A two year reflection and vision on Education

           At this moment I am in the final stages of a two year fulltime Master’s of Education Program at Johnson State College in Johnson Vt. I have spent the past twenty months studying educational practices, theories, laws, curriculum development, and adolescent development, etc… while either substitute teaching or conducting my own student teach. Everyday has brought new insight, new meaning and new experiences to my evolving educational background and skill set. Each day has presented new challenges, new meaning and new concerns for me personally and professionally. What hasn’t changed is my rediscovered love for the classroom, my commitment to helping young adolescents achieve academically and socially, and a sense of belonging in the classroom.

            From Piaget and Kohlberg, to Dewey, Gardner and Vygotsky etc… I have tried to find meaning and understanding that is relevant and applicable in my own life and my future professional life as an educator. I have gained insight and knowledge from each theorist. I have also gained much insight and knowledge from my Johnson State professors, my fellow students, my mentor teachers as well as my own experiences amongst high school students and middle school students. Twenty years of business experiences has also enlightened me on many of the nuances of leadership skills, management techniques, sales and relationship management skills. Eight years of public schooling, four years at a parochial high school and four years at a large state university have shaped both good and bad impressions of education on me. All of these experiences make up and explain who I am and where I am today.

            Although I don’t like labels, I would consider myself a bit of a constructivist. I believe in exploratory educational experiences that allow students the opportunity to uncover new understandings while at the same time offering them the support and guidance they need. I think the learning environment needs to be a safe place where students feel they belong. I believe education needs to involve real life experiences and the concerns of students. I believe education must hold meaning for students outside the walls of the school.

            From a curriculum standpoint I believe in the strength and the power of emerging curriculums. I think emerging curriculums offer students the best educational experiences for the dynamic world we live in. I believe students should have a say in what they learn and how they learn. Students need to be able to connect what happens in the classroom to the world around them. Relevance is a key component. I think curriculums need to be fully integrated in order to maintain a sense of continuity and understanding for students. Developing themes by the students would allow subjects of interest to be studied across all core studies.

            So you ask where I am at this time. I am in the now, and in the present. Students concerns are my concerns. My current experiences with school systems have shown me both the good and the bad of the public school machine. As we approach and entrust ourselves to a world of standardized testing, I see even more reasons to engage students on what they want or need to know and learn about. At the pace the world is changing, students need and deserve as many authentic learning experiences as possible.

            My teaching experiences have not been with true emerging curriculums, but rather district driven and standards based teaching processes. Personally, I have found it rich and rewarding to include student concerns as best as possible when managing a curriculum based on standards. The ever widening divide between teaching to standards versus teaching for understanding and character development makes everyday and every minute extremely valuable and precious. In order for students to become engaged, instruction needs to be based on the interests of students and assessments need to provide vital information for both student and teacher.

            From a professional growth standpoint my most pressing need today is experience in the classroom. I have tried to immerse myself in the culture of education, but nothing can replace real life experiences. The experiences I have had and will have will go great lengths in determining my own shortcomings or failures. Fortunately education affords us a daily reminder on what we need to improve and work on. Self reflections offer daily assessments of what went right and what went wrong. My own formal education will never stop. I believe teachers need to be involved with their own education all the time. Education does not end when the bells rings. As an educator it is my responsibility to bring initiative, passion, relevance and understanding to the classroom daily. Along with that, I need to understand and embrace the nature and needs of the young adolescents I aim to help educate. Only through time, experience, success and failure will I become the teacher I hope to be.

          

Class and Schools by Richard Rothstein

         Class and Schools by Richard Rothstein was an interesting book on education reform and social class disparity and its’ impact in education. Much of the beginning of the book was spent discussing disparities between white and black students in public education systems, as well as comparing and contrasting the disparities between lower and middle and class students across the spectrum of public education. The book concludes with suggestions to close the social class gap, and the benefits these suggestions may possibly have on educating students form lower class standings. Although the book begins with facts and statistics, the reforms Rothstein proposes are much more on the humanitarian level. Background knowledge as well as conditions at home has long been a concern of my own with students, so it was interesting to read a book that stressed some of my own concerns when discussing student achievement.

            From a Foundational Analysis standpoint Rothstein does a fine job of bringing the reader up to speed quickly from desegregation to current policies in education, education reform, and the ever popular topic, standardized tests as an instrument of measuring achievement. While coming to some of his conclusions, Rothstein even reaches back to early 19^th century England as well as pre-Civil War America and reflects on policies and attempts by both the British and Americans on educating students at an early age.            

            Rothstein then moves into the arena of standardized tests and the value America places on the exams. It appears he despises most of the tests findings and suggests that their results are not good indicators of knowledge. Non cognitive skills are not being evaluated on standardized tests. These skills are the skills companies are most readily complaining that job candidates no longer possess. Non cognitive skills were once a very important component to our public education system. The achievement gap demonstrated by the tests both by whites and blacks, as well as lower and middle class is not a good representation of the problem and the disparity between classes. Rothstein also argues that ranking schools or evaluating schools on the performance of tests by students misses much of what is important in schools. “They are of little use in assessing other important academic skills , like creativity, insight, reasoning, and the application of knowledge to unrehearsed situations- each a part of what a high quality school should teach” (Rothstein, 2004). Rothstein then examines NCLB and the many of the pitfalls evident with that policy. The concept of raising achievement of students below the proficiency level exacerbates the problem; below proficiency levels are lowered as well as teachers address only those struggling. Progress is only being measured of those who fail.

