Go to Prezi! Read, watch, and think about Michelle Rhee, Gene Glass, and Diane Ravitch. Thanks, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
http://prezi.com/xso6tktta_2r/education-reform/
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Education Reform - Technology
My last foray into education reform comes from Paul E. Peterson’s Saving Schools: From Horace Mann to Virtual Learning. (2010) This book is more of a history of the American school, and as the title suggests, begins at the beginning and offers a possible vision of the future. As such, it is relevant to the current conversation on reform. Since a good deal of the emphasis in the Methods for Teaching Secondary Science course has been about technology (in part because this is an online class!), I would feel remiss if I didn’t touch on the subject. Although I cite Peterson’s work as a launching point, his work only treats virtual education in the last chapter. He goes into depth with an example from the Florida Virtual School, and proceeds to discuss the business model, pedagogy in the virtual world, accountability, and cost effectiveness. In terms of reform, I can only consider virtual classrooms as a supplementary vision. In the short term – on a public school basis (pK – 12) it is no more realistic than the 100% competency that NCLB demands for 2014. I’m no Luddite, and neither fear technology nor discount its potential to be part of the solution. But it is certainly no panacea either. As Diane Ravitch clearly articulated, the “fundamentals of good education are to be found in the classroom, the home, the community, and the culture.”
Education Reform – Gene Glass
My next expedition into the topic of education reform falls along a trajectory that is not entirely random and finds me feeling a small but satisfying personal vindication on two fronts (to be explained later). I became intensely interested in the topic after seeing Michelle Rhee on Oprah. Although Rhee is a compelling force in education reform, I felt something lacking. With that in mind, I endeavored to give her vision a closer look. Still not satisfied (and not convinced that the course of action she and her colleagues advocated was the definitive answer), I decided to turn to more specific issues that were closer to home. This led me to choose to investigate two reports from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute which dealt with the state of the Milwaukee Public Schools and with the status of Wisconsin high school education. Although these reports were insightful, I felt they were both biased and fell short of offering any lucid insight. Reading The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch moved me in a direction that felt consistent with a broader vision of both what I consider to be the goals of education and the shortcomings of the loudest voices in the contemporary reform movement.
When I plucked Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips: The Fate of Public Education in America by Gene Glass (2008) from the bookshelf, my first thought was the similarity in the title to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond is a geographer, but is widely known (if not always respected) in anthropological and other social science circles. Gene Glass readily acknowledges that this was intentional (my first little vindication) in his preface. Dr. Glass admits his empiricist training (he did early and influential work in statistical meta-analysis), and his shout out to Diamond is grounded in the belief that human actions and choices do not “arise ex nihilo to shape modern society” but that there is “a chain of influences” that move and shape our society. (p.xii) He goes on to say, and this is the crux of his position, that
In my initial post on Michelle Rhee and company I used a metaphor likening her tone and actions to Chicken Little. Glass echoes this thought (my second small vindication) when he states that
Undoubtedly this reveals my own bias, not only as an anthropologist and social scientist, but also as an individual who struggles to see black and white, struggles to see simple fixes to complex problems, and is unwilling to chuck it all. In education reform, we should be willing to step back from politics and slogans and ask ourselves what the underlying causes for our difficulties are. If we know where we need to go, then perhaps we can draw a map. Maybe education reform needs a curriculum.
