear and uncertainty, and it fails to take into account achievements outside rigidity of AYP and SINOI.

In conjunction with the increased focus on accountability, federal funding has been inseparably intertwined with AYP and test scores. Johnson et al (2008) note that “under NCLB, few rewards exist. Instead, different forms of threats and sanctions hang over states, school districts, and schools that ‘need improvement.’” While city and state leaders declare they know what is best for New York City’s schools, they simultaneously take away badly-needed funding. Massive budget cuts have left our schools to choose between cutting extracurricular activities to supplement classroom curriculum or cutting teachers and other support staff. The incentive for schoolwide success is fear-based.

Federal control of the education system extends into primary, secondary, and teacher training classrooms. When No Child Left Behind was signed into action, it sought to improve the quality of education and the quality of teachers across the country, to make American students internationally competitive, and to make education the common denominator among US citizens. It’s mandates, however, infringe on states’ rights and promote a faulty prescriptive solution for everyone. The effects of NCLB are felt every day in the classroom, from confusing jumbles of state, federal, and local requirements, to tightened budgets, to stigmatic stamps of “needing improvement.” There are a myriad of issues associated with the effects of federalism on American schools, from strings-attached funding to teacher certification, and the inflexible stringency of NCLB is hotly contested by educators, administrators, legislators, and parents.

References

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2005). States weigh in on education reform. EDPolicy Update 4(2). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.74d518f89df7aafcdeb3ffdb62108a0c/template.article?articleMgmtId=d01e79a96e962010VgnVCM1000003d01a8c0RCRD

Casey, L. (2004). Education and American federalism. 21st Century Schools Project Bulletin, 4(1). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=252320&knlgAreaID=110&subsecid=900001

Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundations of American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Schwartzbeck, T.D. (2004). The federalism debate. The School Administrator. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.aasa.org/publications/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=1178&snItemNumber=&tnItemNumber=

Critical Reflection on Special Education

2008-07-30T10:41:00.000-04:00

Why is Special Education Special?

Some people “define a “good” education as one that helps students maximize their capacity as learners. Because the latter definition encourages continual lifting of ceilings and testing of personal limits, it would seem to make the best sense for all learners.” (Tomlinson, pg. 8) Special education in its true form is the practice of delivering an individualized educational program of instruction to students with varying degrees of behavioral, emotional, physical, and sensory disabilities. (Salend, pg. 5) The intensity and form of instruction varies and is dependent on the individual who needs to be educated. Different methods and forms of instruction can vary from student to student often times using many methods simultaneously. Special education aims to provide students with a fair and complete education in line with their general education counterparts.

Special Education’s Past

In the past, the idea of special education was one that was unheard of. Students with special needs were denied education in a public school setting, and parents were forced to find alternative environments for their children, often settling for institutions and establishments that were ill-managed, and created more for the hording of children with disabilities rather than the education. Special education as we now know it has sprouted from legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly known as Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, which was the first set in a series of laws that demanded a free and appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. These laws forced a change in the education of children with disabilities, but did not erase the stigma of special education.

Special Education Present

The prejudice that surrounded special education in the past, before IDEA, is still present in current school settings and can often inhibit the progress of children in special education. The effects of having parents and administration that are uncooperative or not understanding can make a difficult task of educating children with special needs an almost impossible task. Often times administrators, general education teachers, and parents are reluctant to get involved with the special education system unsure of the correct approach or the value of a well run special education department. People who are uneducated about the value of special education will more often have a negative connotation with the idea special education. I feel this directly affects the education of many students who are in need of special education.

Over the decades since the first laws regulating special education were passed, our nation has definitely taken the rights steps toward making our special education system something to smile at. However, our battle is not over. Although the United States has attempted to level the playing field with legislation, students in special education and students in general education are not quite on an even turf yet. Special education in many city school are still lacking in formation and effectiveness. Through our discussion board this is apparent. Many schools do not have adequate personnel, facilities, or resources to properly educate a student with special needs. Without the proper manipulative students are simply held in classes without the opportunity of education.

At present I consider myself lucky to have not gone through some of the turmoil my colleagues have. My diagnosed students were all in receipt of the help they needed. Each child who needed resource room had it, my student with a hearing impairment had his voice projector, my legally blind student had her assigned paraprofessional, and my emotionally disturbed students had their counselors and so and so forth. But this is not the way things are in many schools. Many students who are in need of special education are still done a disservice. Often children with special needs are simply placed into a general education setting without heed to their IEP, with the expectation that the child will learn through the teacher’s differentiated instruction. This is unfair and something that has gnawed at my soul. Most of my students this year were forced into a collaborative team teaching model for the purpose of fudging the schools numbers to make it seem as though these students made progress. Next year collaborative team teaching is being phased out so these students, many of whom I feel were not capable of handling a CTT setting, will be forced into a lesser restrictive environment. This will set them up for failure and is an all too common situation. It is unfair to prematurely push students who are not ready into these settings, and it is unlawful. Students are simply seen as playing pieces which need to be moved from one space to another, and until they are looked at as individuals with individual needs, special education will not be what it should be.

Reference:

Grenne, J. (2007). Fixing special education. Peabody Journal of Education.

pg. 703–723

Johnson, J. A., Musial, D, Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2005).

Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14^th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Salend, J. (2007). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices (6^th

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

The Progress of Special Education in the US

2008-07-30T10:24:00.001-04:00

The precedent for most special education related litigation was established by Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954). The decision in this landmark civil rights case determined that segregating students in schools based on race, even if other educational variables appear to be equal, is unconstitutional. The refutation of “separate but equal” served as the underlying argument in court action by families of students with disabilities that were fighting for suitable public school education (Salend, 2008). Students with disabilities were separated from their peers without disabilities. They were sent to schools which were indeed separate. Two very important decisions for the education of students with disabilities brought changes: Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia (1972).
As the institutionalization of students with disabilities declined, the number of special education schools and special classes within the public schools for students with disabilities increased. Although this was a vast improvement, advocates for students with disabilities still questioned the segregation of these students within the public school. In 1968, Lloyd Dunn argued that special education classes for students with mild disabilities were unjustifiable because they served as a form of homogeneous grouping and tracking. He cited studies showing that students with mild disabilities “made as much or more progress in the regular grades as they do in special classes”, as well as studies showing that labeling reduces the student’s self-concept and the teacher’s expectations for success in school (Dunn, as cited in Salend, 2008, p.18).
There are several statues that address the education of people with disabilities. Three very important ones are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA); and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Johnson et al., 2008). “Three important themes addressed in Section 504 are equal treatment, appropriate education, and handicapped persons”. The Public Law 94-142 that was passed by Congress in 1975 has been amended several times. This law assures a free appropriate public education to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one (Johnson, et al., 2008, pp.198-199). Each child with a disability should also have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) formulated by general and special education teachers, and subject to the parents’ approval. The Individual with Disabilities Education Act (1992) developed stricter specifications for the delivery of educational services to students with disability (Johnson, et al., 2008).
According to National Council on Disability Chairperson John R. Vaughn, “Thanks to NCLB, with its push for improved student outcomes, as well as the IDEA, educators across the United States are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students” (Positive Impact of IDEA and NCLB). As we try to close the achievement gap and immerse students with disabilities into general education classrooms we have pay close attention to the different disabilities.While the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has made drastic improvement to the education of students with disabilities, I have also seen some problem areas. If students are being placed in general education classes, then they also need a fulltime teacher who is competent and equipped to give them the help they need.
We have definitely made progress in special education in the United States. Rather than segregating students with disabilities, most schools are implementing inclusion programs to unify general and special education. With this progress there is room for improvement. When I consider my classroom of twenty nine students including eleven with mild disabilities, I know we have not reached our goal. These students are in a general education setting with one teacher. How much can be done for their individual needs? This classroom should also have a special education teacher and should be equipped to facilitate the needs of these students. We are fooling ourselves if we are integrating students with disabilities without providing them with the necessary services. Classrooms are also ill-equipped; there is a lack of technology that would enhance the learning of all students, especially those with disabilities. I know this is not a problem in every school, but as an educator who believes in equal opportunities for all students, I am not certain that all students are receiving an equal education.
Students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically, and they also appear to be graduating at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggests, however, that there is still cause for concern about the dropout levels of students with disabilities nationwide. It is imperative that we acquire a better understanding of the new rules and regulations in order to assist these students. Schools definitely need to provide more professional development for teachers who have limited experience in working with students with disabilities. How can we sufficiently serve students with disabilities when we are not trained to meet their needs? I am not against inclusion, but if we are mandated to educate as many students with disabilities as possible in the regular education classroom, the resources must be provided to meet their unique, individual needs.

References
Johnson, J.A., Musical, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M., & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundation of American Education: Perspective on education in a changing world. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Retrieved July 28, 2008 from
http://www.cpd.usu.edu/asset.php?id=797

Disciplining unruly students by J Green

2008-07-30T09:46:00.001-04:00

How are unruly students disciplined in today’s schools? This is a question that seems to stir a lot of interest. Dave Arnold an Educational Support Professional columnist for the National Educational Association writes of how when it comes to disciplining unruly students, school professionals often find themselves being disciplined for alerting school administration to a problem with a student. For example, Arnold writes, if a student is particularly unruly on, say, the school bus on the way to school, when the bus driver escorts that student to the principal’s office, it is not uncommon for the driver to find him or herself under scrutiny from the principal (http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv050916.html). Is this really the case? What has happened to discipline of unruly students in school? It is my own personal experience when, in front of the entire sport’s team, a student intentionally stormed off court, during a practice, knocking me with her shoulder, and nearly knocking me down because I had asked her to step off the court. During strategy instruction, she was conversing with friends and was not paying attention thus holding up that particular part of practice. When I reported the incidence to my athletic director at my school, I found myself having to justify why I asked this student to step off the court. I felt as though I had no right to ask a student to step off the court even if the student was not participating and instead was being a distraction. I am not sure if the athletic director was aware, but the message she sent to me and the students was the students may do what they want when they want because they are always right and supported. This includes being unruly on school premises and ultimately threatening a coach or other school professional. Needless to say, the student went undisciplined and I was warned to play that student during an upcoming game regardless of her previous actions.

At what cost is this unruliness affecting the quality of education? Likewise, what is it doing to the pool of personnel? After working as a coach for five years, I eventually left that school. It was incidences like the ones mentioned that reinforced for me the lack of support I was to receive from that school. Too often I felt I was on trial for reporting a student. If a student cursed, threatened me, had a secret rendezvous with a boyfriend while we were out of town, trashed a hotel during an overnight stay, or confided in me about a potential abuse she was experiencing, whenever I reported any incidence I found myself being on trial. I would have to report to the head mistress, the school psychologist, the parent committee, and the athletic director. I always thought I was doing the right thing by alerting my boss, the athletic director, right away; instead, I walked away feeling dejected. Having to sit with the school psychologist because a student reported abuse to me made me feel as though I had done something wrong. I was interrogated about whether or not I had forced the student to confess an abuse. I told them I had not. The student had simply openly spoke about it, but what surprised me was that the school seemed to care less about the alleged abuse and more about a student confiding to a school professional. That same student, by the way, was the student who I had earlier had the confrontation with on the court. Arnold writes in another article how school professionals are being blamed by the public for allowing students to go unruly; however, Arnold writes, it is that same public who will also “cry foul” when school professionals do discipline unruly students (http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv030708.html). Arnold says the unruliness has become so overwhelming that the best teachers are resigning.

So the question becomes what are teachers and other school professionals to do when it comes to disciplining unruly students? I must admit that when I switched professions going from coach to general education teacher, the support for unruly students did not change. I had gone through nearly two years of graduate school, at two different universities, learning about teaching English in high school. I learned activities for engaging students (although, I would later realize these activities work well with graduate students but not so well with urban high school students), I visited museums that cater to schools, I read books about how the adolescent mind develops and of how adolescents learn, and I have learned about programs for special education students and the laws protecting the special education students, such as No Child Left Behind. What I did not walk away with is how to discipline unruly students. There is lots of talk about classroom management, and the talk hints at if you cannot manage a class full of students something is wrong with you. I often felt like I had to walk into a classroom and become the bully. I was advised to create a “zero excuses” classroom. A classroom where I am the ruling voice and what I say goes. Well, the school year began and what I discovered was that for the first two marking periods I was in a perpetual tug-o-war with unruly students. I was not knocked over, but I could seldom teach a class since the unruly students insisted upon being the only voices heard and the only presence seen. They talked at the tops of their voices walking around the room speaking with their friends whenever they wanted or simply calling out to their friends from across the room. I resorted to shouting and arguing. It never worked. I was in graduate school learning how to become an English teacher, but, after two marking periods as an actual English teacher, I felt as though what I needed to learn was how to warden a prison. I began to feel as though I were nothing more than a glorified babysitter babysitting kids whose parents, when I gave them a call, often asked me how to handle unruly behavior. It turned out that often the parents experienced the same things at home and themselves struggled with disciplinary problems. I will not digress into the obvious blame game; instead, I will say that by the fourth marking period there was a dramatic change in my classroom. I stopped trying to make the students behave like I wanted them to behave and began thinking about the catalyst behind the behavior. My one on one talks with students turned away from me and my problems with the students to finding out if they needed to talk about their own problems. Mary Ellen Flannery (2005) writes about a new elementary school teacher who found herself having to hold the hand of an unruly student (http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html). In essence, I have come to approach unruly students as a metaphorical call for me to hold their hand. To my surprise, even my most threatening students have responded more positively to me when I in essence hold their hand. I do not believe that holding hands is the solution but I do believe that it is closure to what the problem may be. The kids are very young, even if some are nineteen and much bigger that their teachers, and they do not know how to deal with the emotional problems tugging away at them. They have problems at school, with friends, at home, and with a number of other things. Sometimes their problems are too grown up for their developing adolescent mind. As I decided to stop screaming and demanding my way (having my own tantrums) and to listen, what I discovered was a way in to how to work together. Flannery (2005) gives a list of twenty five tips for how to squash unruly behavior (http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html), don’t argue with students is one of the items. Arguing was one of the things that sent my classroom into a downward spiral.

I walk away from this past school year realizing that, one, I am still an English teacher. I love literature, and I love writing. I love learning new ways to communicate, and I want to pass this love on to all of my students hoping to generate a love of English language arts in them. I also walk away knowing that I am also an educator of model behavior. I cannot assume students come into my classroom knowing how to model disciplined behavior or even knowing how to respond to discipline. I can often be impatient. I walk away now knowing that it takes a lot of patience, a lot of trial and error, and a lot of time to learn and to grasp ideal behavior.

References

Arnold, D. Don’t Punish the messenger. National Education Association. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from
http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv050916.html.

Arnold, D. Unruly students going unpunished: Straying off the learning course too easy for some students. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from http://www.nea.org/espcolumns/dv030708.html.

Flannery, M. E. (2005). The D Word: Discipline problems weigh on educators today more than ever. But don't despair—there's plenty you can do to knock your challenges down to size. National Education Association. Retrieved July 29, 2008 from
http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0509/coverstory.html.

A Wall or a Fence: Should Teaching Religion be Allowed in Public Schools?

2008-07-30T08:24:00.002-04:00

Teaching religion has been a part of American education since the colonial era, when theological documents like the New England Primer both taught students to read and indoctrinated them into the Christian faith (Johnson, et. al., 2008). The forward-thinking framers of the Constitution, however, recognized that this could lead to the same government-enforced religious monopoly that they had left and battled England to escape. Thus, the Establishment Clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Most people refer to this clause when they use the slightly pithier phrase “separation of church and state”. In the latter half of the 20th century, this has popularly been interpreted as the need to completely extract any trace of religion from anything publicly funded, especially schools. However, another slightly smaller camp argues that religion can be a part of publicly-funded institutions as long as one religion is not promoted over all the others. I argue that religion has been and continues to be part of the fabric of our society. The traditions and thought patterns of religions have shaped our world, and understanding them is essential to being a responsible citizen of the United States and the global community. Thus, religion can and should be taught in schools under certain guidelines. The Establishment Clause has been interpreted as a need to set up a wall between the sacred and the secular, but a wall leaves us blind while protecting us. Rather, it should be thought of as a fence, where religion and government cannot harm each other, but they can certainly see what the other is doing.
Legal Precedents: Can Religion Be Taught In School?
There are certain plenty of unconstitutional uses of religion in public schools, among them school-mandated prayer and teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design, as well as contested issues such as student distribution of religious publications, religious organizations meeting after-school, and showing religious movies (Johnson, et. al., 2008). Generally, these legal conflicts of religion and education have been judged by the Lemon Test, composed of three questions:
• Does the act have a secular purpose?
• Does the primary effect of the act either advance or inhibit religion?
• Does the act avoid excessive entanglement of government and religion?

An answer of no to any of these questions makes the act unconstitutional. Unfortunately, “excessive entanglement” is a rather vague notion. Many Supreme Court Justices find the Lemon Test to be dissatisfying. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has proposed a popular alternative asking whether a governmental act endorses religion. A more conservative group supports a test developed by Justice Anthony Kennedy, which asks if the act coerces people to support or participate in a religion against their will (Haynes & Thomas, 2001). Teaching religion, when following the guidelines that will be outlined later on, passes all of these tests.
Indeed, it was established almost 50 years ago that teaching in public schools is constitutional. As part of the Supreme Court’s ruling on school prayer in Abington v. Schemp, Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote:
It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. (Haynes & Thomas, 2001)
This is the legal keystone for why and how religion should be taught in public schools. What is first and foremost, however, is that it can be perfectly legal to do so. The Modesto, California Public School District exercised this constitutional right in 2000, when they established a required course in World Religions and Religious Liberty for incoming 9th grade students (Johnson, et. al., 2008). So religion can be taught in school, but should it be?

The Community of Voices and the History of Ideas:
Why Should Religion Be Taught in School?
Educational philosopher Maxine Greene notes that today “we are challenged as never before to confront plurality and multiplicity” (1993). Immigration, globalization, civil rights movements, and the genocides of the 20th century have greatly increased awareness of not only the number of different voices in the nation and the world, but also their right to be heard and the value of hearing them. It is important that various communities have an understanding of what each group is all about, to shatter misconceptions, if not develop empathy. It is, after all, misconceptions and a lack of empathy that paves the way for lynching and genocide. To establish John Dewey’s vision of democracy, “a way of living together in which mutual and free consultation rule instead of force,” (1937), we must be willing to learn about each other’s point of view. What has a greater influence on the point of view of millions than religion? In addition, a “community of voices” (Greene, 1993) must be able to speak and understand each other’s discourses. Even within the English language, there are myriad vocabularies, dialects, grammars, and religious language certainly accounts for some of that discourse. To be able to speak and understand these multiple discourses or “code-switch” (Swords and Wheeler, 2006) will make people more versatile and able to function effectively in a diverse world. Teaching religion will allow students to understand the stories, histories, vocabularies, and worldviews that influence their community, their nation, and the world.
Objectivity: How Should Religion Be Taught in School?
Having determined that religion can be taught and why it should be taught, the time is right for explaining how it should be taught. After all, the danger of teaching religion is that the teacher may try promote one religion, denigrate another, and/or make religious truth claims about the world. However, it is very possible to teach religion without doing so. A coalition of 17 major religious and educational organizations released a study that points out what distinguishes teaching about religion versus the teaching of religion (indoctrination):
• The school’s approach to religion is academic, not devotional.
• The school strives for student awareness of religions, but does not press for student acceptance of any religion.
• The school sponsors study about religion, not the practice of religion.
• The school may expose students to a diversity of religious views, but may not impose any particular view. (Haynes & Thomas, 2001)
A teacher may say that a certain religious group believes this or that, that a historical event influenced this or that religion, that this text is important for this or that religion. The difference is that (generally) a teacher should not state that a religious claim is categorically true or untrue. This objectivity will help someone teaching about religion to avoid offending students/parents and bringing legal trouble upon themselves.
I have a great deal of interest in teaching both about religion and about religious texts. I think religious vocabulary, history, and iconography so heavily effect media of all types that to not teach it would be leaving a huge blind spot on the cultural lens of my students. In addition, I think religious texts have quite a bit of literary merit outside of the truth claims they make, and analyzing them in that fashion can sharpen their skills as readers and storytellers. Finally, the big questions that religion and religious texts attempt to answer are questions I want my students to ask and to come up with their own answers, and discussing religion is a good way to get them thinking about those questions. Last year, I only used a few creation myths during my mythology unit. Next year, I plan to incorporate modern religions more into my curriculum. It’s nice to know that the Constitution provides me the protection to do so.
References
Dewey, J. (1937). “Education and social change.” In F. Schultz (Ed.), S.O.U.R.C.E.S.: Notable
selections in education (3rd ed., pp. 333-341). Guillford: McGraw-Hill.
Greene, M. (1993). “The passions of pluralism: Multiculturalism and the expanding
community.” In F. Schultz (Ed.), S.O.U.R.C.E.S.: Notable selections in education (3rd ed., pp. 350-361). Guillford: McGraw-Hill.
Haynes, C.C. & Thomas, O. (2001). Finding common ground: A guide to religious liberty in
public schools. Nashville: First Amendment Center.
Johnson, J. A., Musial, D., Hall, G. E., Gollink, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2005). Introduction to
the foundations of American education. 14th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.
Wheeler, R. and Swords, R. (2006). Code-switching: Teaching standard English in urban
classrooms. Urbana: NCTE

Internet Literacy: Does it belong in the classroom?

2008-07-30T08:02:00.000-04:00

Last Sunday, The New York Times sparked a debate over Internet, literacy and education through its article, “Literacy Debate: Online R U Really Reading?” The article offered examples of young people, who like most of their counterparts, spend an increased about of time on the Internet, compared to students of yester-year. The article then details the woes and fears and some statistics to prove them of those who believe that online time is hurting children’s mental growth. For example, “Last fall the National Endowment for the Arts issued a sobering report linking flat or declining national reading test scores among teenagers with the slump in the proportion of adolescents who said they read for fun (Rich, 2008).”

This has brought up the questions: What are schools to do? Should the Internet be a part of literacy learning? And if so, how much a part? Will students who spend education time on Internet literacy not learn the patience and imagination skills developed by sustained reading of traditional print sources? It could and it might, but that is the very reason why educators should get online and develop curriculum that helps students synthesize online information with what they learn through traditional print texts, and decide when and how to use online information to enhance their learning and understanding. Whether we like it or not, the Internet is here to stay. It is the printing press of the 20^th Century. Similar to the way in which we use calculators to find answers to complicated math problems, we will use Google to search for quick, factual information, and never look back.

In a study of how Internet literacy influences classrooms, Rachel Karchmer states, “…global information economies will require students to be prepared to use Internet technologies to quickly gather and evaluate information, use that information to solve problems, and then quickly communicate their solutions to others (2001).” This is in line with the standards of 21^st century learning skills—an educational movement that focuses on media literacy, problem-solving, career skills and communication. Indeed, in 2000, the United States Department of Labor predicted that the top five fastest growing occupations for the following eight years would all necessitate technological skills (Karchmer, 2001). If educators are to prepare students to be successful in the world, they must change with the times.

To those who question whether or not schools should count Internet proficiency as literacy, I would like to point out that despite the prevalent use of computer technology and communication in the professional sphere, access to the Internet is still divided along economic lines. People with higher income status (over $50,000) are twice as likely to use the Internet on a regular basis as those in middle to low income brackets ($25.000-$49,999 and up to $24,999, respectively). Additionally, people with college degrees are nearly three times as likely to use the Internet on a regular basis as those without (Bucy, 2000). It only seems right that the public school system use its equalizing power to bridge this social gap in access to information by teaching students to become more Internet literate, so that they can compete in a global society whose Internet connection is only growing stronger by the minute.

References

Bucy, E. P. (2000). Social access to the Internet. The Harvard Review of Press/Politics,

5(1), 50-61.

Karchmer, R. A. (2001). The journey ahead: thirteen teachers report how they Internet

influences literacy and literacy instruction the their K-12 classrooms. Reading

Research Quarterly, 36(4), 442-446.

Rich, M. (2008, July 27). Literacy debate: online r u really reading? The New York Times,

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html).

