My Fab Comments

Here is a list of 10 of my comments!

Carrie! 

Walter!

Christina!

Eli!

Michael!

Sarah!

Rachel! 

Eli again!

Jenny! 

I’m missing a couple, I’m sure, but I can’t locate some of my older ones.  So I wrote newer ones?  My originals are floating around somewhere (I promise), but until I find them, here are these (if you’re reading this, and I commented on your blog and it’s not noted here, please let me know; thanks!)

Happy Fall Semester Ending!

I liked this.  I really did.  I like feeling up to date and knowledgeable about things that pertain to what I would like to do, so as a future teacher, learning about No Child Left Behind has been an important step in my academic development.  Really, just knowing about the RSS aggregator is a great asset, I think–honestly how many things can you do with that?  This genre, while definitely a lot different than I’m used to, is kind of a fun one to explore and play around with–I think it’s also valuable to read the research and comments from everyone in the whole class (although not so fun when you can’t find all 10 of your comments).

Initially, I knew there were multiple problems with No Child Left Behind.  But now I think I can honestly say that I have a pretty decent grasp on the topic, and, moreover… have come to the depressing realization of how not many people in Washington do.  That being said, this ‘blog’ (although I really dislike that word… it’s just ugly) has helped me to critically think harder about this upcoming election, and which candidates are taking a stand on education (and which candidates are not).  It’s also kind of neat when I can weave in all of this new-found information into everyday conversation and impress people :)

 When I began, I didn’t really have the clearest focus on what I wanted to write about with NCLB–I knew that it was bad news for students of a lower SES, minority students, ESL students, etc., so I wanted to explore that a little bit.  I really did like the direction it took, though (it really took itself), into kind of the whole political element of NCLB.  I felt that I learned a lot, and it was quite interesting.

 Although I probably won’t continue to blog on my freetime, I believe that this assignment introduced me to a very interesting medium that is definitely applicable both in and outside the classroom.  So, I guess, this is the end (minus the trying to find all 10 of my comments thing.  Wish me luck).

What about the gifted?

I guess I haven’t thought about this much, but an article that was in the Boston Globe brought up a good point: what is NCLB doing for gifted children?

But I really like this point: a lot of times, you just hear howthe NCLB law affects minorities, students of a lower socioeconomic status, ESL learners, etc., but you don’t often get to see the flip side of the coin.

The article states that because schools are getting so focused on the “bubble” students (those that are on the line between succeeding and failing), the students who are higher achievers aren’t getting the attention that they should be, and further, that teachers have very little reason to give them that attention.

Teachers struggling to meet the law’s annual proficiency goals have little incentive, critics say, to teach students who will meet those goals however they are taught.

 And I thought this was kind of crazy:

A study published last month by two University of Chicago economists, analyzing fifth-grade test scores in the Chicago public schools before and after enactment of the law in 2002, found that performance rose consistently for all but the most and least advanced students.

The ‘least’ aspect makes sense, and that’s what we’ve been hearing so much about.  But the ‘advanced,’ I think, is something to take note of: typically, these are the students who are eager to learn.  How sad is it that this group is actually being overlooked?

So this is the ’solution:’

To properly serve gifted children, particularly in reading and math, teachers are expected to divide classes into small groups according to ability - one group at grade level, for example, one above, and one below - and pitch lessons to each in turn.

The problem, parents say, is that many teachers aren’t differentiating. Under pressure from No Child Left Behind, critics contend, educators are more apt to teach one lesson, trained on students in the middle, and to expend extra effort on those at the bottom.

 Number one, I’m not sure if ‘grouping’ is such a good idea for many of the same reasons that tracking isn’t:  the ‘lower’ level groups will realize that they are lower level, and may just act accordingly (obviously doing them a disservice).  Also, a lot of teachers agree that a “mixed-ability classroom [is] a particularly difficult way to teach gifted children, because students might span a wide range of abilities and because gifted students learn differently than other students.” 

Basically, there is no cut-and-dry solution to the many problems that NCLB causes, but this is just another aspect of it’s multi-faceted badness.

Source:
Critics say ‘No Child’ law hurts the gifted
Daniel de Vise
The Boston Globe
11/28/2007

40% of Michigan schools aren’t passing!

“More than four out of every 10 public high schools in Michigan — including some of the highest-performing schools in the state — fail to meet the goals of the No Child Left Behind law, mostly because of students’ disappointing performance on a new high school exam.”