------
Glass, G.V. (2008). Fertilizers, pills, and magnetic strips: the fate of public education in america by . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
When I plucked Fertilizers, Pills, and Magnetic Strips: The Fate of Public Education in America by Gene Glass (2008) from the bookshelf, my first thought was the similarity in the title to Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel. Diamond is a geographer, but is widely known (if not always respected) in anthropological and other social science circles. Gene Glass readily acknowledges that this was intentional (my first little vindication) in his preface. Dr. Glass admits his empiricist training (he did early and influential work in statistical meta-analysis), and his shout out to Diamond is grounded in the belief that human actions and choices do not “arise ex nihilo to shape modern society” but that there is “a chain of influences” that move and shape our society. (p.xii) He goes on to say, and this is the crux of his position, that
“On a much larger scale, I have come to see the continuous debates and attempts at reform of public education in America as linked to a set of influences largely unseen and unacknowledged, but when pointed out to any intelligent and objective observer strike a note of recognition and acceptance. My analysis is akin to that of the cultural materialist in anthropology, most notably its most influential proponent Marvin Harris, in that it combines elements of both Karl Marx (in the emphasis given to the forces of production in industrialized societies) and Thomas Malthus (in the emphasis given to the implications of expanding human populations). These two forces have much to say about a wide range of phenomena that pass before our eyes in modern society, in particular, how public institutions like education emerge, grow, and recede.” (p.xiii)
In my initial post on Michelle Rhee and company I used a metaphor likening her tone and actions to Chicken Little. Glass echoes this thought (my second small vindication) when he states that
“This book is about debates that never seem to end and why they don’t. It is about people who insist the sky is falling, when in fact things are about the same way they have always been. It is about farms and fertilizers and tractors and how many people it takes to feed a nation; about why nobody lives in the country anymore and why people in the city don’t want as many children as they used to want. It’s about pills that prevent pregnancies and discoveries in medicine that mean we can expect to live about twice as long as our great grandparents did. It is about robots that can build cars better than human hands can, and never ask for time off. It is about how people carry less money with them these days, and how the plastic card in their billfold or purse no longer seems like real money. It’s about people spending themselves into debt and corporations that welcome them there, and about those that retire only to go back to work because they have outlived their savings. It is about a nation growing older and poorer and caring less about the fate of those unlike themselves who were never invited here any way. And this book is about how all of these things are interrelated and under the control of some of the strongest human drives: for material comfort and for feelings of safety, drives that undergo transformations across a lifetime into the need to consume and the wish to segregate oneself from others who are different. And this book is about how all of this plays out in the arena of the public education system, long the pride of a young nation and now in danger of being abandoned” (p.3-4)
Undoubtedly this reveals my own bias, not only as an anthropologist and social scientist, but also as an individual who struggles to see black and white, struggles to see simple fixes to complex problems, and is unwilling to chuck it all. In education reform, we should be willing to step back from politics and slogans and ask ourselves what the underlying causes for our difficulties are. If we know where we need to go, then perhaps we can draw a map. Maybe education reform needs a curriculum.
------
Glass, G.V. (2008). Fertilizers, pills, and magnetic strips: the fate of public education in america by . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Education Reform – Diane Ravitch
Departing from the ideas of both Rhee and the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute’s reports, I would like to turn to other print resources. The first of these is The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch. (2010) In eleven chapters, Dr. Ravitch lays out what for me have been the most coherent and reasonable agreements that I have read on education reform.
Highlights include the first chapter, where Ravitch exposes her metaphysical journey from believer to skeptic. Where she had once supported and argued for reforms including “testing, accountability, choice, and markets, I now found myself experiencing some profound doubts about these same ideas.” (p.1) In the following chapters, she goes on to
Dr. Ravitch guides the reader from the genesis of the modern reform movement when A Nation at Risk was published in 1983 (p. 24) to the current environment dominated by No Child Left Behind. She succinctly contrasts the two visions by stating that while
Risk is a vision of holistic curriculum, but NCLB is a cul-de-sac of data.
Ravitch devotes entire chapters to different reform models, including the business model, NCLB, accountability, and privately funded foundations (Gates, Walton, Broad). She considers each of these to be “fads” which “threaten to destroy public education.” (p. 222). The reason (other than that the data to supports these methods is spotty) is simple. The “constant reform churn is not the approach typically found in countries with successful schools.” (p. 224) While reformers “continue to look for short cuts and quick answers” Ravitch maintains that the “fundamentals of good education are to be found in the classroom, the home, the community, and the culture.” (p.225) To me, this makes perfect sense. A robust curriculum “road map” in every discipline can lead the way. (p. 236) “To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland ,” she writes “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
------------
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great american school system: how testing and choice are undermining education . New York, NY: Basic Books.