Critical Reflection: "Pay for Performance"

2008-07-30T06:23:00.002-04:00

The idea of “paying” students money for improved and/or “good” performances in school (particularly on standardized tests) is a consistently controversial topic in public education – one that invites strong opinions both for and against the effort, even though it has been around for well over a decade.
Those in favor of “pay for performance” agreements often point to the effectiveness of incentives and bonuses in the “real” world, for example the workplace, and refer to research studies that seem to indicate a correlation between monetary awards and increased student achievement. For instance, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University recently found that reward programs lead to an average gain of four percentage points on standardized state reading tests (Robelen, 2008). Likewise, the local school board for Coshocton, Ohio found that students’ math scores were higher in years when rewards were offered compared to years when they were not, perhaps suggesting an important connection between financial incentives and academic performances (Viadero, 2008).
In a sense, the argument for “paying” students boils down this: Many students already receive financial rewards for their scholastic achievements – either from their parents/relatives for “As and Bs” on their report cards or in the form of academic scholarships (at both the secondary and post-secondary levels). As a result, the concept/practice of rewarding students with money for their school achievements is not a new one (nor is it necessarily harmful).
Further, since students (like more or less all people) seem to work harder and do better when rewarded with things for their efforts (i.e. candy or pizza parties or “free time” or gift certificates or homework passes or movies or field trips), and each of these things costs money anyway (paid either by the teacher or the school), wouldn’t it be easier if we dropped the pretense and simply gave them cash instead?
People on the other side of the issue, however, feel that offering students financial incentives leads to false academic performances – performances that primarily reflect the students’ desire for money rather than their actual ability or content knowledge. They argue that cash incentive programs do not “teach” students the inherent personal and societal value of education, only the financial (Viadero, 2008). For instance, as Bob Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing explains, “Bribing kids for higher test scores – or paying teachers bounties for their students’ work – is similar to giving them steroids. Short – term performance might improve, but the long-term effects can be very damaging” (Toppo, p. 3A, 2008).
Additionally, opponents of the “pay for performance” concept point out the fact that most of studies of the programs are done in charter and private schools where regulations differ from full-fledged public schools. Also, since the concept remains rather controversial, most incentive programs are typically funded by/with private donations from individuals and organizations. Therefore, opponents argue, it is difficult to say how these programs would work on a wide-scale basis, particularly in public schools with taxpayer money providing the cash for students’ academic rewards.
Regardless, the idea of “paying” students continues to attract a great deal of interest and attention, especially in the current era of “school accountability” when the funding and/or future of many schools relies on how well (or how poorly) students perform on standardized tests. As a result, many large public school districts, for instance New York City, are examining incentive programs as a possible method for improving students’ academic achievement.
In a recent New York Times article, “Next Question: Can Students Be Paid to Excel?” journalist Jennifer Medina explains that over 200 public schools in New York City are currently experimenting with incentive programs. She notes that in a dozen or so schools, students, principals, and teachers are all able to receive incentive money based on test scores (Medina, 2008). The results/details of these schools’ performances on the New York State math and ELA exams compared to other schools has not yet been published, but the fact remains that nearly everyone in these schools has an explicit financial incentive for performing well.
In terms of public schools, though, Texas was one of the first states to offer cash rewards to students for performing well on tests (in their case Advanced Placement subject tests) and the results have generally been favorable (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). A study at Cornell University, for instance, found increases in both SAT scores and the number of students admitted to colleges in Texas schools that participate in the incentive program (Christian Science Monitor, 2008). As a result, in the past several years, many other states and school districts have followed Texas’ lead and have begun offering financial rewards of one sort or another to their students.
Ultimately, the idea of “pay for performance” elicits strong reactions and responses in many people. At first, it may seem corrupt and unethical. We’re paying students for something they’re supposed to be doing anyway? However, as one continues to examine the concept it becomes difficult to ignore (and consequently unravel) the tangled relationship between schools, students, and money. One of the basic tenets/lessons of education is that if you try hard and do well you will be “rewarded.” Of course, in one sense the reward is entirely personal, meaning you will become a knowledgeable and socially aware member of society. However, in a much larger (and some would argue more important) sense, the reward is financial. Quite simply, you will (most likely) have the opportunity to work “better” jobs and, as a result, will enjoy the accompanying salaries and benefits (not the least of which is social status). Therefore, it seems reasonable for schools to at least consider the possibility of “pay for performance” programs since, in a very basic way, it is how the world already works anyway.

Cash for school grades? it works. (2008, January 28). Christian Science Monitor, pp. 8.

Medina, J. (2008, March 5). Next question: can students be paid to excel? The New York Times,
pp. 1A.

Robelen, E. (June 2008). Reading scores given ‘bump’ by student incentives, study finds.
Education Week. 27(39), 8-8.

Toppo, G. (2008, January 28). Kids’ good grades pay off-literally; controversial programs offer
cash incentives. USA Today, pp. 3A.

Viadero, D. (February 2008). Students in cash-incentives study score higher in math. Education
Week, 27(25) 6-6.

2008-07-30T00:30:00.000-04:00

Critical Reflection: A "Dream Deferred"

2008-07-29T23:57:00.007-04:00

Since the Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954, the courts, communities, and countless individuals have made efforts to abolish racial segregation in schools through the process of desegregation. This process experienced tremendous gains through affirmative action policies in higher education and race-conscious decisions in school assignments for K-12 education. Yet, while it is clear that such strides have been made towards realizing the vision of Brown, a lot of work remains to be done. Under a closer examination of the judicial system’s role in desegregation, a degree of ambivalence and inconsistency emerges as a racial hierarchy has not only lasted but also thieved in our society over the last sixty years. Moreover, with a lack of equal opportunity in under-funded urban public schools, Brown fails to be fulfilled in education on several accounts. Not until more individuals, dedicated and mobilized to demanding immediate equal opportunity, will we progress towards erasing de-facto school segregation from the American consciousness and instituting a more equitable system of education in its place.

Two major areas of education reveal progress towards integration--- affirmative action initiatives in higher education and race-conscious school assignments in K-12 education. Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, many statues and court decisions have sought to ensure that minorities have equal opportunity in higher education (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 198). This movement finds its legal basis in Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and involves designating a specific number of places for minority students in college admissions (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 198). In 1978, the Bakke case held that, in a similar interest for diversity, race could be considered among other factors in an educational admissions policy. Years later, in Grutter, the University of Michigan Law School Admissions policy, which gave special consideration to racial minorities, was held constitutional as well (Smith, 2008, p. 301). With a related effort in K-12 education, race-conscious school assignments, including consideration to race in magnet schools admissions, have experienced some success in creating student diversity as well (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 197).

Despite such evidence of progress forward, the distance towards the ideals of Brown in American education remains great. De-facto segregation re-inscribes the lack of equal opportunity in public schools, separating races and classes while building psychological barriers that are perhaps harder to tear down than legal ones. Gary Orfield’s study reflects the continued struggle to provide equitable education in public schooling as he investigates the de facto segregation of urban schools (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). In his most recent study, based on data from the 2001-2002 school year, Orfield reveals that the end of court-ordered de-segregation initiatives resulted in a dramatic increase of re-segregation (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). His work also discloses that while about one-quarter of students live in states comprised of a mostly non-white population, the majority of heavily segregated schools, which service primarily minorities, exist in communities of poverty--- a horrific fact that only compounds educational inequality (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 188). With almost 50% of school funding coming from inequitable, local property taxes, it seems just to assume that according to the system, “the quality of a child’s education [may be viewed as] a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors” (as cited in Johnson et al, 2008, p. 170). Simply put, de-facto segregation, operating under the constructs of an inequitable system of school funding, will continue to perpetuate educational inequalities for minority students within these communities of poverty--- unless the psychological barriers of racism are overcome.

Personal experience can further inform a discussion on de-segregated and segregated sectors of education. Graduating from the University of Michigan, I was fortunate to attend an institution of higher learning that promoted diversity on campus and assumed one of the leading roles among institutions of higher learning to not only encourage but actually look to institute equal opportunity. Entering as a freshman, the university functioned under an affirmative action admissions policy with a ranking system that gave automatic points to all racial minorities (Smith, 2008, p. 301). The benefits of this system were enormous, as various backgrounds, cultures, and life-experiences were brought together to enrich the classroom and campus community. During the spring of my freshman year, however, in the landmark case of Gratz, the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions was held unconstitutional for not considering race on individual determinations (Smith, 2008, p. 301). While the university received this devastating blow to its mission to promote equality, many supporters within its community refused to be discouraged by the set-back. Efforts to promote diversity on campus in the following years remained high, continuing as one of the primary objectives of the institution. With a message of equal opportunity not lost on its students, many advocated race-conscious admissions.

Drawing on my personal experience as a teacher, however, I have also witnessed the damaging effects of segregation in urban public schools. Some schools I have visited lack the basic essentials such as textbooks, paper, a copy machines available to teachers, computers with functioning printers, and an updated library. This limited supply of resources is a direct function of insufficient funding--- a relationship that denies the basic right to equal opportunity. Psychological effects of this function are devastating and far-reaching, suggesting to a child that his/her peers from a wealthier community somehow “deserve” a better education. Furthermore, the environment of such urban schools is as Kozol suggests, “ by and large extraordinarily unhappy places. With few exceptions, they [are reminders] of ‘garrisons’ or ‘outposts’ in a foreign nation” (as cited in Schultz, 2001, p. 362). Without providing these students with a better learning environment, or more generally, equal opportunity in education, we only further inscribe our educational system in segregation, widening the achievement gap rather than closing it.

It is evident that while steps towards realizing the vision of Brown v. Board of Education have been made, particularly in the race-conscious admissions processes of higher education, and consideration to diversity in school assignments of K-12 education, much work still needs to be done towards integration. De-facto segregation pervades society, particularly as seen in the re-segregation of urban schools in recent years (as cited in Russo, 2004, p. 187). This segregation only further perpetuates the lack of equal opportunity for students and leaves potentially damaging psychological effects. In order to move towards a more equitable system of education, and realize the vision of Brown, we must look, as educators, to promote diversity in the classroom. Reflecting on personal experiences in both de-segregated and segregated sectors of education, it is clear that in an atmosphere, which not only encourages equal opportunity but actively looks to realize it, a spark will emerge for a dedication to this ideal as a fundamental right of all students. Ultimately, it is my vision to see this “dream deferred” finally become a reality… where this small spark demands larger, more immediate social change towards an equitable system of education.

References

Johnson, J. A., Musial, D, Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2008). Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Russo, Charles. (2004). Brown v. board of education at 50: an update on school desegregation in the u.s. Education and the law. 16 (2-3) 183-189.

Schultz, Fred. (Ed.) (2001). Notable selections in education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin.

Smith, Bryant. (2008). Far enough or back where we started: race perception from brown to meredith. Journal of law and education. 37 (2), 297-305.

No Child Left Behind, Just Pushed to the Wings

2008-07-29T23:04:00.003-04:00

Since President Bush: The Next Generation has been in office, federal involvement in educations has taken a turn toward extreme controversy. Though I believe there should be more structure and national standards implemented throughout the States, I do not agree with the way in which No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goes about it. The law is rife with what I consider to be, as both a teacher and a student, problems. I do not believe that standardized test scores are the only proof, or for that matter, legitimate proof, that schools are teaching children and making real progress. There needs to be accountability on the part of schools, certainly, but the current way is not working.

Many people both in and out of the education field agree with me and NCLB has been met with a lot of hesitation and adversity. For example, Ms. Roberts, a teacher at Fourth Street School has serious concerns about NCLB that are very similar to my own. She voices the concern that “there is such pressure on assessment that oftentimes people are working hard to pass the test, and not to gain real understanding” (Stolberg, 2008). I can say from experience with standardized testing in my own education that if my diploma were based on how I performed on tests, I might not have graduated. However, as far as learning and class grades have been concerned, I have always been a high-scoring student. More emphasis should really be placed on ensuring that students gain knowledge to use later in life and not simply to use on a test.

“Today, some say that the law's ambitious goals for improving public schools are colliding with the reality that state[s]…are not designed to handle the myriad NCLB requirements” states Sack (2005, p. 1). Fredrick Douglass High School in Baltimore, as seen in the documentary Hard Times at Douglass High, is a perfect example. They have a school of about 1100 students, the largest class always being the freshmen and the smallest always being the seniors (Raymond, 2008). The reason for this discrepancy is, according to the principal, that most students do not make it past their sophomore year.

The law’s cornerstone is its requirement that states set targets and issue detailed reports on student performance…Schools that repeatedly fail to report progress are deemed “in need of improvement,” the law’s term for failing. Students may transfer out of failing schools, and the schools risk being shut down,” notes Stolberg. (2008).

But transferring out is exactly what many of the academically better students at Fredrick Douglass High School did. This left the school with no role models. No leaders to bring the school up in academic merit. No reason for teachers to continue trying so hard, then, if all the students that are left are those deemed disinterested and un-teachable.

Fredrick Douglass High School is considered a “failing” school in the eyes of the NCLB law and is slated for state take-over this upcoming school year. Though the school should obviously be held accountable for its situation, I do not believe the blame should be placed entirely on the administration and staff. How can a teacher be blamed for low standardized test scores when that teacher has never seen a particular student in the classroom? Maybe some accountability should be placed on the students themselves. This school seems to need someone to care about it and really know it and its students on personal levels. I do not believe that the state controlling this school will help anything.

Some states have their own policies already in place in order to assess student and school achievement. For example, prior to the NCLB law, ”Kentucky assessed student achievement every two years,” (Stolberg, 2008) as opposed to every year, as required by NCLB. “Kentucky tested seven subject areas,” 5 more than the federal law required. “Kentucky marked progress based on a school’s growth; under No Child Left Behind, a school either passed or failed." (Stolberg, 2008). Maybe there should be some consideration given to this state’s procedures. Perhaps seeing only in black and white, in pass and fail mode, is not what will work to establish a better educational system. Maybe the federal government is comprised of too many ex-students who could answer test questions, but who could not apply their learning to real life.

Even with all the debate over NCLB, however, “Former Education Secretary Rod Paige announced recently the “debate is over” about whether the No Child Left Behind law is working or not. Indeed, positive changes in academic achievement are occurring, he says, slowly, but surely.” (Anonymous, 2004, p. 19). With many schools across the country facing problems akin to Fredrick Douglass High, I am really unsure as to what exactly Mr. Paige is talking about. There is proof that test scores are rising, but, “there is no hard-and-fast evidence, most experts say, that it is actually improving student achievement." (Stolberg, 2008). So then, what is the point? Does the Federal government intend to create a generation of great test takers, Scantron filler-outers, and inside-the-box thinkers? Somehow, this does not seem like enough.

So, as we near the end of the 8-year long tyranny, we can look forward to a future of uncertainty in the Federal government’s role in our classrooms. Someday in the distant future, perhaps we can laugh as tenured retired and pension-receiving ex-teachers as we look back at the "Texas governor who came to Washington vowing to be “the education president” and wound up consumed with fighting terrorism and two wars" (Stolberg, 2008) instead of fighting the war right here at home, the war I fight with students every day, the war to get them to learn.

References

Anonymous. (2004). Debate is over: NCLB works. District

Administration, 40, 19-20.

Hoffman, J. (Producer), & Raymond, A. & Raymond S. (Directors).

(2008). Hard times at Douglass high: An NCLB report card.

[Motion picture]. New York: Video Vérité.

Sack, Joetta L. (2005). State agencies juggle NCLB work, staffing

woes. Education Week, 24, 1-25.

Stolberg, S.G. (2008, June 12). Bush loyalist fights foes of 'No

Child' law. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/washington/12spellings.html ?_r=1&ref=education

Critical Reflection: School Assessment & NYC School Report Cards by Luke Martin DeSiervo

2008-07-29T22:44:00.003-04:00

*Edited for internet post

...I recognize that accountability is an important part of educational policy, and rightfully so, but how can we create a school report card system that more accurately reflects what is happening in the classroom and better serves the needs of our students?

The first public school report cards were released in November of 2007, having accumulated data from the previous school year. According to a press release signed by Major Michael Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein, “Progress Reports are the centerpiece of the City’s effort to arm educators with the information and authority they need to lead their schools and to hold them accountable for student outcomes. The reports also provide parents with detailed information about school performance, both to hold their schools accountable and to inform family decisions” (Bloomberg & Klein, 2007). As the system is currently designed, the Department of Education uses a new Achievement Reporting and Innovation System (ARIS) to compare schools with a group of 40 peer schools that have similar student populations. Based on this comparison, schools are then given a grade of A-F dependent on school environment (15%), student performance (30%), and student progress (55%). Furthermore, the city maintains that ARIS will provide principals with important data that will allow them to see the areas where their school received a low score, find patterns among student performance, and locate successful peer schools to learn from their practices (Bloomberg & Klein, 2007). In February, the city was considering adapting changes to the system that would benefit schools with the highest performing students, as well as those with large numbers of special education students (Gootman, 2007).

Since its inception, the school report card system has been attacked by an overwhelming body of schools, parents, and education activists alike. One of the many criticisms suggests that a letter grade cannot accurately portray the amount of learning and improvement that takes place in particular school. As Diane Ravitch, a history of New York City schools explains, “It is reductive to give a school, which is a complex organism, a single letter grade. It doesn’t clarify, it oversimplifies” (Gootman & Medina, 2007). Like UFT president Randi Weingarten, she maintains that if schools are to be graded at all, they should be judged in individual categories and not on a holistic scale, as it will offer more direction for improvement. In addition, many of the city’s higher achieving schools also oppose the system, as the emphasis on yearly improvement is not beneficial to schools that already achieve at high levels. Even some principal’s whose schools have done well worry that “the city had overemphasized the Regents tests, potentially sending the message that those exit exams, rather than advanced course work, were paramount” (Gootman & Medina, 2007). Yet while many oppose this initiative, a 2007 survey conducted by Quinnipiac University suggests that 75 percent of the public school parents who knew the grade of their child’s school said they thought the evaluation was fair (Medina, 2007). Likewise, city officials have continued to defend school report cards and the policy will remain in effect for the foreseeable future.

From a research perspective, school report cards are often considered to be an increasingly effective and popular method for collecting program data in education. Inspired by the state accountability initiatives enforced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as well the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), a recent study published by the Journal of Correctional Education state that there are four main reasons that states have implemented school report cards: school improvement, state quality initiatives, state mandates, and funding (Silverberg et. al., 2008, pg. 35). Kurt M. Landgraf, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Educational Testing Service, also maintains that the assessment and accountability designed by the school report card system are the best ways to improve student achievement. As he states, “Without solid and frequent information gathered from student assessments, it will be difficult for us to know if each child is mastering the material appropriate for his or her age and grade. Yearly assessments will help provide teachers and school administrators with the critical information they need to enable each and every student to learn” (Landgraf, 2003).

This trend of using report card system as a form of assessment is increasing across the political spectrum and is not limited to the field of education. As Larry Condelli of the American Institutes for Research points out, “report cards have been recently developed for community colleges, health care providers, hospitals, doctors, auto dealers, and insurance companies – even the City of New York’s subway system” (Condelli, 2005). Thus, the reality is that school report cards are not going to disappear anytime soon, and legislative bodies must find a way to ensure that these rating systems are accurate and reliable reflections of the classroom environment.

While praise for data-driven initiatives such as the school report system can be found across the academic spectrum, virtually all researchers have highlighted the importance of responsible practices and accountability on behalf of those implementing the reports. According to her Guide to Effective Accountability Reporting, consultant Ellen Forte Fast recognizes that “the variety of state and local accountability reporting requirements are placing states and districts under escalating pressure to produce a greater number of increasingly complex reports at the state, district, and school levels—and to do so more quickly than ever before. They pose particular challenges for accountability reporting because these reports convey high stakes information for schools and districts and are expected to serve multiple purposes for multiple audiences” (Fast, 2002). Stressing the importance of accuracy and reliability, she offers suggestions for how schools can refine their reporting system to meet these needs effectively. Some of her suggestions include having an independent contractor summarize the performance of the individual student, classroom, school district, and state level at the beginning of each school year, as well as having school report cards or profiles be linked to state accountability systems (Fast, 2002).

In my limited experience within the school system, I would suggest that it is in the field of accountability that the New York City Department of Education has gone wrong....

References

Bloomberg, M. & Klein, J. (2007, November 5). Mayor Bloomberg and
Chancellor Klein release first-ever public school progress reports. Retrieved July 27, 2008 from http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/mediarelations/NewsandSpeeches/2007-2008/20071105_progress_reports.htm

Condelli, L. (2005). Demonstrating results: Developing state and local report
cards for adult education. Enhancing Performance through Accountability, 1-2, 13-14, U.S. Department of Education.

Fast, E. (2002). A guide to effective accountability reporting. Council of Chief
State School Officers, 11-12, 31.

Landgraf, K. (2003). Using Assessment and Accountability to Raise Student
Achievement. Educational testing Service Report.

Gootman, E. (2008, February 29). New York City education department proposes
changes in school grades. The New York Times, p. 22.

Gootman, E. & Medina, J. (2007, November 27). New York grades set off debate
on judging schools. The New York Times, p. 8.

Medina, J. (2007, December 11). Defending school report cards, over a chorus of
boos. The New York Times, p. 20.

Silverberg, D.A., Dowdell, J.J., & Sikula, J.P. (2008). An overview of school
performance reports in correctional education. The Journal of Correctional Education 59, 33-46.

Benefits and Limitations of Brown

2008-07-29T22:40:00.004-04:00

While attending summer camp, I met a fellow camper, Paul, who joked that he was the only white kid at his high school in Hartford, CT. Years later, in college, I was chatting with a young woman in one of my English seminars. We were comparing tales of having been inadequately prepared for our college careers by our public high schools, and she mentioned that she'd attended school in Hartford. She brought up the lack of diversity at her school, and I told her that I knew someone who claimed to be the only white guy at his Hartford high school. "He must have been kidding," I said. "He wasn't kidding," she said, then added, "So, how do you know Paul?"

Under Federal Law, the situation in Hartford was not illegal (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996). Brown vs. Board of Education mandates redress only for de jure segregation, that is, segregation that is based in legal and official actions (Johnson, 2008, p. 193). The Supreme Court's 1954 decision does not address de facto segregation, or segregation that is caused by housing patterns and other non-legal factors (Johnson, 2008, p. 192), and thus the students in Hartford—much like many of our students—found themselves in schools whose populations were representative of the communities in which they were located and therefore not required to desegregate under Brown vs. Board of Education.

A New York Times editorial commemorating the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education lamented the fact that, in 2004, 70% of black students nationally attended schools in which racial minorities were the majority (New York Times, 2004). Whether racial isolation was more a function of housing patterns or of lax enforcement of laws and policies intended to eradicate segregation was not clear. The editorial seemed to suggest that it was the latter and lay some of the blame on waning interest in integration and a conservative Supreme Court (New York Times, 2004).) In my own school—whose population last year was about 60% Latino and almost 40% African American—the school's racial make-up is dictated by housing patterns, and those housing patterns have been dictated, at least in part, by poverty. Admittedly, families are afforded more choice than in the past—a student's family may choose a school based on the student's area of interest (our school, for instance, has a math and technology focus, which attracts certain candidates)—but selections at the elementary and middle-school levels must be made from a list of "zoned" schools. Zones are determined by geography, and thus students are forced to choose among demographically similar—and, in the case of my students, equally racially isolated—schools.

As much as I value diversity and believe that it ought to be cultivated whenever possible, I do not believe that "racial isolation" in and of itself precludes the possibility of receiving a good or even excellent education. I am concerned, however, that the poverty (of which racial isolation is but one symptom) does affect students—and their educations—profoundly and needs to be more directly addressed. In 1996, the families of students in the Hartford Public Schools sued the state of Connecticut, successfully, "to remedy alleged educational inequalities resulting from racial and ethnic isolation" (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996, p. 95). The Supreme Court of Connecticut, stating that "[t]he public elementary and high school students in Hartford suffer daily form the devastating effects that racial and ethnic isolation, as well as poverty, have had on their education" and that "Federal constitutional law provides no remedy for their plight" (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996, p. 97), ruled that, under Connecticut constitutional law, the state had an obligation to end both de jure and de facto segregation, that profound inequities in educational opportunities among citizens of the same state had to be remediated regardless of cause (Cases, 196, p. 123).

In identifying the limitations of Brown vs. Board of Education, it is easy to lose sight of the profound impact it has had in American life, not just in the educational sector but in society at as a whole. "Brown kick-started the civil rights movement, and began a slow but steady process of dismantling legal segregation" (New York Times, 2004). The Montgomery bus boycott, counter sit-ins, and the civil rights legislation that ended the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the public sphere all followed from Brown. Even as we acknowledge some of Brown's limitations as a tool for eradicating injustice in our schools, we should not forget that it allowed for a sea-change in our nation's thinking about what equality means and what might be necessary to achieve it.

Legislation, however, is not enough. For instance, the Connecticut State Supreme Court ordered an immediate remedy for segregation in the Hartford public schools, but the state, more than ten years after the 1996 ruling, had still failed to put into place a viable plan for achieving desegregation. In November 2007, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund returned to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and a settlement requiring the state to develop a "Comprehensive Management Plan" was reached this spring (NAACP, 2008). As of today, the Hartford, CT, schools remain as segregated as when my friend Paul, more than twenty years ago, attended high school.

REFERENCES

Johnson, J. Musial, D. Hall, G., Golnick, D., and Dupuis, V. (2008). Foundations of American education: perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson.

