Inquiry Project

For my inquiry project, I have decided to explore the ways in which NCLB and standardized testing have effected the way English is taught.

While reading and writing are core subjects that are heavily emphasized, the implementation of standardized testing has changed the way teachers teach English. NCLB outlines very specific guildlines and expectations for teaching reading and writing; I wonder what, in the process of carrying them out, has been left out of the curriculum, what has been gained?

In order to answer these questions, I plan to interview High School English teachers, both at Arts High School and my own former high school, Harrison High. Some questions I will ask include:

• How long have you been teaching English?

• What is your overall opinion of NCLB?

• Did you teach English before the implementation of NCLB?

• If so, how has your experience teaching English changed since then?

• What, exactly, has NCLB been trying to get our students to learn in regards to Language Arts/Literacy?

• What do you feel about the expectations NCLB has for reading/writing instruction?[eg. are they realistic?]

• How have your instructional methods have been affected by the implementation of NCLB and standardized testing?

• In your experience, have the NCLB standards for teaching English been successful when implemented in the classroom?

• What changes would you make to NCLB/NJ Core Content Curriculum Standards in regards to Language Arts/Literacy?

I will start by researching the New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for Language Arts and Literacy. From there, I will have a better understanding of what the standardized tests are supposed to measure and how they are measured. After collecting the data from the high school English teachers, I hope to understand what impacts NCLB has had on the instruction of English. As a future English teacher, this question has been at the back of mind all semester, and I'm curious about what English teachers have to say about it.

Progress?

The British government has made sex education mandatory for all schools in England in an effort to curb its high teen pregnancy rate. About 39,000 girls under 18 became pregnant in 2006 — the highest rate in western Europe.

Children as young as five will receive lessons on topics such as body parts and reproduction, and subjects will become more sophisticated as children grow older.

Worldfocus

A Step in the Right Direction? I think so...
I guess we'll see how it turns out.



Election Countdown: 7 days! Anyone else as excited as I am?!

Character Education and NCLB

Last week in class, we read Westhaimer and Kahne’s Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals; in it, they described three models of good citizens. They are, in short:

• Personally Responsible Citizen – Displays good character, obeys laws, acts a certain way simply because it is the right thing to do.
• Participatory Citizen – Is knowledgeable about social issues and problems; actively participates in government (in groups) and takes leadership roles in “established systems and community structures.” (NOT activism)
• Justice Oriented Citizen – Gets at the root of problems in those systems and structures by asking questions and seeking change.

Some important questions raised by the article include: What is good character? Who makes the distinction between right and wrong? What happens when children receive conflicting messages about these distinctions?

The US Department of Education defines character as “a set of qualities, or values, that shape our thoughts, actions, reactions and feelings. People with strong character show compassion, are honest and fair, display self-discipline in setting and meeting goals, make good judgments, show respect to others, show courage in standing up for beliefs, have a strong sense of responsibility, are good citizens who are concerned for their community, and maintain self-respect.” According to the NCLB website, character education focuses on instilling “ethical values, moral values, virtues, character traits, or principles” such as “honesty, courage, perseverance, self-discipline, responsibility, integrity… caring, respect, empathy, trustworthiness, fairness, tolerance of diversity… good citizenship, patriotism, [and] justice.”

After doing some reading, I think No Child Left Behind reflects the first model of citizenship – the personally responsible citizen. As stated in the Aldridge text, in Title 1 of NCLB, there are provisions for preventative programs for children who are neglected or at risk and for school drop out prevention; Title 3 provides for smoke, gun, and drug free schools. These programs are part of an effort to instill good character, as defined by some of the values listed above– self-discipline, good judgment, courage in standing up for beliefs, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and trustworthiness. The AYP stresses the importance of attendance – the implementation of this is an example of teaching children to follow rules. There are so many more in schools: raising your hand, asking permission to get up or leave the room, etc.

Of course, many school programs are implemented to cultivate strong leaders (ex. National Honor Society, Peer Leaders, Teen PEP, etc.); still, the focus seems to be mainly on self-motivation and individual action. There doesn’t seem to be any effort to encourage children to question the world around them, they are simply encouraged to do their part to help.

I believe there is much room for improvement in NCLB’s stance on educating for citizenship. The framework present is a solid foundation from which to work; however, students need to be taught to go beyond what is outlined in NCLB. Rather than teach students to do the right thing, why not teach them to spot injustice and to work to change it? Sometimes it is not enough to simply acknowledge that there is a problem, or to minimize it – we have to eliminate it! In my humble opinion, a justice oriented citizen is a true democratic citizen, someone who unafraid to make progress and to be the voice of the oppressed. When public schools can make students thoughtful, courageous, and deliberate independent thinkers, that is when they will truly have produced “good” citizens.

