The readings for this week centered around the question of 'how does poverty impact schooling?' Money and use of money in a school system was a big part of this topic.
Myth 34
Forced Integration has failed.
This myth discussed the idea of segregation. We has all learned that desegregation happened a while ago, in the 60s, but we have slipped back into segregated schools. Due to school choice options, schools are becoming more and more segregated. This is harmful to both sides; you lose social and academic benefits of segregation and you undermine the opportunities and social experiences if you do not have diverse schools. This leads to narrow thinking and perspectives, which will filter out into our society. I found it interesting and sad that there is a connection between race and poverty and that desegregation is actually unofficial in the 'North.' The 'South' actually has better desegregated schools, so both sides benefits in the schools.
Myth 35
Money doesn't matter. We're spending more money than ever, but test scores are stagnant.
This article pointed out that scores are actually increasing, not stagnant, if you look at the average student. They pointed out the cost did increase, quite a bit, but if you think about it, everything is more expensive than it was. It costs more money to education students now because not only do you need books, but you also need computers and tablets and smart boards. Technology is integrated into schools, and technology is expensive. Also, special education is now required in schools, and that is expensive. So yes, we are spending more money, but the game has changed. The things we need to pay for just cost more. In general however, we all know that resources predict outcomes in schools, and like I said, resources cost money. So money does matter. The more money you have as a school, the more resources you can get and the better the outcome you can have. Plus, you get better results with more experienced teachers, and they have higher salaries. To say money doesn't matter is ridiculous, and if it were true, parents wouldn't be so pro-school choices.
Myth 36
The money available to school districts is spread equally across their schools.
I would think this is the case, actually would hope so, but apparently it is not. The money schools get come from the federal government, state government and the local community. The federal is pretty standard, but the state funds can depend on the density of the population and the funds from the local community depends on how supportive they are of education. If the local community is older and does not care about paying for the education of kids they don't know, the school will get less money than another school whose community supports it. This translates into poorer communities having poorer schools with less resources, but more students that need them. The whole idea that each school does not get equal funds is unfortunate because that means they do not have equal resources and therefore the students do not have equal opportunities.
Myth 37
In America, public money is not used to support religious schools.
Again, I really hoped that this was actually true, but apparently not. We have also heard that church and state should be separated. Doesn't that translate into not paying for religious schools? I do not like the idea of giving money to these private schools because it takes away money and resources from public schools. This topic was touched on when we were discussing school choice, and my opinion is still the same. If you want to send your child to a private, religious school, that is your choice as a parent, but then you should pay for it.
Myth 46
AP courses are providing minority students an opportunity to get a head start on a college education.
AP courses are a great opportunity for many students to get a jump on college credit, but that does not necessarily mean that it is an equal opportunity for everyone. Minority populations, and the schools they attend, might not offer as many AP classes and they might not be as rigorous as other schools, which means they don't really get the benefit of AP courses. This is again a lack of equal opportunity, which is not fair. The idea of AP classes in minority schools is amazing, but they need to be up to par with everyone else so they get the benefits. Dual enrollment, which offers college credit at community colleges, might make more sense for these students. Interestingly, this article pointed out that while many more people take AP courses now than when they were first created, the same type of people still take the test-white, upper middle class.
Myth 48
Education will lift the poor out of poverty and materially enrich our nation.
Wouldn't this be awesome? But poverty is a multifaceted issue, it is pervasive and affects their whole lives. Education alone cannot fix such a widespread issue. In order to do that, we need fundamental social and economic reforms, we need to change the thinking of a community. The fact that people think education can fix poverty leads to more people getting more education, which is great, but then not getting the financial benefit they were expecting. The fact is that education and income are correlated, but not the end game. In fact, there is evidence that educational attainment significantly exceeds the educational requirements of the available jobs. So we have a whole bunch of really education people, but jobs in the service industry, like McDonald's. Plus, when focus so much on the part of education that will make us money in the future, we lose the other sides of education, like social, emotional and intellectual goals.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Readings for October 23
The reading this week focused on a variety of topics, many of which are implemented at the school district level and therefore effects all students within the district.
