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.
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 Chicago Public School Chicago
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 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
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. Arts Magnet School Burlington
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
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 Washington DC
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:
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.
Winerip, M. (2010, July 18). A popular principal wounded by government’s good intentions. Retrieved from http://www.sanders.senate.gov
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.