This course has really made me think about schools in a different way. Many discussions we have had in class have shed light on various aspects I had never thought of. On factor that I thought came up in class were the out of school factors that effect students. It is very hard to motivate a child when you have no idea what is going on in their world. Teachers need to get to know their students on a personal level before they will let you in to start teaching the curriculum. The idea of involving the family in the class/schools is also key to success. Families need to feel comfortable with the teacher so both parties can work as a team. I believe home visits are one way to improve the relationship between parents and teachers. Parents feel threatened when they come to school for many reasons, but when you take time to come to their home it put things in a different perspective. Home visits are another thing to load onto the teacher’s schedules but could change students’ values about school. It will also strengthen communication between home and school.
As I think about what we discussed this last 10 weeks I think it comes down to two main things, out-of-school factors and school funding. Our whole concept of public school is awful in this country. As a country, we need to rethink our idea of schooling. One of the first weeks of class we defined schooling as a process by which a society achieves a desired outcome from the youth of their population. Currently in the US we have standards the students should meet but do not support them to achieve these standards. How can we expect children to reach standards when we are not supporting them in the process we want them to achieve? The community/society also must take responsibility for the out-of-school factors that students come to school with. Some of them are community problems that could be minimized if the whole community worked towards the goal. Especially low-income families are not receiving the support they need to take care of their families, therefore they are living in inadequate housing with violence around them all the time and may not have the funds for healthy nutritious eating habits.
Communities/society needs an overhaul of public schooling in the US.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Digital Divide
The digital divide has been a question experts have been asking for a while now. But recently the issue has not been in the spotlight because policymakers and schools are focused on No Child Left Behind.
Robert Fairlie’s research has shown that only 50% of blacks and 48% of Latinos have a home computer. The same study shows that 75% of whites have access to home computers (Digital Divide affects school success). Fairlie also found that “teenagers who have access to home computers are 6-8% more likely to graduate from high school then teens who lack access to a home computer”. Although this statistic is widely disputed, many outside factors play into the fact that a student does not graduate from high school. These factors would also concur with the reasons students do not have a computer at home. A family who can not afford a computer, is probably also not living in the best area of the city, going to the best school, might have a unique family situation, or the parents may not be well educated. All these factors also play into students not graduating from high schools. Hugh Glenn, of Pepperdine University, “calls Fairlie’s report neither a study or research, but merely a summary of data from previous publications” (Digital Divide affects school success). He thinks that there were too many factors that could have affected Fairlie’s research.
It would seem to make sense that students who do not have access to materials, such as technology would be behind in instruction. But there is no hard evidence about how technology increases academic knowledge. I believe technology motivates students to do work and that if used correctly technology allows students to express their knowledge through multiple intelligences.
The article Digital Divide 2.0, also discusses the misuse of technology in many classrooms- something the technology department in our school is really trying to put an end to. Many teacher are using the computers are glorified worksheets that are skill-and-drill. Technology and the use of computers should allow students to produce work that displays their individual understandings of concepts, not as a tool to ingrain information just to spit it out again. Having access to computers does not mean anything if you are going to use them as a glorified pencil.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=36693&CFID=16661141&CFTOKEN=79907457
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2007/09/12/02divide.h01.html
Robert Fairlie’s research has shown that only 50% of blacks and 48% of Latinos have a home computer. The same study shows that 75% of whites have access to home computers (Digital Divide affects school success). Fairlie also found that “teenagers who have access to home computers are 6-8% more likely to graduate from high school then teens who lack access to a home computer”. Although this statistic is widely disputed, many outside factors play into the fact that a student does not graduate from high school. These factors would also concur with the reasons students do not have a computer at home. A family who can not afford a computer, is probably also not living in the best area of the city, going to the best school, might have a unique family situation, or the parents may not be well educated. All these factors also play into students not graduating from high schools. Hugh Glenn, of Pepperdine University, “calls Fairlie’s report neither a study or research, but merely a summary of data from previous publications” (Digital Divide affects school success). He thinks that there were too many factors that could have affected Fairlie’s research.
