The main purpose of this blog was about how America's children are not able to compete globally and how CEO's want to change the standards throughout all schools in order to make the children more prepared. The NAEP and the CEOs want to give a different assessment test to children instead of using the state assessment which they feel is inadequate. The article states that CEO's are in the best position to call for these changes because they are the future employers of the children. The article explained that many states are reluctant to make changes because they have lulled themselves as well as the children's parents into a false sense of security. The changes that the CEO's and the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) want to make are focused in two key areas; math and reading. These are apparently the only subjects that matter to the CEO's. While they say no one test can paint the whole picture, they believe that this assessment is more accurate. However, the NAEP test is very different from state tests, and students flip-flop on their scoring in many states. Massachusetts scored higher on NAEP, while Tennessee scored higher on state assessments.
This article relates to class because of our discussion on globalization, globalization "From Above" and globalization "From Below, as well as standardized testing's effectiveness. The CEO's, with a globalization "From Above", are trying to dictate how America's children learn. They want schools to focus even more on math and reading, subjects that are almost entirely the focus already. This relates to when we talked about jobs moving overseas as well because Americans cannot compete economically with the cheap labor supplied elsewhere. Companies simply do not want to pay their workers as much. The CEOs of this country are trying to change that by making the tests more rigorous and making students capable of competing with the likes of China and Finland. This also relates to the standardized testing discussion we had. The article discussed how one test cannot measure a student's ability completely, yet they are using one to determine America's progress.
I disagree with this strategy. While I believe it is a good thing that we are trying to better compete with other countries, I don't believe a standardized test is the answer. Even if it was a good measuring tool of progress, simply telling a student they are inadequate does not make them any more prepared to compete in the global economy. In fact, I believe it may be even more discouraging. Also, I don't believe that this globalization "From Above" strategy is going to be effective either. CEOs do not understand the students in every region of the U.S. How could they? The culture of the region plays a huge impact on their education and can only be understood by a member of that community.
I believe that the author comes from a teacher-centered, teach for the test approach. They advocate improving reading and math scores. This means one thing for poorer schools; teaching for the test. This is ineffective in doing anything except putting up a false front of success. If we want our children to have anything other than the ability to do well on ONE test, we must teach them through other strategies.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
(http://blog.coreknowledge.org/, April 11, 2011, "What Do Teachers "Produce?)
This article that the blogger posted was written by Diana Senechal. The main purpose of the article was questioning the idea that effective teachers produce higher salaries for their students. Apparently, according to labor data, students who score in the 84 percentile in high school test performance can expect to earn up to 10 to 15% more than those who do not. Senechal suggests that most of the students who score well probably have always scored well, and therefore it is not the "effective" teacher that produces the score. Rather, the student would have done well on the test regardless. Senechal also points out the fact that the student probably made the greatest gains at an earlier level of school, not the grade they are currently in. Senechal says that many high achievers choose to take a job that is low-key so that they may have activities outside of work, meaning that their salaries are a bit lower than what their achievement on standardized testing would suggest they will earn.
Senechal also points out that if these tests really do determine what your salary will probably be, then you will have "a cadre of test score virtuosi churning out lawyers, CEOs, social network inventors..." She asks the question who produces those that do not have such high salaries? Does that fall to the "not-quite-so-high-performing teachers?" Senechal goes on to say that you can't assume that more or higher equals better.
At the end of the article, Senechal says that if there is such a thing as free will, then teachers "produce" absolutely nothing. According to Senechal teachers should "teach, inspire, and encourage their students... and they point to many possibilities." Senechal also suggests that the teacher's main goal should be to help the student support themselves and do something they enjoy.
This article relates to class because of our discussion on standardized testing being an effective measure of how intelligent a student is. According to the article that Senechal was writing about, standardized testing is a great measuring tool for student's knowledge. Senechal agrees that those who are successful due tend to make more than those who do poorly. However, she also goes on to say that those who do well also take jobs that do not pay as well in order to do other activities. In a subtle sort of way, this article also relates to our discussions about teaching for the test, because the article that Senechal was writing about said that the best teachers were ones that had students who performed well on these standardized tests. Senechal believed that this was untrue, and that many times those who performed well on standardized testing chose lower end jobs, like I have previously discussed.
I agree with Senechal in that I don't believe that standardized testing is the best way to determine what salary a person will have when they are older. I think that many other factors come in to play in determining the SES of a person. I also agree that many times those who do well on standardized testing choose lower end jobs anyway. I'm a great example of this because I did very well on standardized testing, yet am planning on becoming a high school teacher. The part of the article I enjoyed most was the last paragraph, where Senechal describes the teacher's main task as to encourage the student and help them support themselves and do something they enjoy, not just make the most money.
I believe that Senechal comes from a student-centered approach. The most telling sign of this is the last paragraph where Senechal talks about the teachers being there to support the student. According to Senechal, the teacher is not the center of the show, with students being there to absorb as much as they can. Rather, the teacher is there for the student, helping them reach their potential and inspire them.
Senechal also points out that if these tests really do determine what your salary will probably be, then you will have "a cadre of test score virtuosi churning out lawyers, CEOs, social network inventors..." She asks the question who produces those that do not have such high salaries? Does that fall to the "not-quite-so-high-performing teachers?" Senechal goes on to say that you can't assume that more or higher equals better.
At the end of the article, Senechal says that if there is such a thing as free will, then teachers "produce" absolutely nothing. According to Senechal teachers should "teach, inspire, and encourage their students... and they point to many possibilities." Senechal also suggests that the teacher's main goal should be to help the student support themselves and do something they enjoy.