References:

Aldridge, Jerry, and Goldman, Renitta. Current Issues and Trends in Education. Pearson, 2006.

Helping Your Child Become a Responsible Citizen

Character Education Abstract

Education and the Election

It’s important to look at the educational statistics in New Jersey – across the state there appears to be a significant disproportion in the numbers. Indeed across the city of Newark there is a discrepancy – the difference in numbers from Malcom X. Shabazz High School to Arts High School is astounding. Shabazz’s drop out rate is 4.5 times that of Arts! Nearly five times more Arts students than Shabazz students are proficient in HSPA Math and nearly two times more Arts students than Shabazz students are proficient in Literature. Although the two schools are in the same district, and both are allowed the same per pupil expenditures ($17,237), 10% less of the student population graduates from Shabazz and nearly 20% less plans on furthering their education. The neighboring town, Harrison (where I went to high school) has a much lower per pupil expenditure ($14,309). Although people generally assume that Newark public schools are sub par, Arts High’s HSPA scores are higher than Harrison High’s. Harrison has a higher graduation rate, but 8% less Harrison students plan to pursue higher education.

As future educators, looking at inconsistencies such as these can tell us a lot about what needs to be accomplished. We need to be able to work with what we’re given and be accountable for our shortcomings. How can two schools in the same district be so inconsistent? What are they doing differently from each other and why aren’t they both held to the same standards? More importantly, what can we, as a community (not just teachers, but administrators, parents, politicians etc.) do to give all Newark students the same educational opportunities?

I think a good place to start is at the very, very top of the chain of command. With a presidential election only two weeks away, it’s important to know what the candidates’ stances on educational policy are. Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to agree that schools are not where they should be, not just in Newark or New Jersey, but across the country.

Republican candidate McCain would add less than $1 billion dollars to the $70 billion education budget – he advocates making the best of what we have, and learning to spend more efficiently. Of NCLB, McCain has said it is, “A good beginning,” but we need to “improve it” by offering a wider range of “choice and competition.” Democratic candidate Obama believes the answer to our educational troubles is to allocate an additional $18 billion dollars a year in funding to schools, $10 billion of which would go preschool programs. He has said that, “"NCLB has demoralized our educators, broken its promise to our children and must be changed in a fundamental way." McCain’s critics have maintained that schools need more money in order to operate efficiently; indeed, when we look at districts such as Dallas (thanks, Edubabbler), their observations don’t sound too far-fetched. Obama’s critics have counter-argued that implementing his reforms would raise the federal deficit and that throwing more money at schools is pointless if they don’t know how to spend it wisely.

I won’t pretend to have the answers and cannot say who has the better plan; in fact, I think that’s irrelevant. What I will say is that the future of educational policy is at stake in this election. The two candidates have very different ideas about what reforms need to happen, and the future of educational policy rests in their hands.

References:

MALCOLM X SHABAZZ HIGH 2006-07 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

HARRISON HIGH 2006-07 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

ARTS 2006-07 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

Asimov, Nanette. “Big differences in candidates' education plans.” San Francisco Chronicle 20 Oct. 2008 . 21 Oct. 2008.

No Child Left Behind

In class last week, we discussed the history of educational reform in the United States, leading up to No Child Left Behind. One of the most interesting aspects of the conversation was when we discussed the reasons behind most of these reforms. It seems that major shifts in educational policy follow a radical cultural change or event: from the Emancipation of the slaves to the civil rights movement, the launch of Sputnik, the Space Race and the Cold War, to the Vietnam War and beyond, educational reform has been very reactionary. At the same time, many reforms have sprung out of a need to prepare students for the future, and, to be frank, to help them get better jobs.

Unfortunately, it seems as if the focus of these reforms is not where it should be. The issue here tends to be one of political and global power, rather than for the enhancement of education: how can we compete with other, more technologically advanced nations? The answer to this question has overwhelmingly been to provide more science, math, reading, and technology in schools, at the expense of everything else. While any effort to better our educational systems is certainly good for the country, we need to reexamine our intentions and the ramifications of these reforms.

It seems as though these reforms have been redundant, implementing the same methods and “answers” without much success. That raises the question of how this is possible – How can public policy makers not see that these methods don’t work? How have they been allowed to perpetuate these failures? Why are they so hesitant to try new ideas, and why haven’t we demanded more from them?