Highlights include the first chapter, where Ravitch exposes her metaphysical journey from believer to skeptic. Where she had once supported and argued for reforms including “testing, accountability, choice, and markets, I now found myself experiencing some profound doubts about these same ideas.” (p.1) In the following chapters, she goes on to
“explain why I have concluded that most of the reform strategies that school districts, state officials, the Congress, and federal officials are pursuing, that mega-rich foundations are supporting, and that editorial boards are applauding are mistaken.” (p.14)
Dr. Ravitch guides the reader from the genesis of the modern reform movement when A Nation at Risk was published in 1983 (p. 24) to the current environment dominated by No Child Left Behind. She succinctly contrasts the two visions by stating that while
“A Nation at Risk was animated by a vision of a good education as the foundation of a better life for individuals and for our democratic society… No Child Left Behind had no vision other than improving test scores in reading and math.” (p. 29)
Risk is a vision of holistic curriculum, but NCLB is a cul-de-sac of data.
Ravitch devotes entire chapters to different reform models, including the business model, NCLB, accountability, and privately funded foundations (Gates, Walton, Broad). She considers each of these to be “fads” which “threaten to destroy public education.” (p. 222). The reason (other than that the data to supports these methods is spotty) is simple. The “constant reform churn is not the approach typically found in countries with successful schools.” (p. 224) While reformers “continue to look for short cuts and quick answers” Ravitch maintains that the “fundamentals of good education are to be found in the classroom, the home, the community, and the culture.” (p.225) To me, this makes perfect sense. A robust curriculum “road map” in every discipline can lead the way. (p. 236) “To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland ,” she writes “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
------------
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great american school system: how testing and choice are undermining education . New York, NY: Basic Books.
Education Reform - The Status of High School Education in Wisconsin
Following my last post on the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute’s analysis of the Milwaukee Publics Schools, I decided to go back to the well and read their report on The Status of High School Education in Wisconsin:A Tale of Two Wisconsins. (2006) But before I move ahead, I have another self-reflective confession to make. I am reading hard copies of WPRI’s reports, which look and feel legitimate and by all appearances are well researched, written, and documented. That said, I thought it might be prudent to think a little deeper about my source. To begin with, the WPRI report is a not peer reviewed material. Second, it only takes a quick trip to their web page to read their mission statement, which I only partially reported in my last post.
This expanded version reveals a far more conservative slant, verified by Wikipedia’s entry
So, with full disclosure concerning the possible bias of the research, what does the WPRI have to say about secondary education in Wisconsin? As the second half of the report title suggests the state is experiencing an achievement gap, an obvious area for reform. What is not obvious is what the solutions are. The paper readily acknowledges a “picture of two Wisconsins” where in
This performance gap is widening. The study finds “that the gap between high- and low-achieving high schools is getting worse rather than better.” (McDade, p.1) In most respect, this should come as no surprise. The real surprise is this statement:
How do we account for a narrowing spending gap but a widening performance gap? The WPRI concludes that the largest factors influencing school performance are socioeconomic – property wealth, race, and poverty.
----------
Wikipedia. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Policy_Research_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Policy_Research_Institute
McDade, P.J. (2006). The status of high school education in wisconsin. Wisconsin Research Institute Report, 19(1), Retrieved from http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no1.pdf
http://www.wpri.org/pages/about.html
“The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc., established in 1987, is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit Institute working to engage and energize Wisconsinites and others in discussions and timely action on key public policy issues critical to the State’s future, its growth and prosperity. The Institute’s research and public education activities are directed to identify and promote public policies in Wisconsin which are fair, accountable and cost effective. The Institute is guided by a belief that competitive free markets, limited government, private initiative, and personal responsibility are essential to our democratic way of life.”
This expanded version reveals a far more conservative slant, verified by Wikipedia’s entry
“Wisconsin Policy Research Institute is a non-profit conservative think tank advocating free market economics in the state of Wisconsin. It has played a prominent role in the development of the State's school voucher program and has formulated recommendations for state prison policy.”