This is the opening statement of the article “4 in 10 high schools is state fail to meet federal goals” from the December 1st issue of the Detroit Free Press.  Obviously, the authors (Lori Higgins and Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki) wanted to get their point across… and they did.

I have already admitted that my math skills are probably sub-par, but I can still figure out that 4/10=40%.  40% of Michigan’s High schools are not meeting federal standards (and actually, the article quotes 43%, hence the ‘over,’ probably)!

And so, like with most things that have to do with failing schools, the blame needs to be placed somewhere.  So, instead of blaming the manner in which the students are tested (aka expecting special education and ESL students to be at and test at the same level as everyone else), we’re blaming the new test: the Michigan Merit Exam, which replaced the MEAP as Michigan’s sole state assessment.   This exam is actually a collection of tests which includes the ACT, and, apparently, this large number of failing schools was “expected” by the state board of education.

‘”It’s a college-entrance test, and a lot of kids were not prepared for it,’ said Kathleen Straus, president of the State Board of Education.”

Ok… well that doesn’t help Michigan out with it’s NCLB standards.  And, there is still a very negative trend: while elementary and middle schools have actually shown some improvement in meeting NCLB goals, high schools are going in the “opposite direction”–since 2003, 288 schools were deemed failing.  That number has grown almost 70%.

And it’s not even the ‘bad’ schools that are failing–Athens High School in Troy, Mi failed because only “28 out of the 32 special-education students were tested, shy of the 95% required. For that reason, the entire school was listed as needing improvement.”

Athens High School is actually ranked in the nation as one of the strongest high schools.  Does that make sense?  The same things are happening at places like Utica and Bloomfield Hills.  These are good schools.

I guess my only question is: what is NCLB doing?  Seriously.

Source:
4 in 10 high schools in state fail to meet federal goals
by Lori higgins and Peggy Walksh-Sarnecki
Detroit Free Press

Shapiro and Shakespeare

I was actually pumped to see James Shapiro speak about the life of Shakespeare. Really. In my Eng 311 class, we discussed the importance of knowing the author of a text to help divulge a little more meaning out of it, and I completely agree. I always like knowing the biographic information about an author, and to hear about one whose life we know so little about was very exciting to me.

I have actually read some chapters of his text in my Eng 313 class (yes, I am taking 3 English classes at one time. Confusing? Yes), and I actually enjoyed them. What I liked specifically is how he ties in the ‘current events’ of Shakespeare’s time and applies them to the plays that he wrote during those times. For example, Julius Caesar could have been written as a commentary on the quasi-tyrannical rule of Queen Elizabeth (which, at the time, would be considered treason to explicitly say, but in a context of a play, it was viewed as simply ‘entertainment’). He even tied together the fact that they were both weak in some way, yet unwilling to accept it (Elizabeth with her age and refusal to accept any painting that portrayed her as anything but young, and Caesar with his epilepsy, inability to swim, and appearing ‘as a girl’ when falling ill).

Although I was partially thrown off-guard when Shapiro whipped out a complete typed-out document and began reading off it for his presentation (I guess I’m just not used to this, yet), I was very interested in what he had to say. In particular, I found it VERY interesting that he got part of his inspiration from the movie Shakespeare in Love (one of my favorites). I also liked how he broke down his presentation into just a few-week glimpse into William Shakespeare’s life: how he walked the streets of London, arduously traveled home to his family in Stratford-Upon-Avon, presented his plays to the Queen, etc. Basically, Shakespeare was presented as just an ordinary man living in London a couple hundred years ago.

And it was quite obvious that Shapiro was passionate about his work. At times, he grew completely animated as he jumped out from behind the podium to act out one of Shakespeare’s impromptu epilogues. He really grabbed the audience’s attention and after awhile, it wasn’t so noticeable that he was reading from a script.

The evening before I went and saw Cymbeline itself, and I liked it well enough, although I’m not quite sure if I like the Elizabethan setting transplanted into the American Civil war. I did find the actors to be very engaging, especially the gentlemen who played Cloten and Jachimo (his Southern accent was quite charming). I also thought that the costumes and stage setting were well-done. All in all, I thought it was a great production (although maybe just a little long).

At Least Someone Gets It

In his recent article entitled “Those we Leave Behind,” Jonathon P. Rossing provides readers with some unpleasant statistics, all made possible by No Child Left Behind:

“More than 1,000 of California’s 9,500 schools are “chronic failures”; in Florida, more than 441 schools should be shut down; and in Maryland, 49 schools in Baltimore alone are below standards. But last year 87 percent of persistently failing schools avoided significant changes. There are simply too many “failures” to fix.”