            “If students come to school in unequal circumstances, they will largely, although not entirely, leave schools with unequal skills and abilities, in both cognitive and non-cognitive domains” (Rothstein, 2004). Rothstein proposes six areas where if we focused, he concludes disparity amongst students of different social classes may be diminished or reduced. The areas require much more than qualified teachers, they require government involvement, a change in priorities, and funding. In order, Rothstein proposes addressing income inequality, stable housing for lower class families, school-community clinics, early childhood education programs, after-school programs, and summer programs. Each of these proposals are possible, but would require a massive change in policies. Like most proposals of reform, an overhaul of the existing system is needed. Rothstein systematically identified areas he proposes offer students and families of lower classes the best opportunities for advancement and achievement; a so-called leveling of the playing field for families of lower class. Ethically it is a wonderful plan.

            I enjoyed Class and Schools; it contains a lot of information about a lot of issues in schools today. I found the book relevant, educational and intriguing. Much of what Rothstein proposes in the end has a utopian feel to it, which makes the conclusion so scary. As a society I don’t think we are going to be able to address much of what is currently wrong. People have the uncanny knack of turning a blind eye to issues that are not directly in their back yard. In this case, helping those most in need again will again fall very short of addressing the real issues at stake.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools. Wasington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Rewarding Excellence

Foundational Analysis asks researchers to look at a situation over a period of time to gain a sense of its history, to evaluate and explain the value system being supported or perpetrated, and then ask ourselves what is ethically right to do about the situation. This paper examines the rewards clause in a Blueprint for Reform. Before analyzing the Blueprint, it is important to look a bit at the No Child Left Behind Act and the potential transition over to the Blueprint for Reform. Although it appears on the outside that many changes are required in transition from NCLB to a Blueprint, after a careful review of both Acts one could argue that the intentions of both Acts are actually quite similar, just the language has changed. A brief history will be explained, followed by a values summary and then an analysis followed by recommendations for educational reform.

History

 Although the Blueprint for Reform was proposed in its current form in 2010, its history dates back to 1965. Over the past forty six years our country has undergone various changes and challenges both domestically and abroad. What hasn’t changed much is our willingness to open the doors of our country to those seeking a better way of life, and better opportunities for their children. Public education is a key to this opportunity.

In March of 2010, President Obama’s administration released A Blueprint for Reform. The Blueprint was President Obama’s follow up to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which was enacted under former President George W. Bush in 2001. Both Acts are re-authorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The ESEA was enacted to help provide public school students; specifically those in underserved neighborhoods with funding for essential education programs. President Obama inherited a fiercely debated education policy in NCLB. The President’s own education policy or that of his administration has many of the same hot issues and topics.

            President Obama’s beginnings with education issues began in 2009. In February of 2009, Congress enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This Act was instituted to pump energy and money into the U.S. economy which was in the throes of a recession. The Act promised federal funding for public education as well. In July of the same year, President Obama enacted the Race to the Top (RTT); an education program based on reform. RTT was the beginnings of A Blueprint for Reform. Race to the Top asked States to submit radical plans of reform in education in order to receive federal funding. Radical may be an extreme term, but after 8 years of NCLB, RTT appeared to look differently at education. Race to the Top was met with mixed reviews; a Blueprint for Reform has also been met with mixed reviews.

            Due to the political framework of our country, every four years’ new policies are thrown at the public to embrace, uphold and trust. This is no different with the Blueprint for Reform. Where NCLB focused its attention on school and district accountability as well as high qualifications of teachers, the Blueprint focuses on rewarding performance, innovation and success of teachers. Where NCLB would look to identify weaknesses in schools, the Blueprint would rather celebrate successes at schools. Where NCLB looked to institute policies to ensure that highly qualified teachers would lead our students out of the fog, the Blueprint looks to reward highly effective teachers for getting our students through the fog. Yet both policies base much of their findings on the results of standardized testing. They also look for the institution of national standards. These are just a few of the issues, differences, and similarities between the two Acts’. They also demonstrate the lack of cohesion and direction of education policy in the United States.

It appears President Obama’s roots with performance based pay in education began back in Illinois with the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF). Arne Duncan the Secretary of Education was at one time the head of the Chicago Public School systems when Obama was Senator. Chicago embraced TIF. TIF or the Teacher Incentive Fund was instituted under George W. Bush. “Developed by the Bush Administration, TIF provides funding on a competitive basis to states and districts that implement performance-pay programs for teachers and/or principals in high-need schools” (Smarick, 2011). “This program supports efforts to develop and implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools” (U.S. Department of, 2006).

TIF was initially granted a 100 million dollar budget under the Bush administration. Under President Obama, TIF was increased by 200 million dollars. The roots of enhancing teacher pay per performance were actually initiated under George W. Bush’s administration, and embraced by Obama’s administration as well as by his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. When Senator Obama was seeking the presidential nomination back in 2007, he supported the teachers unions. By 2009, President Obama backed paying teachers on performance. So like all political battles, the ability to straddle an issue is paramount to receiving political approval.

 Overall, the Blueprint for Reform focuses on five stated objectives or priorities:

1.                  Producing college- and career-ready students through higher standards for all students, improved assessments, and a more broad academic program;

2.                  Developing and fostering more effective students and principals by "recognizing, encouraging, and rewarding excellence"; making access to effective teachers for equitable; and improving preparation, recruitment, and support for teachers and principals;

3.                  Fostering equality and opportunity for all students through "rigorous and fair accountability"; providing rewards for improving student outcomes; and supporting programs to help better meet the needs of all students, including ELL students and disabled students;

4.                  Raising standards and rewarding excellence through "innovative" reforms (via Race to the Top); expanding public school options through institutions like charter schools and "other autonomous public schools"; and improving access to accelerated courses (including university courses); and

5.                  Promoting improvements and innovations continuously through federal programs like the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) and other means (Nagel, 2010).