It would seem to make sense that students who do not have access to materials, such as technology would be behind in instruction. But there is no hard evidence about how technology increases academic knowledge. I believe technology motivates students to do work and that if used correctly technology allows students to express their knowledge through multiple intelligences.
The article Digital Divide 2.0, also discusses the misuse of technology in many classrooms- something the technology department in our school is really trying to put an end to. Many teacher are using the computers are glorified worksheets that are skill-and-drill. Technology and the use of computers should allow students to produce work that displays their individual understandings of concepts, not as a tool to ingrain information just to spit it out again. Having access to computers does not mean anything if you are going to use them as a glorified pencil.
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=36693&CFID=16661141&CFTOKEN=79907457
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2007/09/12/02divide.h01.html
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Online Education
I have been a skeptical about online courses, I have had some that are successful and others that are awful and I did not learn a lot. But when looking back through my other college courses I took I also had a similar experience with traditional face-to-face classes. Online learning gives students the opportunity to fit schooling into their schedule.
This is a new way of schooling that has taken off in the last few years. In 2001, 200,000 k-12 students participated in online learning but in 2007 that number increased to about 2 million (Devaney). Many states have written laws requiring online learning as an option. Michigan was the first state that mandated an online learning experience before graduation (Van Dusen).
In the article by Devaney, she states research is showing that “more K-12 students will take classes online and will have longer school days in the next decade- and academic improvement and cost savings are two big benefits.” The online learning gives student the ability to access class materials based on their own schedule, which would increase the instructional time students are receiving without the increased operational cost for the school. Both important factors schools must consider when making important decisions.
Many older people in society are not so keen on the idea of virtual schooling because that is not how they were taught and how they remember school. Many of these old school people think that student participating in online courses sit at the computer all day and do not learn important social skills. One student participating in online schooling does not see it that way. He believes that he has more time to socialize with friends and participate in sports. “Advocates of online education sat this is a plus- it prepares student for a world where life if not structures in class periods and adults increasingly communicate electronically, work remotely, and meet virtually” (Van Dusen). Young students today have grown up with technology all around them. They do not read the instructions to figure out how to use electronics they learn my doing. Currently, most schools are forcing students to turn off their world as they know it when they enter schools. “Virtual schooling and online learning fit in extremely well with emerging trends to embrace the same technologies that our young people are using in their everyday lives and apply them to education,” Cavanaugh said. “Schools that don’t embrace online learning soon will be viewed as limiting the learning opportunities of their students” (Devaney).
I think embracing the technology is a great idea but what about the schools that do not have the finances to support online learning? Or the students that cannot afford computers and internet at home, the achievement gap will continue to increase?
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=58076
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=58911
This is a new way of schooling that has taken off in the last few years. In 2001, 200,000 k-12 students participated in online learning but in 2007 that number increased to about 2 million (Devaney). Many states have written laws requiring online learning as an option. Michigan was the first state that mandated an online learning experience before graduation (Van Dusen).
In the article by Devaney, she states research is showing that “more K-12 students will take classes online and will have longer school days in the next decade- and academic improvement and cost savings are two big benefits.” The online learning gives student the ability to access class materials based on their own schedule, which would increase the instructional time students are receiving without the increased operational cost for the school. Both important factors schools must consider when making important decisions.
Many older people in society are not so keen on the idea of virtual schooling because that is not how they were taught and how they remember school. Many of these old school people think that student participating in online courses sit at the computer all day and do not learn important social skills. One student participating in online schooling does not see it that way. He believes that he has more time to socialize with friends and participate in sports. “Advocates of online education sat this is a plus- it prepares student for a world where life if not structures in class periods and adults increasingly communicate electronically, work remotely, and meet virtually” (Van Dusen). Young students today have grown up with technology all around them. They do not read the instructions to figure out how to use electronics they learn my doing. Currently, most schools are forcing students to turn off their world as they know it when they enter schools. “Virtual schooling and online learning fit in extremely well with emerging trends to embrace the same technologies that our young people are using in their everyday lives and apply them to education,” Cavanaugh said. “Schools that don’t embrace online learning soon will be viewed as limiting the learning opportunities of their students” (Devaney).
