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?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
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)