Myth 18
Retaining children in grade 'flunking' them helps struggling students catch up and promotes better classroom instruction for all.
This myth, on the surface, makes sense. You allow the child to go through the school work again, relearn the material and allow them to master if before moving on. This article, however, pointed out that this is not the case. The strategy is not effective and student's do not necessarily master the material, they just get better at it because it is the second time they are going over the same stuff. Retaining students essentially creates negative outcomes in terms of social and emotional well being for the child, and they also develop a negative attitude toward school, because by holding them back, you are telling them that they aren't 'good' at school. Parent's attitudes toward their children also change-they expect less from their child, which is not a good vibe to send the child. If schools really wanted to help struggling students, they would hire extra tutors, implement summer programs and ensure everyone had a good foundation by having great preschools available for everyone. Holding children back in school is really just a waste of money and negatively changes that child's attitude toward themselves and school.
Myth 27
If a program works well in one school or district, it should be imported and expected to work well elsewhere
This idea would make sense, if the world was perfect and all school districts were exactly the same. But that is not the case, and I have seen when new superintendents of school districts try to do this and it fails. We went through three different superintendents while I was in school, and all of them had a great 'new plan' to try. It was rare that the results were ever as expected. Trying to implement new programs in different districts will almost never get the same results because the teachers, students, relationships and community support is not the same from district to district. The context of each district is too complicated to ensure a one plan fits all type deal. The sad part is, when the programs fail, the teachers are often blamed for not implementing it correctly, which is not a fair assessment at all.
Myth 30
Character education will save America's youth and strengthen the nation's moral fiber.
This myth made the amusing observation that all older generations think that the younger generations are losing respect, work ethic and cultural competency. So of course they would want to implement programs to build student's characters and create good citizens. That is the point of public education correct? To create good citizens? But social and character development programs do not work for the simple reason that things like character cannot be taught (confusingly enough, they are learned however). Plus, students spend most of their time and build most of their character outside of school, in their neighborhood and at home. So while trying to create better citizens by building character of children in school sounds like a good plan, it doesn't work. And I really wonder if it is the job of the schools anyway? Or if the responsibility lies with community that child lives in as a whole?
Myth 33
Mayoral control of city schools has paid off in terms of student achievement.
This article makes the good point that it really depends on location of the school district and who is in charge for this myth to be 'true' or 'false.' In general however, mayoral control has not lead to any academic achievement gains from students and if anything, as increased the achievement gap. Mayoral control also reduces the democratic process present in many schools, and leaves one person with all the power, which historically, is not a good decision. By putting rich people in charge of school districts and allowing them to choose more rich people for the school board, you are creating a large disconnect between the board and the population served. When there is such a disconnect, it is easy to understand why there hasn't been much improvement. The board doesn't understand what the school and population needs or wants. Mayoral control also can lead to high teacher turnover and many school closures, both of which do not benefit the students.
Myth 18
Retaining children in grade 'flunking' them helps struggling students catch up and promotes better classroom instruction for all.
This myth, on the surface, makes sense. You allow the child to go through the school work again, relearn the material and allow them to master if before moving on. This article, however, pointed out that this is not the case. The strategy is not effective and student's do not necessarily master the material, they just get better at it because it is the second time they are going over the same stuff. Retaining students essentially creates negative outcomes in terms of social and emotional well being for the child, and they also develop a negative attitude toward school, because by holding them back, you are telling them that they aren't 'good' at school. Parent's attitudes toward their children also change-they expect less from their child, which is not a good vibe to send the child. If schools really wanted to help struggling students, they would hire extra tutors, implement summer programs and ensure everyone had a good foundation by having great preschools available for everyone. Holding children back in school is really just a waste of money and negatively changes that child's attitude toward themselves and school.