Values

 I believe President Obama’s administration favors and values capitalism.  I believe he has begun to take the first steps towards privatizing education. By instituting or proposing to institute rewards based on pay and funding he has initiated a capitalistic feature that does not belong in a democratic public school setting. Put a carrot in front of a horse and he’ll walk for miles. Reward effective teachers, principals, teachers and districts and they will produce the students our country needs. Challenge teachers to be better at what they do, and if their students perform better you will get a raise. Reward principals monetarily for effectively turning around lower performing schools. Reward innovations. Allow Charter Schools to compete for federal dollars that should be used to improve lower performing schools. The problem is public schools and public school teachers in the United States are not constructed or motivated by the capitalistic business model. Too many schools struggle with their budgets and are understaffed; offering rewards and incentives isn’t going to fix the problem. The real problem is at the foundation level and a Blueprint as is NCLB isn’t addressing the cracks in the foundation. Brick and mortar hold a building up. There will be nowhere to hang the plaques of achievement when the walls fall down. Much of the Blueprint is top dressing. Picking a dandelion head won’t stop the root from putting forth new blooms. The Blueprint needs to get to the root of the problem with public education in America.

The concept of rewarding excellence is gearing education reforms towards state and intra state competitions. American educators will be competing with their brethren over federal dollars that should be equally divided and distributed. The concept of one school competing with another school for funding appears to be detrimental to education on a whole. As any educator knows, disparities between schools, districts and states are tremendous, and the hurdles they present in some cases are insurmountable. Competition is a capitalist feature; it is not an educational feature.

Originally ESEA was created to help low performing schools and give students from underserved communities a chance at a good education. President Johnson determined that low income and minority students should have all the tools necessary to achieve academically. President Johnson felt these students were entitled to this opportunity. NCLB and the Blueprint have strayed so far from the original intentions of ESEA.

Where NCLB stresses accountability and quality in schools the Blueprint stresses competition, innovation and rewards for schools. Where NCLB singled out and ostracized low performing schools, the Blueprint looks to entice schools into a competition for funding. Both philosophies are quite unnerving.

“We’re making a big philosophical and strategic change with these grants. We’re moving away from formula grants-where everybody gets a little money- and to competitive ones where we can support people doing the best work. We want our scarce resources to leverage dramatic change, change that will accelerate progress for decades to come. The goal for the Race to the Top and Innovation funds is to reward applicants that have the courage, capacity and commitment to reform- real progress for children is what we care about”(Duncan, 2010).  U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Remarks to the National School Boards Association, Feb.1, 2010.

In a written statement, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel said he was "disappointed" by the administration's first effort to "rectify the considerable problems" in federal law. "What excited educators about President Obama's hopes and vision for education on the campaign trail has not made its way into this blueprint," he said. "We were expecting to see a much broader effort to truly transform public education for kids. Instead, the accountability system of this 'blueprint' still relies on standardized tests to identify winners and losers. We were expecting more funding stability to enable states to meet higher expectations. Instead, the 'blueprint' requires states to compete for critical resources, setting up another winners-and-losers scenario. We were expecting school turnaround efforts to be research-based and fully collaborative. Instead, we see too much top-down scapegoating of teachers and not enough collaboration."

He continued: "The public knows that struggling schools need a wide range of targeted actions to ensure they succeed, and yet the Administration's plan continues to call for prescriptions before the actual problems are diagnosed. We need proven answers along with the deep insight of the experienced professionals who actually work in schools” (Nagel, 2010).

From an organized labor standpoint, it’s interesting to see the Obama administration wave the golden nugget in front of a constituency that is pro-labor. Most of the teaching profession in public schools is organized labor, and organized labor has been at odds with capitalistic virtues for over a hundred years. When discussing merit based pay, or performance based pay, it is important to recognize the impact this could have on the teacher unions. Typically, pay in education is based on years of service, and personal education achieved. Teachers have not looked for pay based on students’ academic performance. By initiating this policy, or attempting to initiate this policy, collective bargaining agreements of teachers would be challenged.

Although organized labor and capitalists have worked together for years; the values each upholds are vastly different. Labor supports democracy and equality while capitalism supports profit and individual goals. The Blueprint for Reform is empowering public education to embrace capitalistic goals which runs contrary to the systems in place in most democratic public schools. This problem gets overlooked because states need federal money for public education, and in order to get it, you have to perform to standards dictated by both federal and state government.

Teaching is not a performance based occupation. Teaching is an art; it is the ability to engage a mind to think about things in different lights and forums. Teaching is about making an impact, striking a nerve, or inciting fervor. Teaching is about helping kids become better people and to understand their responsibility to the world around them. Teaching and schools represent the Democratic principles this country was founded on. Public education cannot be transformed into a business model.

Analysis

The Blueprint states, “We will celebrate the Reward states, districts, and schools that do the most to improve outcomes for their students and to close achievement gaps, as well as those who are on the path to have all students graduating or on track to graduate ready for college and a career by 2020”(Obama, 2010). The rewards again go to those who adhere to the philosophy being proposed by the federal government, not the teachers, educators and administrators making the difficult choices on a daily basis. Instead of fixing what is wrong with public education, we’re rewarding states, districts and schools for assimilating their values, to those proposed the Federal Government. The flaws of this thinking are very clear.

The concept of rewarding teachers is unusual. Most teachers or educators get involved with education because they believe in it. They believe in its value. They believe students deserve a well rounded education. They believe students should have the opportunity to try new things in a safe environment. The sense of accomplishment when students achieve an understanding is the reward many educators look for. Education for teachers is not about the money, if it was, most would have never have entered the profession. Teachers currently share information amongst each other. If a teacher knew his or her performance was going to be rewarded monetarily, would he or she be so willing to divulge and share that information with colleagues? In the business world the answer would be no. In the proposed new business environment of education, the answer most likely would no as well. Education requires collaboration and reflection, rewarding teachers monetarily would harm the system in place.

