NCLB--"Proven Methods" discussion
In this section, we will be providing information on the NCLB strand: "proven methods." In its review we will talk about "what it says," "what it says vs. what the reality may be (based on critique, evidence, experience, etc.)," and what it really says (connecting it to a larger structural reality). Information on NCLB can be found at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml. A starting place for constructive critique can be found at www.rethinkingschools.com. Feel free to help in the research of this area or feel free to comment on what's here.
posted by adam at 3:51 PM
5 Comments:
TEACHER QUALITY: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/teachers-faq.html)
This entry at the NCLB website attempts to answer the following questions:
1. How does this law improve teacher quality?
2. How are states and districts held accountable for improving teacher quality?
3. How can parents find out about the quality of their child's teachers?
4. What about paraprofessionals or teachers' aides? Does No Child Left Behind call for increased academic requirements for them?
5. Why is teacher quality such an important issue?
Under question 1, the authors suggest that all schools should have a “highly qualified teacher” (full certification, a bachelor's degree and demonstrated competence in subject knowledge and teaching) in the classroom by 2005-2006. They discuss the importance of professional development based on scientifically-based research, how they have funded programs, such as Transition to Teaching, to help put a qualified teacher in each classroom
Under question 2, the authors assert that states must establish “annual, measurable objectives for each local school district and school to ensure that they meet the ‘highly qualified’ requirement.”
Under question 3, the authors state that parents should have unfettered access to information regarding the qualifications of their child’s teacher.
Under question 4, the authors posit that aids and paraprofessionals need must have an associate’s degree, two years of college, “or they must meet a rigorous standard of quality through a formal state or local assessment” if they provide any assistive instruction in the classroom.
Under question 5, the authors argue “research demonstrates the clear correlation between student academic achievement and teacher quality (Sanders and Rivers 1996).”
ANALYSIS/REFLECTION: This highly qualified teacher issue is a complex one. Few would disagree that each classroom and each child deserve a highly qualified teacher. What ‘highly qualified’ means is where the issue becomes sticky. First, it is important to note that we are now in the 2006-2007 school year and every classroom has yet to see a ‘highly qualified’ teacher, based on this site’s definition. Next, as a school that signs off on temporary provisional certificates, we see how desperate local systems are to put people in the classroom—sometimes bending the rules (or liberally reading them) to make sure that every classroom at least has a “teacher.” As well, we are a school of education that resists propositions such as “transition to teaching,” noting that these programs are often little more than boot camp for would-be teachers, focusing on classroom management and depending on content praxis exams to determine if a teacher is knowledgeable in their content area. Next, while it is a good idea to provide teachers with professional development, the concept of “scientifically-based research” is not as clear or as meaningful as they make it sound. Plenty of PD’s I hear of lately consist of companies or textbook publishers coming in to sell their programs or books based on research they’ve completed on themselves—not through a peer-reviewed, rigorous process. What the authors don’t say, but I fear mean, is that more qualitative research--or more number-less sort of research (words, stories, narratives, intuition)—is considered irrelevant; that is, theory or the actual experiences of the kids doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters are the results (which are performance on standardized assessments—that have not improved dramatically). School districts are then challenged by this issue because their funding for teaching quality is dependent upon what the federal government tells them they can use, not what may ultimately be in the best interest of the students based on the local context.
TAMING THE BEAST (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/tami184.shtml)
This article laments the underfunding NCLB has received since its inception. While several articles on the NCLB site claim to fund the law at appropriate rates, Stan Karp suggests this may not be the case. Looking, for example, at the laws mandate that 100% of students will have passing scores on state tests (including students with special needs and English language learners) by 2014. One study, by a University of Vermont professor (of education and finance), finds that the law is underfunded by $130 billion annually in order to meet those goals.
Getting to the heart of the matter, Karp cites a recent issue of Education Week, in which two prominent Harvard academics, Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West, argue that "The No Child Left Behind law is, intrinsically, an inexpensive school reform, a plan to get more bang from existing bucks, not a high-priced mandate." They argue that the heart of NCLB and the true measure of federal responsibility is the "accountability" system that holds schools responsible for meeting the new mandates-not the actual education programs and services required to reach them. Here Karp gets into an interesting argument, if trap, regarding funding and education. On one hand, Karp seems to intimate that more money will not help schools, claiming that more money in the past has not shown significant improvement in schools. On the other hand, Karp is more exactly talking about more money for No Child Left Behind—the fear being that money for NCLB is getting funneled toward already super-rich testing companies, not for the children and schools who desperately need it. What we should be funding is not a ‘what’ at all, but a ‘who’. I agree with Karp on quite a lot, but think he comes dangerously close in this piece to suggesting money doesn’t matter (much like the well-meaning Coleman Report a few decades ago). Money does matter—but only if it is directed at the improvement of the lives of children, not at accountability measures that only make corporations wealthier and that are not (and never have been) attainable. This is a human endeavor--imperfect, erratic, and requiring of flexibility—for which ‘scores’ cannot be ‘cut and dried’. One need only look at the tests we currently employ to see the inherent racial and class bias to know that all children will not succeed and, indeed, many will be left behind—made to feel like it was their fault and not the fault of the system that was set up for them to fail. We need to look closer at ‘proven methods’ and their connection funding. We must also look closely at ‘accountability’, continually seeking more democratic, multi-perspectival, and flexible ways to measure success.