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (2008, April 9). LDF announces settlement Agreement in Hartford school desegregation case. Retrieved July 28, 2008, http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=1265.

New York Times Editorial Board. (2004, May 16). Brown vs. board of education. The New York Times. Retrieved July 28, 2008, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0D9163FF935A25756C0A9629C8B63.

Supreme Court of Connecticut. (1996, July 16). Milo Sheff et al vs. William A. O'Neill et al. Connecticut Law Journal, 95-141.

Is the use of anti-plagiarism software a form of academic policing?

2008-07-29T19:32:00.000-04:00

As a graduate assistant teacher at Texas A&M University, the detection of plagiarism was stressed more during the week-long new teacher orientation than what to teach or how to teach it. Texas A&M had a big problem with plagiarism. As an English 104 teacher, I would see many attempts at plagiarism. The solution? We were shown how to input suspicious phrases into Google and hit “search.” Sometimes I didn’t even have to put phrases into a search engine because the student hadn’t bothered to change the font style, size or color from the webpage to his/her word document page. McKeever (2006) discusses how most plagiarism cases are “deemed to be product[s] of laziness and/or poor time management” (pp. 160-161). This is plagiarism at the collegiate level. What does it mean to plagiarize at the secondary level?

Colleen MacDonell (2005) suggests that most high school students “truly believe that their works aren’t plagiarized because they have changed some words” (p. 35). Many acts of plagiarism at the secondary level stem from a lack of knowledge on how to paraphrase or cite someone else’s intellectual property. The concept of intellectual property may also be foreign to most high school students. Most colleges have a plagiarism policy. The students are made aware of it as it appears on all syllabi for all classes. Many high schools do not have plagiarism policies. Plagiarism is simply considered cheating and the student is flunked for the assignment. It is important to understand present the full definition of plagiarism: “presenting someone else’s ideas or words as [one’s] own, allowing someone else to copy [one’s] work, writing something for someone else, and handing in the same work for more than one assignment” (MacDonell, 2005, 35). It is also vitally important to understand why the student chooses to plagiarize. With papers piling up on one’s desk, individually researching each paper and its author seems impossible. Anti-plagiarism software, such as Turnitin, exists to assist teachers in this task, but many see such software as unnecessary policing.

Academic plagiarism is considered a “societal blight” by John Barrie, founder of Turnitin. He calls Turnitin the cure for plagiarism. Student papers are submitted to the website electronically. Turnitin then “compare[s] those writings with texts in a giant database of books, journals, websites, and essays, and check[s] for evidence of plagiarized materials” (Brock, 2008, p. A1). The plagiarized and properly cited material is highlighted on the student paper and a percentage is given as to how original the paper is. Each paper submitted to Turnitin is then added to the massive database. “Turnitin has built much of its database with the help of clients” (Brock, 2008, p. A1).

Here exist the two criticisms of this software: it assumes a writer is guilty until proven innocent and it absorbs the intellectual property of the writer without due compensation. Students are resistant to anti-plagiarism software because it implies that they cannot be trusted. In some cases, students who resisted using Turnitin were given failing grades for assignments. It was assumed that the student had something to hide if he/she refused to use the software. In one such case, a student at McGill University refused to submit his work to Turnitin; he was subsequently failed by his professor. To appease the student in this unfair situation, “the university offered to grade [the student’s] papers without running them through the anti-plagiarism software” (Brock, 2008, p. A1).

Not only does anti-plagiarism software affect the relationship between the teacher and the students, many feel that it violates intellect property ethics. Since Turnitin relies on submissions from students to add to its database, many students feel as though they should be compensated since the company is profiting from the service. Turnitin argues that “the decision to archive the papers [is] protected by fair use” (Brock, 2008, p. A1). Students urge high school administrators mandating the use of Turnitin to reconsider because it violates their trust and their intellectual property.

Turnitin is a useful tool, but it should not be used to police student writing. Rather, Turnitin and other similar anti-plagiarism software programs should be used to guide instruction on proper citation and recognition of intellectual property. Such programs allow the teacher to “assess the level of a plagiarism problem and then to work with students to deal with it in a constructive manner” (McKeever, 2006, p. 163). There are ways to avoid plagiarism without having to turn to an anti-plagiarism software program. MacDonell (2005) suggests offering “at least one class on plagiarism to each grade level to ensure that students understand its definition, why it’s wrong, and how to avoid it” (p. 35). Teachers should also familiarize students with methods of citation. Since these methods are subject to change, teachers should remind students of particular citation methods before an assignment is due. Teachers should also provide citation crib sheets and examples of bibliographic entries as students learn well through modeling. Another way to help students avoid plagiarism is to break larger papers into smaller assignments with a turn-in timeline. This helps the teacher get to know each student’s style of writing; this helps students manage their time efficiently. Plagiarism is often a result of poor time management and a lack of skills in the art of citation. Educators should take the proactive approach of teaching citation and time management skills rather than the reactive approach of feeding each paper through an anti-plagiarism software program.

References

Brock, R. (2008). Anti-cheating crusader vexes some professors: software kingpin says

using his product would cure plagiarism blight. Chronicle of higher education, 54

(25), A1.

Johnson, J., Musial, D., Hall, G., Golnick, D., and Dupuis, V. (2008). Foundations of

American education: perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson.

MacDonell, C. (2005). The problem of plagiarism: students who copy may not know

they’ve committed an offense. School library journal, 51 (1), 35.

McKeever, L. (2006). Online plagiarism detection services: savior or scourge?

Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 31 (2), 155-165.

Teacher-student relationships – how to make right decisions

2008-07-29T18:07:00.002-04:00

Anna Perez stayed after school every single day, she didn’t need the extra help, but she preferred the old drafty school building to her over crowded one bedroom apartment. If she wanted to stay, her teacher would stay with her. She was never late to school, always there on time for breakfast, and never late for lunch. If she was hungry, her teacher would share. She came to school all winter without a winter coat. After months of trudging through the snow freezing, her teacher bought her a jacket. Like many teachers, if a student needs help, this teacher would offer what she could to help—but did she cross a line in doing so?

Teacher-student relationships have evolved greatly over the past century, leaving a vast grey area between what is and what is not appropriate. Many times, one thinks they are making the right decision, or simply not doing anything wrong, and they are found guilty of a fault, sometimes putting their careers and reputation in jeopardy. Many relationships are obviously inappropriate. Birdie Smith reports, “Sexual relationships, sexual innuendo and improper touching” are considered inappropriate behaviors. However, some schools also consider “electronic communication between teachers and students - such as text messaging, chat rooms, emails and phone calls,” in violation of contract, and even, “Holding conversations of a personal nature with a student or students without a valid context” (Smith, 2007).

In the so called information age it is not uncommon for a teacher to set up a class blog, offer a homework helpline and chat section, or even give out their phone number as a means of communication. Inappropriate teacher-student relationships may be unlikely, but rigid contracts and grey areas like the ones mentioned above are preventing extra help for students, and teacher willingness to help. Thinking back to Anna Perez, it is quite possible that Anna shared personal information with her teacher, all students do. Is that so wrong?

“I maintained very good relations with my students. I carefully prepared my lectures and tried to give students as much as I possibly could offer. I tried hard to create an atmosphere in my classroom that would encourage my students to engage each other in discussion, which, I believe, is beneficial for both teachers and students. We were friends after class,” says a former teacher and author of the article, “Student Teacher Bonds in the Modern Era.” Many believe that a healthy and appropriate student-teacher relationship strengthens an educator’s ability to teach and a student’s ability to learn.

In addition to the educational aspect of this debate, what about a teachers responsibility to a student? Teaching in an urban area we are faced with the challenge of seeing poor, abused, neglected children on a daily basis. Teachers aren’t going into this career with the intent of saving everyone, but there is no doubt in my mind that if I can help I will. I have a responsibility to myself to behave in a manner that is both moral and legal; I also have a responsibility to my student to ensure their safety while under my care. If this involves being a listening ear, or even giving out my phone number as an emergency contact, I am going to do so, but I don’t want to risk losing my job because of it, leaving me to question what is more important?

In the end, only you can decide. There are several factors one must consult, first being your school and its policy on what is and what is not appropriate (if available). You must also refer to your contract, your district, state guidelines, national guidelines, and any other legal documentation that may be explicit and specific in what you may and may not do. Most importantly, you have to make the decision on how involved you want to be in your students lives, and when your involvement is needed. Finally, you should never engage in any activities that fall in that grey area without involving other members of your school staff, for instance, if you are chatting with students online in a homework help area, make sure you are using a school based program. If you have given your phone number out to a student, make sure your principal and school social worker is aware of your reasoning for doing this. You can be helpful and careful at the same time; you just have to find the right balance.

References
Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., & Gollnick, D.M. (2008). Foundations of American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world. Pearson Education Inc: Boston, MA.

Smith, B (2007, 07, 03). Teacher code tackles student relationships. The Age , Retrieved July 27, 2008, from http://www.lexisnexis.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview

Student-Teacher bonds in the modern era. (2008, 01, 12). China Daily

Private Schools in America

2008-07-29T13:45:00.002-04:00

The role of private schools in America has a long-standing history, and in fact, until the nineteenth century, all forms of education were private in nature (Johnson et al., 2005). An awareness of the tradition and importance that private schools initially played in the American educational structure is important to note when thinking about how private schools are now viewed in today’s society. It is impossible to examine and discuss the role of private schools in America thoroughly, however, without the inclusion of the public education system included in this conversation. At this point in time, public education now has a rich and storied history, and decades of debate have centered on the benefits and disadvantages of a public versus private school education.

For the purposes of this paper, I will primarily focus on private versus public school education for grades K-12, initially examining a question that arguably permeates our society, which is whether private schools provide a higher quality education than public, as measured by class size, grades, standardized test scores and college admissions (Suitor et al, 2004). This is a loaded and complex question, which I believe is without any clear or definite answers. When I think about the school where I currently teach, a small public high school in the South Bronx, versus the high school that I attended, a small private Episcopal school in North Baltimore, the differences are dramatic, dramatic on many levels. To begin, in terms of school structure, the school where I teach has class sizes ranging from 25 – 34 students per class and the school that I attended, class sizes ranged from 10 – 14 students per class. That alone, in my opinion, is a telling difference related to academic performance and classroom management. With less students, teachers can provide more individualized instruction and management of students is simply easier.

So, yes, based on this one very specific example, I would say that the education that I received was better than the education of the students at the school where I teach. And this is infuriating because there really is no reason that my students shouldn’t receive the same level of education that I did. Of course, there are many factors leading to why my experience and the experience of my students are so different. Luckily, this is only one example, and the converse exists of public schools academically out performing private schools.

In looking at the socio-economic and racial breakdowns of my high school and the high school where I teach, there are glaring differences. The school where I teach the majority of the students come from low-income families and are students of color; the school I attended, was almost all white, and students came mostly from upper-middle class families. What does this mean? How is it that a private school attended by mostly white well-off kids, students receive a rigorous academic background, and that a public school attended solely by students of color from lower earning income backgrounds, receive a less rigorous education? In thinking about this contrast, the question of whether or not private schools lead to segregation should be raised. Clotfelter (2004) concluded the following related to private schools in the South and the relationship they serve in terms of segregation: “In non-metropolitan areas, they were very important indeed, accounting for 42% of total segregation.”

Some interesting and encouraging research has been published related to longitudinal evidence that public schools are at least as effective as private schools in boosting student achievement (Lubienski et al, 2008). Among many populations, there is a strongly held belief that private education is the best education, that private schools demonstrate higher student achievement, and yet in Lubienski et al (2008) study of more than 30,00 students in fourth and eighth grades, public schools were outperforming private schools in mathematics achievement. This study, and I imagine others like, are uplifting, inasmuch as one can hope that these statistics reach across vast spectrums of America. These stats call to mind many questions: Do students from urban, suburban or rural areas receive the same kind of education, or students from wealthy neighborhoods versus poor neighborhoods? Do certain states have better public education systems? While I think the findings of Lubienski et al (2008) are hopeful, I cannot help but wonder if all students are being accounted for.

Often the missions of private schools, particularly those with religious affiliations, promote the idea that these schools provide a better social environment than public schools, but in research conducted by Suitor et al (2004) it was discovered that there was little evidence to support the claim that private high schools provided a more positive social climate than public schools. As someone who attended a private high school I can attest to the fact that there were lots of social rules and consequences, but I would not say it was a more positive social climate. I think that no matter what any administration, whether private or public, wants in terms of social environment, they can not truly dictate or control how students will be; kids will kids regardless of backgrounds or bank accounts.

Private schools will continue to have a place in American education, as they always have, and more than likely, the debate will continue on and on as to whether private schools provide better educations than public schools. Ultimately, I believe that can only be determined on a school-by-school basis. As a teacher in a public school, I clearly believe in and am dedicated to public education, but if I were to don my parent shoes (though I am not a parent), and say that I found myself in a position of sending my child to an okay public school or a good private school...what would I do?

References

Clotfelter, C. (2004) Private schools, segregation, and the southern states. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 74-97.

Johnson, J. A., Musial, D., Hall, G. E., Gollink, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L.
(2005). Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Lubienski, C., Crane, C., Lubienski, S. (2008). What do we know about school effectiveness? Academic gains in public and private schools. Phi Delta Kappa, May 2008, 689-695.

Suitor, J., Powers, R., Brown, R. (2004). Avenues to prestige among adolescents in public and religiously affiliated high schools. Adolescence, 39(154), 229-241.

Plagiarism Software: Use with Caution

2008-07-29T13:42:00.001-04:00

The 8th grade New York State ELA examination requires students to write an essay comparing and contrasting two texts. Throughout the course of their arguments, students are supposed to support their assertions with facts presented in the provided texts. Early in the year, I gave my students a practice essay. Together we went through each text and made posters that listed the facts we might use to support arguments about similarities and differences. I left the posters up in the room as the students wrote, hoping the visuals would provide a scaffold to them citing parts of texts without copying language directly from the texts.

Reading my students’ essays showed me that a lesson in plagiarism would require more than one such scaffold. Students lifted entire sentences, sometimes paragraphs, from the original texts. When I spoke with them individually about their writing, they genuinely did not know how to paraphrase, and they did not understand where they had made mistakes.

In this instance, and a few others throughout the course of last year, I did not need plagiarism software to show me that my students had plagiarized. Granted, I teach middle school and I had read the texts from which the students were working, so the complexity of the assignment did not lend itself to needing technological assistance for detective work. But, I would argue that schools, especially secondary schools, should not use plagiarism software to “bust” students unless the schools are absolutely positive that students understand what it means to plagiarize. I assumed that by 8th grade, students knew not to copy from other texts. While some of my students may have had a sense that this was wrong, I do not think any of them thought it was criminal. I would have done them a disservice if all I did was run their work through a computer program and reject it after it failed to pass. I would have punished them, but not taught them.

On the secondary school level, I think it would be much more effective for teachers to spend the necessary time teaching students about plagiarism. Tell students what it is, and how to avoid it. Avoiding plagiarism requires lessons on citation, lifting quotations, paraphrasing, and building on others’ work without copying it. To illustrate the idea of building on others’ work, I found myself inadvertently explaining this concept to a student who I thought had plagiarized. My students wrote stories about superheroes they created this year, and one student turned in a paper that exactly followed the plot of a video game he plays. I could tell the ideas were not the student’s own because his writing in the story sounded unlike anything else he had previously turned in. I Googled the plot line, and sure enough, the name of the video game came right up. When I confronted the student he said that he knew he probably should not have written the story the way he did, but he struggled to think of a plotline for his character. I explained to him that it is alright not to have entirely original ideas all the time (Williams, 2007). He could have taken one event from the video game, then brainstormed how events could have unfolded differently after that one event and thereby resulted in a different story. The student rewrote his story using an idea from the video game, but turned in a final product that reflected his own creative thinking.

I can see that the use of plagiarism software could help schools establish consistent protocols on handling the issue. If schools have a policy of running every piece of student work through the software, regardless of who wrote the work, and schools make students aware of this policy, it could be fair (and hopefully efficient). I also think that if the program is used as a teaching tool—a resource through which students can run their papers before they turn them in—then it is especially positive (LaRussa, 2008). I still think, however, that students should be required to complete a course in the techniques described above so that they are armed with the tools they need to avoid plagiarism before their work is subject to computerized review by a teacher. Even universities should have students fill out diagnostics or questionnaires to determine their understanding of what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. I say this because I know people who teach 12th grade and have the same issues with plagiarism in their classrooms that I do: their students do not know the intricacies of the crime.

Subjecting students to plagiarism software before ensuring their understanding of the policy and the issue comes across as distrustful and can encourage negative relationships between students and teachers (Williams, 2007). Conversely, properly educating students, and maintaining an open and understanding environment in which students can ask questions about plagiarism and their work, would ensure positive and productive teacher/student relationships. If a school or university cultivates this latter type of atmosphere, only then do I think that the use of plagiarism software as a well-advertised formality is a fair way for a school to protect its integrity.

References:
LaRussa, T. (2008, May 31). Teachers engage anti-plagiarism software to discourage cheating. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_570291.html

Williams, B. 2007. Trust, betrayal, and authorship: Plagiarism and how we perceive students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(4), 350-54.

Reporting Student Criminal Activity

2008-07-29T13:21:00.000-04:00

In addition to teaching language arts, I am in charge of an advisory group. My 14 advisees come from all three “grades” at the school (I say “grades” because we do not have 10th, 11th, and 12th, but Core, Focus, and Transition “houses”). Some have been in the school for five weeks; others have been there for five years. My “on-paper” responsibilities include maintaining the advisees’ transcripts, registering them for their classes, monitoring attendance and academic performance, and keeping in close contact with their parents or guardians regarding their schoolwork and behavior. Additionally, I sign them in and out of school every day and work with them in advisory sessions three days per week. These sessions focus on everything from art history to nutrition to community activism to self-image.
What are not spelled out in my job description are the less clerical, less academic, more emotional and inter-personal relationships that advisors form with their advisees. For some students, their advisee is often the only adult they can count on to speak plainly with them, to be there every day, to act with their best interests in mind. For some students, the advisor becomes a father or mother figure and thus a player in a complex transferential exchange. Due to these bonds, students feel comfortable and encouraged to open up to their advisors about experiences in their lives or practices that are less than legal. Let’s say an advisee, John, speaks freely to his advisor about his girl troubles; about how proud he is that his mother, who was homeless when he was born, is now a college graduate and a nurse practitioner; about his family’s struggles to make ends meet; and about how these struggles led him to a lucrative and ongoing career selling drugs and guns.
The advisor has been told by the school’s administration that these conversations will come up and that the advisor’s discretion is the best guide in handling such conversations. As keen as an advisor’s discretion may be, however, the laws that draw a line between the black and the white for reporting abuse do not exist for handling a student’s open discourse about illegal activity. The resulting gray area leaves open the possibility that an advisor might be called to testify against an advisee. What laws (either explicitly or implicitly drawn?) determine an advisor’s role when the student opens up about criminal activity? What precautions should teachers take to protect themselves and students from the possible consequences of such knowledge?
An overview of legal issues in education from Foundations of American Education (Johnson et al., 2008) illustrates the difficulty of answering such questions. While the overview touches upon reporting laws for abuse, dress codes, sexual harassment, and the separation of church and state, there is no discussion of a teacher or advisor’s obligations when a student discloses criminal activity. At the federal level, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy of student records. FERPA dictates that a school must have student and/or parent permission to disclose records and the records of student/teacher conversations. There are exceptions, however, for situations wherein the school must comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html). New York State law determines that licensed staff must report the student’s contemplation of a crime or the intention to do harm, but “licensed staff” comprises social workers, school nurses, and psychologists, not teachers, guidance counselors, or advisors (www.capregboces.org/instrucservices/STUDENT%20CONFIDENTIALITY%20ISSUES.doc). Finally, from a legal perspective, the relationship between an advisor and an advisee is not a privileged one, so there is no legal recourse to confidentiality protection.
One might argue that the answer is simple: Report the conversations to licensed staff and let the school’s policies and the reporting laws do their work. The policy in some schools, for example, maintains that a student found to be affiliated with a recognized gang is to be expelled or that any student admitting to criminal activity is subject to a parent conference, suspension, or expulsion. (It should be noted that these policies do not always match with the state and federal laws, so it is not exactly legal to expel a student for gang affiliation.)
And yet, taking into account the complex and complicated socioeconomic factors that can motivate criminal activity, along with the best interests of the students, makes the simple argument somewhat intractable. An expulsion from school would most likely increase the need for criminal activity. Christopher Murray (2002) reminds us that, “socially supportive relationships can have powerful and lasting effects on the lives of children and youth (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Richman, Rosenfeld, & Bowen, 1998). During transitional periods and times of stress, social relationships may take on particular significance, as they can buffer the effects of stressful life events (Eckenrode, 1991)” (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3614/is_200201/ai_n9057936). The relationships established in school and built on trust and confidentiality can go far in moving students away from both criminal activity and the socioeconomic factors that motivate them. Finally, advisors and teachers, especially in schools with large populations of African-American and Latino students, must take into account a judicial culture that is prejudiced against students from these populations.
References
Johnson, J., et al. (2008). Foundations of American Education: Perspectives on Education
in a Changing World. New York: Pearson.
Murray, C. (2002). “Supportive teacher-student relationships: Promoting the social and
emotional health of early adolescents with high incidence disabilities.” Retrieved July 28, 2008, from B-Net Business Network, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3614/is_200201/ai_n9057936.
United States Department of Education (2008). Federal Education Rights and Privacy
Act. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html.

Teacher Ethics and Issues of Sexuality

2008-07-28T20:31:00.002-04:00

“I fear those big words that make us so unhappy.”—Ulysses, episode 2

The canon and school curriculum are usually considered critical issues when discussing teaching practice. The topic of how we decide what is taught often harkens back to how and what we were taught as students of literature. We use big, scary words when we discuss the literary canon in academia. As those debates trickle-down to the secondary schools the impact transforms into the phantom rules of the literature curriculum. I find the issue of teacher ethics relates to issues of curriculum, canon debates, and critical pedagogy. More and more students are investigating cultural and social nuances. We notice students are developing a sensitivity for issues of culture, socio-economic status, race, religion, and sexuality, or if they are not sensitive to those issues education needs to provide a space for critical reflection to occur.

Maxine Greene discusses issues of the canon. Greene’s pluralistic views of the literary canon are relevant in setting up a critical pedagogy for issues of sexuality in our classrooms. Greene desires an inclusive canon and curriculum, one that can provide a critical lens for students to view several cultures, lifestyles, and orientations (religious and sexual) “without highlighting their marginality in such a way as to further marginalize them” (Schultz, 2000). I would argue that Greene’s brand of pluralism—in part—provides a space for a continuum of sexuality within a literary cannon and an English Literature curriculum. Greene would agree that literature, or a text is an appropriate space for deconstructing oppressive language and phobias.

Issues of sexuality as they relate to teaching English to adolescence
Students in my Bronx classroom confronted me with issues of sexuality more readily than I was prepared to handle. Initially, I stammered over how to answer their questions regarding sex and sexuality. I was not trained for this aspect of my job. Several questions arose when pondering the potential of ethics in teaching: How does this issue of introducing LGBT issues fit into the larger spectrum of canon issues? How these issues of sexuality are introduced into foundations of education textbooks? Why do we avoid discussing these issues within teacher education programs, yet expect that students will be sensitive to these issues either socially or when discussing literature? How can I tackle adolescent homophobia? Is it my job to do so? At the risk of exuding liberalistic rhetoric, I would argue that it is our job as literature teachers to expose students of literature to subversive texts that exploit different oppressions, particularly the language of oppression that silences people of the LGBT community. The very nature of my calling it a community places me in a paradigm that categorizes this particular group.

Homosexuality, LGBT presence in practice and a brief history of the issue
In my school three out of five male teachers are homosexual, which is interesting for students because they do not understand it at all, and they are homophobic in their language toward each other. We all are fairly liberal at my school, so we attempt to teach our kids how language can be harmful whether they mean to be or not. However, it is a fine line for teachers to begin discussing these issues because personal politics, ethics, and beliefs enter the picture. We risk branding our students to be like us. Sadly, being open to sexuality issues is not a part of most of America's cultural zeitgeist. As teachers in alternative education programs, we may or may not enter the classroom with sensitivity or particular knowledge about LGBT issues, and thus we are sensitive to these issues similar to issues of race, gender, and/or class. Yet, most teacher education programs at the undergraduate level fail to train teachers in any way on issues of sexuality (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008). Teachers must be self-reflective about how they react, respond, and address issues of sexuality whether in passing or within the context of the classroom. The brand of students—whether in a Bronx classroom or in rural Wisconsin—is impressionable because they are at an age when cognitive and biological development is underway. Macgillivray and Jennings call attention to teacher impact on students: “The way issues get presented to students has an effect subconsciously and consciously, so if teachers aren't educated in how to be sensitive to issues” (Macgillivrary & Jennings, 2008). The years of adolescence are replete with quandaries that relate to friendship, family life, relationships and sexuality. Thus, we must be aware of the ways in which as role models in our teacher position we relate these issues to students.

