NCLB--"stronger accountability" discussion
In this section, we will be providing information on the NCLB strand: "stronger accountability." 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 3:58 PM
3 Comments:
WHITE-HOOD, MARIAN. (2006). SCHOOLS AT WORK: TARGETING PROFICIENCY WITH THEORY TO PRACTICE. JOURNAL OF NEGRO EDUCATION, 75 (1), PP 4-15.
Several premises underlie this lecture: controversies regarding the fact that efforts to improve learning for minority and low income children have been modest at best, what exactly does ‘proficient’ mean, and worries over the fact that NCLB is a political movement disguised as research based reform.
Provocatively, White-Hood suggests, “There is something rather sobering about a law that limits learning to reading and mathematics skills; a law that places children in subgroups and labels them basic, proficient, or advanced; and a mandate that pushes students and teachers out of education. There is something painfully telling about a law that has not been fully funded the way it was intended”
Equally as compelling, White-Hood provides a list of characteristics similar to failing districts:
• Disputes between board and superintendent
• Intense central office undermining and infighting
• Disenfranchised parents
• Strong teacher unions
• Rigorous systemic audits that require all teachers to be on the same page on the same day
• Teacher and principal turnover
• High student mobility
• Conflicts over student assignment procedures and boundaries
Anything here ring true for the local district?
White-Hood brings in quite a bit of social theory and sociological studies, particularly Kozol and Freire, suggesting the goal of education ought to be human liberation. Her anchoring questions read: “What does it mean to be emancipated—freed from the burden of empirical proof, yet bound to the responsibility to prepare students for tomorrow? What does it mean to create a vision that is righteous and act on it for the good of humankind?”
New directions—White Hood suggests a direction that “(1) both challenges students more and gives them new opportunities to engage in meaningful, life-long learning and practical problem-solving; (2) provides advancement through the required state curriculum; and (3) explores new ways of thinking while promoting confidence and self-esteem.
White-Hood provides a nice weaving of concepts such as “praxis” and “conscientization”
GREAT LAKES CENTER FOR EDUCATION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
claims that AYP fails to meet goals--that the school evaluation system is fundamentally flawed.
This policy brief reveals that:
The meager improvements in test scores are unlikely to be the result of the AYP process and are too modest to achieve the goal of 100 percent mastery by 2014;
Funding is inadequate to effectively implement the program, particularly for high poverty schools;
The AYP process is driving schools to focus only on subjects that are tested at the expense of other important instruction;
The nation’s poor and diverse schools are hit hardest by the negative effects of AYP.
Many of the brief’s conclusions mirror an earlier study released by the Great Lakes Center which found that nearly every school in the Great Lakes states will be labeled as “failing” by 2014 due to inadequate funding, lack of flexibility and other problems associated with the AYP requirement of NCLB.
The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
MAYERS, C. (2006). PUBLIC LAW 107-110 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001: SUPPORT OR THREAT TO EDUCATION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT? EDUCATION, 126 (3), pp. 449-461
This article, in part, discusses funding as a motivation to succeed under this new law. Claiming that motivation is not, in and of itself, a good or bad thing, Mayers argues that it is the scope of conditions that tend to have the strongest impacts on positive or negative determination. She adds, “If all schools had fully certified and experienced teachers, current textbooks for each child, up to date computers for every student, decent facilities, students who are well fed, students and teachers who are fluent in English, effective administrators, adequate counselor to student ratios, active PTA’s, and the necessary fiduciary capital to achieve its goals, then it would make sense to apply uniform standards.” Of course, as Mayers points out, schools are not uniform in this way, but the law is constructed such that it presumes they are. Mayers continues by noting that the more a family makes, the higher the likelihood they attend a school which has the above characteristics. Reciprocally, she also notes that the less a family makes, the less likely their school possesses these characteristics.
Getting into some of the literature and research on standardized tests, Mayers cites eight factors that identify the strongest positive or negative correlates with success on standardized tests:
Many books in home
Adopted child
Parents speak English in home
Mother 30+ at child’s birth
Highly educated parents
High socio-economic class
Parental PTA involvement
Low birth weight
Regarding the achievement gap, Mayers suggests it has nothing to do with inherent ‘racial’ characteristics, stating, “It does not appear that the gap in performance has anything to do with inherent racial characteristics. If it did, the gap would be evident at the outset of schooling in similar demographic black/white comparison.” Rather, she points to socio-economic status as determinant: “If you are poor, your chance of attending a poor school is elevated and the odds of matriculating through college and into the middle to upper class, diminished. With your diminished prospects come the diminished prospects of your progeny.” Mayers seems to be cut from the school of “social reproduction,” as many critical theorists.
Also related to highly qualified teachers, Mayers rejects any inherent correlation with student learning and performance on standardized tests. Rather, she indicates the strongest correlates with success are where students come from, who the students are, and where they go to school.
Post a Comment
<< Home