So, with full disclosure concerning the possible bias of the research, what does the WPRI have to say about secondary education in Wisconsin? As the second half of the report title suggests the state is experiencing an achievement gap, an obvious area for reform. What is not obvious is what the solutions are. The paper readily acknowledges a “picture of two Wisconsins” where in
“Wisconsin’s top tier high schools 86% of the students score proficient or higher on the tenth grade test. This contrasts sharply with the lowest tier high schools, where only 60% score proficient or better. The averages of this lower tier are affected by the disturbing performance of the state’s two lowest-performing districts—Menominee and Milwaukee—in which approximately 30% of the students score proficient or higher. However, when data from these two districts are excluded, only 62% of students in the lower tier districts score proficient or higher on standardized tests.”
This performance gap is widening. The study finds “that the gap between high- and low-achieving high schools is getting worse rather than better.” (McDade, p.1) In most respect, this should come as no surprise. The real surprise is this statement:
“the unexpected finding is that the growing gap between the performance of top and bottom tier high schools occurred during a time when the spending gap between these two groups of schools remained relatively constant. In fact, during the seven years studied, spending in low-tier districts actually got closer to spending in high-tier districts. Yet, during that period, the achievement gap widened. The performance gap seems to be unaffected by spending.
Further, the study also includes a statistical analysis of the relationship between high school test scores and spending for all districts in Wisconsin. This analysis found there to be an insignificant relationship between spending and student test scores. In short, money cannot close the performance gap. Therefore, policy makers looking to close the performance gap need not consider spending as a primary solution.” (McDade, p.11)
How do we account for a narrowing spending gap but a widening performance gap? The WPRI concludes that the largest factors influencing school performance are socioeconomic – property wealth, race, and poverty.
----------
Wikipedia. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Policy_Research_Institute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Policy_Research_Institute
McDade, P.J. (2006). The status of high school education in wisconsin. Wisconsin Research Institute Report, 19(1), Retrieved from http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no1.pdf
http://www.wpri.org/pages/about.html
Education Reform # 3 – Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools
The next installment on my journey into the world of education reform is a departure from my first two posts. So far I have been thinking and writing about Michelle Rhee as the most prominent voice in the national dialog on the topic, and grappling with why her policies upset me. My introduction to Rhee came through her appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime talk show, and I have been using online print media, online reference material, and online video sources (Washington Post, Wikipedia, Oprah.com, and youtube.com) to further inform my opinion. The upshot of my analysis and reflections on Rhee suggested to me that her slash-and-burn style of reform is only scratching the surface. There are many, many issues beyond teacher competency to confront in education reform. For a change of pace I have turned my attention to a new topic based on a report I found in the stacks at the UWFox library.
Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools: The Limits of Parent Driven Reform (Dodenhoff, 2007) is a report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. who self identify as
The purpose of the study was to examine two of the several reform strategies that the Milwaukee Public Schools have embraced to combat high dropout rates – 32% in MPS vs. 9% statewide (Dodenhoff, p.3) – and low scores in the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations (WKCE) or Wisconsin Alternate Assessments (WAA).
These two reform strategies are parental involvement and public school choice. Supporters of parental involvement make the point that
According to Dodenhoff (p.4), “this engagement can take a variety of forms, including:
• attending general school meetings;
• attending parent-teacher conferences;
• attending a school or class event;
• serving on a district governing board;
• participating in a parent-teacher association or school council;
• volunteering at school events or in the classroom;
• designating a specific time and space for study at home;
• helping the child with homework, or checking to make sure that homework has been completed;
• discussing school issues with the child; and
• reading to, or with, the child.
Those in favor of public school choice maintain that “by permitting parents to choose among a variety of public school options within the district, competition for students will ensue. This should improve school effectiveness and efficiency, and ultimately lead to better student outcomes.” (Dodenhoff, p.10)
Again, Dodenhoff (p. 3) defines “Public school choice” as a “variety of measures designed to put parents in the role of educational consumers, shopping for the best product for their child from among a variety of public schooling options. These options include:
• intra-district choice—a system allowing parents to choose among multiple schools in their home district;
• inter-district choice—a system allowing parents to choose among schools in multiple districts;
• magnet schools—public schools offering specialized courses or curricula, and often drawing on students from across multiple districts; and
• charter schools—public schools that are exempt from select state and local requirements that govern more traditional public schools.