Some of the flaws of rewarding excellence in teachers are the evaluation systems in place. What do these evaluations consist of? Currently most teacher evaluation systems do not provide proper feedback to the teachers themselves. Very few teachers I know have ever had an administrator in class, much less an evaluator. What criteria are being used to determine what an effective teacher is doing versus an ineffective teacher? Teachers today are being judged on the scores of their students on standardized tests, not on the effectiveness of teaching the Bill of Right’s. Rewarding teacher’s on the backs of students makes little sense, especially considering all the different factors that impact students on standardized testing. Educators already know a standardized test is not a good evaluation of what students know. They also know a student’s background goes far in determining a student’s success on the test.

The idea of enticing talented teachers to underprivileged communities via the paycheck is absurd as well. Why not invest in the school, and invest in a policy that is appropriate for that school. Teachers are not mercenaries, they are educators. To think a recognized educator would leave a public school he or she works at to move to a distressed public school because of a few thousand dollars is absurd. NCLB did everything in its power to embarrass these schools. Why would a teacher chase a few dollars more to work in a school that may be shut down? All schools need proper resources and proper footing.

The rewarding principal’s idea is foolish as well. Currently principals are not trained in business turn around methods. Principals are trained in administration, management, education and curriculum. A school is not a business venture, it’s a learning institution, and its’ responsibilities are to those who attend. An example below will highlight the problems of being a principal at an underperforming school by standardized tests criteria.

 Ms. Joyce Irvine was a principal at Wheeler Elementary School in Burlington VT. Her school is a low performing school according to both Blueprint and NCLB standards. Of Wheelers 39 fifth graders, 37 are either refugees or special education students. Ms Irvine was removed as principal because her students did not score well on the standardized tests. Ms. Irvine spent most of her time transforming Wheeler to an Arts Magnet School. Ms. Irvine was respected by her colleagues, her faculty, her students and her community. Ms. Irvine was removed as principal because Burlington District was looking for 3 million dollars in federal money. In order for Burlington to qualify for the funding, Ms. Irvine had to be removed per requirement of NCLB/ Blueprint concerning under-performing schools. Now Ms. Irvine had the guts to change the school to benefit its students, yet was still ousted due to the results of standardized test. Ms. Irvine by all accounts should not have been removed from her job. Her students came from different ethnic, cultural and racial backgrounds. Ms Irvine embraced the diversity and challenges at Wheeler, yet the school district needed the funding (Winerip, 2010). The money Burlington District will receive is not going to address the challenges at Wheeler. The money will buy more books, teachers and educators, but is won’t compel someone to take on the challenges at Wheeler, when it’s quite possible that testing will not improve due to the make up of the school’s student body. I use this example because the Blueprint is rewarding immediate success, not well thought out administrative plans that are going to take time. If principals are going to be fired because of test results, then why not properly train them in methods to turn around underperforming schools.

The conundrum of this rewards policy is how you are ever going to attract effective teachers and principals to lower performing schools if the process and requirements are so stacked against the teachers and principals themselves. The standardized scores of students are determining the rewards to the schools. That is no way to remedy or fix the educational problem at hand and handing people a few extra paychecks is not the solution either.

The fostering innovation policy is bothersome as well. If we know students in underperforming communities are doing poorly in school, then why don’t we fix the schools versus allowing Charter Schools to proliferate? Public Schools should not have to compete with Charter Schools for Federal and State dollars. States should be responsible for cleaning up their underperforming schools and implementing plans of restructuring. These plans take time, but if they are developed, implemented and administered correctly from the first place than change will occur. Patience is demanded here. Expanding public school choice is not the answer. This policy does little to fix the problems; it just offers incentives to individuals to enter the realm of public education and hopefully impact it positively. The truth is these new schools could potentially do more harm than good.

What’s even more troubling about the Charter School movement is the lack of evidence that this idea or policy is correct? Charter Schools have been around for a number of years, but their success ratio has been fairly apathetic. Entrusting students futures from underperforming schools with new schools that have no legacy is a lot scarier to me as an educator than attempting to fix a school already established either good or bad.

Recommendations

Public Education finds itself on the hot seat. Our government claims that our children are not being prepared for the world around them. The term global marketplace is repeatedly used and emphasized. The government claims our children are slowly but surely falling behind the students of foreign nations. Our Universities still host and enroll the brightest from around the world, yet our public schools are failing our own kids. Our country spends billions of dollars in the name of democracy outside the boundaries of our country, yet makes our own states beg and plead for funds to improve the educational experience of our children.

 Somewhere along the line, standardized tests became the norm. In order to succeed in life and to be successful, you must score well on standardized tests. Educators have already proven that if you teach to the test, scores will improve. But educators also know that teaching to a test, does not guarantee that a student has the necessary tools to be successful in life outside of school. And yet, another presidency is upon us, and another agenda is thrown at public schools.

What should we do as educators? We should tell President Obama his Blueprint for Reform pits citizens and teachers against each other. We should tell President Obama that real reform doesn’t happen with carrots and gold, but in the schools themselves, where thousands of teachers labor daily trying to educate our children on becoming worthwhile contributors to our great country. We should tell President Obama that he should speak with those on the battle lines, those in the poorest schools and towns of the country. Ask those schools, teachers, students and parents what is needed. Educational policies need to be lasting. They cannot be the means of political agenda’s and movements. Education needs to be mainstream, not Republican, Democrat or Independent. Education needs to be fair, cohesive, consistent, relevant and worthwhile. Education needs to be policed by educators. Education needs to be constructive.