I think embracing the technology is a great idea but what about the schools that do not have the finances to support online learning? Or the students that cannot afford computers and internet at home, the achievement gap will continue to increase?
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=58076
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/index.cfm?i=58911
Thursday, May 21, 2009
School Funding
School Funding
School funding is a very touchy subject that I think goes off topic when you begin to talk about it. Money is always a tricky subject because money ties into everything, and in the US money means power. The people who have the power have money and their children are attending well-funded schools, so they don’t see anything wrong with the system.
The article I read from the Online NewsHour described all the variations of schools we have in the United States. Public schools in this country are described as “meccas for affluent students and others into decaying infrastructures with overcrowded classrooms and soaring drop-out rates”. We allow this to happen because of how we set up the funding for public schools. Each states has its own laws about where the funding comes from and how much each school gets. This also various depending on the county, city or town you are in.
As a country, the United States spends the same amount per student on schooling as France. We are middle of the road when comparing to other similar countries. But if you compare each state to those same countries we range from high spending per student to very low expenditure per student. For instance, New Jersey spends twice as much per student as Utah (School Funding). This is the reason for huge differences between states and the overall quality of education in the US.
The funding for public schools in the US is comprised mostly by local property taxes of local residents. Therefore, the areas with the more expensive homes receive more funding for their school. Some states have tried to control this issue by creating a formula to equalize the school districts. But the people with money set up foundations and find loop holes to give their children’s schools more money.
In this country we need to make many changes in our public school system. School funding is just one of these issues. I believe that education has to become more of a national issue than it is.
Many citizens are fed up with the way that schools are funded, but nothing is being changed about it. People in California are concerned and nervous about the success of their schools but do not want to put more money into a system that is not working.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/school_funding.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-schools30-2009apr30,0,1938454.story
School funding is a very touchy subject that I think goes off topic when you begin to talk about it. Money is always a tricky subject because money ties into everything, and in the US money means power. The people who have the power have money and their children are attending well-funded schools, so they don’t see anything wrong with the system.
The article I read from the Online NewsHour described all the variations of schools we have in the United States. Public schools in this country are described as “meccas for affluent students and others into decaying infrastructures with overcrowded classrooms and soaring drop-out rates”. We allow this to happen because of how we set up the funding for public schools. Each states has its own laws about where the funding comes from and how much each school gets. This also various depending on the county, city or town you are in.
As a country, the United States spends the same amount per student on schooling as France. We are middle of the road when comparing to other similar countries. But if you compare each state to those same countries we range from high spending per student to very low expenditure per student. For instance, New Jersey spends twice as much per student as Utah (School Funding). This is the reason for huge differences between states and the overall quality of education in the US.
The funding for public schools in the US is comprised mostly by local property taxes of local residents. Therefore, the areas with the more expensive homes receive more funding for their school. Some states have tried to control this issue by creating a formula to equalize the school districts. But the people with money set up foundations and find loop holes to give their children’s schools more money.
In this country we need to make many changes in our public school system. School funding is just one of these issues. I believe that education has to become more of a national issue than it is.
Many citizens are fed up with the way that schools are funded, but nothing is being changed about it. People in California are concerned and nervous about the success of their schools but do not want to put more money into a system that is not working.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/school_funding.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-schools30-2009apr30,0,1938454.story
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Standardized Tests
Standardized Tests used for Accountability
I feel standardized tests does have a place in public schools but should not have such a negative influence on school who do not make “the grade”. Schools who do not make AYP are being punished instead of being helped. If we want to succeed as a society we need to help schools who are struggling.