It is interesting to think about this issue in light of reading Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed because I think discourses surrounding sexuality could be regarded as other types of systems or ways of thinking that oppress and silence students (Freire, 1997; Jardine, 2005). Sadly, the language of heterosexual and homosexual automatically sets up a dichotomy. When we speak in terms of sexuality we are linguistically forced into this paradigm. The history of the issue of what and how a teacher addresses sexuality, reveals yet another community that has been marginalized both in literature and in life. Moreover, the only ways that sexuality, and sexual difference have been discussed in classrooms has been in a negative context. According to Macgillivray, sexuality is discussed “followed by a discussion of STDs teen pregnancy, and sexual abuse” (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008). This highlights the topic of sexuality as something that is negative, and has negative, if not violent connotations of sexuality.

In addition, LGBT communities are portrayed as victims. Macgillivrary and Jennings, in their review of literature on the topic, did not cite a single educational textbook for teachers that empowered LGBT people; rather; they are often depicted as in need, or suffering. Yet, their study of content in teacher education programs revealed that students in over 3,000 middle schools and high schools are engaging in critical dialogue surrounding issues of sexuality through secondary school organizations that seek to unite homosexual, heterosexual, and multi-sexual groups under a common mission, harkening back to an offshoot of Maxine Greene’s pluralistic principle that mentions that we all share common ground (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008; Schultz, 2000). What does that tell our students?

Looking ahead and Potential Conflicts
In 1998, a federal appeals court ruled that schools can be held liable for deliberately ignoring the harassment of homosexuals. The case is called Nabozny v. Podlesny. No longer can schools legally ignore issues of sexuality. The challenge becomes how to we train teachers to address these issues in the context of an English curriculum without crossing an ethical line. Literature provides the most appropriate space for students to explore issues of sexuality, gender, race, and class through a critical lens of perspective or point of view. We still have to be cautious of incorporating texts like Julie Anne Peter’s Luna, which offers adolescent transgender issues. If it is too explicit we might run the risk of crossing a sexual-ethical line, yet readers easily ignore the sexual confusion and “loss of innocence” of Holden Caufield or Stephen Dedalus (Kauer, 2008). The “conservative parents” or even teachers might gasp at the thought of a homosexual Catholic adolescence reading of Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man or The Catcher in the Rye, but if our reader’s allow the text to speak to them in such a way I cannot imagine myself censoring their readerly response to literature. Instead we must run the risk of pushing the envelope through dialogue and critical reflection on literary themes and characters’ emotions and actions in the hopes of guiding students to be “compassionate” about the world that they live in (Kauer, 2008). After all the goal of literature should be to relate to real life issues that students endure.

References

Freire, Paulo. (1997). Mentoring the mentor: A Critical dialogue with Paulo Freire. New York: Peter Lang.

Jardine, Gail McNicol. (2005). Foucault and education. New York: Peter Lang.

Kauer, Suzanne M. (2008). A Battle Reconsidered: Second Thoughts on Book Censorship and Conservative Parents. English Journal. 97(3).

Macgillivray, Ian & Jennings, Todd. (2008). A content analysis exploring LGBT topics in foundations of education textbooks. Journal of Teacher Education. 59(2).

Schultz, F. (2000). SOURCES: Notable selections in education. New York: McGraw-Hill

The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. Website for the History of Education: Selected Moments in the 20th Century. Retrieved July 2008. Nabozny v. Podlesny http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/research/edu20/moments/1996nabozny.html

Juggling Education: Special and Otherwise

2008-07-28T11:30:00.002-04:00

Special education in school is seemingly becoming something of a misnomer. Or maybe that term can relate to the idea of general education. Since the idea of inclusion, many students with diagnosed (and undiagnosed) learning and emotional disabilities are being educated in the regular classroom. This means that a single teacher in a single classroom can have many students with special needs, and that teacher must do the best he/she can to meet those needs. So where is the line drawn between the two types of education? If one taught “special education,” then would he/she be holding back the other students? If one taught with “general education” in mind, would he/she be excluding those with special needs? The line has been significantly blurred and that creates confusion on where one begins and the other ends. So, where are we with special education?

Until 1800 or so, people with disabilities had a long and difficult road on which to travel. In fact, if a school felt that it was too difficult, or that a student’s mere presence stole too much of the teacher’s attention, that child with a disability could be dismissed from the school: “…But the presence in a class of one or two mentally or morally defective children so absorbs the energies of the teacher and makes so imperative a claim upon her attention that she cannot under these circumstances properly instruct the number commonly enrolled in a class.” (Smith, 2002). Depending on the severity of the disability, getting a proper and equal education was as difficult as attempting to be “normal” and fit into the mainstream of society. Special classes and schools became somewhat prevalent in the early part of the twentieth century, but not until The Rehabilitation Act, specifically section 504, in 1973, did things really get going. Section 504 basically dealt with the issue of segregation in schools and told institutions that received federal funding that they could not discriminate against individuals that were “otherwise qualified” to be in the classroom (Salend, 2008). This opened the door for more talk on equality in education for more than just racial and ethnic minorities.

Through acts and amendments aimed at requiring schools to educate students with disabilities, and encouraging them with financial incentives, students with disabilities have a better chance than ever before to become working and productive members of society. While section 504 substantially helped to fix the issues of segregation and discrimination in schools, it really wasn’t until the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (a.k.a.-law 94-142), which mainly sought to address the issues of educating individuals with disabilities, and not just non-white individuals. This is where the term “free and appropriate education” comes from (Salend).

Now that we have what seems to be free and appropriate education for all students, where is the U.S. regarding special education since 1975? Well, there have been more acts and amendments to acts for the education of students with disabilities and it continues to be a hot topic in education all over America. As Smith states in his article dealing with the history of special education, it was not only common, but legal to exclude children with disabilities from the classroom (Smith). Given that fact, America has come quite far in this area of education.

Explicit in law 94-142 is the idea of the least restrictive environment, and as a whole, we’ve come to believe that the least restrictive environment for most children with disabilities is in the general education classroom (Smith). So what is the big deal? If everything is all better then, why is this still such a hot topic? Well, the debate as to whether the environment is least restrictive or not, is not a closed debate. Some feel that special education kids are getting lumped into these classes without the special attention they require (Zavatto, et al. 2007). So now, America has this policy of inclusion, and the students with special needs are mixed in the classrooms, but what if they are not getting the additional help they need? One may ask why they would have been included in the first place. Zavatto believes that money, and not necessarily the philanthropic desire to include students with disabilities, is the issue. This is also what has been tossed about by teachers all over New York City. This allows for the idea that it is the least restrictive environment for the schools, and not for the students- either the students with disabilities nor the general education students. Proof of this, however, may prove difficult to hold.

All of this adds to the blurred lines in special education. Is it least restrictive or not? Is the teacher supposed to teach with the students with disabilities in mind, or teach to the general education students? Is there a difference? Obviously, there are aspects of this that can benefit all individuals- generally “able” students can gain insight and learn patience in dealing with others with special needs, and special needs students can gain confidence and self-esteem from not being excluded based on something they cannot control. However, trying to teach a class with a student who has ADHD, one who has emotional disorders, one who has MMR, one in a wheel chair, and all of the other students at the same time is not as easy as it sounds…and it does not sound easy.

America has definitely made progress in special education, but what we have now is a storm that gets foggier by the minute. We have included these kids so much that we have excluded their special needs. Should they be sent away to be in different classrooms? Not so fast, but they should be getting the help they deserve in those general education classrooms, and that means more funding for more teachers to be in those classrooms. If some in the industry are right, and money is an issue, then this may prove difficult to secure. America is still foggy in the special education realm. Until we can secure some trained individuals who can be prepared to teach in such an environment, an environment that is as real as the kids themselves, then there will be students in the classrooms that will get shortchanged. The question of which of those students will be left behind, may just be answered by good of a juggler the teacher is.

Smith, J.D. (2001). Special education in the United States: Legal history. International

Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, p14847-14851.

Zavatto, L., Bert, G., Curtis, J., Wells, A., Kelly, D., Hampson, J., Crawford, S.A. (2007).

Is the implementation of the “least-restrictive environment” equitable for all

students? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. v78, is. 9, p10.

Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating inclusive classrooms: effective and reflective practices (6^th

ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Private versus Public: Democracy and Rhetoric

2008-07-27T00:56:00.001-04:00

Access to private education remains, in minds of many, the gold standard of education--the choice all parents aspire to. This argument is a reasonable one, as common knowledge holds that the public schools have more or less failed both students and parents. Education is, like most things, a commodity--you get what you pay for. But is this really true? Have we as a country given up on our public schools? As a student reared in the public school system, I know I internalized this myth; when I first attended a private college, part of a freshman class made up of a large number of students from private schools, I was insecure, assuming that, skill-wise, I would not be able to compete with my "better educated" peers. And yet, I was fine. Despite this, I feel guilty pains of hope when students tell me they are transferring to a private school. I often wonder what is best for my students, for all students.
I pose these questions not to denigrate private education, or as an attempt to justify my experiences and career choice, but rather as a way to begin to think about the way we, as a country, view access to education at large. Knowing that, despite my own experience, if given the opportunity I am sure I would sent my own child to a private school, makes wonder where the disconnect lies and what the implications are for all children. As the veritable founder of American educational thought Dewey said in 1899, "[w]hat the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children. Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and unlovely; acted upon, it destroys our democracy" (Good, 1999, p. 384). Access to free, quality public education has long under-pinned the ideals of our political system. Yet as charter schools and "choice" now are at the fore-front of our public debate around education, are we as a nation willing to give up on a privilege, or right, still denied children around the world?
An exploration of these issues must begin with our conception of the public school system's current failure of students. Since the eighties, the nation has been engaged in a debate as to the actual performance of American public schools. Much of this debate was sparked by American students' scores on tests in comparison with students from other countries (Good, 1999). As a result of this reality, and the well-known failure of public education for poor and minority students, politicians have moved to provide students and parents with more options, from vouchers to charter schools, and to further legislate all public schools, particularly through No Child Left Behind. Yet while many of these changes have received public and institutional support, the public perception of "their own" public schools is not so bleak--"in various polls citizens have expressed confidence in the quality of public schools, especially in their local schools--the ones they know the most about (Good, 1999, p. 385). In fact, a Gallup Poll indicated that "'the low grades given the nation's public schools are primarily media-induced. Whereas people learn first hand about their children's schools, they learn about the nation's school primarily from the media'" (Good, 1999, p. 385). Interestingly, the need for the "privatization of education", from charter schools to corporate sponsorships to funding through vending machines (Seaton, et. al), is facilitated by corporate media reporting.
The reality is, as in all things in education, more slippery. In 2006, the results were made public of a "large-scale government-financed study [... that] compared fourth- and eighth-grade math scores of more than 340,000 students in 13,000 regular, charter and private schools on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress" (Schemo, 2006, para. 2). The researchers themselves were surprised to find that the sample "showed public schools to be outperforming private schools in mathematics achievement after student background factors were considered" (Lubienski, et. al, 2008, p. 689). Historically, private schools had out-performed public schools on national assessment, yet the study used "advanced statistical techniques to adjust for the effects of income, school and home circumstances", finding that "while the raw scores of fourth graders in Roman Catholic schools, for example were 14.3 points higher than those in public schools, when adjustments were made for students backgrounds, those in Catholic schools scored 3.4 points lower than those in public schools" (Schemo, 2006, para. 4). While I wonder about, and to some degree fear, these "adjustments for student backgrounds", it appears that, when standardized tests are more standardized, popular conceptions about the effectiveness of public schools are confronted.
In fact, the study also found that charter schools "did significantly worse than public schools" (Schemo, 2006, para. 6). As charter schools are privately run but publicly financed, the study demands a reexamination of popular beliefs about public and private education, and the ways this discourse is presented politically. Interestingly, the above-mentioned study was controversial not only in its findings, but also in its delivery. Days after the study was released, Democratic aides and public education advocates accused the Bush administration of politicizing the government financed report. Apparently the report, which counters justifications for the administration's push for privatization, was released, without contacting media on a Friday afternoon, when few people are consuming news. Advocates and reporters contend that the move was orchestrated and political, an attempt to bury reports that do not agree with the administration's goals (Sanchez, 2006). The divided, and often shifting, political winds serve only to make the "right" choice for students and parents more confusing.
Parents choose, rightly so, private schools for a variety of reasons; as teachers we know that test scores are only a part of the equation. But as a nation, we should examine the implications of our beliefs in regards to public versus private education, especially when the debate lies at the heart of our founding ideals. As Teaching Fellows, this debate is particularly relevant, for as Seaton et. al. notes, "much of the privatization debate is about the education of economically disadvantage minority students" (2007, p. 164). In fact, "often overlooked in discussions of privatization of education are explicit discussions of the educational needs of minority urban communities. This is ironic [...as o]ften marketed as an alternative to failing urban public schools, charter schools have emerged primarily as a minority phenomenon" (Seaton et. al, 2007, p. 164). In fact, "some researchers have pointed out that the clustering of minorities in charter schools serves to further isolate an already socially, economically, racially isolated population" (Seaton et. al, 2007, p. 164). At this point, further examination of the above-mentioned "adjustments for student backgrounds" is needed. Sanchez tells us that these adjustments were based upon racial, income-level, and free-school lunch figures (2006). Recognizing that these are factors for adjustment implies our nation's failure of a large segment of it's population. We must admit that the rhetoric behind the political debates on public schools is in reality a reflection of our cynicism about true equality. This type of honest reflection is the best way to begin to re-imagine Dewey's call for an understanding of the relationship between public education and democracy.

References
Good, T.L. (1999). The purpose of schooling in America. The Elementary School Journal,
99(5), pp. 383-389.
Lubienski, C., Crane, C., & Lubienski, S. T. (2008). What do we know about school
effectiveness? Academic gains in public and private schools. Phi Delta Kappan, May, pp.
689-695.
Sanchez, C. (2006, July, 26). Public vs. private school report spurs controversy. National
Public Radio. Audio retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?
storyId=5584516.
Schemo, D. J. (2006, January, 28). Public-School students score well in math in large-scale
government study. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
2006/01/28/education/28tests.html.
Seaton, G., Dell'Angelo, T., Spencer, M. B., & Youngblood, J. (2007). Moving beyond the
dichotomy: meeting the needs of urban students through contextually-relevant education
practices. Teacher Education Quarterly, Spring, pp. 163-183.

Group Presentation--Jonathan Kozol

2008-07-24T15:20:00.005-04:00

You're all stars...
--Giacinta Frisillo, Thaddeus Bower, & April Tallant

Teacher Quality

2008-07-21T08:52:00.000-04:00

“Your good teaher,” was the statement written underneath a picture drawn by an English language student I had tutored the summer before I joined the New York City Teaching Fellows program. I was proud of the gift—glad that in two months, Kiwon had learned some English. But I wondered if I could have perhaps have done better.
Teacher quality, how to gauge it and maintain it in our schools has been a hot topic for a long time, and will probably continue to be so for many years, if not forever. The public, government officials, administrators, teachers, and teachers’ unions all have a vested interest in deciding how teacher quality is judged. The process to become a teachers has been incrementally professionalized over the years. However, as research shows and many can intuit, it is not what happens before a person becomes a teacher but after they get into the classroom that is the real judge of their skills in that profession.
A 1987 article in The New York Times spoke of a “new wave” of education in which colleges such as the City College of New York were eliminating undergraduate education programs and moving education degrees to the graduate level, similar to medical and law degrees (Fiske, 1987, p. 1). Also during that same year, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards began the move toward national certification that they hoped would, “not only set new and higher standards for teachers but also put pressure on schools of education to turn out graduates who can qualify for the new credentials” (Fiske, 1987, p.1). Another change that has yet to happen.
As one can see, changes in education are slow to happen, some of the big questions, such as how we train and gauge qualified teachers, are still looming decades have movements of reform have set in place. This is perhaps due to the push and pull of all the groups concerned with the issue. The public, whose money is being spent, worries about the state of education and whether or not qualified teachers and being hired (or non-qualified teachers are being fired). Government officials and administrators wonder how to gauge teaching candidates to discover just who will be effective in the classroom, and desire to have the authority to get rid of those who are not. Teachers and their unions worry that teaching quality will be misjudged and that good teachers will be passed by, and that new policies in judging teacher quality will eliminate good teachers, experienced teachers and lower teacher moral.
Each groups’ concerns are valid, yet it is typical of policy-makers to sacrifice one for the other and create an all or nothing policy that causes a divide and eventually becomes ineffective. Standards for student to teacher-ratio, English language learners and students with special needs can all be circumvented in one way or another, if schools are not capable of making these changes, they will find ways to get around them. In the same way, teacher education programs and standardized pedagogy and subject tests are often watered down enough to include almost anyone who aspires to be a teacher, and have thus lost their effectiveness for those who need to gauge a candidates potential.
Not to say, a standardized test or certification program would ever be a good way of evaluating candidates. For how can a test reveal a person’s ability to work with people, to inspire, to empathize, or to come up with original ideas? In fact, “according to recent evidence, certification of teachers bears little relationship to teacher effectiveness (measured by impacts on student achievement). There are effective certified teachers and there are ineffective certified teachers; similarly, there are effective uncertified teachers and ineffective uncertified teachers (Gordon, Kane, and Staiger, 2006, p. 7).”
The Brooking Institute study from which that statement is taken suggests that student achievement based on test scores, especially “value added” scores (meaning showing number improvement corresponding to the student’s time in a particular teacher’s classroom), and administrator and parent evaluation should the be the criteria for teacher tenure (Gordon, 2006, p. 4).
Conducting a scientific study, the researchers naturally placed the most emphasis on the quantifiable test numbers. A fact that likely strikes controversy for those who do not agree with the testing process—another “hot topic.” The Brookings’ study tracked student test scores during the first two years of a teacher’s classroom time. According to their numbers, teachers whose students’ scores rose after the second year would likely help future students increase test scores by an average of 10 percentile points. They compared this to the scores of teachers with certification and those without, which revealed little to no difference in student performance. Based on these figures, the study makes a suggestion for, “grants to help states that link student performance with the effectiveness of individual teachers over time (Gordon, 2006, p. 8).”
A current educator, Anthony Lombardi of PS 49 in Queens, who has seen success rates at the school rise dramatically in reading and math since became principal is also in favor of focusing teacher evaluation after the teacher has been in the classroom in order to decide their professional status. “Lombardi suggests replacing this system with an apprenticeship program. Rather than requiring teaching degrees (which don't seem to improve value-added all that much), new recruits would have a couple of years of in-school training. There would then come a day of reckoning, when teachers-to-be would face a serious evaluation before securing union membership and a job for life (Fisman, 2009, p. 1).” Lombardi’s tough-on-teachers stance is not popular with everyone, especially union officials. Allegedly, Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, has called him a "tyrant." However, parents express happiness with the school, and the independent school review, InsideSchools.org gave the school five stars in both math and reading (InsideSchools.org).
Certainly changes need to be made in the public school system, and the ways in which teachers are hired and maintained and evaluated for performance and quality needs to be a part of those changes. No hard-working, qualified teacher wants to receive the same pay and title as a lazy, unqualified teacher, and no parent or administrator wants to send children into classrooms where they will not learn. However, I’ll wager, the ways in which education will change will not be done without an ideological fight from many sides. I think putting less emphasis on paper certifications that mean nothing will save money and time and ultimately bring more respect to the teaching profession. Additionally, I agree with the movement that never got started, of 1987 to do away with undergraduate education degrees. A minimum average in the discipline a candidate will teach, and a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university reveals more than a standardized test can, and will create more knowledgeable and well-rounded educators. Despite what the Brookings’ study suggests, I feel based on my own experience, that teaching candidates should have some pedagogy instruction and pass either a state or national test to reveal their competency in that area before entering the classroom. However, I agree with Lombardi that in-school training is the most valuable kind of experience one can receive in this field. Potential teachers can study text books all they want, but nothing can prepare them for teaching more than being in the actual classroom, and that is ultimately what they should be evaluated. That fact that this is a point of contention, reveals a breakdown in the system in my opinion. In essence this is the process that is now in place. I feel that idea of a teacher-for-life is a false one, because teachers get fired every year. Not every new teacher receives tenure. Yet some do fall through the cracks. Some teachers go years without really being evaluated, they languish in the system with a file full of “satisfactory” evaluations and a tenured spot, and if administrators are lazy, the evidence of good teaching (true or false) does make it difficult to fire them. It falls on the administrators to enforce the structures already in place, just like it falls on the teacher to enforce the standards of his or her classroom.

Reference List

Fiske, E. (1987, Oct. 19). Teacher quality becomes top school issue. The New York Time, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DA163FF93AA25753C1 A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1.
Gordon, R., Kane, T. J., Staiger, D. O. (2006). The Hamilton project: identifying effective teachers using performance on the job discussion paper. The Brookings Institution, 2006-01.
InsideSchools.org (2008). Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.insideschools.org/fs/school_profile.php?id=694
Ray, F. (2008, July 11). Hot for the wrong teacher: why are public schools so bad at hiring good instructors. Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/id/2195147.

Why are students not showing up for class?

2008-07-18T00:08:00.001-04:00

This past spring semester seventeen year old “Calvin” was placed in my tenth grade English class. I learned of this placement by his name on my class roster, but not by his presence in class. His attendance was incredibly spotty, which meant I rarely saw him. When he did come to class, it was usually to socialize, but never did he participate in any class discussion or work. However, how could he be expected to participate when he was never on track with what was going on in class? Several weeks into the new semester I received Calvin’s IEP’s. Calvin’s IEP states that his instructional reading level is third grade, and that he currently reads on a second grade level. What is a new tenth grade English teacher supposed to do with a student who reads on a second grade level? Learning this bit of information made Calvin’s constant agreeable smile suddenly make all the since in the world. Calvin’s constant smile and nod became reminiscent of that smile followed by an affirmative nod that I have often given a person who speaks in a language that is foreign to me.
In thinking about a student like Calvin’s attendance is so spotty, I wonder if Calvin is even expected to succeed. I later learned from Calvin’s resource teacher, that Calvin’s attendance is spotty in all of his classes. He has definitely slipped through the cracks. Since Calvin has a resource teacher, and it is known that Calvin is such a deficient reader, I was able to ask why a student like Calvin was placed in my class. I wonder if a student like Calvin would perform better in a self-contained classroom with fewer students and more one-on-one time with a teacher. I also wonder if Calvin’s attendance reflects a frustration about his a lack of help from a teacher like me, one lacking this skills to assist a student like Calvin.
Calvin’s identified disability is a learning disability. According to Osher, Morrison, and Bailey (2003), the “U.S. Department of Education’s Twenty Third Annual Report to Congress (2001)” states that the “student (age 14 and older) with learning disabilities…had a dropout rate of 27.1%” (p. 80). What does this statistic actually say about a student like Calvin? I am aware that as a first year teacher I was not prepared to help Calvin in any way; instead, I served only as a person responsible for recording a failing mark on his report card: a mark that would only serve to possibly confirm for Calvin and his family that he is a failure.
Calvin was not the only student missing on a regular basis from my class. On average, approximately 60% of my students showed up on a regular basis. Those students whose attendance was as spotty as Calvin’s often reported to class with demeanors reflecting failure as evident by blank communicating the student was mentally absent. I would often speak with them in order to figure out what I could do to help. One student, “Giselle,” who worked with me one marking period in order to improve her grades told me that working hard in one class or with one teacher was not worth the effort when she continued to fail her other classes. When I had an opportunity to speak with one of her other teachers, the response was that Giselle was lazy. It was not uncommon for me to speak with a colleague about a student’s performance only to receive a response on how a student was lazy, or how a student simply needed to be put on some sort of disciplinary watch, which often translated into the student learning his or her place on the ladder of classroom hierarchy. I could not help but to reflect on how much negativity is reinforced about a student. At a school with at risk students, negativity is an expectation. However, should I, as a new teacher, accept negativity? Am I displaying my naiveté when I say that I care more about finding a way to help a student succeed; that is any student succeed, even the one with the learning disability? What will it take to help students who are already expecting to fail, who have already given up, or who are already on the verge of quitting?
Neal Karlinsky (2008), writes about how Clover Park High School in Lakewood, Washington, graduation rates are “up from 39 percent just a few years ago to more than 70 percent today.” Of course, the obvious question to ask is how did Clover Park High School get its graduation rates up so dramatically? I can only hope that the mantra, by any means necessary, does not apply if by any means it is meant to fudge the statistics. Karlinsky (2008) reports that the school in Lakewood was able to increase its graduation rates by, “dividing students into small groups and pairing them with the same teachers for all four years, essentially turning teachers into surrogate family members.” I cannot help but to wonder what that would look like in a New York City public school. However as I reflect back on my first year as a teacher, I realize I walk away with a sadness as I reflect on a student like “Julie.” Like Calvin and Giselle, Julie began my class with very low attendance, ultimately failing the first marking period of the second semester. However, unlike Calvin and Giselle, Julie later became one of my better performing students. Julie and I spoke often about her potential, about my vision for her future, about her vision for her future, and about the “poisonous” negativity she encounters from adults, teachers, friends, and family members, and about strategies for overcoming that negativity. Every time I saw Julie, I let her know how glad I was to see her and how valuable a person she was. Even though I was not going for purposely creating a surrogate family of a sort as Karlinsky (2008) writes about, Julie did begin to feel like family, a family member I very much wanted to see succed.
If it takes a family like atmosphere to save a child, perhaps that is an effort that should be made. Perhaps keeping in mind that in essence we are all family since we all share this country together will help us to reduce that giving up option that so many of our “family members” seem to accept so quickly. I am now curious to find out if what works for one student, such as a surrogate-like family plan, has the potential to work for all students. I have often heard it said that what works for one will not necessarily work for all, and of course the graduation rates of the school in Lakewood, Washington, and other schools that have applied similar strategies are not a 100% (Karlinsky, 2008), but I cannot help but to wonder if schools do have a responsibility to become more like a home away from home for students. I wish I could participate in an experiment similar to the one in Lakewood. I suspect that in such an experiment I could grow to learn even more about my students and thus I could possibly become a much more effective teacher possibly even one capable of helping a student like Calvin.

