Benefits and Limitations of Brown

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.

Why are students not showing up for class?

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

Critical Reflection--April Tallant

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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?

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

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.