The article, How Standardized Testing Damages Education it states, “No test is good enough to serve as the sole or primary basis for important educational decisions.” I think this statement is completely true. We cannot use one measurement to determine important aspects of curriculum and student placement. The old saying measure twice, cut once applies to this situation as well. We need to have multiple data to make decisions, which should come from a variety of assessments. Performance-based assessments can provide schools will a better overall view of a student. These assessments allow the child to express themselves in many different ways instead of just through circling the correct multiple-choice answer.
Another important fact we need to consider when using standardized tests, it the influence of out of school factors. “Noninstructional factors explain most of the variance among test scores when schools or districts are compared. A study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the combination of four such variables (number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type of community, and poverty rate) accounted for a whopping 89 percent of the differences in state scores.” http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
I agree that schools need to be held accountable for their student achievement, but we should not taking their funding away forcing them to close their doors. These are the schools that need support. The other problem is that we expect each school to come up with a program to improve their scores, no one is there to help them devise a school improvement plan or give suggestions to what has worked for similar schools.
My other problem with standardized tests is related to how the media reports scores. The media likes to play games and report information that is easily manipulated and the public ends up twisting the truth. Or else they focus in on a minor aspect of the entire assessment report.
I feel standardized tests does have a place in public schools but should not have such a negative influence on school who do not make “the grade”. Schools who do not make AYP are being punished instead of being helped. If we want to succeed as a society we need to help schools who are struggling.
The article, How Standardized Testing Damages Education it states, “No test is good enough to serve as the sole or primary basis for important educational decisions.” I think this statement is completely true. We cannot use one measurement to determine important aspects of curriculum and student placement. The old saying measure twice, cut once applies to this situation as well. We need to have multiple data to make decisions, which should come from a variety of assessments. Performance-based assessments can provide schools will a better overall view of a student. These assessments allow the child to express themselves in many different ways instead of just through circling the correct multiple-choice answer.
Another important fact we need to consider when using standardized tests, it the influence of out of school factors. “Noninstructional factors explain most of the variance among test scores when schools or districts are compared. A study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the combination of four such variables (number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type of community, and poverty rate) accounted for a whopping 89 percent of the differences in state scores.” http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/staiv.htm
I agree that schools need to be held accountable for their student achievement, but we should not taking their funding away forcing them to close their doors. These are the schools that need support. The other problem is that we expect each school to come up with a program to improve their scores, no one is there to help them devise a school improvement plan or give suggestions to what has worked for similar schools.
My other problem with standardized tests is related to how the media reports scores. The media likes to play games and report information that is easily manipulated and the public ends up twisting the truth. Or else they focus in on a minor aspect of the entire assessment report.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Just the Basics
Just the Basics
Schools around the nation are cutting subjects that students are not tested in. They are cutting the extras and increasing the time spend on math, reading and writing. Since NCLB has been established schools are held accountable to make adequate yearly progress of students’ test scores. An article from The New York Times stated, “The survey, by the Center on Education Policy, found that since the passage of the federal law, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math.” What are schools risking in order to make the grade?
Art programs and extracurricular activities are vital in producing well-rounded children. Not every student is going to succeed academically, some will find their way in art, technology, music, foreign languages or sports. Schools are denying students the opportunity to explore various endeavors. Children need to have an outlet to be creative and release stress.
I found a video about Classics 4 Kids, a company in California that offers music and art education to school districts. The company provides the schools with lessons that incorporate literature, music, and other art forms such as dance. They teacher introduced various pieces of music and story, and then the students go to the theater for a production designed to incorporate what they learned in the classroom. This is a terrific program for students but might close because of a lack of funding. As schools are tightening their budgets they are cutting out programs like Classics 4 Kids.