This article relates to class because of our discussion on standardized testing being an effective measure of how intelligent a student is. According to the article that Senechal was writing about, standardized testing is a great measuring tool for student's knowledge. Senechal agrees that those who are successful due tend to make more than those who do poorly. However, she also goes on to say that those who do well also take jobs that do not pay as well in order to do other activities. In a subtle sort of way, this article also relates to our discussions about teaching for the test, because the article that Senechal was writing about said that the best teachers were ones that had students who performed well on these standardized tests. Senechal believed that this was untrue, and that many times those who performed well on standardized testing chose lower end jobs, like I have previously discussed.
I agree with Senechal in that I don't believe that standardized testing is the best way to determine what salary a person will have when they are older. I think that many other factors come in to play in determining the SES of a person. I also agree that many times those who do well on standardized testing choose lower end jobs anyway. I'm a great example of this because I did very well on standardized testing, yet am planning on becoming a high school teacher. The part of the article I enjoyed most was the last paragraph, where Senechal describes the teacher's main task as to encourage the student and help them support themselves and do something they enjoy, not just make the most money.
I believe that Senechal comes from a student-centered approach. The most telling sign of this is the last paragraph where Senechal talks about the teachers being there to support the student. According to Senechal, the teacher is not the center of the show, with students being there to absorb as much as they can. Rather, the teacher is there for the student, helping them reach their potential and inspire them.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
(http://blog.coreknowledge.org/, April 19, 2011, Private School Student, Public School Reformer)
This blog discussed the differences in curriculum between private and public schools. In the opening paragraph, it talked about how a recent New York Times article criticized education reformers because many of them went to private schools. The author of the New York Times article, Winerip, apparently believed that since many of the reformers went to private schools, they may be turned against public schools and "poison their perception of them."
Robert Pondiscio agrees with Winerip, saying that those reformers who went to private schools may not understand how to improve public schools. However, he believes that they may not understand for different reasons. Pondiscio believes that many who grew up in private schools may take for granted the content of their education. He believes that they may not understand that their broad education that covers many different subjects is not universal. In many public schools, Pondiscio says, those subjects that are not emphasized on testing, such as history, geography, music, science, and art, are not covered as well in the public schools. Pondiscio says that "you are not guaranteed a thing."
Pondiscio used to teach at a low-performing South Bronx school. He would, however, take his daughter to a private school in Manhattan. He believes that the biggest difference in the two schools was curriculum and a "first rate, purposeful school tone." He went on to say that he believed that many of his colleagues were better teachers than those at the private school, but based on the economic differences, were unable to compete.
This blog relates to our class discussion on NCLB as well as our discussions on standardization of curriculums. In the article Pondiscio talks about how under-performing schools are dropping their history, geography, art, music, and science classes. I believe that this is certainly due to standardized testing and schools attempting to get funding. In order to get the funds that the school needs, they must do well on the standardized testing. The only way this under-performing school can improve its scores is by focusing on the subjects that are vital to the test, namely, numeracy and literacy. In this way, students in poor public schools are falling further behind those in good private and public schools. In order to get funding, they must narrow their curriculum. In narrowing, their curriculum, those students don't get a well-rounded education that those students in private schools are getting.
I agree with the author that it would be hard for reformers who grew up in wealthy private schools to understand the plight of poor public schools. If they are ignorant to the fact that not every curriculum is as well-rounded as theirs was, they will miss vital reforms that need to be made. However, if more public school graduates are given control of the reforming process, they may be able to make changes for the better.
I believe that the author comes from a student-centered approach. He seems concerned that the students get a broad range of subjects being taught in school. He doesn't seem to support prep tests due to the stress that they put on the public school curriculum. You can tell that the author comes from a student-centered approach because he believes that the reformers should come from the inside and have first-hand experience with the schools and issues being discussed.
Robert Pondiscio agrees with Winerip, saying that those reformers who went to private schools may not understand how to improve public schools. However, he believes that they may not understand for different reasons. Pondiscio believes that many who grew up in private schools may take for granted the content of their education. He believes that they may not understand that their broad education that covers many different subjects is not universal. In many public schools, Pondiscio says, those subjects that are not emphasized on testing, such as history, geography, music, science, and art, are not covered as well in the public schools. Pondiscio says that "you are not guaranteed a thing."
Pondiscio used to teach at a low-performing South Bronx school. He would, however, take his daughter to a private school in Manhattan. He believes that the biggest difference in the two schools was curriculum and a "first rate, purposeful school tone." He went on to say that he believed that many of his colleagues were better teachers than those at the private school, but based on the economic differences, were unable to compete.
This blog relates to our class discussion on NCLB as well as our discussions on standardization of curriculums. In the article Pondiscio talks about how under-performing schools are dropping their history, geography, art, music, and science classes. I believe that this is certainly due to standardized testing and schools attempting to get funding. In order to get the funds that the school needs, they must do well on the standardized testing. The only way this under-performing school can improve its scores is by focusing on the subjects that are vital to the test, namely, numeracy and literacy. In this way, students in poor public schools are falling further behind those in good private and public schools. In order to get funding, they must narrow their curriculum. In narrowing, their curriculum, those students don't get a well-rounded education that those students in private schools are getting.
I agree with the author that it would be hard for reformers who grew up in wealthy private schools to understand the plight of poor public schools. If they are ignorant to the fact that not every curriculum is as well-rounded as theirs was, they will miss vital reforms that need to be made. However, if more public school graduates are given control of the reforming process, they may be able to make changes for the better.
I believe that the author comes from a student-centered approach. He seems concerned that the students get a broad range of subjects being taught in school. He doesn't seem to support prep tests due to the stress that they put on the public school curriculum. You can tell that the author comes from a student-centered approach because he believes that the reformers should come from the inside and have first-hand experience with the schools and issues being discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)