References

Karlinsky, N. (2008). Inside the high school makes teachers become family: School found

success by turning teachers into surrogate family members. Retrieved July 17, 2008,

from ABC News website http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4569251&page=1.
Osher, D., Morrison, G., & Bailey, W. (2003), Exploring the Relationship between Student

Mobility and Dropout among Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. The

Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 72, No. 1, Student Mobility: How Some Children Get Left

Behind. 79-96. Retrieved July 16, 2008, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3211292

giacinta critical reflection one - arts ed

2008-07-17T08:12:00.001-04:00

Funding for arts programs, such as music, fine arts, creative writing, and drama, has been consistently and repeatedly cut back from the budget of many public schools for decades now. Understandably, and unfortunately, public schools must make cuts yearly in some facets. Unbelievably, however, very few people in charge in local, state, and federal governments believe that the arts are important enough to consider allocating funds for. Instead, in the eyes of budget makers, funding must always first serve the “core” subjects, that is to say, science, mathematics, social studies, and English. Though I certainly do not believe funding should be cut from these main courses, I also do not necessarily believe, for example, that my time spent trying to understand Sequential Math/Course III’s circumscribing of angles lessons has proved beneficial, either. I am not here to take the stance that the arts should be integrated into curricula as more important than our current four required courses, or that they should receive more funding, or even that their need for money should supercede these other classes, I am simply unsure as to where in time this turn in thought came.
Things were not always this way. At one time, the arts were in fact considered core subjects. Children spent as much time, if not more perhaps, on the studies of poetry, painting, and making music. They were well versed in the ways of oration, persuasion, and recitation. Students practiced these artistic endeavors and they grew into our forefathers – and mothers – people who helped shape our country, politicians, revolutionaries, and great artists alike. Museums are filled with the works of these students and we owe the creation of some of our great documents to these schooling methods. The skills these people were taught are still useful and practical today. So how then are we to continue with these great American ideals weighing heavily on our shoulders if we do not learn from our past and follow some examples they have set?
Today, I believe that students may need the arts more than ever and yet funding is still being cut at great rates. According to Glenn Cook (2008), “in a year in which overall funding is flat, 47 programs are on the chopping block, including ones that encourage arts in schools” (p.6). In the violent worlds in which most of my students, and many other urban public school students, live, they are faced with the paradox of growing in a society that allots a budget for the equally violent yet legal Pentagon as high as it was post-World War II (p.6), but are not given an opportunity to learn to express themselves in non-violent ways. They suffer terrible emotional and mental pain when they lose friends and family to nonsensical violence. They suffer physical pain when they themselves become involved as victims. They grow deeply calloused when they engage in these activities willingly, as many eventually do. These students need to be taught ways of expressing themselves that do not involve holding weapons. Instead, why not arm these growing individuals with paintbrushes, pens, and musical instruments. If someone is willing to take the time to teach and engage them, many of these students prove to be very receptive to the sometimes-new idea of creating instead of destroying.
This is where art therapy, yet another (and very important) aspect of arts programs, comes in. According to St. John, as cited by Joseph Graham (1994), there are two distinct types of students who could possibly benefit from art therapy. Those whose “emotional development is immature and impedes learning and functioning” and those whose “physical, neurological, and developmental needs are prerequisite to benefiting from the regular…curriculum” (p.115). According to Cook, however, amongst those previously mentioned 47 programs facing cutbacks are also programs that “provide mental health services to students” Though I would not expect every school to implement an actual art therapy program, nor to write art therapy into their budgets, I would hope that officials could understand the need to use art as a form of healing. This will help, I believe, not only the students, but the schools’ budgets in the long run by saving the money they would inevitably have to spend after vandalism and fights on restorative action instead of these preventative solutions.
This is not to say, of course, that art can heal every student or create a perfect world. However, art has been a staple of society since the cave paintings. People have wanted to make music since they listened to the sounds of crickets chirping at night. Individuals have written their histories and their desires since the birth of language. Human beings have an innate urge to express themselves to others; people want to be heard and understood. Why should the privilege of knowing how to do so be taken away from them?
Overall, I believe more money on a national level should be allotted to funding public schools than there currently is. As for individual school districts allocating their own funds to programs, I believe the arts should be considered. Nationally, Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has changed our focus to stressing the importance of teaching sciences and maths and detracted from the one-time equally as important arts programs (Uy 2008 p.6). Since American students tend to fare worse at math and science standardized testing than students in other countries, we are trying to compete. However, our attempts at making our students better in these two subjects should not come at the price of allowing our students to become worse at others.

References
Cook, G. (2008). Bush budget provides disappointments, few surprises. American School Board Journal,6-7.

Graham, J. (1994). The art of emotionally disturbed adolescents: Designing a drawing program to address violent imagery. American Journal of Art Therapy, 32, 115-121.

Uy, Erin. (2008). Experts: Arts, humanities drive nation's
competitiveness. Education Daily, 41, 6-16.

Critical Reflection: Drug Education

2008-07-16T23:23:00.002-04:00

Sitting at the teacher’s desk of my ninth grade classroom with a stack of projects in front of me while my students undergo drug and sex education, I am suddenly startled by the speaker: “Ms. Nealon, do you mind if I take out my blunt?” I look up wordlessly perplexed by Mr. Stone’s* request. I am involved in a role-play that I am not prepared for. He asks again. “Go ahead?” I say slowly, all but rolling my eyes at the man. Mr. Stone dramatically takes out a fat Sharpie pen from his back pocket. He brings the pen to his lips with his eyes closed and inhales a long puff. After his triumphant exhale, Mr. Stone mimics someone who is high by contentedly stumbling around the front of the room with his eyes half closed, and asking a student in the front row for some Cheetos. End Scene.

Almost all of my students laughed at Mr. Stone’s display, but what did they learn? His four-day stint in my class was focused on answering forty true/false questions on high-risk behavior. Sitting at the front of the room, Mr. Stone would read the question, elicit a response from a student, and then provide an anecdote related to the question. Watching Mr. Stone, coordinator of the SPARK program for Substance Prevention, Abuse Rehabilitation, and Knowledge, “inform” my students about drugs led me to wonder what purpose his presentation was serving, and what would be an effective way to teach drug education. Several central questions come to mind when considering drug education: should we teach about drugs, what should we teach about drugs, and how should we teach it? These questions apply in general to what Tupper calls “vice education,” which includes alcohol and sex education (Tupper, 2008).

In regard to whether or not it is the educator’s responsibility to teach drug awareness, I believe it is. If we are concerned with the well being of students’ minds, then we must be concerned with their holistic well being, including their physical health and safety. Teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted infection, drunk driving, and overdosing are all realistic consequences for actions our students may engage in. To keep our students in the dark, or worse yet, to misinform them about high-risk behavior would be negligible. I agree with the tenet of progressivism that says that, “the school, to become an important social institution, must take on the task of improving society” (Johnson et al, p. 328, 2008). In an explanation as to why the burden of drug education ultimately falls on schools’ shoulders, Tupper interestingly suggests that the government uses the school system to essentially clean up their messes (Tupper, 2008). Tupper writes, “Since governments derive considerable fiscal benefits from the taxation of legal psychoactive commodities, one might suppose they have at least a fiduciary responsibility to educate young people—in a credible and honest way—about the risks and benefits of psychoactive substance use” (Tupper, 2008). Society and media have certainly sent the wrong messages, which is why it is even more frustrating when the designated Mr. Clean, otherwise known as the SPARK coordinator, makes an even bigger mess. I don’t want my students to follow his twisted logic that you should not rape a girl because, after incarceration you will end up a homosexual. There are too many troubling points to his statement to name, which leads us to the next fundamental question.

What to teach as a part of “vice” education in the schools has been a highly contested question. Strong proponents of abstinence-only sex education are gratified by the recent boost in federal funding for abstinence education. The government has provided more than 1.3 billion dollars for abstinence-only programs throughout the country (Wire, 2008). Proponents of abstinence-only education, such as teacher Elizabeth Bradley argue that there is hypocrisy between how we teach; regarding sex, children should be taught to “just say no” as they are taught to say to drunk driving (Johnson et al, p. 239, 2008). I agree that it would be hypocritical to be pushing condoms on one hand while touting “just say no to drugs and alcohol” on the other. It is this inevitability of hypocrisy that supports my belief that sex education should be as purely informational and factual as possible. But what exactly is our goal in educating? Tupper points out that we must recognize “the conceptual difference between prevention and education” (Tupper, 2008). I believe that you can’t have the latter without the former. Preaching, “just say no” to all high-risk activities will only prevent the undesired behavior in those students who actually listen to you; students who choose to ignore you are left without any information or tools on how to intelligently proceed on their alternate route. Despite the abundant abstinence-only funding in the past eleven years, teenage pregnancy rates increased in 2006 for the first time in fifteen years (Wire, 2008). By educating students, my hope is that we can prevent students from engaging in high-risk behavior, and those who are not deterred will be informed decision makers.

To be clear, I found it refreshing that my school does not have an abstinence-only program, and I appreciate an unorthodox approach to drug education that includes a candid I’m-telling-like-it-is approach; however, when the educator, like Mr. Stone, is either misinforming the student or employing the shock factor for an experience void of meaning, I am concerned. I support drug education that is factually sound, neutral, and engaging. Another ineffective approach would be my own drug education. Thinking back to my experience with Officer Randy, the local policeman who lead us through the DARE drug prevention program my eighth grade year, it seems creepy. The year culminated in my class gathered in the auditorium, dressed in DARE t-shirts, with all of our families looking on as we sang, “Dare! To keep a kid off drugs. Dare! To keep a kid off dope!. . .Dare! To give a kid some hope,” complete with choreographed fist pumps. In addition to the gung-ho anti-drug attitude DARE tried to inculcate, the program had other faults. Tupper points out, “police officers engaging in drug education is akin to nuns doing sex education: the systemic values they represent cannot help but undermine their authority and credibility” (Tupper, 2008). Yet, DARE and other such programs have remained favorable with educators and parents (Tupper, 2008). Woolfolk notes that “’scare’ tactics seem to have little positive effect and may even encourage curiosity and experimentation” (Woolfolk, p. 144, 2007).

How to teach instead? When involved in “vice” education, students should receive information on their rights, the law, accurate statistical data, diseases and risks, and precautions. The presentation should be accurate, engaging and authentic, which could include a spoken-word performance by a recovering drug addict., for instance. Woolfolk suggests interactive teaching methods, role-playing and skills training (Woolfolk, p.144, 2007). Indeed, problem-solving training is as important as information giving. Asserting the progressivist model in which “human experience is a basis for knowledge,” I feel that students should role-play, problem solve and hear firsthand accounts to facilitate their understanding (Johnson et al, p.328, 2008).

In keeping with progressive ideology, educators in a public school should not tell students what to do in their lives (Johnson et al, p. 328, 2008). A good teacher tells her students how to think—critically, strategically, analytically—but hopefully not what to think. We can approach drug and sex education the same way: don’t tell children what to do with their lives, but how to live their lives evaluating and judging situations that arise.

References

Johnson, J.A., Musial, D., Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D.M. & Dupuis, V.L. (2008). Foundations of American education: Perspectives on education in a changing world (14th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Tupper, K.W. (2008). Teaching teachers to just say “know”: Reflections on drug education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 356-367.

Wire, S.D. (2008, April 24). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://articles.latimes.com

Woolfolk, A. (2007). Educational psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Critical Reflection: the Grand intent of the NCLB

2008-07-16T14:55:00.000-04:00

Racquel Diop

In 2002, President Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) first introduced by President Lyndon Johnson’s administration in 1965. With some amendments, today ESEA is known to as the NCLB act, which requires school districts to raise all students’ achievement and to eliminate the achievement gap regardless of students’ academic abilities. The main objective of the NCLB requires that students with special needs, English Language Learners and students of low income families meet the same expectations as all other students (Johnson, Musial, Hall, Gollnick, & Dupus, 2005), which I believe is a very honorable , but is it practical?.
The need to educate our children has been the center of constant controversy amongst educators, parents, and politicians even more so within the last twenty years. The arguments of these assessors’ vary from admiration to great cynicism, but unfortunately mainly the latter. The form in which we educate will always be an easy target for criticism because its intent is often so gallantly majestic that it has little chance of being accomplished. With the reauthorization of the NCLB act, this has proven to be even truer as more teachers ‘teach to test’ in order to meet its grand demands.
The NCLB act requires an Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of every school supported by the federal government. This report can be sufficiently argued, does not give schools sufficient credit for improvements in students’ achievement. Results have shown that whether or not a school performs well on the AYP does not essentially depend on its success or the presence or absence or size of achievement gaps. By definition of an AYP’s passing grade, eventually almost all schools, regardless of schools average student’s performance, will receive a failing grade.
In order to create equal opportunity for every child in our classrooms, teachers need to differentiate instruction to enhance all students’ learning. “Teachers must engage students in activities that respond to particular learning needs, strengths, and preferences and is effective in addressing the needs of gifted students, students with special needs, as well as, second language learners who are in the same classroom” (Wikipedia, 2008).
The present demands of the NCLB as made this considerable more difficult as schools and their districts attempt to make satisfactory grades for the AYP. Unfortunately many teachers now employ the tactics of instructing students on the actual items they think will appear on the tests in an attempt to make ‘the grade’. In addition to this being morally wrong, teaching to test is counter-productive because it makes valid inferences about student achievement almost unfeasible. Drilling students on a specific set of test items destroys their ability to critically the analyze information taught and to apply this information to a broader context. In fact, I believe education becomes less significant if understanding of lessons is never reached. Similarly, Dewey believes it is nonsense to talk about the aim of education- or any other undertaking – where conditions do not permit foresight of result… (Dewey 102). Vygotsky also supports this argument that true education can not be learning of specific knowledge and skills, it is the development of children's learning abilities - that is, their capacity to think clearly and creatively, plan and implement their plans, and communicate their understanding in a variety of ways (Vygotsky, 1978).

Student being prepared only to perform well on test,’ Test Takers’ will not find solution to diseases, such as AIDS or Cancer; maintain America’s competitiveness with the rest of the world, create new technologies, or to design new structures. Teaching a child should never simply be to perform on a test, rather it is to teach them to have the knowledge necessary to contribute solutions to the world’s problems. Teacher should teach a subject to get students to think about a problem and it possible solution/s, not to produce little living encyclopedias. Considering education as historians do, “Knowing is a process not a product (Bruner, 1996).”
As math a teachers and an educator of future scientist and mathematicians, it my responsibility, as it is all other teachers, to teach our students to apply the content they learn to understand and help fix the concerns of the world. Aristotle regards… someone who has mastered the theory but has never practiced …and who know general principles without ever having come face to face with an actual case often turns out to be an unsuccessful practitioner… (Herschensohn, 7 ). Such as a doctor who has very little understanding of their art. "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." (Einstein,1981)

The NCLB Act has made the art of true understanding considerably more difficult, to bring to each of our students. However we must endure for the future and the continued success of our children, and ultimately this nation. To conclude, Polya a mathematician/philosopher believes who understands ill, answers ill…Think on the end before you begin. “respice finem” (Poyla, 1985). When our children are questioned, can the future of America depend on their answer?

Reference:

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Dewey, J. (1990) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education.
(1963 ) The Natural Philosopher Volume II. Blaisdell publishing company. New York Editors: Daniel e. Gershenson, Daniel A. Greenberg. Pg. 7
Polya, G. (1985). How to Solve It: a new aspect of mathematical method Princeton. New Jersey. Pg. 222
Einstein, A., Hoffman, B. and Dukas, H., (1981). The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives. Princeton. New Jersey

Critical Reflection--April Tallant

2008-07-16T12:01:00.000-04:00

Doing, not Naming: CTE and Vocational Education

The field of education seems to love the act of re-naming. Showing someone how to do something becomes “modeling”, English becomes “English Language Arts”, high schools become “academies”—what was old becomes new, and the new is familiar. What was known when I was a student as “vocational education” is now known as “career and technical education” or “CTE”. I’ll get to the re-naming, and its implications, in a moment, but first let’s get, along with old names, old ideas out of the way. My high school had a large “vocational” department that offered, at least, courses in cosmetology, metal-working, auto-repair, and industrial design. As students, our perceptions of the program echoed the school’s diploma design (you could receive either a college prep or vocational diploma), just as there were two degrees, there were two types of students—the kids that wanted to go to college, and the kids that wanted to stay in town and work after graduation. These divisions carried class and intelligence assumptions with them that now make me ashamed. Despite student perceptions of the program, my small-town community seemed to whole-heartedly support vocational education. Many residents got their hair cut at the high school (I got my first perm there, for something like ten dollars), brought simple metal repair jobs or projects to the school, or hired out students to work in an early release program. After I finished college and moved around looking for the non-existent work in the fields of my majors, I often wished I were qualified to answer the ads for cosmetologists that I saw in every town I lived in. Why couldn’t I read literature and have a concrete, technical skill? Why can’t my students receive an education that reconciles these two worlds?

As I process my experiences this year along with my formal study of education, knowledge of kinesthetic learning styles and constructivist approaches merge with student questions of “when will I ever use this?” or “how can I get a job?”—it seems that the tangible skills that traditional vocational programs provide could be rolled into the progressive and student centered philosophies of today’s education. According to the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE 2008), CTE now covers a variety of fields—from the more traditional, (trade and industrial, family and consumer sciences, business and marketing), to areas not traditionally considered to be part of a school curriculum, (public safety and security, technology, and health occupations) (ACTE, 2008). Developing strong and relevant CTE programs within public high schools could not only provide students with job skills and certifications, but also work to connect the traditional curriculum (math, ELA, science, etc.) to real-world problems and scenarios. Having graduated from a graduate program that required a course load that was half theory, half practice, I know that the connections between thinking and doing are real, and believe that almost all of my students crave this type tangible education.

Despite what you might not have heard, CTE is experiencing a bit of a come-back in schools throughout the country, and even within New York City. In fact, “[i]n his State of the City address this year, Mayor Bloomberg named expanding CTE schools a main priority, announcing that three CTE ‘demonstrations schools’ would be opened by 2009” (Green 2008). This movement is based upon the success of programs throughout the city. In the Bronx, students at the Bronx School of Law and Finance develop practical skills—how to trade stocks, invest virtual money, even wear a suit, all in an attempt to not only prepare them for the world of work, but also for college (Green 2008). All courses echo the schools technical themes, “with English teachers instructing on e-mail etiquette […] and history teachers assigning Thomas Friedman’s ‘The World is Flat’” (Green 2008). In Brooklyn, students at Franklin K. Lane High School students are able to take courses in design technology that focus on the Adobe Creative Suite 3 software, a creative industry standard. This course work is then integrated with the school’s math curriculum (Adobe 2008). In Queens, students at Thomas Edison High School have transferred their course work in design into a small business, “where students create jobs for outside customers, mostly teachers and others within the school district” (Adobe 2008). These existing programs are not only rigorous, interesting, and relevant to students in an urban setting, but they are also CTE programs.

Mayor Bloomberg is, in this world of data-driven instruction, promoting CTE programs because they are proven to work. CTE schools have “posted some of the most remarkable results in the city—Regents scores and graduation rates are well above the citywide average” (Green 2008). At the Bronx School of Law and Finance, “95% of the school’s first graduating class was accepted to college, and 80% of those seniors were headed to four-year colleges” (Green 2008). A study by the Center for an Urban Future found that “CTE students in New York graduate from high school at sharply higher rates and are four times less likely to drop out before graduating than the city’s overall high school population” (Fischer 2008). The report also shows that “attendance at New York City’s […] most successful CTE schools […] runs as much as ten points above the city average. CTE students in the five boroughs achieve superior educational outcomes despite the fact that compared to the citywide high school population, students at the 21 CTE high schools tend to be poorer […]; more likely to be over-age for their grade level; and lower-skilled in terms of standardized testing fore English and Math” (Fischer 2008). CTE seems to provide the relevance students and teachers want, with the results administrators crave.

In the face of such results, the field of CTE is attempting to reconcile the way many students, teachers, and administrators view CTE within schools. Rather than view students that participate in technical courses as not headed towards college, a “Career Academies” movement has developed. This movement attempts to “bring the two ‘tracks’ together” (ACTE 2008) and recognizes “the need today for all students to have some post secondary education/training” (ACTE 2008). These career academies have three elements—“small learning communities (SLC), integrated curriculum, and links to employers and higher education” (ACTE 2008). This movement conveniently merges with the small schools movement that has taken New York City, and the nation, by storm. In fact, many of the schools we work in may, technically, fall under this type of organization. In fact, the New York City Board of Education initially promoted the idea of Small Learning Communities (in their definition “schools-within-schools”) under the umbrella of CTE programs.

The convincing results from CTE schools and their engagement with the new systems of school organization both excite me and make me nervous. I would love to teach ELA to students who feel that their education tangibly links towards some end, be it a skill, a paycheck, or a college, and truly believe that students will attend and stay in school if they feel that they are getting something that they can take away from their four years (sadly, many don’t see the traditional curriculum as “something”). However, as I read the Board of Education’s implementation plan for CTE/SLC (for 2004-2007), it all seemed familiar. It sounded almost exactly like my school’s own write-up. However well my school serves its students, it does not provide a real CTE curriculum. The media class I teach as an elective does not, truly, provide students with tangible technical skills, although I recognize that, in an attempt to put best faces forward, it might be framed as such. My fear is that, rather than a true CTE program, small, stressed, well-meaning schools will implement programs that are more smoke than fire, asking content teachers to teach technical courses that become secondary concerns—another prep or after-thought. It is, I believe, imperative that the reconciliation of the ‘two tracks’ (be they college or CTE, learning or doing) lie within students’ practice, not teachers’ and administrators’ justifications and theories. Students want to and should, do it for themselves.