 Effective teachers are not teachers who teach to the tests. Effective teachers are those who protect and revere a child’s education. Yes teachers need to be evaluated better. Yes, teachers need to be held accountable, but no, teachers can’t be held accountable or deemed worthwhile due to the results of standardized testing. If it’s decided that teachers should be, then let teachers teach to the tests and remove the hypocrisy of these political agenda’s. Apparently Washington no longer trusts its’ teachers. Washington DC has decided the future of education lies in the gimmicks of effectiveness and innovation. In two years President Obama could possibly be removed from office, what happens then? Will education programs be gutted again? Will teachers be held at fault again? Will public schools become the domain of slick talking, results oriented charter schools that lack the cumbersome mechanisms of a traditional public school? For the most part, the public funds the workings of the public school systems. Let the public or the people who carry the burden be in on the decisions regarding public education. If we are still considered a Democracy, let the people who carry the burden of education for their children have a say in what is deemed a proper education. Every new leader has an agenda; President Johnson had it right when he set out to help the underserved. Let’s get back to the model that was beneficial to those in need.

Proposals for Reform

·         Institute policies for mandatory continuing teacher education programs.

·         Increase teacher pay programs.

·         Train teachers to be more effective daily.

·         Move away from standardized testing and institute a growth model.

·         Make education democratic.

·         Principal preparation programs should include formal studies of school turnaround and should emphasize leadership qualities.

·         Identify and implement plans of reconstruction at schools in need of help.

·         Utilize the vast resources of colleges and universities and invite them into the plan of re-awakening the public school system.

·         De-politicize the Education Department, and construct an Independent entity.

·         Increase Federal spending on public education.

·         Institute state-wide programs geared to helping struggling schools implement change.

References:

U.S. Department of Education, Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs. (2006). Teacher incentive fund (84.385A). Washington,DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.2.ed.gov

Smarick, A. (2011). Diplomatic mission. Education Next, 11(1), Retrieved from http://educationnext.org

Nagel, D. (2010). Obama's esea blueprint continues emphasis on assessment. The Journal, 3. Retrieved from http://the journal.com

Obama, B. U.S. Department of Education, (2010). A blueprint for reform Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.2ed.gov

Winerip, M. (2010, July 18). A popular principal wounded by government’s good intentions. Retrieved from http://www.sanders.senate.gov

Duncan, A. U.S. Department of Education, Secretary of Education. (2010). Investing in education: secretary arne duncan's remarks to the national school boards association Washington,DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://2.ed.gov

Article #15

           The Folly of Merit Pay is an article written by Alfie Kohn. I looked at the article because it was written in 2003, two years after NCLB was administered. In the article, Kohn attacks the myths of merit based pay, and the problems associated with it. It appears merit based pay has been around education for a long time; it just hasn’t been readily accepted or used. Kohn proposes four distinct reasons merit based pay will not work.

            The first condition is Control. Merit based pay is a proposed by bureaucrats, administrators and districts. It becomes a top down dressing which moves accountability from the district, state and government and places the results of test scores squarely on the shoulders of teachers. Not only is this not fair, it doesn’t even include the people that are delivering the message daily. It is patronizing to teachers.

            The second condition is Strained Relationships. The merit based pay causes teachers to compete with teachers. Competition in schools amongst teachers is not a good thing; teachers are less likely to share information. Teachers philosophically are not geared towards competition, and the affects of one teacher receiving a bonus and another not outweigh the positive of an increase in pay.

            The third condition is Reasons and Conditions. The premise that teachers need a gold nugget waived in front of them is demeaning and insulting. Gold nuggets don’t take into account the actual problems in the system. Teachers get involved for the “aha” moments.

            Last but not least, the fourth condition deals with Measurements. Kohn stresses it’s possible to evaluate good teaching practices, but it is tremendously difficult to establish criteria equating what is considered good or bad teaching. What becomes even a greater problem is the use of test scores to determine good and bad teachers. If test scores are being used as criteria, how could someone expect to be attracted to a school in tough shape? Again, good teaching is tough to measure by quantitative factors.

            What Kohn is suggesting is being valued here is the corporate business model we’ve been discussing in class for the past two weeks. Kohn talks about telling Fortune 500 companies to pay their employees well pay them fair and then try and get them to forget about their pay in general. It’s a good idea but extraordinarily difficult to do. Corporate America is built upon competition.

            The problem isn’t with the teachers, although some should be thrown out. The problem is with the system of education currently in use in the United States. We are not Chinese, Japanese, Swedes or Scots; we are Americans trying to do best by our children and students. Pitting our students against students of other countries is nonsense. Our responsibility is to help students’ acquire the problem solving skills that life will demand of them. Our responsibility is not to make them proficient at filling in the dots.

Kohn, A. (2003, September) Education Week: The Folly of Merit Pay. Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org

Article #14

            Poor Teaching for Poor Children was an article written by Alfie Kohn. It looks at the exploitation of low income students by NCLB as well as A Blueprint for Reform. The aims of both plans being to divert public funds to charter schools, pit states against each other in pursuit of federal funds, offer rewards to states when test scores go up and fire teachers and close schools when they don’t go up.

            The article attacks the policies of the past and present administration stating that things have gotten worse for the poor. The act of teaching in these communities or areas has regressed even more. Teachers preach, test for factual information, punish noncompliance and assign work as punishment. The experience for most students in these low-income neighborhoods is much different from the experience in suburban and private school settings. Very little enlightenment is occurring for student of low-income backgrounds.