Myth 27
If a program works well in one school or district, it should be imported and expected to work well elsewhere
This idea would make sense, if the world was perfect and all school districts were exactly the same. But that is not the case, and I have seen when new superintendents of school districts try to do this and it fails. We went through three different superintendents while I was in school, and all of them had a great 'new plan' to try. It was rare that the results were ever as expected. Trying to implement new programs in different districts will almost never get the same results because the teachers, students, relationships and community support is not the same from district to district. The context of each district is too complicated to ensure a one plan fits all type deal. The sad part is, when the programs fail, the teachers are often blamed for not implementing it correctly, which is not a fair assessment at all.
Myth 30
Character education will save America's youth and strengthen the nation's moral fiber.
This myth made the amusing observation that all older generations think that the younger generations are losing respect, work ethic and cultural competency. So of course they would want to implement programs to build student's characters and create good citizens. That is the point of public education correct? To create good citizens? But social and character development programs do not work for the simple reason that things like character cannot be taught (confusingly enough, they are learned however). Plus, students spend most of their time and build most of their character outside of school, in their neighborhood and at home. So while trying to create better citizens by building character of children in school sounds like a good plan, it doesn't work. And I really wonder if it is the job of the schools anyway? Or if the responsibility lies with community that child lives in as a whole?
Myth 33
Mayoral control of city schools has paid off in terms of student achievement.
This article makes the good point that it really depends on location of the school district and who is in charge for this myth to be 'true' or 'false.' In general however, mayoral control has not lead to any academic achievement gains from students and if anything, as increased the achievement gap. Mayoral control also reduces the democratic process present in many schools, and leaves one person with all the power, which historically, is not a good decision. By putting rich people in charge of school districts and allowing them to choose more rich people for the school board, you are creating a large disconnect between the board and the population served. When there is such a disconnect, it is easy to understand why there hasn't been much improvement. The board doesn't understand what the school and population needs or wants. Mayoral control also can lead to high teacher turnover and many school closures, both of which do not benefit the students.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Readings for Oct 16th
The readings this week focused on different types of schools, including private schools, charter schools and homeschooling.
Myth 2
This myth focuses on the idea that people believe private schools are better than public schools.
I think whether this myth is true or not really depends on where you live. Where I am from, we pretty much lacked private schools, unless you wanted to attend one affiliated with a religion. If you live in a large city however, the private school might actually have more money, resources and better teachers than the public schools. Either way, there is little evidence that private schools actually educate their students any better than public schools, especially after you take into account SES, race/ethnicity and disabilities.
Myth 3
This myth states that Charter schools are better than traditional public schools
I was interested to learn from this reading that charter schools are the most prevalent form of school choice out there, and it is actually publicly funded! So really anyone could send their child to a charter school for free, but there isn't any evidence that they will get a better education then. 80% of charter schools are no better/do worse than public schools. It really depends on their resources and teachers, which is exactly the same situation in public schools. Charter schools are also prejudice against children with special needs and there are reports that they flunk out students to make themselves look better, which makes me not a fan of them.
Myth 4
This reading debunks the idea that charter schools are private schools.
What?? I had no idea. I really thought they were private schools, until reading this and the previous myth, which told me they are publicly funded. Who knew? They use taxpayer money to operate, but they are more autonomous and do not have to answer to a school board. They are also not held accountable to all state and federal standards and rules, which seems odd to me...who do they answer to then? Who regulates them? This freedom seems like it could be a good thing, but it could also be bad because they have no standard that they are held to. The children could be getting a sub-par education because of this.
Myth 5
Cyberschools are efficient, cost saving and highly effective means of delivering an education.
I can believe that cyberschools are cost effective-they don't have to buy books, they don't have to upkeep a building or hire a lot of support staff . Strangely enough, they are usually owned by companies. So really, it is just a big money-making venture. I don't think schools should be for profit institutions, so I don't like the idea of charter schools. Research also shows that they don't educate their students as well, so that is another big negative.
Myth 6
Home-schooled children are better educated than those who attend regular public schools.
Having experience with home-schooled friends, I don't really think this is true. I think they are usually really good at one particular thing or subject, but are about average in all other areas. Public education gives you a more rounded result I think. The article made a great point that home-schooling is only as good as the parents and their resources. Parents need to have the time, education and resources to make their home an enriched environment for learning. They also need to be able to supplement the home environment well.