References

ACTE Online (2008). Association of Career and Technical Education. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.acteonline.org/

Adobe Systems Incorporated. (2008). Adobe Showcase: Adobe Case Study: New York City Department of Education. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/showcase/index.cfm?casestudyid=288791&event=casestudydetail&loc=en_us

Fischer, D.J. (2008, May 19). Vocational Education Means Schools That Work. City Limits. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.citylimits.org/contnet/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3558

Green, E. (2008, March 3). In Bronx, the new face of vocational education. The New York Sun. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.nysun.com/new-york/in-bronx-the-new-face-of-vocational-education/72149/

Critical Reflection: Annualizing Grades: Smoke and Mirrors? by Rich Reynolds

2008-07-16T11:58:00.000-04:00

If someone told you that you could sit out the first half of a game and only have to play the second half to win, what would you think? Perhaps I am oversimplifying the predicament that results from annualizing grades, but it is precisely this kind of situation that many New York City public school educators find themselves wound up in with the overwhelming need to shift towards annualization in light of Quality Review report cards. To borrow one astute quotation from a blogger who posted in response to an article written about Spitzer’s criticism of Bloomberg’s school statistics, “Mark Twain once said ‘there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.’” Statistics can be bent and twisted to say what one wants them to say. Annualization is a classic example of using statistics to support the rise in graduation rates. In essence, annualization is a subsection of the more perplexing matter related to promoting students.
I want to make it unequivocally clear that I am not talking about annualization in terms of students having the same teachers for an entire year. Annualization, in this case, refers exclusively to the grades that are distributed to students. I was confronted with this issue during my first year of teaching. I should point out that my school received a C grade on the Quality Review and is desperately seeking a B grade for the following year. Annualization has already been adopted by several New York City public schools because it gives them the extra leverage that they need to obtain a higher grade on the report card. With this system, a grade of a 55 during the first semester will be changed to a 65 if the student passes the second semester, thus improving graduation rates, which in turn results in a higher Quality Review grade.
From my vantage point, this rather vicious cycle of passing “unqualified” students not only compromises the integrity of the school, and more importantly the dedicated teachers that are working tirelessly to ensure that students put in some effort to pass, but it ultimately sends the wrong message to students. With annualization comes the critical issue of maintaining as opposed to compromising the integrity of a school administration in favor of attaining a higher Quality Review grade. While it would be ideal to maintain integrity and pass or fail students as teachers see fit, it is unreasonable to assume that educators will be able to drastically improve passing rates without manipulating the grading systems that are in tact. To be honest, in the school setting that I work, students that fail usually have incredibly poor attendance and do not submit enough work to merit a passing grade. In fact, the line between passing and failing a student is so great that there is little, if any, argument at the end of a marking period. Several measures are taken to ensure students’ success such as calling home and contacting parents, so students are left accountable for the amount of time and effort that they want to put into a course.
It is a bit disgruntling to think that teachers should be forced to retroactively change a first semester grade for a student who passes the second semester. If the student is routinely absent and does not submit any assignments or participate in class, a failing grade for the first semester would appear to be imminent, yet this system of replacing old grades with new grades gives students the latitude to push the limit and do as little as possible to pass the course. How does this promote fairness for all the students that are consistently working hard? It sends kids the wrong message and ultimately many of them will game the system. Call it a pessimistic outlook if you may, but there are many students who will take advantage of this seemingly outrageous loophole in the system. It teaches them that they will always be given a second chance when in fact this does not really reflect reality. Furthermore, such a procedure undermines teachers’ judgment and creates a certain amount of resentment and disillusionment towards a system that encourages passing students above all else. As an English teacher, I feel that I am doing a disservice to the student and the entire world by sending an ill-equipped student out into the job market and society in general when he or she cannot read or write.
In truth, the desire to annualize grades is a byproduct of the increased competition among New York City public schools to jockey for positioning, especially when several schools are placed under review and are inevitably dissolved to form smaller schools. As a faculty member from a school that has a student population of approximately 4,500 students, I along with my colleagues are keenly aware of the city’s incessant desire to break up the school should we falter at any point. To be sure, this is why school administrators and particularly the principal have taken a propitious attitude toward adopting annualization. To say that such an issue is divisive is an understatement. While I can fully understand a principal’s desire to consider this system of grading as a way of making up ground for lost points in the Quality Review, the overwhelming majority of faculty members are disinclined to use a system of valuation that essentially undercuts their initial judgment of a student. Morale suffers and many of my colleagues feel unappreciated because the little control that they once had is now usurped by a higher authority that seems to be telling us how to do our job at each and every turn.
In a PBS Online News Hour about school reform in New York City, John Merrow’s interview with Mayor Bloomberg, among others, displays Bloomberg’s stance regarding promotion. Bloomberg himself states that “It doesn't do anyone any favors to anyone to send unprepared students up the line to the next grade. Those days, I think we all agree, are over.” Apparently Bloomberg helped end what is known as social promotion, yet it still occurs, largely in part because of the Quality Review that was implemented to map school progress. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein released the first-ever public school progress reports in 2007. According the NYC Department of Education website, out of 1,224 schools that received Progress Reports, 279 (23%) earned an A, 461 (38%) earned a B, 312 (25%) earned a C, 99 (8%) earned a D, and 50 (4%) earned an F (New York City Department of Education).
Like James Johnson who points out in Foundations of American Education, the pressures to cheat, that is, for teachers and principals to help students succeed, is not far removed from to the need to improve school ratings. (Johnson, et. al, 2008, p. 383) However, the need to improve a school’s reputation increases competition and serves as the impetus for resorting to annualization. Johnson opines that opponents to school report cards suggest that such an indicator increases competition which is not supposed to be a part of public education. (Johnson, et. al, 2008, p. 335) Needless to say, the dialogue concerning this critical debate of whether schools should use dubious tactics in retroactively changing student grades to obtain higher Quality Review grades is a matter of reconciling ethics and integrity with school reputation.

References

Johnson, J. A., D. Musial, G. E. Hall, D. M. Gollnick, & V. L. Dupuis. (2008). Foundations of American education: perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson, 335, 383.

Lehrer, J. (28, September 2005). School reform in New York City. PBS Online News Hour. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec05/nyc_9-28.html

Sullivan, P. (7, March 2007). Spitzer Criticizes Bloomberg’s School Statistics. NYC Public School Parents. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2007/03/spitzer-criticizes-bloombergs-school.html

Social Promotion & Retention by Meghann Rosales

2008-07-16T11:56:00.000-04:00

The graduation ceremony this year was beautiful—held at the Botanical Gardens, with stirring speeches, featuring moving songs from student performers, and followed by a family celebration with refreshments. It was far more personal than my own graduation. I was one of nearly one thousand seniors, though, in contrast to the less than one hundred in this class of 2008. As I watched the students, eager in their folding chairs on the platform stage, I was shocked by the small size of the graduating class. While many more seniors will be receiving diplomas at the end of summer, after finishing summer school or passing a final Regents, the rest of the should-be graduates will be back in the fall for their second or third senior years. Is retention at the higher grade levels effective? Would not retention be more successful if implemented in the earlier grades, when the foundational skills are being taught, practiced, and mastered? The traditional alternative has been social promotion, which undoubtedly leaves students unprepared to successfully navigate the college classroom or workplace. To what extent is social promotion responsible for the nationwide decrease in rates of college completion? Is it more important for students to be self-paced, to master the content at their own individual level, even if that means more than four years of high school? Is it acceptable to expect that students will take more than the projected four years to complete their high school educations, or is it a lack in expectations on the part of teachers and administration?

If the emphasis truly was on standards-based education—with mastery of content being the requisite for grade level promotion—how long would it take students in urban schools to graduate? Thompson and Cunningham (2000) point out that “it is impossible to tell how common social promotion is…[because] virtually no statistics are kept on social promotions, in part because few districts explicitly embrace or admit to the practice.” Undeniably, teachers can attest to the presence of social promotion, and studies point to the long-term dangers of promoting students in the absence of academic merit. Students who are promoted without acquiring important foundational skills face extensive challenges at subsequent levels. Both teachers and students can become frustrated at this process—students are simply not able to perform without mastering the basics (Thompson and Cunningham, 2000). By handing students a diploma, we are telling them that they are academically prepared to achieve their dreams, and in this way social promotion does students a grave disservice. While they may enter college with their peers, the preparedness of students who were pushed through the grade levels—for issues of funding, accountability, and policy,—often leaves them unable to cope with the college setting. An astonishing amount—over 90 percent—of students at the graduation I attended will begin college in the fall. Indeed, college enrollment for students of color (especially women of color) is excitingly high. However, “the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 43 percent…20 percentage points below the 63 percentage rate for white students” (JBHE, 2007). This demonstrates a four percentage point increase for black students in the past three years, but the disparity is evident. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (2007) attributes high dropout rates among black students to “inferior K-12 preparation and an absence of a family college tradition… and the availability of financial aid.” The journal further points to the necessity of preparing students with the essential academic and study skills before they arrive at college.

If social promotion is a slippery slope, consider the traditional alternative of retention. Students repeating a grade level is more common in the early grades, especially as teachers evaluate a student’s performance after the first year of elementary or middle school (Thompson and Cunningham, 2000). While retention at the early stage can help students build a sturdy academic and emotional foundation to strengthen their performance in later years, the readjustment required to orient themselves to a new peer group and other factors can take an emotional toll on young, developing students. As supporters of social promotion advocate, students who are retained do not feel good about themselves. Thompson and Cunningham (2000) suggest that high school retention rates among African American and Hispanic males are approximately 15% higher than white males. If students are held back—or repeatedly held back—at the high school level, it seems that academic and emotional issues would be compounded, leading to higher drop-out rates.

How, then, can the education system promote student achievement at all levels? How can we, as teachers, adequately prepare all students to become successful high school and college graduates? Early education and intervention appear to be key elements. Effective preschool programming prepares children for the challenges of elementary school. Programs like Head Start are especially geared towards low-income children for a comprehensive approach to early education. Students who are retained at any level require additional assistance to identify the root of and solutions to their academic or emotional setbacks. Similarly, students who are promoted without standard academic achievement must receive support to perform at a higher level. As research points to retention rates increasing in years of early transition (elementary and middle school), perhaps schools could implement intervention programs to help students cope with the myriad of challenges, from study skills and time management to behavior and peer pressure. Certainly programs like these would be beneficial for all students, not just African American and Hispanic males.

Social promotion and retention cannot be the only alternatives, once a student reaches high school. In addition to continued support for students to overcome setbacks in their schooling, teachers can adjust their teaching to present course content with real-world connections, demonstrating the relevance of education in the world beyond high school. Being aware of social and economic challenges students experience, including employment and family educational traditional, can also help teachers to create a learning environment more conducive to the unique academic needs of our urban students. Similarly, perhaps educators need to reflect on the current definition of high school as four years and a diploma: if it is to be a true place of learning, growth, and preparation for young people, perhaps they system should honor the individual talents and challenges of those who enter our classrooms. When these students enter a university they will find that they are allowed to select what, when, how, and from whom they learn, and they will discover that it may take them more than four years to complete their degrees. With such stigma attached to both social promotion and retention, perhaps we as educators should accept and honor that high school students, like college students, can achieve through a less-prescribed definition of that institution. If a student completes his or her high school requirements at a self-paced five years, mastering the skills he or she requires to succeed in college and the work force, is it really a failure of the school, student, or community? Or is it simply a student completing, mastering, and succeeding?

Citation

JBGE, Black student college graduation rates inch higher but a large racial gap persists [Electronic version] (2007). Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07preview.html

Thompson, C.L. and Cunningham, E.K. (2000). Retention and social promotion: Research and implications for policy [Electronic version]. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, 161.

Critical Reflection: Addressing Standardized Testing in Today's World

2008-07-16T11:49:00.000-04:00

Standardized testing has long been a controversial issue in the world of education and yet, rather interestingly, “published tests, such as the college entrance exams and IQ tests, are creations of the 20th century” (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 521). While high stakes, state-mandated testing has surely been embraced by some and rejected by others, it is clear that the policies of the United States and even the world as a whole have emphasized a need for standardized testing. According to the authors of Foundations of American Education: Perspectives on Education in a Changing World, “the nationwide movement toward standards, performance, and a variety of assessment strategies is a good one” because, among other reasons, “the goals of teaching and learning are made clear” (Johnson et. al, 2008, p. 380-81). Establishing standards-based curriculums for subject areas is certainly important for this reason, but standard-based curriculums do not justify establishing standardized tests. The words that seem to be most revealing in the aforementioned claim are “a variety of assessment strategies” because they are essentially at odds with the very nature of standardized testing.

Within classrooms, teachers who are mindful of the importance of differentiation and thus differentiating content, process, and product presumably make use of a variety of assessment strategies in order to measure each student’s learning. In my first year of teaching, I worked to differentiate instruction and to provide a variety of assessments that could conceivably measure each student’s learning development. After administering questionnaires and getting to know how my students think, I knew that I would have to differentiate in order to maximize the learning experience for all of my students. Yet, in light of the fact that most educators recognize that students do not learn in the same ways or at the same rates and know that emphasis must be placed on teaching strategies that will cater to individual differences, one cannot help but view standardized testing as a one-size-fits-all form of testing. Standardized testing, in its very form, does not account for students’ individual differences and different ways and rates of learning even though it supposedly measures the acquisition and application of specific content and skills in different subject areas. In essence, although both differentiation and standardized testing have been given emphasis in the New York public school system, they seemingly promote different, and perhaps even opposite, methods of learning and teaching.

Among the many difficulties that standardized testing poses for educators and students, students’ unique ways of thinking and opportunities for individual growth in learning are undoubtedly hindered by standardized testing. Rather than promoting differences in learning as effective educators often try to do so as to expose students to different learning patterns and perspectives, high-stakes, state-mandated testing unfairly assumes that students from different cultures and different background share similar ways of thinking and similar life experiences and skills. In “The lessons of high stakes testing,” Lisa Abrams and George Madaus conclude that “In every setting where a high-stakes test operates, the exam content eventually defines the curriculum” (Abrams & Madaus, 2003, p. 32). This is particularly revealing because it suggests that curriculum is, at least in part, not shaped by students’ backgrounds, interests, and experiences but rather by the content and skill sets that appear on standardized tests. In a sense, a teacher’s instruction time and curriculum also potentially loses some of its individuality and uniqueness on account of the enormous value that is placed on high-stakes testing.

We, as educators, constantly work to access the prior knowledge of our students and then when our students are obligated to take standardized tests, they often struggle to connect their prior knowledge to the content on the examinations because their life experiences are different. One major cause of the achievement gap that still exists between wealthy, mostly white school districts and poor, mostly minority school districts is that high-stakes, state-mandated tests may be testing poor students on material that they have not had a sufficient opportunity to learn (Kossan, 2000). Anita Woolfolk notes that “when so much rides on the results of a test, you would assume that the test actually measured what had been taught” (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 541), but when teachers are trying to access their students’ diverse backgrounds in order to develop their learning in meaningful ways, standardized tests do not seemingly cover the life experiences and prior knowledge that many inner city students in New York have for example. With the idea that standardized testing hinders uniqueness and individuality, it also has the debilitating effect of decreasing student motivation, which many teachers industriously work to build up throughout an academic year. Despite the argument that standardized testing allows teachers to measure students’ mastery of standards and skills in different subject areas, in “High-Stakes Testing, Uncertainty, and Student Learning,” a study of 18 states with high-stakes testing found in all but one analysis that “student learning is indeterminate, remains at the same level it was before the policy was implemented, or actually goes down when high-stakes testing policies are instituted.” The study also found numerous reports of “unintended consequences associated with high-stakes testing policies” including “increased drop-out rates, teachers' and schools' cheating on exams, [and] teachers' defection from the profession” (Amrein & Berliner, 2002).

Furthermore, standardized testing places different burdens on educators when thinking about the ideas of school progress and classroom instruction. Rather than debate whether or not teachers should prepare students for high-stakes, state-mandated tests since these tests are a reality and it would be considered a disservice if teachers provided no form of test preparation to students, the question that arises is: How should teachers prepare students for standardized tests?

Before considering this question, I must reference an assembly on student achievement that I attended during the 2007-2008 school year. During a faculty assembly in the school in which I teach, I was given a few information sheets with many numbers and the words, “Adequate Yearly Progress.” As I listened intently throughout the faculty assembly to my principal, I learned that in order for a school to achieve “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) there must be an increase in the number of students who are passing standardized tests, and particularly the Regents. According to the New York Department of Education, “under NCLB, AYP is determined based on each school’s progress toward meeting the state proficiency level for all students in English language arts, mathematics, science and/or high school graduation rate.” Additionally, “schools are held accountable for the achievement of students of different races and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency and low-income students.” According to NCLB standards, public schools in New York City that have not made Adequate Yearly Progress are categorized as “Schools in Need of Improvement” (SINI) (New York City Department of Education, 2007).

Immediately upon learning that a school’s AYP is directly linked to student achievement on standardized testing, I was put in a difficult position. On one hand, I do not agree with standardized testing because it essentially goes against the idea that students learn and process material in different ways and it also puts students such as English Language Learners at obvious disadvantages. On the other hand, I realize that I will be at least partially held accountable for my students’ achievement on standardized tests and thus I must figure out how to prepare students for such tests. Considering that my school’s wellbeing and even my image as a teacher in part depends upon student achievement on standardized testing, the reality is that I am still trying to determine what is the best way to prepare my students for standardized testing considering that it is a reality that does not seem to be going away any time soon. Whether I should be teaching directly to the test, teaching test-taking techniques, following the prescribed curriculum, which incorporates teaching skills and content in context, or doing something else still plagues me primarily because I have not yet fully come to accept the reality of standardized testing.

References

Abrams, I.M., & Madaus, G.F. (2003). The lessons of high stakes testing. Educational Leadership, 61 (32), 32.

Amrein, A.L. & Berliner, D.C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 32. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/.

Johnson, J. A., D. Musial, G. E. Hall, D. M. Gollnick, & V. L. Dupuis. (2008). Foundations ofAmerican education: perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson, 380-81.

Kossan, P. (2000, November 27). By trying too much too quick, AIMS missed mark. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1127aims27.html

Woolfolk, Anita. (2007). Educational psychology. Boston: Pearson, 521, 541.

Critical Reflection: Negotiating Discourses in Literate Cultures

2008-07-16T11:39:00.000-04:00

“To enjoy freedom, if the platitude is pardonable, we have of course to control ourselves. We must not squander our powers, helplessly and ignorantly, squirting half the house in order to water a single rose-bush; we must train them, exactly and powerfully, here on the very spot.”-Virginia Woolf

As teachers we have the opportunity to shape the lives of students. Our particular brand of student is impressionable because of age, background, and cultural difference. The students that I face everyday live in dire situations. Over eighty-percent of the students live within a four block radius of the school building; their playground is a sheet of concrete, quarantined by black fences and bars; their building is stained with a musty tint. It is unsurprising that their platitudes are unpardonable, as Woolf says. Their chaotic, unstable lives often translate into irrational, disorganized behaviors in the classroom. Reading and writing in their classes is not something that enters their thought processes willingly. Controlling themselves requires training. Teachers assume the role of trainer, a role that allows them to train in literacy, and equally critical, civility. This was not a part of the job that I was prepared for, but one that I see value in. Thus, I often find the idea of a literate culture in my classroom, or in any classroom, a pressing issue because our students do not see themselves as readers and writers within a literate culture. Instead the language that they have access to is not always Standard English, or language that will help them meet the standards that data-drive instruction fanatics and the standardized test mafia requires. In order to raise the achievement gap, I find that critical literacy across the curriculum to be one possible solution to the literacy crisis.

One of the primary issues that I face in the classroom is managing the multiple discourses that my students negotiate on a daily basis. Their literacy is dependent upon their ability to access a language that they know and understand. Much to my surprise earlier this year, this discourse is layered with social and cultural differences of which I am ignorant. Their linguistic abilities—what an English class requires—were far below my standard. Yet, I could not conceive of literacy anymore as a one-dimensional box that teachers design rules for and force students to adhere to the rules therein. We are told that language is a system that allows us to communicate. This definition is vague enough that it includes any form of communication with or without understanding, and limited enough to exclude the social and cultural diversity of our students. Thomas and Tchudi outline the nature of language; their discussion includes the linguistic explanation of languages. The impression is that in order to be a language certain features are inherent; languages are all equal, systemic, and used as a means of communication. In order to be a productive language, however, understanding must play a role in the process of communicating. The points made in Thomas and Tchudi’s article are relevant to a linguistic understanding of language, but over the course of the year my understanding of language has evolved into an extreme anti-rule governed system, or non-system that includes social and cultural issues at its core: a breakthrough in critical literacy issues surrounding urban education. All I can think about when I read the robotic words of Thomas and Tchudi is Samuel Beckett’s novel, Murphy, which purports that language fails us. Similarly, one of Beckett’s characters in Watt says, “How hideous is the semi-colon?” Rule-governed language systems are stifling, and this suffocating view of language as a system of signs and symbols fails our students. It lacks meaning for them. The challenge becomes to assist them in accessing a language (formal or standard English) that often seems foreign to them. The language development of our students harkens back to childhood, the early years, when children are exposed to books, words, and images. Kiel notes, “Language acquisition is a process begins before birth and extends beyond school years” (Kiel, 1998). However, many of our students fail to encounter language as in depth as what Kiel calls a “normal child.” This lack of immersion affects their learning. Students of different cultures often rely on storytelling and other forms of oral communication. Therefore, they understand things that are spoken to them or sung to them, but these same students struggle to achieve sufficient writing skills. Thus, their exposure to English is limited if not non-existent.

Research shows that we can raise student literacy levels, allowing students that are currently in middle school access to a literate culture by immersing them in language throughout all content in a school. We have to tailor our ideas beginning on a macro level so that literacy skills are embedded in courses, units, and lessons. Lens and Deshler outline a plan for teaching content to all students. I think we need to couple the ideas of Lenz and Deshler, particularly, we must embed curriculum with differentiated methods that reach the needs and interests of our students while considering their cultural differences as part of that differentiated curriculum. The need to affirm the identities of my students and to consider their cultural differences is critical teaching practice
(Cummins and Bismilla, 2005).

Additionally, the realization of the cultural and linguistic diversity of my students came after months of teaching grammar in isolation. We have access to teaching strategies that grapple with literacy deficits that can be embedded into all content area within a curriculum. Strategies for teaching language-minority students included considering their home language (Fueyo, 1997); however, the necessary realization that language deficits are not always linguistic, but that the social and economic background of a student warrants examination prior to using strategies for teaching these diverse learners (Wheeler and Swords, 2006), and considering the home and professional languages that students use, change the shape of instruction (Baker, 2002). Teaching practices must consider the individualized discourses of students instead of requiring that they conform to standardized English. The research trend moves to end the abuses of English language, as Baron notes, “Knowing English is one thing, requiring it is another” (Baron, 2002, pg. 5).

What does this mean for teachers? We need to make critical literacy—reading, writing, listening, speaking, and thinking—part of a school-wide curriculum effort. Literacy needs to be a school-wide buzz word. It needs to be embedded in curriculums so that we are able to teach for meaning. We need to consider the needs of our students and for me that means tailoring lesson plans to their social and cultural backgrounds, academic and linguistic diversities while paying close attention to the discourses they negotiate with friends in the hallway, parents on their cell phone, and messages on their PSP toys.
Moreover, the ideas contained within the Content Literacy Continuum of Lenz and Deshler are refreshing to me because I think literacy is at the heart of all subjects. Unfortunately, the teachers at my school find this position to be rather ridiculous. Content teachers, social studies and science, particularly, think their job is to walk into the classroom, provide the most rote model of instruction to our students in the Bronx, and then gasp when these students do not pass exams or retain much information. If they cannot read a text for pleasure, then they certainly will struggle when asked to access often jargon-filled textbook language. As teachers we have a responsibility to identify our students' needs, and teach strategically. I find this argument to be the right one, but content teachers at my school focus more on plowing through content, hoping for mastery.

Lenz and Deshler off their project of embedded literacy across the curriculum in their piece, “The content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students.” The benefits of such a program coincide with the position that meeting the needs of diverse learners, which includes their cultural and social diversity as well as their linguistic diversity. For example, a few of the benefits I adhere to are: the curriculum teaches literacy skills across content areas, these skills for pre-reading, reading, etc. are reinforced, strategic planning for students with appropriate interventions, school-wide effort, uses strategies that coincide with best practices, i.e. direct instruction, modeling, and more intensive if needed instruction, selection of critical content, integrates a more school-wide, holistic approach to identifying and meeting student needs, and allows for consistency within the core curriculum. I am certain that the CLC will face the challenge of perceived "more work" for content teachers to reinforce skills, takes a new approach for content teachers if they are teaching skills for literacy and might lose focus and breadth of content that is covered. Yet, I believe that in order to allow students to construct meaning they need to operate in a literate culture that includes pieces of their cultural traditions. What better way to teach students to value each other and create meaning in part out of what they already know.
.
References

Baker, J. (2002). Trilinguilism. In L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy, eds. Theskin that we speak. NYC: The New Press.

Cummins, J. and Bismilla, V 2005. "Affirming Identity in Multicultural Classrooms" Classrooms, Educational Leadership vol 63; 1

Fueyo, Vivian. (1997). Below the Tip of the Iceberg: Teaching Language-Minority Students. Teaching Exceptional Children, vol 30; 1

Kiel, J. (1998). In C. Weaver, ed. Lessons to share: On teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Lenz, Keith B. & Barbara Ehren (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children. Vol 37; 6

Thomas, L. & Tchudi, S. (1999). The English Language: An Owner’s Manual. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

A Reflection on Small Schools

2008-07-16T11:31:00.000-04:00

The South Bronx building in which I currently teach once housed William Howard Taft High School, a school mentioned by Jonathan Kozol in Amazing Grace, his book on racial inequalities in New York City Schools. Kozol writes that "[at Taft] one of the grimmest schools in the United States, the self-esteem of children has been crushed to the degree that students ridicule them selves, as David Washington has told me, by making a bitter joke out of the letters of the school's name. 'Taft,' they say, means 'Training Animals For Tomorrow.' The area around the school is heavily patrolled so students can get from the subway to the school unharmed. (Kozol 1995). Were Kozol to visit the building today he would be greeted by an entirely different scene. Thanks to the "small schools" trend in the Department of Education spearheaded by the New Visions organization, the building that was once Taft now houses 6 smaller schools. Those who knew the school when Kozol visited say they have witnessed marked improvement.
Small schools were born in order to combat the chaos that can exist in a large inner-city high school. According to New Visions "between 1993 and 1998, thousands of parents, teachers, administrators, cultural groups and civic and educational institutions engaged in a collaborative process that resulted in the creation of small, theme-based schools focusing on innovative, student-centered instructional practices." In the former Taft building, for example each of the schools embodies a different philosophy and academic focus. One school prepares students for medical careers, and another law. The Department of Education designed these schools so that ideally the would "grow from their communities and are invested from the start with the creativity, support and the ongoing involvement of local stakeholders (New Visions)." Instead of treating students as only ID numbers and possible criminals, the New Visions small schools movement stressed the recognition of the individual student.