HOLDER, KC. (2004). PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE: CAN A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM OF RESEARCH EXIST WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC-BASED RESEARCH? PAPER PRESENTED AT AMERICAN EDUCATION RESEARCH ASSOCIATION.
This study focuses on claims that pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), as a construct, is “scientifically” proven to help teacher provide quality instruction. Interestingly, while the study critiques the concept of PCK, Holder never really offers a definition. Holder does trace its origin “as ‘what’ teacher education students potentially learn in methods courses, to being related to quality instruction, to becoming evaluation criteria for NCATE” (pp. 3-4), suggesting that the biggest concern is that NCATE has begun using PCK as an evaluative measure, but it, as a construct, has no basis in research.
One of the major thrusts of NCLB is that we, as teachers, should “do what works.” What works can only be determined by scientifically-based research, which Holder, citing Olson and Viadero (2002), claims (among other definitions) is “research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs” (p. 4) and, citing the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 means standards that “present findings and make claims that are appropriate to and supported by the methods that have been applied” (p. 5).
RESEARCH QUESTION: The main thrust behind Holder’s study involves the central question: “Is the research base underlying PCK sound?”
METHODOLOGY: To find out whether there is any research underlying PCK, Holder searched the phrase “pedagogical content knowledge” in ERIC and AriticleFirst, getting over 600 hits, 349 of which had PCK as the subject header. Using a homogeneous sampling method, which, citing Cresswell (2002), “is a purposeful sample of individuals or sites based upon membership in a subgroup that has defining characteristics” (p. 6), Holder was able to reduce the group of 349 down to 83, looking for PCK in the title of these hits. Further, Holder reduced this number down to 51, studying only articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals.
METHOD: This study used techniques of historical analysis and cross-validation to create a “hybrid historical cross-validation method.” Particularly, Holder was using the method to conduct what Borg and Gall (1989) call “internal criticism”: evaluating the accuracy and worth of the statements contained in the historical document.
CONCLUSIONS: Among seven conclusions drawn from Holder’s internal criticism, two results jumped out: (1) no single article qualified as scientific-based research and (2) only 12 of the 51 “studies” contained clearly stated research questions.
This study is interesting for a few reasons. One, there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the issue of in-depth content knowledge as valuable to a teacher’s ability to teach vs. the value of pedagogy (and methods courses, and such things as the social foundations of education) related to this ability. This study significantly helps to muddy the waters as Holder claims that there have been no ‘scientific’ studies related to this issue. Two, it raises the issue of “scientific-based research”—what it is and whether it is done with any frequency to support NCLB policies. Three, it forces us to consider what scientific based research is, as it is popularly conceptualized as solely empirical, quantitative based studies, as opposed to qualitative studies. Can qualitative studies provide scientific evidence? If it can, what types of studies could we carry out that investigate the relevance of methods and foundations courses to a teacher’s ability to teach? If they cannot, what empirical studies should we carry out? Or, more importantly, how can we challenge this notion of ‘science’, which has proven faulty, malleable, and developing over the course of our history.
We should not take lightly that NCLB and its creators have a particular view of science—what it is and what it is not—privileging numbers over the voices of the researched. It is also questionable how much ‘science’ upon which this law is based. Both of these merit further examination and reflection.
Excerpted from the Associated Press September 23, 2006
READING FIRST FAILS AUDIT,
WASHINGTON — A scorching internal review of the Bush administration's billion-dollar-a-year reading program says the Education Department ignored the law and ethical standards to steer money how it wanted.
The federal audit is unsparing in its view that the Reading First program has been damaged by conflicts of interest and willful mismanagement. It suggests the department broke the law by trying to dictate which curriculum schools must use.
It also depicts a program in which review panels were stacked with people who shared the director's views, and in which only favored publishers of reading curricula could get money.
In one e-mail, the director told a staff member to come down hard on a company he didn't support, according to the report released Friday by the department's inspector general.
"They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive deleted] out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags," the program director wrote, the report says.
That official, Chris Doherty, is resigning in the coming days, department spokeswoman Katherine McLane said Friday. Asked if his quitting was in response to the report, she said only that Doherty was returning to the private sector after five years at the agency. Doherty declined to comment.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings pledged to swiftly adopt all the audit's recommendations. She also promised a review of every Reading First grant her agency had approved.
"When something undermines the credibility of this department, or the standing of any program, I'm going to spring into action," Spellings said.
Reading First aims to help young children read through scientifically proven programs, and the department considers it a jewel of No Child Left Behind, Bush's education law. Just this week, a separate review found the effort is helping schools raise achievement.
But from the start, the program has been dogged by accusations of impropriety, leading to several ongoing audits. The report from the Office of Inspector General, an independent arm of the Education Department, calls into question the program's credibility.
The ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee was furious.
"They should fire everyone who was involved in this," said Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez). "This was not an accident; this was not an oversight. This was an intentional effort to corrupt the process."
Spellings said the problems happened early in the program, which began in 2002, before she was secretary. She said those responsible had left the agency or been reassigned.
About 1,500 school districts have received $4.8 billion in Reading First grants.
There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
allasca
Post a Comment
<< Home