Myth 2
This myth focuses on the idea that people believe private schools are better than public schools.
I think whether this myth is true or not really depends on where you live. Where I am from, we pretty much lacked private schools, unless you wanted to attend one affiliated with a religion. If you live in a large city however, the private school might actually have more money, resources and better teachers than the public schools. Either way, there is little evidence that private schools actually educate their students any better than public schools, especially after you take into account SES, race/ethnicity and disabilities.
Myth 3
This myth states that Charter schools are better than traditional public schools
I was interested to learn from this reading that charter schools are the most prevalent form of school choice out there, and it is actually publicly funded! So really anyone could send their child to a charter school for free, but there isn't any evidence that they will get a better education then. 80% of charter schools are no better/do worse than public schools. It really depends on their resources and teachers, which is exactly the same situation in public schools. Charter schools are also prejudice against children with special needs and there are reports that they flunk out students to make themselves look better, which makes me not a fan of them.
Myth 4
This reading debunks the idea that charter schools are private schools.
What?? I had no idea. I really thought they were private schools, until reading this and the previous myth, which told me they are publicly funded. Who knew? They use taxpayer money to operate, but they are more autonomous and do not have to answer to a school board. They are also not held accountable to all state and federal standards and rules, which seems odd to me...who do they answer to then? Who regulates them? This freedom seems like it could be a good thing, but it could also be bad because they have no standard that they are held to. The children could be getting a sub-par education because of this.
Myth 5
Cyberschools are efficient, cost saving and highly effective means of delivering an education.
I can believe that cyberschools are cost effective-they don't have to buy books, they don't have to upkeep a building or hire a lot of support staff . Strangely enough, they are usually owned by companies. So really, it is just a big money-making venture. I don't think schools should be for profit institutions, so I don't like the idea of charter schools. Research also shows that they don't educate their students as well, so that is another big negative.
Myth 6
Home-schooled children are better educated than those who attend regular public schools.
Having experience with home-schooled friends, I don't really think this is true. I think they are usually really good at one particular thing or subject, but are about average in all other areas. Public education gives you a more rounded result I think. The article made a great point that home-schooling is only as good as the parents and their resources. Parents need to have the time, education and resources to make their home an enriched environment for learning. They also need to be able to supplement the home environment well.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
The Question of Bilingual Education
This week, we were asked to interview three different people about their opinions of bilingual education and whether it should be something that is pushed for in schools. I will not be using the names of the individuals that I interviewed, but will attempt to explain their views as honestly as possible.
Person 1
This person had the unique experience of growing up and living in Canada and being in a French immersion program since the age of four. She attended a school where they spoke only French, and taught all subjects in French, but she spoke English exclusively at home. She supports the idea of bilingual education, based on her past experience. She sited, first of all, that in Canada, two of their Providences actually have English and French as official languages, so it makes sense to learn both the languages. She also said that people knowing both of the languages would have more job opportunities, especially in the government. Knowing both languages also allowed you to appreciate the French culture, and it's role in Canadian history and today. Furthermore, she feels that by learning two languages, she feels more worldly and intelligent, and learned valuable problem-solving skills when trying to learn French, that she could apply to other topics. She said that learning one language also opened the door to learning other languages, like Spanish, which came easier to her. She said that they did not have formal French lessons until 7th grade, but instead picked up the language as they were learning other topics, like Math and Science. This allowed them to learn the core subjects, while taking the baby steps to learning a new language. She also emphasized that learning another language allows her to think in a different, unique way, because she had to think in a different way in order to be able to learn French and her class subjects at the same time.