Small schools have shown some promising results. A recent New York Times article "Attention Goes a Long Way at a School, Small by Design" explores how small schools under strong leadership are able to give students academic attention that was once reserved only for students in private schools. As a result we are witnessing excellent graduation rates in extremely economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, in schools, like the former Taft, that have historically struggled. In my (albeit limited) experience I have had the opportunity to really get to know and appreciate my students by virtue of the amount of time I spend with them in small groups. The specific focuses of the small schools are also and advantage for students as instead of being assigned to a monolithic high school they can choose whether to study law or medicine, go to a single sex school, and what kind of philosophy their school espouses.

One of the downsides to small schools that has been mentioned in recent articles and that I have witnessed firsthand is competition for space within the campus. When these buildings housed only one large school use of its facilities could be more flexible. With more schools in the building comes increased demand for physical resources. For example, if only one school is to use the cafeteria during a given class period, another school may have to assign students to eat their lunch very early in the day. The same scenario holds true for fields, gymnasiums, and auditoriums. An additional pitfall that small schools face is redundancy of resources. Since the schools do not necessarily share resources, there exists the possibility that money is spent on equipment and supplies that are unused elsewhere on the campus. The transition to small schools has been uneven, overcrowding schools that have not been divided with the overflow from the small schools, which have very strict enrollment quotas ("In Push for Small Schools, Other Schools Suffer").
Ultimately I believe any philosophy that encourages and allows better student engagement is a worthwhile one and that the difficulties arising from the implementation of small schools have been largely logistical. However, logistical problems can have very real effects for students despite the underlying ideology. There is also the problem of competition for education. The logistical problems in small schools encourage competition for resources within the campus and among potential students and are antithetical to learning. However the philosophy behind the movement has allowed for the creativity and passion of teachers and administrators to be effectively freed to the great benefit of New York City students.

References:

Bosman, J. (30, June 2007). Small Schools Are Ahead in Graduation. New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/nyregion/30grads.html?scp=2&sq=%22small+schools%22+education&st=nyt

Freedman, S. (23, June 2004). Some Pupils Feel Squeezed Out By City's Small-Schools Program. New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CEEDB1039F930A15755C0A9629C8B63&scp=2sq=education%20small%20schools&st=cse

Herszenhorn, D. (14, March 2005). In Push for Small Schools, Other Schools Suffer. New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DC1438F937A25752C0A9639C8B63&scp=8&sq="small schools&st=cse

Kozol, J. (1995). Amazing grace: The lives of children and the conscience of a nation. New York: Crown

Medina, J. (30, June 2008). Attention Goes a Long Way at a School, Small by Design. New York Times. Retrieved July 13, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/education/30school.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=attention%20goes&st=cse&oref=login

New Visions for Public Schools: New Visions Schools. Overview. Retrieved July 13, 2008, from newvisions.org website:http://www.newvisions.org/schools/nvs/index.asp

Fess critical reflection: alternative education

2008-07-16T11:29:00.000-04:00

There is no entry in the index of our textbook – Foundations of American Education – for alternative/transfer schools or alternative education. By alternative schools, I do not mean charter schools, magnet schools, Montessori schools, or the Milford Academy (where children are neither seen nor heard). Alternative/transfer schools in New York City are in the empowerment zone, which makes it sound as though we are molding superheroes of the future. We are. Ideally, alternative schools in the empowerment zone offer an opportunity to students who have had trouble succeeding in the traditional school setting. Under No Child Left Behind, however, alternative schools are held to the same standards as traditional schools. Alternative schools have had a difficult time balancing their students’ needs with the Department of Education’s wants. Alternative schools begin to mirror traditional schools in their pursuit of passing Regents scores, high attendance, enrollment, and graduation rates. If these schools can show the Department of Education that they are “functional” in the traditional sense, they receive funding. If not? We know what happens.
Alternatives schools are often seen as dumping grounds, or where a student goes when they can’t possibly mess up anymore. Students push through the doors of the school already feeling as though they have failed. Alternative/transfer schools are often the last chance for a student. The truth is these students are different: they support themselves. They have child care responsibilities. Some have been jailed. All have struggled. An alternative system should respect and build upon the life experience these students have already gained. Kim and Taylor (2008) state that a “school program that is beneficial to students when it provides content, processes, rigor, and concepts that [students] need to develop and realize their future goals. A school program that is beneficial to students engages them and leads them through varying processes to critical thinking and synthesis of the concepts and content” (Kim & Taylor, 2008, 208). The alternative student is not the easiest student to reach. Teachers and administration must be creative in their approaches in order to instill critical thinking skills.
In the past year, I have had the opportunity to work at an alternative/transfer school. The particular school is a tale of two sites. One site, located in the West Village neighborhood, seemed to function better as an alternative school than the main site, located in Midtown. Both sites, however, could use some revamping in order to truly serve their populations.
The Village campus is small; there are eight teachers and 120 students. The school itself takes up half of a floor in a building that houses four other schools. The classrooms are large and sunny. Each class usually has no more than fifteen students each. The teachers and administration get to know each of the students. Students feel as though the teachers really care about whether they learn or not. Students feel as though the teachers present things that they are interested in. Some of the classes offered are Forensics, Chinese, Photoshop and Creative Writing. Each teacher at the Village campus either has advanced degrees in their field of specialty or more than five years teaching experience.
The Midtown campus is much larger. The school occupies the first floor of a building on a busy street. Upon entering the school, one realizes that there are very few windows, giving the school a closed-in feeling. There are 300 students in attendance at the Midtown site. The classrooms are much smaller, nearly two-thirds the size of the Village campus classrooms, and completely windowless. There is a cafeteria, but no gym. The library is a student refuge. The teachers at the Midtown campus are knowledgeable, but stretched too thin. The class sizes are usually twenty to twenty-five students. Unlike the Village campus where every teacher knows every student, there are too many students at the Midtown campus for every teacher to know each student’s name.
One of the main differences between the two campuses is the location of administrative offices. The Midtown campus hosts 1 principal, 2 assistant principles, 4 guidance counselors, and other administrative staff. Despite the fact that most of the administration resides at the Midtown campus, discipline issues are far worse there than at the Village campus. Students noisily roam the halls without being reprimanded by the principal or the assistant principals. Student caught with drug paraphernalia are not punished. Students who create disturbances in class are not penalized. Teachers do not have a lot of support in disciplining the students. This does not help create an atmosphere of learning.
The Midtown campus also focuses more on Quality Review results and Regents scores than the Village campus. The Midtown campus is concerned with numbers – enrollment, attendance, and grades – as those things will insure a score of Proficient on the Quality Review. Funding for the school is tied to Department of Education report cards and quality reviews as well as enrollment numbers. The Village campus is also concerned with enrollment and attendance issues as it depends on these numbers to stay open. McKee and Conner (2007) state that “some criteria that works well for the traditional school model, such as graduation and attendance rates, cannot be mechanically applied to alternative schools” (McKee & Conner, 2007, 49).
Looking at the examples of both campuses of an alternative school, it is clear to see how difficult it must be to serve a certain population but receive no support from the Department of Education. The NYS Department of Education seems to restrict the growth of the alternative schools by mandating traditional standards. Alternative school students benefit from smaller schools and smaller class sizes. A caring and creative community is fostered when each teacher is able to get to know each student. Since these students have “fallen through the cracks” of the traditional system, why mandate that alternative schools must have an enrollment of 300+ students? If students feel as though no one will notice their absence, they are more likely to fall into the same pattern of truancy that got them to the alternative school in the first place.
Students are often frustrated by the classroom model of learning. Many of the students in attendance at this particular alternative school suffer from undiagnosed or diagnosed learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders. These students don’t connect to classroom learning as they cannot understand the content relevance to their own lives. Ivan Illich (1971) notes that “most people acquire most of their knowledge outside of school” (Illich; Schultz, 2001, 97). Herbert Kohl (1969) also discusses the value of learning experiences outside of the classroom. “The whole community ought to be the school, and the classroom a home base for the teachers and kids, a place where they can talk and rest and learn together, but not the sole place of learning” (Kohl; Schultz, 2001, 109). The Village and Midtown campuses are connected to a vocational school and sometimes allow the occasional field trip, but this is not enough “outside” experience. Apprenticeships and internships are considered a last resort to this particular school. Field trips are not always approved. Since it may take a while for alternative schools to see the value of taking the students outside the classroom, Herbert Kohl (1969) states that “it is always a good idea to bring as many non-teachers into [the] classroom […] [as] all have valuable experience to offer young people that teachers don’t have” (Kohl; Schultz, 2001, 109).
In order to be a truly alternative educational experience, alternative schools should offer flexible hours to accommodate students’ work schedules, day care facilities, high-interest classes as well as credit recovery programs, advisory groups and counseling, and outside classroom experiences, such as internships, apprenticeships, and field trips. Alternative schools should be held to the same accountability standards, but should be allowed room for creative teaching practices. For these ideas to come to fruition, however, the whole educational system of New York State would have to be revamped, re-trained, and re-budgeted. Maybe I do get to start my riot. Who’s with me?

References

Freire, P. (1970). “Pedagogy of the oppressed.” In Schultz, F (Ed.), SOURCES: notable
selections in education (3^rd ed.) (pp. 87-94). Guilford, Connecticut: McGraw-
Hill/Dushkin.

Illich, I. (1971). “Deschooling Society.” In Schultz, F (Ed.), SOURCES: notable
selections in education (3^rd ed.) (pp. 95-102). Guilford, Connecticut: McGraw-
Hill/Dushkin.

Kim, J. and Taylor, K. (2008). “Rethinking alternative education to break the cycle of
educational inequality and inequity.” The journal of educational research, 101(4), 207-219.

Kohl, H. (1969). “Ten minutes a day.” In Schultz, F (Ed.), SOURCES: notable selections in
education (3^rd ed.) (pp. 105-109). Guilford, Connecticut: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.

McKee, J. and Conner, E. (2007). “Alternative schools, mainstream education.” Principal
Leadership, 8 (4), 44-49.

A reflection on tracking practices: Are we on the right track?

2008-07-16T11:21:00.000-04:00

Running Head: TRACKING

A reflection on tracking practicies: Are we on the right track?

Franchesca Ho Sang

Fordham University

UEGE 5102

July 16, 2008

What is tracking?

Tracking by definition

Tracking in the most simplest of terms is “grouping students by ability level in some form or another.” (Bates, 2002) This may occur on many different levels and occur in different designs. On the elementary level there are “groupings by the names of birds or animals”, on the middle and high school level there are remedial and advanced placement classes, however, in whichever form it is manifested, its foundations are constructed with vestiges of the original school of thought in which it was founded. (Bates, 2002) More specifically, tracking is now defined as “the sorting of students into categories for the purpose of instruction.” (Barquet, 2002) With that as a standing definition, anything other than complete heterogeneous grouping is considered to fall under the umbrella of tracking.

Students are usually categorized in one or a several ways: “(1) their overall achievement on standardized tests; (2) their projected future employment, most often determined by school and based on parent socio-economic status, i.e., vocational, general, or academic training; (3) specific areas where they are found to be “gifted”, for example, high in math but average in English.” (Barquet, 2002) Commonly, in lower grades students are placed into specific programs at the request of parents and a subsequent evaluation by a teacher, however, in the higher grades students are often placed based solely on recommendation of a teacher and an intellectual quotient measuring test. Most frequently students are placed on either a high or low track according to their assessed ability level.

History

The practice of tracking first appeared in the American education system in the late 1860s. (Vergon, 2002) Tracking was first developed to alleviate the pressure put on the American common schools due to a large amount of immigrants making their way to the United States as well as the increasing amount of “poor rural families making their way to cities.” (Barquet, 2002) Although there were some educational philosophers such as Freire and Eliot who felt every child was not only entitled to a fair and complete education, “others adhered to the then popular ‘social Darwinism’ theory—that children from lower social classes were inherently inferior as to their social, moral, and intellectual abilities.” (Barquet, 2002) The followers of the Darwinism theory then developed what they thought to be an appropriate level of education for minority (at that time anyone who was not white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant) and poor pupils. In the 1930s and 1940s, tracking experienced a decline in popularity due to a progressive education movement which questioned the effectiveness and appropriateness in a democratic society. (Vergon, 2002) However this period was followed by a resurgence of tracking due to the civil right enactment which demanded the desegregation of schools.

Why the derailment?

Although tracking in its best form is thought to allow students on both tracks to learn at their pace, many educators as well as students are against tracking. In fact the researches done on tracking seem to prove that it is ineffective and a direct cause of the education gap in America. Over the years studies have shown that tracking “does not equalize the educational opportunities for diverse groups of students, does not increase the efficiency of schools by maximizing learning opportunities for everyone, does not meet individual needs, does not divide students into neatly homogenous groups, and does not increase student learning.” (Barquet, 2002, Excellence) Instead it has been deducted that tracking “widens the achievement gap, retards the academic progress of many students—especially those in the average and low groups, foster low self-esteem among these same students, lower the aspirations of students who are not in the top groups, promotes school misbehavior and dropping out, and separates students along socio-economic lines, separating rich from poor, whites from non-whites.” (Barquet, 2002, Excellence)

But it is not only research that points to the inefficiencies of tracking, students from both the low and high track who have been interviewed over the course of their high school career have also shared the same sentiment. Many students felt that “they faced a tournament model—where it was easier to move down tracks than up.” (Jones & Yonezawa, 2006) Student also concluded that “track placements appeared arbitrary, designed to serve the needs of their schools” and because of tracking many students on the lower track received “less attentive, caring and knowledgeable teachers.” (Jones & Yonezawa, 2006)

Are we on the right track?

Because of evaluations along the lines of the aforementioned, detracking has been the solution brought in to fix the problem. “Detracking has been described as an equity-minded reform that attempts to level the playing field among students of different socio-economic, racial, and linguistic groups.” (Jones & Yonezawa, 2006) Although detracking seems to be a quick fix to a haggard problem, it is important for schools and educators to realize that detracking is not as simple as mixing ability levels in classrooms. In order for detracking to work attitudes, teacher education, as well as the school infrastructure must be changed. It is my belief that the No Child Left Behind act is in large partly due to the nations move toward detracking, but I do not think that is enough. It is noble for us to want to push students of all abilities into a heterogeneous classroom, and help them pass standardized tests, but with the achievement gap as wide as it is, it will take many more years and far more legislative push to bridge the gap. As a first year teacher I am unsure of what could accelerate this leveling of education , but I do know that once we accomplish it, America will finally be able to live up to its promise on the Statue of liberty by “breaking the cycle of poverty and oppression.” (Barquet, 2002)

References:

Vergon, C. (2002). Race, ability grouping, and the law in american education.

Equity coalition for race, gender, and national origin, 9-10

Barquet, N. (2002). Excellence and equity: What research says about tracking.

Equity coalition for race, gender, and national origin, 7–8

Barquet, N. (2002). Tracking perpetuates the class system in the united states of america.

Equity coalition for race, gender, and national origin, 4–6

Bates, P. (2002). Beyond tracking: Tracking denies equal access. Equity coalition for

race, gender, and national origin, 2–3

Johnson, J. A., Musial, D, Hall, G.E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2005).

Introduction to the foundations of American education. 14^th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Jones, M. & Yonezawa, S. (2006). Students’ perspectives on tracking and detracking.

Theory into practice, 5 – 23.

Schultz, F. (2000). SOURCES: Notable selections in education. New York: McGraw-Hill

Dushkin.

The Effect of High Stakes Tests on Students and Teachers: A first year teacher’s perspective

2008-07-16T10:40:00.000-04:00

Standardized (high stakes) tests are assessments of students individual performance. The data collected from these tests are used to make decisions that have important consequences for students and teachers: high school graduation, promotion to the next grade, teacher effectiveness, and the approval of educational institutions. Standardized tests are a product of the No Child Left Behind Act which calls for standardized tests for math and reading in grades three to eight. State exams in math, reading, and science are also required for all public high school students. Each state must create its own curriculum and its own standardized tests. If a school's average test results do not improve each year, it is subjected to sanctions, and parents will be able to move their children to any school that has shown more improvement.
When I began the school year, my knowledge of standardized testing was very limited. I was very much aware of the fact that all students were mandated to take this test, but not familiar with the preparations involved. This year was a learning experience for me as I watched my students suffer through the process. As the New York State tests approached some of my students began to withdraw, others were very irate and created some difficulties for their peers and teachers. I observed the change in their attitudes and even reached out to some parents for help. I sat and spoke with “DS” who is an excellent student in all subject areas, to get an understanding of why they were so frustrated. With eyes held down to the floor she informed me that they were just worried about the upcoming tests. As a first year teacher what do you do? I tried to make their day seem as normal as I could, but they were tense, unreceptive, and some displayed the worst behavior I had ever seen.
Without a doubt our students were made into little robots. As I continued to teach the curriculum my sixth graders began to ask, when will I start practicing for the test? I explained that critical thinking and analyzing are skills that are required for them to take the test, but they were not buying it. I was very discouraged when I over heard one student comment that, there is no way they can pass the test with this teacher. The reality of it set in, my students were so used to rote memorization and drills of the test that they felt cheated. This attitude was seen from both my high achieving and low achieving students. It is absurd that after everything that we have done for the school year the only thing that seems to matter is the state tests. Many educators argue that important decisions that affect a student’s educational career should not rest on a single test but on the numerous data collected throughout the school year (Kellough & Kellough, 2007). Should a student who mastered the curriculum be labeled “promotion in doubt” because they failed the test?
On the day of the English Language Arts test I brought in breakfast for my students. They came in early and sat looking at the breakfast. I did not recognize these ghost-like figures who were suppose to be my kids. They could not eat; the complaints ranged from stomach aches, to headaches. As I looked at them I wondered what kind of system would do this to our kids? They were so nervous, I encouraged them, gave them a “you can do it” pat on the shoulder, but could this help to minimize the fear I saw on their faces? The nurse was very popular, tests days are her busiest days. It is difficult for an adult to see children having such a stressful and difficult time and not being able to help. At the end of the test the students finally ate their breakfast and shared their frustrations, anxieties, and hoped for the best.
When the results of the tests came I was devastated that DS did not receive a high score. DS was shocked and confused, to say the least. As she cried, I tried to console her, I could not help thinking of how damaging the test is to our kids. She performed extremely well throughout the school year and I have the data to prove it, but she must attend summer school. The result of one test is deciding her future; there is something wrong with this picture. Test anxiety is a major problem, not just for students but also for adults. I am not a great test-taker, I am always nervous during tests. I feel the some of the same symptoms as my students. Can I guarantee her that she will pass the test in summer school? No, I cannot, if she does not pass this test there is a possibility that she will have to repeat the grade. How useless! She has mastered the sixth grade curriculum and her “promotion is in doubt”.
This tremendous pressure is not only being placed on the students but also on the teachers. This pressure to judge student learning and teacher effectiveness based on the results of standardized tests can result in educators teaching to the test at the expense of other important aspects of the curriculum (Salend, 2008). Creativity, reasoning and analyzing skills are sacrificed when students are forced to memorize and regurgitate isolated facts and choose the correct answer. Teachers who have to "teach to the test" become automatons, spending larger portions of curriculum time giving tests and getting students ready for tests. In order to pass the state mandated tests, many schools are replacing art, music and physical education with test preparation classes. These tests are turning schools into corporations where the bottom line is how well students do on the tests. Instead of raising standards, I believe that these tests dull down the curriculum and the students minds.

References

Kellough, R. D. & Kellough, N. G. (2007). Secondary School Teaching: A guide to
methods and resources (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Salend, S.J. (2008). Creating inclusive classrooms: effective and reflective practices(6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Critical Reaction: Single-Gender Education

2008-07-16T07:47:00.000-04:00

In early March, in a feature article for The New York Times Magazine, writer Elizabeth Weil examined an increasingly popular topic of discussion in public education – single-sex schools and classrooms. The piece (titled “Teaching Boys and Girls Separately”) explores gender-specific education from social, academic, and biological perspectives and introduces the primary arguments for and against the practice. Many supporters of single-sex education, for instance, contend the biological learning differences are so great between boys and girls that separating their learning environments is the only reasonable option for improving school achievement. Opponents, on the other hand, often claim that single-sex education is inherently unequal and simply reinforces gender stereotypes.
Weil offers an extensive and evenhanded look at the subject in her article, citing relevant studies and describing how single-gender education looks in different schools around the country. More importantly, however, she allows readers to consider the essential questions in this progressively contentious debate: Is single-sex education the best solution to the problems and failings of our public schools? Can single-sex education lead to increased academic achievement for all students?
Naturally, the debate comes at a time when many school administrators and elected officials are searching for ideas and ways to “fix” the “failures” of public schools and their students – particularly ways and ideas that can be implemented cheaply and more or less immediately (Weil, 2008). In these regards (money and speed), single-sex education is an attractive option to consider. For the most part, splitting formerly coed classes into single-sex classes does not require overwhelming resources – unless, of course, the goal is to switch an entirely coed school into a single-sex institution for only one gender or the other. Daily schedules will need tweaking and faculty will require training (and perhaps new instructional materials) tailored to the specific gender of the students they will be teaching, but otherwise there are few practical obstacles in making the switch possible. The real challenge, of course, is ensuring the need for and absolute benefit of single-sex classes.
In “The Success of Single-Sex Education is Still Unproven,” independent researcher Gerald Bracey identifies four “camps” of thought in the single-sex education debate. The first camp believes coeducation is the best approach. They feel based on the available data and research that single-sex education is unable to offer any opportunities that coeducation is not. Further, they argue that if coeducation is failing students then researchers and educators need to discover the root of the problem and ways to address it (2007, p. 23). The second camp also believes that coeducation is the best method, but that single-sex education can be beneficial as well, especially as it relates to gender equity and providing girls with the same educational opportunities as boys (2007, p. 23). The third camp similarly supports a combination of coeducation and single-sex education, but believes that single-sex classes are only needed for “at-risk” students. These students, this camp argues, can benefit from the improved “academic tone” single-sex classes often provide (2007, p. 23-24). And the fourth camp believes that all students would benefit from single-sex classes due to the extreme learning-style differences between boys and girls (2007, p. 24).
Ultimately, Weil (2008), like most people in the field writing about the subject, does not provide the answers to this multi-faceted situation. She acknowledges the malleable nature of the existing information in this area of research and the tendency for researchers, administrators, and/or policy makers to interpret the data in ways that suit their purposes. Further, she discusses the overwhelming need for qualitative and quantitative results to definitively support (or disprove) varying theories behind single-sex education. In particular, she refers to a 2005 study by the Department of Education comparing single-sex and coed schooling, writing, “The authors started out with 2,221 citations on the subject that they then whittled down to 40 usable studies. Yet even those studies did not yield strong results…” Likewise, Bracey offers a similar statement about the inconclusive nature of the research and statistics surrounding single-sex education. He writes, “The debate about the subject of single-sex education is something which has been going on for some years now. Despite the fact of this longstanding discussion, there is still not enough sound, definitive research to be used to guide educators and policy makers” (2007, p. 22).
Part of the problem comes from the fact that single-sex education in public schools is, in a way, still a relatively new practice. Of course, the concept of single-sex education is not new as both private and parochial schools have followed the model for many years, but the modern movement in public schools is only about ten to fifteen years old, initiated in large part by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (Friend, 2006). Specifically, the “Innovative Program” provision of NCLB lets school districts apply for specific funding for research or experimentation with single-sex education (Friend, 2006). As a result, qualifying schools have a legal way around the1972 Title IX legislation prohibiting gender or racial discrimination in any educational program that receives federal funding (Friend, 2006).
However, even before NCLB some schools were experimenting with forms of single-sex education, first as a response to the perceived “girls’ crisis” of the late 1990s when researchers and educators noticed that far fewer girls were pursuing careers in math and science, then in response to the “boy’s crisis” that began in the early part of this century and continues today (Weil, 2008). This current “crisis” results from the rather stark achievement gap between girls and boys in school and, as of late, has focused especially on male minority students. In fact, as Weil notes, “While there’s some dispute over whether there’s an ongoing education crisis for white, middle-class boys, there’s no doubt that public schools are failing poor minority students in general and poor minority boys in particular” (Weil, 2008).
Another “problem” in the debate over single-sex education stems from the fact that the majority of research and case studies that exist either come from private schools or schools in other countries where conditions are very different than the average American public school, particularly in an urban environment (Friend, 2006). One important factor that some researchers note in this comparison is the aspect of parental involvement. By enrolling their children in private or parochial schools, parents are taking an active role in their child’s education and making a choice about the type of instruction they will receive. Of course, there is also the financial reality of attending a private school, which puts the experience out of reach for those who cannot afford the tuition.
Overall, most researchers and educators seem to agree the current research does not absolutely “prove” or “disprove” any theories regarding the relative dominance or inferiority of single-sex education compared to coeducation (Friend, 2006). As Weil notes, “The data do not suggest that they’re clearly better for all kids. Nor do they suggest that they’re worse” (2008). There simply are not enough relevant data yet on which to base decisive opinions. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to question any positions either strongly promoting or strongly denying the overall benefit or success of single-sex education. In education, there are many variables to consider when developing ultimate conclusions and/or policies and the single-sex education debate is perhaps too “new” or “fresh” for absolutes at this point.
However, due to the inconclusive and conflicting nature of the current research surrounding single-sex education it does seem reasonable to acknowledge the possibility that single-sex classes might prove beneficial and worthwhile for some students. In the very least, it seems harmful to rule out the possibility entirely.