Besides for denying students the opportunity to explore their creative side, they are forcing students to take multiple math and reading courses. The article, Schools Cut Back to Push Reading and Math in The New York Times, talks about how some schools are making students take 3 periods of reading in the morning and 2 periods of math in the afternoon, leaving only one open period for gym (because that it the law). “There are countless kids that look forward to school because of music or art class. That method of creation allows them to express themselves and feel unique and appreciated.” By forcing children to have hours of instruction back to back they are risking the fact that students will come to dislike school so much that they drop out. Thus there will be more students who will not have a high school diploma and the effects that NCLB was trying to avoid will be greater.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/358726/cutting_the_arts_in_americas_public.html?cat=4
Schools around the nation are cutting subjects that students are not tested in. They are cutting the extras and increasing the time spend on math, reading and writing. Since NCLB has been established schools are held accountable to make adequate yearly progress of students’ test scores. An article from The New York Times stated, “The survey, by the Center on Education Policy, found that since the passage of the federal law, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math.” What are schools risking in order to make the grade?
Art programs and extracurricular activities are vital in producing well-rounded children. Not every student is going to succeed academically, some will find their way in art, technology, music, foreign languages or sports. Schools are denying students the opportunity to explore various endeavors. Children need to have an outlet to be creative and release stress.
I found a video about Classics 4 Kids, a company in California that offers music and art education to school districts. The company provides the schools with lessons that incorporate literature, music, and other art forms such as dance. They teacher introduced various pieces of music and story, and then the students go to the theater for a production designed to incorporate what they learned in the classroom. This is a terrific program for students but might close because of a lack of funding. As schools are tightening their budgets they are cutting out programs like Classics 4 Kids.
Besides for denying students the opportunity to explore their creative side, they are forcing students to take multiple math and reading courses. The article, Schools Cut Back to Push Reading and Math in The New York Times, talks about how some schools are making students take 3 periods of reading in the morning and 2 periods of math in the afternoon, leaving only one open period for gym (because that it the law). “There are countless kids that look forward to school because of music or art class. That method of creation allows them to express themselves and feel unique and appreciated.” By forcing children to have hours of instruction back to back they are risking the fact that students will come to dislike school so much that they drop out. Thus there will be more students who will not have a high school diploma and the effects that NCLB was trying to avoid will be greater.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/358726/cutting_the_arts_in_americas_public.html?cat=4
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Drug Testing in Schools
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/nyregion/new-jersey/23Rparent.html?ref=long-island
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426004.500-schools-urged-into-divisive-drug-crackdown.html
Drug Testing in Schools
When I was in high school, I know there were many “good” students who were curious about drugs and tried them, including the athletes. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could randomly drug test students who participated in extra curricular activities. We never had drug testing while I was in high school, but every sport I played I had to sign an agreement that I would not use drugs or alcohol during the sport’s season.
Though this did not deter student athletes from participating in the use of drugs or alcohol. My junior year, there was a big party after one of the boys basketball game and many of the basketball player were drinking. During the party someone took pictures, which included the players drinking, and brought them to school the next week. Kids being kids, where showing their friends the pictures and some how a teacher got a hold of the pictures. The basketball players in the pictures where not allowed to play the rest of the season.
I know this situation is happening in many schools around the nation. Middle school and high school students are curious about drugs and alcohol, and may feel peer pressure to try/use them. Currently only 7% of schools are randomly testing students for drugs. Both the articles linked above, were not in favor of random drug testing for students. Besides for parents being against the random testing, the American Academy of Pediatrics and a survey of 400 physicians were not in support of random drug testing. There have been no studies that prove random drug testing has lowered of number of drug abuse cases. Schools are spending valuable money on drug testing when they do not even know true cost, risks or benefits. Money is already tight in schools, and there are many other effective ways to increase awareness of drug and alcohol abuse.