            Achievement gaps demand better scores. Teaching skills are being defined by the ability to raise these scores. Many students in low income communities are being trained by worksheets, rote memorization and a rewards system. Very little teaching is done by teachers. Studies show black students are schooled by worksheets more than white students. Computers are used less frequently as well. Suburban students learn to interrogate and reflect on reality, low income inner city students learn to accept and be quiet.

            The article goes into further details about the disparity between the poor, middle class and the rich students in the United States. What becomes obviously clear is that students from low income neighborhoods are not being prepared properly by public schools. The current systems in place are similar to those of big business. Competition and rewards based on achievement. It is hard to educate children from under privileged communities when many of the basic needs of a proper education are already missing. Teaching to tests is nearly impossible in these instances as well. United States has become big business. We put people from different backgrounds and experiences in the same situation and expect better results from everyone. We are valuing compliance, competition and the gold nugget.

            As we’ve discussed in class while dissecting NCLB as well the Blueprint, teaching is no longer occurring in the classes of America. We have begun a process of evaluating our students against students of other countries. Due to the standardization of curriculums across America, all students are expected to perform to the same standard being used nationwide. This does little for students of low income backgrounds. The playing fields are so uneven, only the brightest from the poor stand a chance. What we should be doing is evaluating schools using a growth model where students can be measured against themselves. The lead horse is the only horse in the race.

Kohn, A. (2011, April). Poor Teaching for Poor Children, Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php

Article #13

           This particular study looked at “Distance Education: A route to family and school partnerships”. This study was commenced in MA, and focused on Mass Interaction’s attempts to educate poor immigrant families in life skills using the television and free television programs aimed at helping families better prepare children at home for skills they will need at school.

            Mass Interaction produced two educational programs. Both focused on three themes; family culture in teaching and learning, the home as a learning environment, and family and community values. The first program was called “Taking the First Steps” and focused on educating toddlers and preschoolers. The second program was named “Building Bridges” and focused on educating primary school students. The programs were designed to be aired live with listener call in participation, and a variety of support staff available. The programs focused on early literacy, and the role the home experience can have in improving the future lives of young learners. The programmers felt distance education on television was an optimum medium to reach into households and educate families about ways of supporting early learning and literacy development.

            “Taking the First Steps” supports parents as teachers, and helps parents realize the tools available every day at home for an educational experience without the structure of formal education. It’s focused on a diverse population and offers a real hand on approach. It utilizes current theory and research to support its advice and conclusions.

            “Building Bridges for Excellence” focuses on primary grade aged students. Again it has many of the same goals and initiatives of “Taking the First Steps” but focuses more on the primary grade student. The program stresses the home as a learning environment and stresses family and community values.

            What is being valued here is the family as an educational tool. Parents and guardians need to take a vigilant approach to their children’s at home. Both programs stress daily routines most families go through that propose perfect opportunities to educate young children. Many modern families feel under siege the study suggests. Dual working parents, not enough quality home time, illiteracy etc… were all common concerns expressed by young families. These issues contributed to a sense of inadequacy amongst some small families. These programs aimed to help families feeling this way.

            I think the idea behind the programs is respectable. Taking home lessons via the television is not a bad idea. Cooking programs proliferate, why can’t education programs for families work. The values being thrust here are based on the family as a learning unit. Education needs to begin at home; you can’t expect schools to have the ability to remedy poor educational experiences at home. Education begins first and foremost in the household.  Again the concept it takes a village to raise a child is evident here.

            Ethically, all parents should know that education begins in the household. By making children understand how the household works and runs can go a long way to educating students daily in literacy etc… Education requires the family unit to be actively involved from the beginning of a child’s life. These programs were designed to help families understand that education can be as simple as an exercise in feeding the birds, setting a table or asking for something to eat. Everyday, families must utilize the tools at their disposal to educate their children in a positive healthy way.

Breitborde, M., & Swiniarski, L. (2002). Family Education and Community Power: new structures for new visions in the educational village. Educational Studies (03055698), 28(3), 305-318. doi:10.1080/0305569022000003744

Article #12

           This is a wonderful article about two strategies for helping students and families in low income communities. I have broken the article down into two papers because there were two very distinct procedures undertaken to help the students and families in the particular study.

            The first study was about the “Partnership for the Educational Village” which took place in Lynn, MA. The partnership was a strategic alliance between Salem State College and the Robert L. Ford Elementary School in Lynn Ma. The Ford School is a public school; Salem State is a MA state college. Salem State is located about eight miles north of Lynn.

Lynn MA is a very poor industrial city north of Boston. It once boasted shoe factories, textile mills and other early 20^th century industries. Currently there is a GE manufacturing plant in Lynn. For the most part Lynn is made up of immigrant families from Latin America, South America, Cape Verde etc… At the turn of the 20^th century Irish, Poles and Italians made up much of the Lynn labor force. Historically, Lynn has always welcomed and embraced immigrants. The economic problems in Lynn are extensive; there are not many jobs in Lynn. The social problems are just as extensive; poverty, ill health, illiteracy, substance abuse, violence and trauma plague Lynn.

The first half of the study focuses on the Ford school, the Lynn Family Support Coalition and Salem State. Dr. Claire Crane is the principal at the Ford school. The Ford school is located in a tough neighborhood of Lynn. Hungry, poor students represent the majority of the student population. Students’ needs are off the charts. Poverty is the biggest inhibitor to a proper education. The family structures cannot offer the support the adolescents need to be successful. Dr Crane took an unusual approach to this issue. She reached out to Salem State’s Education Dept as well as their Nursing Dept. to enlist the help of higher education with her local problems. Dr. Crane recognized the value in using a village to rear a child properly. By enlisting the help of higher education, Dr. Crane began the process of helping the entire family unit. The Ford School became the hub of the education, health, and opportunity not just for the students themselves, but for the family unit as well. By reaching out into the community, and enlisting help from various businesses, foundations, as well as federal and state grants, Dr Crane began helping her students, their families and the local community. Suddenly, an elementary school became the hub for social, academic and health help. With Dr Crane’s help families were getting help they needed begin helping themselves. This evolution continued to move out into the community itself.