I knew it was bad, but I guess I didn’t realize it was this bad. More than 1/10th of California’s schools are failing. 10% (check it out, I’m an English major doing math. Holler)! And, even though I am an English major, I know that 87% is a pretty high percentage… especially when it deals with the number of schools deemed ‘failing’ and without any help (really, anything over 0% is too high). Obviously, this plan (NCLB) is really good at pointing out things wrong with schools—it just doesn’t have the capacity to actually and proactively do anything to help them. As Rossling said, “there are simply too many failures to fix.”

But isn’t that saying something in itself!? Isn’t that alarming!? Shouldn’t this be addressed by policy-makers who are urging the renewal of an act that isn’t actually doing anything?! I would argue yes for all of these points, but I guess some people just don’t deem these issues important. Moving on…

Rossing’s next argument seems so simple and so elementary, but for some reason, again, some policy makers just don’t understand it:

“The law has failed because it doesn’t account for or address issues like socio-economic status and racism. We do not live in a bubble where every child’s learning environment is identical; instead, we are arguably as far from educational equity as we were in the 1950s under legal segregation.”

Thank you, Jonathon! Lately I have been looking at how NCLB plays into politics, reading articles from the left and the right to see how they both stack up when it comes to national education. Thus far (with the exception of the article detailing John Edwards’ plan) I have been disappointed (although this may be because I have looked at more rightist literature. Just saying). No one (again, aside from Edwards) has seriously and/or thought-provokingly talked about SES and race. In my last article, Hoekstra and Garrett even belittled ESL inclusion attempts! How are we going to fix this problem of the surplus of ‘failing schools’ if no one is willing to look at the core issues?

And it’s not like people aren’t noticing:

“A Latina mother in Los Angeles whose son attends a school in a low-income area where only 22 percent of students passed the standardized exams questioned the motives of No Child Left Behind: “Maybe the system is not designed for people like us,” she said.”

And Rossling had a fabulous rebuttal to this:

“Not for “people like us?” Talk about an understatement. The system is not designed for people like her, in large part because the system was designed by people like me: middle-to-upper–class white folks (mainly men) with the arrogance to assume that what works for them works for everyone and with the narrowness to think that real problems of class and race are easily overcome by learning to pass a test.”

Why this is not clear to a number of political candidates, policy-makers, and the current national government, I will never be able to understand.

“…it’s no wonder students in poor, segregated schools aren’t motivated to crack the code of standardized testing. When you feel that the world doesn’t care about you, when you’re worried about financial woes and survival, why would you care about reading comprehension exams?”

He lays it out so simply. Now we just need more policy-makers to read his article and respond accordingly, instead of dancing around the issue and making statements that… aren’t really statements at all (again, I’m making the exception for John Edwards, who did just that). Here, the core problem is clearly laid out. It’s time to address it, not renew it.

Source:
Those We Leave Behind
By Jonathon P. Rossing
The Indiana Daily Student
10/18/2007

Plans, plans, plans (and lack thereof)

In their article entitled “Democrats’ No Child Left Behind Bill is Bad Policy,” Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Rep. Scott Garrett appear to have a lot to say about the liberal reform on NCLB. Three main points, actually.

While they were able to admit that NCLB is a “horrible policy that does more harm than good,” their critique of the Democrats’ plan is a little… weak. As is their own assessment of the Republican plan. As is the whole article, really.

They open their argument by critiquing the Democrats’ plan by stating that:

“The draft bill will force states to create new assessment tests in languages other than English for those who do not speak it as their first language. It decreases the expectations for schools by allowing them to test non English-speaking students in their native languages for up to seven years to meet their goals — allowing students to go even longer in our public school system without learning English.”

So, are they still in support of non-English speaking students taking a standardized test—a test that is the very basis of dictating whether a school is deemed ‘failing’ or not—in a language they do not yet understand? Because, at least to me, non-comprehension=bad scores. And we all know that bad scores=failing schools. Failing schools=cut funding. Cut funding=worse problems. I don’t get why giving students a chance to actually UNDERSTAND the material they are being presented is a bad thing, albeit maybe seven years is a little long. I believe the Democrats are moving in a positive direction with this approach: at least they are addressing the problem of ESL learners.