Bracey, G. (February 2007). The success of single-sex education is still unproven. The Education Digest, 72(6) 22-26.

Friend, J. (2006)). Research on same-gender grouping in eighth grade science classrooms. Research in Middle Level Education Online. 30(4), 1-15.

Weil, E. (2, March 2008). Teaching boys and girls separately. New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=teaching%20boys%20and%20girls%20separately&st=cse&oref=slogin.

Newmark Critical Reflection: Student-Teacher Voice Recollected

2008-07-16T01:18:00.000-04:00

If teachers from various public schools in New York City gathered together and started discussing the numerous difficulties they encounter in the classroom, the talk would inevitably turn to the significant, often demoralizing problem of student apathy and defiance. The significance of this problem lies in the origins of unequal relations between teacher and student and the responsibility of the teacher to understand these origins and recognize the powerful tools students use to defend against powerlessness.
If a child’s experience in school consists of direct or indirect rejection of all that is important, meaningful, and relevant to this child, specifically in regard to language, literacy, and culture; if this child’s parents have acquired power outside of an academic environment, or if the parents of this child have superficially requested students’ compliance to school norms, without making higher education a realistic and attainable necessity; and finally, if this child and the family of which she is a part prioritize survival (as any rational being does)—paying rent, providing and preparing food, taking care of siblings, participating in local cultural/religious activity—why is it surprising that this child does not imagine school as useful, as meaningful, as worthy of discipline? Why is it surprising that this child disregards the teacher’s stalwart effort to empower her? Does this child know her own voice, or has it been silenced for so long that she must recreate it? Would the teacher, one whose primary discourse is radically different from the majority of her students, (as is common to teachers in urban public schools) recognize this child’s voice—even if and when it is articulated? Or has the cry of apathy and defiance become the secondary discourse of this child? As teachers of children who often rally against our sincere attempts to make possible what Freire (1993) calls a “language of possibility,” how can we reposition ourselves as teachers who seek to expand our limited knowledge of and experience within cultures different from our own? (as cited in Schultz, 2001, p. 81)
It is wrenching to work as an agent of change in a classroom of students who actively refuse change. When violent outbursts and other more creative forms of intimidation threaten the climate of our classrooms, it is destabilizing, even crazy-making; it requires a prompt suppression of our own anger and fear, and a response to the origin of and need for this kind of student power. Giroux (1988) discusses Freire’s explanation as to why students often refuse to learn ways of knowing, to write and read the self into freedom. He states, “Ironically, emancipatory forms of knowledge may be refused by those who could most benefit from such knowledge. In this case, accommodation to the logic domination by the oppressed may take the form of actively resisting forms of knowledge…an active refusal to listen, to hear, or to affirm one’s own possibilities” (as cited in Schultz, 2001, p.83). When our students are at their worst, is it possible that this is their revolt against ‘domination?’ And if students view themselves as ‘oppressed,’ what options do they have but to fight against this oppression? Not only must we change our position in the classroom, but students must change the way in which they view themselves. What language will replace ‘the oppressed,’ and what is implied by the phrase ‘the emancipated’? Abraham Lincoln, in all his glory, comes to mind; and the concept of freedom as granted—not demanded, taken, or recreated. A teacher does not grant freedom, empower, or ‘liberate’ students—she should first liberate herself from such responsibility and then work to become a student of her students. In knowing our students, we can create what Greene (1993) calls a “community of persons,” a space in which multiple voices can be remembered, recreated, and repositioned (as cited in Schultz, 2001, p352).
In responding to the problem of student apathy and defiance, Greene’s analysis of The Bluest Eye, specifically the character of Claudia, is relevant. Claudia states, “There is really nothing more to say—except why. But since why is difficult to handle, one must take refuge in how” (1972, p. 9). With an initial understanding of why students’ oppression manifests itself in these forms, and a continual commitment to understand its causes, it is essential to focus on how we as educators might go about bridging the gap between students’ primary discourses and the secondary discourses found in school. Adolescent literature is an excellent resource for teachers to study the daily triumphs and struggles of their students, to hear their voices and learn to recognize them. Its place in a ‘community of persons’ is essential, for it acknowledges adolescents as individuals first, with a host of concerns particular to age, location, and culture. The themes and characters of the genre are relatable to students and a class investigation of character action in the face of despair provides students with a viable space in which to explore similar feelings and experiences (Stallworth, 2006). The theme of oppression and emancipation could be studied within these texts, allowing teachers to facilitate discussion of how people work to read, write, and shapetheir identities.
It is easy to spur this kind of dialogue on a superficial level, but much more difficult to create a learning environment that allows for true personal and public reflection. Beach & Meyers (2001) suggest that students and teachers can construct social worlds by reading literature, and in doing so, they construct possibilities for their own social worlds (p. 12). This process can begin with Probst’s (1994) “Reader Response Theory,” in which “meaning is created by readers as they bring the text to bear upon their own experience, and their own histories to bear upon the text” (p. 38). The classroom in and of itself must become a newly constructed social world in which students’ experiences and histories are tools for recollection and revision. Adolescent literature allows students an entry point of commonality. Even if class sets of adolescent literature are not found in schools and therefore unable to be included as a substantial part of the curriculum, teachers will benefit from reading it on their own, gaining insight as to why students often refuse to reclaim emancipatory power.
Walter Dean Myers, a popular author of adolescent literature, reveals the weight of liberation in his novel, Autobiography of My Dead Brother. Jesse, the main character, combats the inevitability of gang life, which his best friend/blood brother, Rise, has become a part. He does so though art, through the life that arises from his drawings. He envisions a future for himself and actively works toward it—no one, not even his parents or friends, give him the freedom to pursue his art. In first person narration, Jesse discloses, “I told myself again that I was just letting Rise go and moving on with my life. I took out the book I was doing and thumbed through it, looking at the photographs and the pictures I had drawn, thinking how hard it was going to be to say goodbye” (2005, p.197). This kind of active participation in one’s education suggests that a student-centered approach is critical to navigating multiple discourses and situating a more productive power in the hands of the student by creating an environment that necessitates such power, rather than attempting to free the student from domination—an act that seems absurd, impossible, and offensive. It is necessary that teachers explore art, literature, and all disciplines as in a constant state of change, believing that students have the power to effect this change by contributing to the conversation in these disciplines as well as producing their own creative work (Johnson et al. 2008).
What may we call ourselves as teachers? Are we or are they the oppressed? Who dominates whom? According to Frank McCourt (2005) a teacher is “a drill sergeant, a rabbi, a shoulder to cry on, a disciplinarian, a singer, a low-level scholar, a clerk, a referee, a clown, a counselor, a dress-code enforcer, a conductor, an apologist, a philosopher, a collaborator, a dap dancer, a politician, a therapist, a fool, a traffic cop, a priest, a mother-father-brother-sister-uncle-aunt, a bookkeeper, a critic, a psychologist, the last straw” (p. 19). Why not ask our students to rename themselves, to work toward a pluralist construction of the self, unbound by dominant illustrations?

References

Beach, R., Appleman, D., Hynds, S., & William, J. (2006). Goals for teaching literature: What
does it mean to teach literature? Teaching literature to adolescents, (1-21). Hahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Evhaum Associates.

Gibbons, L., Dail, J., Stallworth, J. (2006). Young adult literature in the English curriculum
today. The Alan Review, summer, 1-9.

Johnson, J. A., D. Musial, G. E. Hall, D. M. Gollnick, & V. L. Dupuis. (2008). Foundations of
American education: perspectives on education in a changing world. Boston: Pearson.

McCourt, F. (2005). Teacher man. New York: Scribner.

Probst, R. E. (1994). Reader-response theory and the English curriculum. English Journal,
March, 37-44.

Schultz, F. (Ed.). (2001). Sources: Notable selections in education (5th ed.). Guilford, Connecticut:
McGraw-Hill/Duskin.

Stallworth, J. (2006). The relevance of young adult literature. Educational Leadership, April,
59-63.

Beyond Retention and Promotion

2008-07-16T01:04:00.000-04:00

Introduction

During the recent history of the American educational system, the paradigm pendulum has oscillated between “advocating social promotion and supporting in-grade retention” (McCombs et al., p. 1, 1999). Historically educators and policymakers have believed that these are only two possible solutions for struggling students: whereas social promotion pertains to “passing students who have failed to master part or all of the grade-level curriculum on to the grade with their age-grade peers,” in-grade retention mandates “students to repeat the same grade a second time in order to master what was not learned.” I can attest from own anecdotal perspective this past year the strain spurred by the dichotomy of promotion vs. retention, aptly referred to by Thomas (2003) as a “bipolar notion” (p. 323). How can I pass a student who has not displayed the ability to achieve at the academic benchmarks set for him or her by state, national and my own standards? Contrastingly what benefit will come from mandating the student be retained, inevitably adding to the students sense of failure and nihilism?
Further investigation into this epidemic affecting the education exposes my ignorance, and unfortunately I believe a shared ignorance of most educators and policy makers, to the over-simplification of the issue. The either/or absolutes of retention and promotion provide no satisfactory solutions for underachieving students, as neither has historically worked. Historically no policy has ever gone beyond retention or promotion. The inherit failure in both retention and promotion, according to Thomas (2003) is that these strategies seek to help “students after they have encountered difficulty or have experienced failure instead of focusing on reducing failure before it emerges.” Moreover, according to the American Foundation of Teachers (1997) “Neither social promotion nor retention is an adequate response to student underachievement, in large measure because neither requires change in pedagogy, content or curriculum.” In sum, the tried and failed solutions of the past have only attempted to treat the symptoms of this epidemic, whereas only a radical new approach can treat the disease.

In-Grade Retention: The “Tails Down” Approach

As the educational pendulum has swung and continually missed the mark in this “bipolar debate”, in-grade retention has experienced both the endorsement and opposition of policymakers and educators (Thomas, p. 326, 2000). In-grade retention has a strong “intuitive appeal” and a long history despite research exposing its negative affects (McCombs et al, p. 1, 1999). Under the Clinton administration, policymakers endorsed in-grade retention to go in tandem with higher educational standards, assumed as the only alternative to social promotion. According to the McCombs et al. (1999), however, the research shows that the effects of retention can be harmful academically and socially. Specific notes of interests include: “50 percent of students who repeat a grade do no better the second time, and 25 actually do worse”; the threat of retention is not a motivating force for students to work harder”; Retention is strongly associated with dropping out of school in later years. A second retention makes dropping out a virtual certainty”; “Retained students suffer lower self-esteem and view retention as a punishment and a stigma, not a positive event designed to help them.” Thomas (2007) echoes the findings of this research, finding that “retention fails to improve student achievement and it frequently retards student learning” (p. 327). But why?
Thomas (2007) points out that retention is basically more of the same, the same that has already failed to work. This traditional approach places the blame with the student, instead of “examining school and classroom practices of poor performing students or focusing on changing the learning environments to meet the particular needs of theses individuals” (p. 326). Unfortunately but not surprisingly, “retained students are frequently exposed to the same academic content, the same instructional delivery, and sometimes even the same teacher that already proved ineffective.” It is arrogant to assume that these failed practices will, by some deus ex machina, become successful over the span of a year. Instead it only serves to create embittered, failure-prone, and nihilistic students. Moreover, Thomas (2007) reiterates McCombs et al concerns, as “failure and punishment lead to a sense of learned helplessness, hopelessness, anxiety, and low persistence in the face of difficulty.” Reflecting on my first year as a teacher, I can clearly see how I cannot have expected my students to change and improve academically if I made no attempt to change and improve myself as an educator. McCombs et al (1999) points out the need to abandon “the deficit model, which places the problem of poor achievement within the child, and to acknowledge that classroom and school practices contribute to a child’s failure” (p. 8) At my school, for example, over 54 students out of a class of 125 had their promotion in doubt. By the end of the year, many underachieving students had become antagonistic and lethargic, acquiescing to the hopelessness of their situation. As Thomas (2007) explains, retention “sends a smessage that the teacher and school do not consider the student capable and it increased the chances of student frustration, disengagement, and school dropout.” (326) They believe that they cannot make a difference in their own learning. More than anything this else, this depressing figure of failing students should have signaled that the blame lay more with the institution educating the students rather than the students themselves.

Social Promotion: The “Heads up” Approach

Neither Thomas (2000) McCombs et al (1999) nor the findings of the American Federation of Teachers (1997) espouse social promotion as the negation of the woes of retention, however. In this binary attrition of the American educational system, promotion only serves as superficial solution to the psychological consequences of holding a student back. According to the survey conducted by the American Federation of Teachers, social promotion is “rampant” despite no one explicitly endorsing it. Unfortunately, in the long term, promotion tends to prolong and exacerbate the problems exposed by retention. As Thomas (2000) explains, “simply passing on ill-prepared students is an insidious practice because it hides school failure and relieves schools of responsible teaching” (p. 327). Academically speaking, “social promotion results in many children being promoted through the grades while their learning deficits are ignored, thus becoming cumulative and more intractable over the years such that ‘catching up’ is virtually impossible.” After learning of the high number of 8th graders with promotion in doubt, the administration euphemistically hinted that the figure would have to change drastically. The teachers of the major disciplines were then forced to provide “make up” projects for in-jeopardy students, allowing a whole semester’s worth of neglected work to be made up in one assignment. Through promotion, educators and policymakers remain arrogant to their own failures and once again it is the students who are left to suffer.
Psychologically, students develop a negative complacency towards learning, knowing promotion is inevitable regardless of hard work or mastery of skills. Several of my students held this viewpoint, having previously been told by teachers they were failing only to have grades “mysteriously” change on their final report cards in year prior. Administration surreptitiously changing grades to bolster city reviews is an all-too-true reality at my school. In the long term, “social promotion can delude student into thinking that they have the critical skills and abilities to be successful, or worse, encourage them to believe that learning does not matter.” Cognitively unable to comprehend the future consequences of this “get out of jail free” card, I fear my students are being led down a path that will only hinder their chances for a successful and fulfilling life.
Thomas (2007) projects a seemingly more apocalyptic outcome of the academic and psychological effects of social promotion…
While it is certainly easier to pass low-performing students onto the next teacher than to seriously deal with the needs of these students, this practice will only produce youngsters who will be ill-prepared for responsible citizenship and unable to meet the demands of an increasing complex, technological and global society.
(Thomas, p. 327, 2000).
This “deleterious impact on society” by social promotion leaves students, the countries future leaders, horribly unprepared for perhaps the most significant challenges ever presented to a generation and the world in general. Democracy requires an engaged, enlightened and engaged citizenry, and neither social promotion nor retention accommodates for this system. Moreover, as the education of a country goes so goes the rest, so with “a growing population of undereducated adults” brings “lower economic productivity of workers, increased need for social services, higher rates of crime and other undesirable behaviors.” As the educational quality of America’s citizenry decreases, so will too decrease the countries independent, innovative, and global-contending prestige.

Beyond Retention and Promotion: Is a Learner Centered approach the panacea to the bipolar debate?

Obviously, from my own experience as well as from what the research has shown, neither the “heads up” approach of social promotion nor the “tails down” of in-grade retention serve as an antidote to what has classically been a two party debate. Perusing the last the thirty years of educational history, its been a coin toss. On either side of the coin, however, it has been the students who have suffered the consequences. But must the coin always be flipped? If we continue to be the same in, we will continue to get the same out. Is there room for an alternative in this dichotomy then? Both McCombs et all (1999) and Thomas (2007) believe there is: a complete paradigm shift from the ideology of retention and promotion. Both sides of this coin have always placed underachievement and failure in the student. Pedagogy, content and curriculum have never been brought under trial however.
Thomas (2007) espouses what is known as a learner-centered that would have significant implications for classrooms, curriculum, instruction, and school organization. This approach seems certainly more in line with the student-centered locus-of-control educational theories discussed by Johnson et al (2008). Is the learner-centered approach the panacea to the epidemic so far only prolonged and exacerbated by retention and promotion though? Its suppositions seem promising, because at its core, the approach is “the creative of a learning environment that aggressively works with students before they reach the point of failure” and rendering the debate over retention or promotion moot (Thomas, p. 325, 2000). A third alternative is created, according to Thomas (2000), by a complete restructuring in how educators approach cultural diversity, professional development, environment, assessment, school practices, and school reform. McCombs et al (1999) also provide strategies that circumvent retention and promotion including: “enhance the professional development of teaches to ensure they have the knowledge and skills to teach a wider range of students to meet standards; redesign school structures to support more intensive learning; provide students the support and services they need in order to succeed when they are needed; use classroom assessments that better inform teaching” (p. 28). Moreover, American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman (1997) distinguishes three alternatives to retention: “early intervention and identification of students who are falling behind”; establishment of grade level standards”; and “strengthening teacher training. All these strategies seem to converge on the idea of the learner centered approach. The most significant difference that all these strategies share from previous ideologies is that, as Thomas (2000) points out, “teachers and other school personnel must assume responsibility for creating a context that guides, stimulates and encourages learning to take place” (329). Therefore “retention or promotion” is never an issue. The most appealing aspects of the learner-centered approach are its espousal of early intervention and its emphasis on professional development. The ultimate strength of the learner-centered approach is that it challenges this bipolar notion, a radical tangent from the history of either/or that has plagued the American school system over the past thirty years. Though perhaps not the elixir to all America’s educational woes, with the learner-centered approach, no longer can the student be blamed for the failures of others.

References

American Federation of Teachers. (1997) Passing on failure : District promotion policies and practices. Washington, D. C.: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved July 16th, 2008, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED421560&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED421560

Johnson et al. (2008). Foundations of American education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

McCollum et al. (1999). Failing our Children: Finding alternatives to In-Grade Retention. San Antonia, TX: Intercultural Development Research Association.

Thomas, G. V. (2000) The school reform movement and the education of African american youth: A retrospective update. The Journal of Negro Education, 69 (4), 323-337.

Critical Reflection by K. Stamboulian

2008-07-15T23:44:00.000-04:00

August 27, 2007. I scribble on the back of my name card, “goal = inspire inner-confidence in students.” I remember that day, New Teacher Orientation, so vividly---my eagerness and my simple conviction. Fast-forward several months later to Superbowl Sunday. Hearing the tenants above me stomping and cheering, I run to the living room to turn the T.V.…only to turn it off a few moments later. What are you doing? You cannot put this off any longer. I return to my room and reclaim my position at my desk--- now buried under a sea of bubble sheets, attempting to sort out this report card mess. Glance in my grade book, the disparity between my idealism of universal high achievement and the harsh reality of collective low markings confronts me. How did this happen? Where did I go wrong? How is it that the one thing, above all else, I said I would ensure for students, academic success, is so far from reach?

My mind eventually wonders outside of my classroom to the greater debate in contemporary education: how do we create a system of grading that is challenging for students yet also ensures their success and the promotion of self-esteem? How do we ensure success for students without lowering expectations? How do we create an approach to grading that accurately measures academic performance but also accommodates the unique needs of every student? While the process of grading may be guided by the personal philosophy of an individual educator, reflecting his/her understanding of teaching and learning, it is clear that any system that promotes student success, respects student differences, and recognizes individual growth, is crucial to the development and well-being of students.

In assessing students’ progress and distributing grades, educators traditionally utilize various approaches that include: tests, papers, projects, discussions, and several other informative tools. Yet, the recent trend in education presents some challenges to this methodology as the classroom moves toward a more student-centered atmosphere that emphasizes differentiation (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 93). Charting and recognizing such academic growth of individual students, many teachers who operate under a traditional grading system have begun to question old practices: are these established grading methods still meaningful? A contentious debate rages over whether this traditional grading system should be modified, whether accepted methods, or other, more unconventional approaches, may in fact increase student learning. Furthermore, while the public expects “normed” report cards, discussion emerges surrounding research that indicates that traditional grades may not communicate or motivate students as we believe they do (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 93).

While the debate continues, some researched-based practices may inform educators on grading. Despite often incongruous results, Guskey (1994) offers that researchers agree on a few points: (1) grading is not essential to instruction; teachers do not need grades or report cards to teach well just as students do not need them to learn. (2) No one method of grading serves all purposes. (3) Regardless of the method used, grading remains subjective. (4) Grades have some value as a reward but none as a punishment. (5) And, finally, research suggests that grading should always be done in reference to learning criteria and not a curve. Moreover, in developing grading practices, that seek to be fair and equitable, educators may rely on two guiding principles: provide accurate descriptions of learning while also utilizing grading methods that enhance, rather than impede, teaching and learning (Guskey, 1994, p. 15).

Tomlinson (2001) contends that several alternative grading systems may be implemented to meet such guidelines and encourage personal growth in every student. One method includes grading based on individual goal-setting and progress meeting those goals, an approach where students are graded “against themselves” rather than against fellow students (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 93). Portfolio and progress reports demonstrating growth work effectively under this system. Another alternative method highlighted by Tomlinson combines a traditional letter grade with either a numeric subscript to indicate if a student is working on grade level or a second letter grade to represent the degree of personal growth (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 94).

Despite such recommended grading systems, there is no evidence to indicate that one grading method works best under all conditions (Guskey, 1994, p. 16). It is clear that the personal philosophy of the teacher must dictate the grading and reporting system adopted. As a first year teacher in Bushwick, Brooklyn, I often felt sick as the day to turn in grades approached. I struggled considerably to find the right balance between structured rigor and flexible exploration--- evaluation based on group-norm and individual progress, challenging students without discouraging them. With a year of teaching behind me, and a revised framework in mind, I may still not have the answer to a fair and equitable grading system, but I have gained some understanding.

I believe that the main principle to establish in a grading system is the idea of grading for success. Students require the prospect of success to validate themselves as learners and feel motivated to work. While I struggled to ensure such confidence within students this year, I failed to do so under a rigid, group-norm, traditional grading system. Ensuring more positive results necessarily involves an individualized assessment approach---one that evaluates a student based on his/her degree of growth centered in portfolio work. Following from this, if differentiation assumes a formidable role in my instruction, a flexible grading system must follow to account for individualized content, process, and product. I would then look to provide consistent and meaningful feedback in order to recognize student success and direct next learning steps (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 15). Finally, communication between parents, students, and myself would similarly assume an essential role in my grading system. Elaborating grading, establishing goals for future learning outcomes, and mutual goal setting during student-teacher conferencing, may serve to inform assessment as well (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 16).

It is evident that an unconventional approach to grading is imperative---one that extends a view of education that maximizes individual growth (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 15). Perhaps it may be easy to dismiss a student’s poor performance as failure, but this answer does a disservice to our students and the education that they deserve. A grading system that highlights personal growth will motivate students even after experiencing some sense of “failure.” Moreover, while it is necessary to instill rigor with assessments that challenge students, it is also essential to develop within students a sense of self-confidence in their abilities. Yet, the answer to the contentious debate on grading depends ultimately on an educator’s personal beliefs and educational philosophy. How he/she establishes his/her classroom philosophy will determine the value or emphasis on a student’s academic performance (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 336). Nonetheless, grading must be part of a unified effort by educators to ensure that all students are provided with the opportunity to succeed as learners.

References

Guskey, Thomas R. Making the grade: what benefits students? Educational leadership, Oct 1994, 52, 2, 14-20.

Johnson et al. (2008). Foundations of american education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tomlinson (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson (2002). Grading for success. Educational leadership, March 2001, 12-15.