Salem State offered all types of programs free of charge to the parents and siblings of the families of the Ford School. Life skills, intergenerational math skills, family science and family literacy programs were all sponsored weekly. The Ford project offered Salem State the opportunity to have its’ students participate in real life situations. The Salem students benefitted both academically and socially from the exposure and the experience of working with immigrant families in difficult situations.

The value of Dr. Crane’s mission was invaluable. She took education single handedly to a new height. Recognizing that the State and our Government were failing the people of Lynn, Dr Crane used a grass roots approach to improving the quality of lives of not only her students but their families. Realizing that education starts first and foremost amongst family members, Dr Crane reached into the families to make sure the proper tools were there in order for her students to succeed.

Ethically Dr Crane did all that one could do in her position. She went far beyond the call of duty by educating whole families. She built a school into a community center, a place where people could find answers too many problems faced by immigrant families. She provided a safe environment where students, families and all parts of the community were welcome.

Breitborde, M., & Swiniarski, L. (2002). Family Education and Community Power: new structures for new visions in the educational village. Educational Studies (03055698), 28(3), 305-318. doi:10.1080/0305569022000003744

Article #11

            Botswana is a country located in southern Africa. It is a landlocked country. Botswana is a mineral rich democracy that gained its independence in 1966. This article deals with Botswana’s attempt to teach democracy to its students. The article looked at pre-service and in-service education of Social Studies Teachers in Botswana.

            Historically Botswana was a colony of England prior to its independence. Prior to England it had tribal attributes. For 100 or so years Botswana had traditional English teaching of English and Arithmetic. Students had Christian names as well. Since 1966 Botswana has embraced democracy. In 1977 Botswana produced the Education for Social Harmony a document that listed an itemized five aspects of democracy that all Botswana students should be educated in and on.  This article looked at the abilities of pre-service and in-service educators when teaching democracy. The teachers were evaluated from May through July over a 3 year period.

            The government wanted specific areas of Botswana and democracy taught. Curriculum should teach the democratic institution, and should incorporate practical experiences of a democratic institution. Natural resources were taught. Botswana self reliance concepts were taught. National identity and unity was taught.

            After evaluating 72 Social Studies teacher it was evident that teachers themselves had trouble teaching to this platform. Democracy was difficult to teach. A lack of African texts by African authors was evident. Teacher student ratios were inadequate. A lack of interaction with community leaders was evident. Funding was an issue as well as proper training for teachers pre-service. All of these issues were apparent with the findings of the survey. On another note, teachers thought they did a good job teaching Botswana democracy, however the evaluations of supervising teachers were not as supporting.

            This was an interesting article with interesting issues. Coming from an established Democracy, it’s easy to see what’s at play here. Botswana is looking to educate its people on the virtues of democracy. A country with its people behind it is better than a country without its people. It was interesting to notice a lack of training in other forms of government from a contrasting standpoint. The more we open the eyes of students to the world around them, the better off we’ll be in allowing people to form their own opinions and judgments’. Too much of a good thing can be an issue, and this focus on Democracy may have its pitfalls moving forward.

Adeyemi, M. (2002). An Investigation into the Status of the Teaching and Learning of the Concept of Democracy at the Junior Secondary School Level in Botswana. Educational Studies (03055698), 28(4), 385-401. doi:10.1080/0305569022000042408

Article #10

          This article was found in Educational Studies 2002. The article looked at respect amongst three groups. The first group was comprised of all the people at a particular family center in England. The second group was a project group of young individuals who all had some criminal involvement activity. The third group was mostly professionals of various backgrounds and ethnicities. The author or researcher was attempting to understand the concept of respect and what is meant to various peoples. From an educational standpoint I think the author was trying to determine better ways to interact with young adolescents.

            Three groups were interviewed extensively. If interviewees did not want to participate verbally they had the opportunity to participate via surveys and written questions. The researcher/author was attempting to understand respect and what it meant to people in different situations.

            Two distinct interpretations were determined. Respect for some meant proper recognition due to a particular social standing; teacher student. The other meaning was based on regard and attention. The family centre afforded students, workers and staffs a mutually respectful environment. Everyone was on a first name basis, and people’s views and opinions were valued. This was determined via interviews. The pilot project participants looked at the acrimonious relationships developed at school for most of the participants. The participants implied teachers employed power techniques and demanded respect. The third group identified various manners respect was afforded adults.

            It was apparent respect meant something different for a lot of people. When dealing with adolescents, it became apparent that less formal was better. Listening and paying attention was achieved easier in situations that afforded adolescents mutual standing. The project center had success because formalities and titles were not used. This informal atmosphere lent itself to a positive social environment for all the participants.

            This was an interesting study. Having worked at a school that employs a first name rule for all students, faculty, administration and staff, I could see the benefits of teacher student interaction on a regular basis. Students loved saying hello in the halls, on the fields and in class. Whether this is a direct result of using first names I don’t know, but parts of this study would confirm that some young adolescents thought it was valuable and afforded them equal status or mutual respect. The question remains though is respect something that is earned or afforded. I’m a fan of affording it until it isn’t warranted.