Another issue I have with the random drug testing is that illegal drugs are not the biggest problem in most school- alcohol is! In New Jersey 1,000 student athletes were tested for drugs and only 2 tested positive, not for illegal drugs but for steroids. That’s 0.2%. The article in the New York Times, discussed a survey taking by 10th and 12th graders at Ridge High, NJ. The survey showed that half of these students had alcohol abuse problems. This was the same with my high school. Why are we not focusing our time and money on the prevalence alcohol abuse in schools?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426004.500-schools-urged-into-divisive-drug-crackdown.html
Drug Testing in Schools
When I was in high school, I know there were many “good” students who were curious about drugs and tried them, including the athletes. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could randomly drug test students who participated in extra curricular activities. We never had drug testing while I was in high school, but every sport I played I had to sign an agreement that I would not use drugs or alcohol during the sport’s season.
Though this did not deter student athletes from participating in the use of drugs or alcohol. My junior year, there was a big party after one of the boys basketball game and many of the basketball player were drinking. During the party someone took pictures, which included the players drinking, and brought them to school the next week. Kids being kids, where showing their friends the pictures and some how a teacher got a hold of the pictures. The basketball players in the pictures where not allowed to play the rest of the season.
I know this situation is happening in many schools around the nation. Middle school and high school students are curious about drugs and alcohol, and may feel peer pressure to try/use them. Currently only 7% of schools are randomly testing students for drugs. Both the articles linked above, were not in favor of random drug testing for students. Besides for parents being against the random testing, the American Academy of Pediatrics and a survey of 400 physicians were not in support of random drug testing. There have been no studies that prove random drug testing has lowered of number of drug abuse cases. Schools are spending valuable money on drug testing when they do not even know true cost, risks or benefits. Money is already tight in schools, and there are many other effective ways to increase awareness of drug and alcohol abuse.
Another issue I have with the random drug testing is that illegal drugs are not the biggest problem in most school- alcohol is! In New Jersey 1,000 student athletes were tested for drugs and only 2 tested positive, not for illegal drugs but for steroids. That’s 0.2%. The article in the New York Times, discussed a survey taking by 10th and 12th graders at Ridge High, NJ. The survey showed that half of these students had alcohol abuse problems. This was the same with my high school. Why are we not focusing our time and money on the prevalence alcohol abuse in schools?
Friday, April 24, 2009
More tests
Standardize Test….. as a teacher there are many thoughts that go through your head when you hear those words. Precious time out of normal curriculum, recall of basic knowledge, worthless to student achievement, AYP, NCLB, ect.
When I saw this title, “Measuring What Matters Least” I was very intrigued to see what the article had to say. The first point in the article when on to talk about why we started standardized testing in the first place, which was to determine placement for students and who needed extra support. What assessment data is supposed to help us determine about our students. But that in reality today we are using assessment data to govern if students, teacher and/or school have failed or succeeded.
The second point in the article was that public officials use the assessment data to impose their views and push their policies through. Many times the data is assessed incorrectly and by only assessing a specific aspect that would support their view or policy. I think that the media is also responsible for reporting incorrect information about student assessment. To create a story only using half the data, or ignoring specific aspects is untruthful reporting. Politicians are also using the scores as a way to place blame on failing schools. Requiring accountability from the teachers and school, which means they are not at fault.
The final point was what are we really preparing the students for and how objective are student assessments. Standardized tests require basic level thinking and regurgitating of knowledge. They improve students test taking ability but do not relate to skills students will need in the real world.
I agree that standardized assessments are used to frequently in our schools today. We need to go back and think about why we started using standardize tests. They were being for the true purpose of assessing students to determine placement and decide which of our students needed more help. All standardize testing in not bad, but when we use the test scores to close down schools not making the grade- who is that helping?
When I saw this title, “Measuring What Matters Least” I was very intrigued to see what the article had to say. The first point in the article when on to talk about why we started standardized testing in the first place, which was to determine placement for students and who needed extra support. What assessment data is supposed to help us determine about our students. But that in reality today we are using assessment data to govern if students, teacher and/or school have failed or succeeded.
The second point in the article was that public officials use the assessment data to impose their views and push their policies through. Many times the data is assessed incorrectly and by only assessing a specific aspect that would support their view or policy. I think that the media is also responsible for reporting incorrect information about student assessment. To create a story only using half the data, or ignoring specific aspects is untruthful reporting. Politicians are also using the scores as a way to place blame on failing schools. Requiring accountability from the teachers and school, which means they are not at fault.