So what does the WPRI analysis tell us? To begin with, they warn of the limits to these two theories of reform. They are quick to point out that that these reforms do not always work as advertised and that the “efficacy of the two reforms can sometimes break along lines of race, class, educational attainment, family composition, income, and ethnicity (or some mix of these, due to the often strong inter-correlations between them).” (Dodenhoff, p.6) The bottom line is that the greater the socioeconomic hardship, the less likely that parents are involved.
The total picture for relying on school choice and parental involvement as reform is bleak. Only
The picture for parental involvement in the MPS is just as bleak where
These estimates are considered high.
The Milwaukee Public Schools are broken and support a population facing conditions well below national averages. If parental involvement and school choice are not reliable reform options, then what next? Perhaps Michelle Rhee had the right idea…
-----------
Dodenhoff, D. (2007). Fixing the milwaukee public schools: the limits of parent driven . Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc., 20(8), 1-16.
Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools: The Limits of Parent Driven Reform (Dodenhoff, 2007) is a report from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. who self identify as
“a nonpartisan, not-for-profit Institute working to engage and energize Wisconsinites and others in discussions and timely action on key public policy issues… to identify and promote public policies in Wisconsin which are fair, accountable and cost effective."
The purpose of the study was to examine two of the several reform strategies that the Milwaukee Public Schools have embraced to combat high dropout rates – 32% in MPS vs. 9% statewide (Dodenhoff, p.3) – and low scores in the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations (WKCE) or Wisconsin Alternate Assessments (WAA).
These two reform strategies are parental involvement and public school choice. Supporters of parental involvement make the point that
“even first-rate schools are limited in their effectiveness unless parents are also committed to their children’s education. Thus, the parental involvement movement seeks to engage parents as partners in learning activities, both on-site and at home. Research has shown that such engagement can produce higher levels of student performance, other things being equal. (Dodenhoff, p.10)
According to Dodenhoff (p.4), “this engagement can take a variety of forms, including:
• attending general school meetings;
• attending parent-teacher conferences;
• attending a school or class event;
• serving on a district governing board;
• participating in a parent-teacher association or school council;
• volunteering at school events or in the classroom;
• designating a specific time and space for study at home;
• helping the child with homework, or checking to make sure that homework has been completed;
• discussing school issues with the child; and
• reading to, or with, the child.
Those in favor of public school choice maintain that “by permitting parents to choose among a variety of public school options within the district, competition for students will ensue. This should improve school effectiveness and efficiency, and ultimately lead to better student outcomes.” (Dodenhoff, p.10)
Again, Dodenhoff (p. 3) defines “Public school choice” as a “variety of measures designed to put parents in the role of educational consumers, shopping for the best product for their child from among a variety of public schooling options. These options include:
• intra-district choice—a system allowing parents to choose among multiple schools in their home district;
• inter-district choice—a system allowing parents to choose among schools in multiple districts;
• magnet schools—public schools offering specialized courses or curricula, and often drawing on students from across multiple districts; and
• charter schools—public schools that are exempt from select state and local requirements that govern more traditional public schools.
So what does the WPRI analysis tell us? To begin with, they warn of the limits to these two theories of reform. They are quick to point out that that these reforms do not always work as advertised and that the “efficacy of the two reforms can sometimes break along lines of race, class, educational attainment, family composition, income, and ethnicity (or some mix of these, due to the often strong inter-correlations between them).” (Dodenhoff, p.6) The bottom line is that the greater the socioeconomic hardship, the less likely that parents are involved.
The total picture for relying on school choice and parental involvement as reform is bleak. Only
“an estimated 34 percent of MPS parents actively choose a school for their child(ren)… while fewer than half of parents who do choose make a choice from among two or more schools (as opposed to considering only one). Of those, about two-thirds consider academic/performance criteria in making their choice. By the time one arrives at this third cut at the data, only 10 percent of parents remain—that is, only 10 percent of parents consciously choose a school for their child, do so from at least two options, and consider academic/performance criteria in the process.”