Jones, H. F. (2002). Respecting Respect: exploring a great deal. Educational Studies (03055698), 28(4), 341-352. doi:10.1080/0305569022000042381

Article #9

           This was another article regarding education outside of the United States. This article focused on team collaboration in four distinct schools that were respected for their creativity and collaborative approach. The researcher used previous data as well as new data collected by surveying teachers at the four selected schools. Team collaboration was embraced by the majority of those surveyed. This study looked to determine what were the negative connotations associated with collaboration.

            Team approaches are currently in favor in Australia. The benefits to both students and teachers outweigh the negatives researchers suggest. The study looked at previous findings and mingled them with current findings at four separate schools. Each of the four schools selected were very different from each other, except the fact that they all employed team collaboration.

            Collaboration or a democratic approach to teaching is favored here. The benefits to educator and pupil far out weigh the negatives. The negatives associated with collaboration were interesting but also disturbing. The main objective to collaboration was the educators were basically silenced. Dissent and debate are basically silenced due to a majority accepting conformity to norms and practices. So although the majority sees all the benefits of collaboration such as; morale, moral support, teacher learning, the minority saw the loss of autonomy as detrimental to their own pursuit of better teaching practices.

            What to do? I’m not sure. I’ve seen the benefits and shortfalls of team teaching. The negatives seem to stick out stronger than the benefits to me. This article seems to suggest further studies are necessary for a better understanding of the problems associated with team teaching. What is certain however is that people will always a particular view either negative or positive on a hot button subject. Team teaching or teacher collaboration is one of those topics. It’s obvious by reading this article/study that plenty of more research is necessary to determine the good and the bad of team teaching.

Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies (03055698), 29(4), 337-350. doi:10.1080/0305569032000159651

Foundations Article #8

           This article looked at Scottish Schools and the presence of additional adults in the classroom along with a supervisory teacher. This article takes a look at the role of the teacher, as well as the impact other adults have in classroom. These other adults would be considered special educators or para educators in the United States. Scotland has a firm policy on inclusion and this paper attempts to look at the role teachers have in delegating authority to other adults and making sure the classroom functions in an optimum manner.

            Traditionally classes in Scotland have one teacher per classroom. With inclusion came the appearance of support personal for special needs students. These support personnel are not always trained in education. Lots of veteran and novice teachers are not trained in supervisory or management roles of adults. Teaching has long been seen as a solitary profession. With the emergence of special needs and inclusion in classrooms, lead teachers need to know how to adequately meet the needs of diverse learners.

            The paper identifies management themes that are particularly important for classroom success. The supervisory teacher needs to be able to tailor classroom work for diverse learners. The teacher needs to be able to communicate this to the supporting teacher. The supervisory teacher needs to provide direction to supporting personnel. The supervisory teacher needs to be able to train and coach supporting personnel, especially those with no former educational training background. The supervisory teacher must also act as a motivator for both students and adults, and must be willing to share insights on dealing with students with conduct difficulties. Lastly, the supervisory teacher must act like a supervisor. Traditional thoughts on teaching have been a teacher is responsible for administering lesson plans, but that idea needs to be expanded. Teachers are the classroom supervisors, they need to reach everyone in the classroom and they are responsible for making sure students and adults alike understand the direction the class is going and why.

            The paper tells us what teachers should be doing in 21^st century Scotland. The role of a teacher has changed. A teacher needs to make sure students, special educators and para’s all know what is on the agenda. The teacher needs to make sure support personal are aware of the expectations and be able to communicate those expectations to all personnel involved. It would seem this is all part of the job to begin with, but the concept of teaching being a solitary job is apparently part of the problem.

Calder, I., & Grieve, A. (2004). Working with other adults: what teachers need to know. Educational Studies (03055698), 30(2), 113-126. doi:10/1080.0305569032000159778

Foundations Article #7

         This exercise of reviewing articles on Foundational Issues needs to be improved a bit. I have spent 5 hours today reading articles from Educational Studies from 2006 and 2005. I have written one response to one article that was a bit more of a case study than an analysis. Time is a precious commodity and I find this particular part of the classroom expectations difficult because I’m spending too much time looking for an article that is of value. That being said this article I’m reviewing deals with the lack of interpersonal skill training in professional teacher programs and suggests some ways at looking at particular situations.

            After two years of graduate classes and a semester of student/teaching, I am a bit surprised at the lack of classroom instruction regarding classroom management and interpersonal skill development. Most of my classes have focused on instruction, assessment and theories. The policies of classroom management is something an individual must develop a bit on his or her own, but there should be some basic concepts regarding the do’s and don’ts of classrooms in the millennium. However, that is not the crux of this article, this article attempts to address interpersonal skill development and training, which is something I have very little education in. Typically I have regarded skills of that sort as a development of one’s own identity, not a course in learning to empathize and communicate.

            The premise of this article is that more formal education in relationship management and teachers and educators will have the abilities to deal with real life situations as they present themselves in the classroom. This article acts in a reactionary manner, not in a preventive manner. It lists seven tools the authors find valid when dealing with classroom conflicts. The authors are educators as well, and used experience and discussions with other teachers to develop these seven suggestions.

I think the idea is valid. I do believe classes in classroom management and possibly psychology may help some teachers deal with their students. My own experiences have shown that you never quite know what’s behind the next door during the day so experience and exposure to different situations is important. I also think that interpersonal skills are extremely difficult to teach. It’s an inherent skill that needs to be developed personally. You can’t teach the essence of understanding, empathy, compassion and conflict resolution. Only exposure to different situations allows you to learn and experience the different ways people react when put in certain situations.

 Stemler, S., Elliott, J., Grigorenko, E., & Sternberg, R. (2006). There’s more to teaching than instruction: seven strategies for dealing with the practical side of teaching 1. Educational Studies (03055698), 32(1), 101-118. doi:10.1080/03055690500416074