Person 2
This person was not a fan of bilingual education, beyond the point of making sure that Spanish speaking students learn how to speak English. She believed that if they are a new student that moved here, they are expected to learn to speak English because this is America, and we speak English here. So bilingual education should only be used to teach Spanish students how to speak English. She did not like the idea of school systems having to spend extra money to help the students learn English however. She found it annoying that we had to do extra work to help them. She is a fan of the immersion programs that teach all the subjects, but in English; so not just intensive English instruction. She believes being able to speak English should be mandatory, because if you want to get a job and get ahead in our country, you have to speak English. She also does not think that we should have to change our culture to fit theirs; they can have their culture at home. She is not a fan of instructions or products that have two languages on them either. But, she expects the same of us if we move to a different culture. She mentioned that if one moved to Germany, they should expect us to learn German if we want to live there.
Person 3
This person was also a fan of bilingual education. Learning another language helps you understand others and their culture, which is important in a country as diverse as America. Learning another language is also important in today's global economy. Jobs are more often requiring travel to different countries and communicating with different people, so it is important to know different languages. She also mentioned that learning a different language opens up a different way of thinking for people. That way of thinking and problem solving makes kids smarter as they learn new words and new rules that you can apply to other areas.
Out of the people I interviewed, it seems like those in favor of bilingual education really liked the cultural aspect of it and the idea that it will help you with your career in the future. Bilingual education also encourages a unique, problem-solving way of thinking that can be applied to other subject areas. Those not in favor of bilingual education, understand the need for it, but only as a tool to help non-English speaking students learn English. English should be the only language used to teach topics in schools and we should not have to change our culture to accommodate theirs.
Person 1
This person had the unique experience of growing up and living in Canada and being in a French immersion program since the age of four. She attended a school where they spoke only French, and taught all subjects in French, but she spoke English exclusively at home. She supports the idea of bilingual education, based on her past experience. She sited, first of all, that in Canada, two of their Providences actually have English and French as official languages, so it makes sense to learn both the languages. She also said that people knowing both of the languages would have more job opportunities, especially in the government. Knowing both languages also allowed you to appreciate the French culture, and it's role in Canadian history and today. Furthermore, she feels that by learning two languages, she feels more worldly and intelligent, and learned valuable problem-solving skills when trying to learn French, that she could apply to other topics. She said that learning one language also opened the door to learning other languages, like Spanish, which came easier to her. She said that they did not have formal French lessons until 7th grade, but instead picked up the language as they were learning other topics, like Math and Science. This allowed them to learn the core subjects, while taking the baby steps to learning a new language. She also emphasized that learning another language allows her to think in a different, unique way, because she had to think in a different way in order to be able to learn French and her class subjects at the same time.
Person 2
This person was not a fan of bilingual education, beyond the point of making sure that Spanish speaking students learn how to speak English. She believed that if they are a new student that moved here, they are expected to learn to speak English because this is America, and we speak English here. So bilingual education should only be used to teach Spanish students how to speak English. She did not like the idea of school systems having to spend extra money to help the students learn English however. She found it annoying that we had to do extra work to help them. She is a fan of the immersion programs that teach all the subjects, but in English; so not just intensive English instruction. She believes being able to speak English should be mandatory, because if you want to get a job and get ahead in our country, you have to speak English. She also does not think that we should have to change our culture to fit theirs; they can have their culture at home. She is not a fan of instructions or products that have two languages on them either. But, she expects the same of us if we move to a different culture. She mentioned that if one moved to Germany, they should expect us to learn German if we want to live there.
Person 3
This person was also a fan of bilingual education. Learning another language helps you understand others and their culture, which is important in a country as diverse as America. Learning another language is also important in today's global economy. Jobs are more often requiring travel to different countries and communicating with different people, so it is important to know different languages. She also mentioned that learning a different language opens up a different way of thinking for people. That way of thinking and problem solving makes kids smarter as they learn new words and new rules that you can apply to other areas.
Out of the people I interviewed, it seems like those in favor of bilingual education really liked the cultural aspect of it and the idea that it will help you with your career in the future. Bilingual education also encourages a unique, problem-solving way of thinking that can be applied to other subject areas. Those not in favor of bilingual education, understand the need for it, but only as a tool to help non-English speaking students learn English. English should be the only language used to teach topics in schools and we should not have to change our culture to accommodate theirs.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Readings for October 2nd
Readings for School and Society this week focused on the idea of private schools. We were asked to focus on the question: Should parent's be able to choose which public school their child goes to? Or if they go to a public school at all really. The idea of freedom of choice makes most of us say yes right away, but the issue is a bit more complicated than that.