They also bashed the Democrats’ proposed database, saying that:

“Under the draft bill the federal government would implement a new Orwellian database, titled the “longitudinal data system,” which would allow the federal government to track the attendance and enrollment of students, the demographic and program participation at schools and the grade and specific classroom of pupils. The federal government would withhold funds from schools that fail to provide information to the database.”

Well, um, ok but I don’t understand why this is a MAJOR point of concern (one of only three, really). Attendance is already taken in schools, and grades are already recorded. I suppose the fact that they want to track the demographics is a little sketchy, but I’m going to assume that they will use that information in some way to benefit the schools—they are not going to demand it just to have it in an isolated database. Schools already have this data, anyway; they just want to nationally collect it.
Next, they proclaim that

“The draft bill would further lowers[sic] accountability by categorizing schools that do not meet No Child’s AYP standards as either “priority schools” or “high-priority schools.” “Priority schools” will have missed some benchmarks, and those that miss a few more are deemed “high-priority.””

Number one, there’s a grammatical error; just thought I would point that one out. Number two, if anything else, the connotation of ‘priority schools’ sounds a lot better than ‘failing schools,’ but this is the end of their critique. Well, what it is it about the ‘priority’ and ‘high-priority’ vs. ‘failing?’ What’s so bad about it?

Well, those questions remain unanswered as they move on to how wonderful the Republican plan is:

“The LEARN Act introduced by U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and the A-PLUS Act introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) offer solutions to the many problems caused by NCLB. The bills differ in how they implement their plans — the LEARN Act gives money back to the states through a tax credit and the A-PLUS Act provides it in the form of block grants — but they both seek to keep education funding in the states while eliminating ineffective Washington bureaucrats from the equation.”

Ok, sweet! More money for schools! But which schools? What is that money going to? Where will the money come from? How much and for what specific purposes? How do you decide? Is everything equal? The article goes on to say that:

“The bills allow states to opt out of NCLB and empower them to provide parents, teachers and school principals — those who are most passionate about the education of our children — with the freedom and authority to meet the diverse needs of their students.”

Wait… that didn’t answer any of these questions. And with one more paragraph left in the article, I fear that these burning questions will never be answered. How does this plan address ESL students? ‘Failing’ schools? Standardized testing or Special Education? Why do I have so many questions?

“To improve our nation’s education we need to return to local control, enabling the authority of our parents, teachers and administrators to create policies and programs that best serve the unique needs of students and schools. Forget about Washington and its ineffective managing skills. For the future of our children we must keep Washington bureaucrats and their one-size-fits-all mandates out of our education system.”

So… now there is no national plan. That’s their plan? No plan? That’s it?

Well that’s kind of disappointing…

Source:
Democrats’ No Child Left Behind Bill is Bad Policy
By Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Rep. Scott Garrett
Humanevents.com
“Leading the Conservative Movement since 1944”

Vote like your education depends on it.

On Friday, September 21 the New York Times reported that Presidential hopeful John Edwards has laid out his own proposal for education reform; a plan that actually addresses the racial and economic disparities in education while coming up with some promising solutions–two key points that the Secretary of Education failed to mention in her interview with the Indiana Star that same day (and isn’t this supposed to be her area of expertise?).

Unlike the tenants of the No Child Left Behind Act, which focus heavily on standardized assessment testing and do not take into account students with special needs, ESL learners, or socioeconomic issues, Edwards’ plan is a bit more progressive.  Realizing that “more than a half-century after Brown v. Board of Education, we still have two school systems, separate and unequal,” Edwards acknowledges the imbalanced nature of standardized assessment, and refers to them as simply “cheap standardized tests.”  To combat this issue, Edwards is backing a plan that would develop “higher-quality assessments that measure higher-order thinking skills, including open-ended essays, oral examinations, and projects and experiments.”  These new assessments, he argues, will help level the playing field and treat each student like an individual–not a test score.  He also has some other great (and very applicable) ideas:

Mr. Edwards outlined a plan that he said would evaluate students more effectively, reduce class sizes and reward teachers who work in high-poverty schools with up to $15,000 in incentive pay, initiatives similar to those championed by education officials in New York City and elsewhere.

Compared to NCLB, a plan that takes away funding from failing schools, this proposal looks a little bit better from an educational standpoint.  If the government were to actually invest more money into these ‘failing’ schools–increasing the number of quality teachers, reducing class sizes for more effective learning, etc–outcomes might just get… better.  But that’s not all that Edwards includes in his education proposal:

He also called for universal preschool, the creation of a national university that would become a “West Point for teachers” and an initiative that uses what he described as “education SWAT teams” to sweep in and rebuild failing schools.