The picture for parental involvement in the MPS is just as bleak where
“about one-third of parents are highly involved in their children’s education at the school site. With respect to at-home involvement, the figures vary between roughly 40 and 50 percent, depending on the student’s age. But parents who are at least moderately involved at home and highly involved at school are scarce indeed, constituting no more than one quarter of the parent population, and perhaps as little as 10 percent (again, depending on student age).” (Dodenhoff, p.10)
These estimates are considered high.
The Milwaukee Public Schools are broken and support a population facing conditions well below national averages. If parental involvement and school choice are not reliable reform options, then what next? Perhaps Michelle Rhee had the right idea…
-----------
Dodenhoff, D. (2007). Fixing the milwaukee public schools: the limits of parent driven . Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc., 20(8), 1-16.
Education Reform: Personal Bias and Further Research
As I began to think about education reform, I felt that I needed to confront a personal bias. Prior to reviewing Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee’s article in the Washington Post (October 10, 2010: How to fix our schools: A manifesto by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and other education leaders), I had watched Rhee and others on Oprah. Part of that interview can be seen here: http://youtu.be/i_C0CYScOwc . After reading Klein and Rhee’s manifesto, and revisiting the Oprah episode (for text: http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Shocking-State-of-Our-Schools), I kept trying to put my finger on just where my bias came from. I was not impressed with Michelle Rhee, but what was it about her personally or ideologically that raised my hackles. Both Rhee and Winfrey make it clear that they are not anti-teacher. But Rhee is famous for speaking out against ineffective teachers, and for taking actions to back up her words. In her short tenure (2007 -2010) as chancellor of the DC School District she closed 21 schools and fired 266 teachers (Wikipedia, 2010). She is not particularly loved by teachers’ unions. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and in fact there is evidence that Rhee’s policies have had a positive effect. Her Wikipedia page notes that
Ultimately, I think that political and attention-seeking types make me suspicious. I find myself asking “What is their hidden agenda?” Is closing schools and firing teachers the long term fix, or an expedient Band-Aid? Are high achievement and learning the same thing? What are the roll of NCLB and high-stakes testing on school reform? Where does technology fit in? Parents? SES? Earlier I asked what purpose the Chicken Little approach serves in identifying and addressing specific failures and issues? I’ve already made it clear that while I agree that closing schools and firing teachers might have some merit, it is not the only course of action or issue at hand. For me the answer is to learn more about what these issues are and how they can best be addressed.
Joel Klein, Initials. (2010, October 10). How to fix our schools: a manifesto by joel klein, michelle rhee and other education leaders. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html
Wikipedia. (2010). Michelle Rhee. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee
“High school graduation rates were at 72 percent in 2009, an increase of three percentage points from 2008. By 2010, D.C. Comprehensive Assessment System reading pass rates had increased by 14 percentage points, and math pass rates had increased by 17 percentage points. Enrollment decreased by one percent, a slower decline than prior years. [The Mayor points to] data showing that 72 percent of students graduated in 2009, up nearly three points from the previous year.”So why would I feel threatened? Those numbers look pretty good! But they only tell a very narrow story over a short time period. I suspect that part of my reservations stem from the inherent uncertainties that an aspiring teacher feels. How can any single human being possibly know enough or have enough training to deal with every possible variable in the classroom? Is it healthy to teach in an environment where you feel like your boss is waiting off stage ready to give you the hook? And doubly so when the perception is that your achievement is tied to the achievement of your students.
Ultimately, I think that political and attention-seeking types make me suspicious. I find myself asking “What is their hidden agenda?” Is closing schools and firing teachers the long term fix, or an expedient Band-Aid? Are high achievement and learning the same thing? What are the roll of NCLB and high-stakes testing on school reform? Where does technology fit in? Parents? SES? Earlier I asked what purpose the Chicken Little approach serves in identifying and addressing specific failures and issues? I’ve already made it clear that while I agree that closing schools and firing teachers might have some merit, it is not the only course of action or issue at hand. For me the answer is to learn more about what these issues are and how they can best be addressed.
Joel Klein, Initials. (2010, October 10). How to fix our schools: a manifesto by joel klein, michelle rhee and other education leaders. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705078.html
Wikipedia. (2010). Michelle Rhee. Wikipedia. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Rhee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)