The final point was what are we really preparing the students for and how objective are student assessments. Standardized tests require basic level thinking and regurgitating of knowledge. They improve students test taking ability but do not relate to skills students will need in the real world.
I agree that standardized assessments are used to frequently in our schools today. We need to go back and think about why we started using standardize tests. They were being for the true purpose of assessing students to determine placement and decide which of our students needed more help. All standardize testing in not bad, but when we use the test scores to close down schools not making the grade- who is that helping?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Together or Apart???
Teaching Boys and Girls Separately
Last week a received an email from my principal asking about next years placements, teams, ect; he also asked if any teachers would be interested in single sex classrooms. This seemed like a random proposition to throw out to our teachers, since we have never had single sex classrooms in our school. And so came my inspiration for this blog.
I was searching the Internet and came across many articles about single sex classrooms. I found one in the New York Times by Elizabeth Weil that was very interesting. She spoke with supporters of single sex classrooms and people who were opposed. One man, Leonard Sax, quit practicing family medicine to promote single sex public education. He has written many books on the topic, gives lectures and trains teachers to teach in single sex classrooms. His message has had a part in the explosion of single sex public classrooms.
There are two camps about the beliefs of single sex classrooms. Some people, including Sax, believe boys and girls are essentially different, when it comes to things such as “boys don’t hear as well as girls… that boys’ visual systems are better at seeing action, while girls are better at seeing the nuance of color and texture.” While the other side for single sex schools believe boys and girls have different social experiences and social needs. These camps both have to fight the A.C.L.U., a group opposed to all single sex education.
When reading through the article one of the most interesting points I thought that was made was the research and statistics about single sex classrooms. There is no exact science to compare a single sex classroom to a regular classroom even if they are in the same school building. Students can only be put into a single sex classroom when a request is made by a parent or guardian. That means that the parents have to be involved in some way, reading information being sent home and taking the time to go to school to sign their child up. Therefore many of the children in the single sex classrooms are “better students”.
A school in Alabama reported fewer discipline problems, more parental support and better scores in writing, reading and math in single sex classrooms, but the principal does “acknowledge that her data are compromised, as her highest-performing teachers and her most-motivated students have chosen single-sex.” I also found it interesting that most research from single sex schools have come from private Catholic schools.
I am not sure I am convinced one way or another that single sex schools are the best for every child.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3t.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26adxnnlQ3D1Q26refQ3DmagazineQ26adxnnlxQ3D12399091279s0T72LboC0yIsihtuRcEQ51Q26pagewantedQ3Dprint&OP=38c2d9dcQ2FQ51JQ5BuQ5123N,Q3A33bQ60Q51Q60ii7Q51i9Q51iQ60Q51lPCP4dQ5DQ5BQ51iQ60,Q5BZ9GbQ3Bcbl-
Last week a received an email from my principal asking about next years placements, teams, ect; he also asked if any teachers would be interested in single sex classrooms. This seemed like a random proposition to throw out to our teachers, since we have never had single sex classrooms in our school. And so came my inspiration for this blog.
I was searching the Internet and came across many articles about single sex classrooms. I found one in the New York Times by Elizabeth Weil that was very interesting. She spoke with supporters of single sex classrooms and people who were opposed. One man, Leonard Sax, quit practicing family medicine to promote single sex public education. He has written many books on the topic, gives lectures and trains teachers to teach in single sex classrooms. His message has had a part in the explosion of single sex public classrooms.
There are two camps about the beliefs of single sex classrooms. Some people, including Sax, believe boys and girls are essentially different, when it comes to things such as “boys don’t hear as well as girls… that boys’ visual systems are better at seeing action, while girls are better at seeing the nuance of color and texture.” While the other side for single sex schools believe boys and girls have different social experiences and social needs. These camps both have to fight the A.C.L.U., a group opposed to all single sex education.