Myth 7
School choice and competition work to improve all schools. Vouchers, tuition tax credits and charter schools inject competition.
Competition is a good thing right? It makes everyone work harder and, in the end, everyone does better. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Everyone believes that public schools are failing and offering private schools might help them step up their game. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If you compare public and private schools with similar populations, public schools are actually doing better. They might have more qualified teachers. But private schools look like they are doing better because they select their students and tend to draw the high achieving, motivated students (or at least their parents). When kids like this leave poorly performing public schools, those schools do take a hit. That talent and motivation is lost to the public schools other students, which mean they do worse. I don't really think the competition is helping public schools per se, but I still lean toward the idea that parent's have the freedom to choose for their child. But like what was discussed in class, who pays for that?
Myth 39
Tuition tax credits for families that choose private schools are appropriate.
In order to pay for parents who choose to send their kids to private schools, the government has come up with tax credits and vouchers among other things. This becomes a problem though when tax money is used to fund kids going to religious schools-it brings into question the separation of church and state.
Myth 40
Tuition tax credits and education saving accounts are helping many poor children escape failing public schools.
This myth expands on the idea of the last one, the idea of giving money to poor children who are attending failing schools so they can go to a successful private school is great, but often it does not work that way. No one really knows where the money that is collected from taxes really goes. Like in Arizona, no one knows who gets the 'scholarships.' No one knows if they children who change schools are actually benefiting in terms of education. There is no evidence that this works! The idea is a nice one, but I don't think the money is really going where it needs to. I think we are just helping well off families send their children to private schools, not poor students. Plus, some of the scholarships are only like $3,000. That in no way covers the cost of tuition and transportation for a poor student attending a private school. I think they should just take the money from taxes and help and public schools improve their performance. But then you need to make sure that the wealth is spread around. Taxes collected from rich communities already probably have a good public school, so send the money to public schools that are inner city and struggling.
Myth 7
School choice and competition work to improve all schools. Vouchers, tuition tax credits and charter schools inject competition.
Competition is a good thing right? It makes everyone work harder and, in the end, everyone does better. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Everyone believes that public schools are failing and offering private schools might help them step up their game. But that doesn't seem to be the case. If you compare public and private schools with similar populations, public schools are actually doing better. They might have more qualified teachers. But private schools look like they are doing better because they select their students and tend to draw the high achieving, motivated students (or at least their parents). When kids like this leave poorly performing public schools, those schools do take a hit. That talent and motivation is lost to the public schools other students, which mean they do worse. I don't really think the competition is helping public schools per se, but I still lean toward the idea that parent's have the freedom to choose for their child. But like what was discussed in class, who pays for that?
Myth 39
Tuition tax credits for families that choose private schools are appropriate.
In order to pay for parents who choose to send their kids to private schools, the government has come up with tax credits and vouchers among other things. This becomes a problem though when tax money is used to fund kids going to religious schools-it brings into question the separation of church and state.
Myth 40
Tuition tax credits and education saving accounts are helping many poor children escape failing public schools.
This myth expands on the idea of the last one, the idea of giving money to poor children who are attending failing schools so they can go to a successful private school is great, but often it does not work that way. No one really knows where the money that is collected from taxes really goes. Like in Arizona, no one knows who gets the 'scholarships.' No one knows if they children who change schools are actually benefiting in terms of education. There is no evidence that this works! The idea is a nice one, but I don't think the money is really going where it needs to. I think we are just helping well off families send their children to private schools, not poor students. Plus, some of the scholarships are only like $3,000. That in no way covers the cost of tuition and transportation for a poor student attending a private school. I think they should just take the money from taxes and help and public schools improve their performance. But then you need to make sure that the wealth is spread around. Taxes collected from rich communities already probably have a good public school, so send the money to public schools that are inner city and struggling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)