It sounds like a better answer than what Margaret Spellings offered about the re-authorization of NCLB.  Edwards identifies the problem and offers plausible solutions for the problem.  And, as with any good strategic plan, he has set three specific goals for American education, goals which he proclaims guide his reform:

1. That every child should be prepared to succeed when they show up in the classroom.
2. Every classroom should be led by an excellent teacher.
3. Every teacher should work in an outstanding school.

…Sounds good to me.

Source:
Education and Schools are a Focus for Edwards
Julie Bosman
New York Times
September 22, 2007

Apparently, we just need to ‘work harder’

Bands go on tour to promote their latest album.  Authors go on tour to promote their newest text.  But what do US Secretaries of Education go on tour to promote?

…NCLB (of course!)

According to Indystar.com (Indiana’s No. 1 Local News Media Site), the US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is touring the Midwest “promoting the re-authorization of the act.” She stopped at a children’s museum in Indianapolis, IN on September 21 to answer some questions regarding that quite-controversial No Child Left Behind (possibly shedding some light on why she thinks it actually works?  Maybe?).

Content-wise, she didn’t appear to be saying too much, making obscenely vague statements about the “huge game-changer” that is NCLB.  And when confronted with the issue of lower test scores in urban settings, and how to go about fixing these issues, her answer wasn’t exactly… an answer (for your convenience, I have bolded for you what I made out to be her version of ‘answers’):

“It’s going to take a variety of strategies. Obviously the things that are going on at the school I was at this morning, the charter school, Andrew J. Brown. Charter schools, there’s great potentiality there. But you know what it’s going to really take is more time and earlier intervention. That’s what they do at these very successful schools. They work harder; they go longer. They engage parents and families. It’s not any one thing. I see those things working all over the country.

We know what we have to do; we just have to have the will to do it and to continue to hold ourselves accountable for doing it. That’s what’s so important about No Child Left Behind. If we don’t have that accountability, we reduce the will, the appetite, the motivation to really do that work.”

So, this just doesn’t quite cut it for me–it seems like she’s dancing around the issue, only remarking that ‘working harder’ is the solution (although didn’t she say ‘various?’).  There is nothing specific about her answer; she doesn’t give tangible solutions that can be utilized in a classroom setting.  In all honesty, she doesn’t even address the problem–instead she’s bringing up a random example of a charter school in Indiana and praising its ‘great potentiality’ (where did that even come from/how does that answer the question?).  For an act that is all about accountability, how exactly does one assess ‘working harder’ or ‘going longer,’ anyway (isn’t there a set number of school days?)?  These vague and ambiguous terms just aren’t answering the question on how NCLB works in urban school settings for the (typically underprivileged) children in those schools.  They do not address those children who do not have stable families to be engaged in their schooling,  nor do they take into account those children who’s families do not have the means to provide them with breakfast in the morning (and do you really think their main focus is a MEAP test?)  And then, what about those students who have special needs, or those children learning English as their second language?  Is the answer simply ‘to work harder’?  I don’t think so…

If the government is going to be promoting the re-authorization of this act–and going on a Midwestern tour to do it–you would think that they might have some concrete answers on how to solve the problems NCLB leaves in its wake (it has, after all, been 5 1/2 long years–that’s plenty of time for reflection).  You would think they would swallow their pride, admit that there are some flaws, and re-work the system to be a little less… well, bad.

…you would think.

 Source:
Q&A with secretary of education
No Child Left Behind: its lessons, its future
Andy Gammill
Indiana Star
September 22, 2007

SES and NCLB

I am an English major, and a Sociology minor.

Why is this important?

 To me, these two subjects walk hand-in-hand–essentially, they influence each other.  Many times, literature is written in response to the state of society at the time, and literary theory and sociological theory are often  interchangeable.

And a key ‘term’ in sociology is socioeconomic status–a measure of class standing indicated by income, occupational prestige, and educational attainment.  It is, essentially, an individual’s relative position in society as measured by these factors.

I want to take this term and apply it to student performance in an educational setting (aka how students of a lower SES compare educationally with those of a higher SES), specifically focusing on how urban schools are faring with standardized testing and No Child Left Behind. 

For my information about this topic, I have subscribed (not without arduous processes, mind you) to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and BBC World News (the education feeds), as well as a general google feed about NCLB, and a blog-specific one.