In 1983, when A Nation at Risk was published, the idea of who should be held accountable for the shortcomings of the public education system was brought forth. The National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) found it to be a collective societal problem, one in which everyone was to blame – teachers, administrators, parents, legislators, politicians, etc. However, when Ronald Reagan adopted the publication’s stance, he shifted the blame to the teachers alone, resulting in reforms and stricter regulations for teachers. Still, this didn’t tackle all the issues at hand, letting all other accountable parties off the hook for the time being.

Maybe it’s time to forget NCLB (aka The Texas Miracle, aka Goals 2000, aka America 2000). Maybe it’s time for the policy makers to be held accountable and maybe it’s time for the next generation of policy makers to step in and make the changes that need to be made. While NCLB undoubtedly had some great ideas and good intentions, it hasn’t really worked in practice; we need realistic goals and a way to successfully carry them out.

Arts High School

On September 24, I went to Arts High School for my orientation to the fieldwork component of my Public Purposes of Education course, and, I have to say, it was exciting. I truly felt like I was in my element - having been born and raised in Newark, it always feels good to go back. I had heard wonderful things about the school and it did not disappoint. The school has a friendly student body and welcoming faculty that made me feel very comfortable there. I just loved the feel of the place, and it made me eager to get involved with urban public schools.

I think the most important part of the visit, for me, was the interaction with the teachers. Arts High School has a large percentage of fairly young teachers; in fact one of the English teachers just graduated from Montclair State University in the spring of 2006 or 2007. For the first time, it hit home that in a few short years, it will be my turn to get out there and look for a job; it was refreshing to learn that teachers really do get hired right out of college. At the same time, it makes me a little bit anxious – will I really be ready to be a teacher in three years? I sure hope so…

The teachers at Arts High were full of good advice and had insightful perspectives to offer. We broke up into small groups with the faculty to ‘pick their brains’; it was a great chance to ask important questions. The history teacher who my group talked to addressed one of my ‘burning questions’: how can you get your students interested in a subject matter they care nothing about? As a history teacher in an arts school, he understood my fears and talked about the strategies he used to incite interest from his students.

It may be a bit early for me, but his advice got the wheels turning in my mind. I think the mark of a great teacher is to find a way for every student to relate to the material. Another teacher said something that really hit home for me: “If you have 30 different students, you need to have 30 different methods of teaching.” It’s not enough to know what you’re teaching and to be passionate about it – you have to make the students interested.

In all, I enjoyed Arts High School. It got me thinking about my future as an educator, and about everything I need to learn before I get there. Although I am only at the beginning of my journey there, I cannot wait to become a teacher, and I am truly looking forward to my experiences at Arts this semester.

The Implications of the Real Cost of Living in New Jersey

In New Jersey, minimum wage is $7.15 an hour. Working full time, that amounts to just over $14,000 a year. According to The Real Cost of Living 2008, in order for a single adult with no children to live self-sufficiently in New Jersey, they need to make roughly double that salary.

So, what, exactly, does that mean for education?

Ultimately, it's about the resources available to the family - it means that as long as people are living off of minimum wage, they will not be provided with the same educational opportunities as those who are better off than they. A single parent with two children who makes $14,000 a year simply cannot afford to make certain resources readily available to his or her children. When it comes down to whether to put food on the table or buy school supplies, which do you think a parent will choose? More than that, a community living below the federal poverty line cannot come up with the taxes necessary for proper resources or sufficient funding for public education. As teachers, we need to sift through the data given us, and make meaning of it in order to apply it to our teaching.

As someone who wants to teach in New Jersey, I recognize that this is a very serious problem because when a community must rely on federal funding for public education, suddenly politics become a part of our school. In order to keep that money coming we must make sure to keep the politicians happy. This means the curriculum has to reflect what the government wants us to teach, not what the students need to learn. Surely, we can all understand how dangerous this can be - for example, in an age when one in every four teenage girls in the US has a sexually transmitted infection, we cannot afford to teach our students abstinence-only sex education; still, in many cases, the schools are forced to choose between teaching only what they are told to, or not at all.

Also, this is where the implementation of standardized testing comes in. How can the government ensure that we're doing what they want us to do? By testing the students, of course. As we all know, however, that comes with an even greater price because now the focus of schools has shifted from the acquisition of knowledge and independent thought to the regurgitation of a bare minimum of information and a loss of creativity.


As a future English teacher, I cannot help but to resent this system of standardized testing. Learning to read well and write intelligently is vital to every student's development, regardless of their future plans. Unfortunately, the aim of English education has been reduced to passing a test, or reading, interpreting text, and writing the way the people who develop and score the tests think it should be done. This really frustrates me because there is never only one correct way to read a passage or write a sentence. What these standardized tests have done is to ensure that the students' individual expression and creative development is stifled, and in the end it all comes back to the same thing : money, resources, budgets, and funding.