When reading through the article one of the most interesting points I thought that was made was the research and statistics about single sex classrooms. There is no exact science to compare a single sex classroom to a regular classroom even if they are in the same school building. Students can only be put into a single sex classroom when a request is made by a parent or guardian. That means that the parents have to be involved in some way, reading information being sent home and taking the time to go to school to sign their child up. Therefore many of the children in the single sex classrooms are “better students”.
A school in Alabama reported fewer discipline problems, more parental support and better scores in writing, reading and math in single sex classrooms, but the principal does “acknowledge that her data are compromised, as her highest-performing teachers and her most-motivated students have chosen single-sex.” I also found it interesting that most research from single sex schools have come from private Catholic schools.
I am not sure I am convinced one way or another that single sex schools are the best for every child.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02sex3t.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26adxnnlQ3D1Q26refQ3DmagazineQ26adxnnlxQ3D12399091279s0T72LboC0yIsihtuRcEQ51Q26pagewantedQ3Dprint&OP=38c2d9dcQ2FQ51JQ5BuQ5123N,Q3A33bQ60Q51Q60ii7Q51i9Q51iQ60Q51lPCP4dQ5DQ5BQ51iQ60,Q5BZ9GbQ3Bcbl-
Monday, April 13, 2009
Validity of NCLB
I found the article, Poverty and Potential: Out of School Factors and School Success by David C. Berliner very interesting but not surprising. Students spend 1,150 hours a year in school and 4,700 hours a year with their families, of course they are going to have baggage from their home lives. As a national we need to consider these out of school factors as we stride to improve our schools. I truly agree with the statement Berliner said about No Child Left Behind, it is an “outcome-oriented, input-ignoring philosophy”. We cannot require schools to fix problems outside their zone of influence. Berliner stated seven outside factors that influence students’ school success.
This article form USA today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-06-06-schools-qa_N.htm, talks about gains NCLB has (or hasn’t) made in the five years since it took effect. No Child Left Behind was supposed to be this great act to close the achievement gap and raise school standards. This article discusses strategies states are trying, to give the impression they are making more progress. Various states are creating tests with all multiple-choice questions instead of extended response and lower the passing score so more students’ pass. They are fluffing data so that their school make gradual improvements and will not be labeled as a failure. Schools that do not make the grade end up having the students leave to go to other schools. So in turn good schools are becoming over crowded and schools not achieving passing grades are closing. That does not seem to be a brilliant solution to closing the achievement gap.
The outside factors such as limited or no health care, food insecurities and pollutants are factors that are national issues. But schooling is not considered a national issue so in politics the two are not connected. We are only of the only developed countries in the world where schooling is not nationally regulated. The federal government is afraid that it will step on the toes of the states if they impose regulations about schooling. That is the reason states are allowed to determine how they are going to test students for NCLB. And we can all see how well that seems to be working out!
This article form USA today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-06-06-schools-qa_N.htm, talks about gains NCLB has (or hasn’t) made in the five years since it took effect. No Child Left Behind was supposed to be this great act to close the achievement gap and raise school standards. This article discusses strategies states are trying, to give the impression they are making more progress. Various states are creating tests with all multiple-choice questions instead of extended response and lower the passing score so more students’ pass. They are fluffing data so that their school make gradual improvements and will not be labeled as a failure. Schools that do not make the grade end up having the students leave to go to other schools. So in turn good schools are becoming over crowded and schools not achieving passing grades are closing. That does not seem to be a brilliant solution to closing the achievement gap.
The outside factors such as limited or no health care, food insecurities and pollutants are factors that are national issues. But schooling is not considered a national issue so in politics the two are not connected. We are only of the only developed countries in the world where schooling is not nationally regulated. The federal government is afraid that it will step on the toes of the states if they impose regulations about schooling. That is the reason states are allowed to determine how they are going to test students for NCLB. And we can all see how well that seems to be working out!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)