Business and American Education

01/26/09: In my previous journal I did a cursory look into No Child Left Behind and Reading First. In class last Thursday, Venta Silins, librarian at UWB, spoke with us about using the library’s resources. She introduced us to ERIC, an engine for accessing unpublished writings. She finished by encouraging us to use the library’s resources "instead of Google and Wikipedia." Now, I have to laugh at myself as the latter is just what I did. I will admit that I find Wikipedia to be a fair introduction to something or someone unknown to me. But now that I have ERIC, and once I learn to navigate it along with other areas of the library’s web-site, I will try my best to look more deeply into these issues.

But today, I would like to talk about our readings from American Education by Joel Spring. Dr. Spring points out the roll that our business community is playing in our public school system. I was at first put off by what I perceived to be Dr. Spring’s superior attitude toward business. He writes from the perspective of a man who has (I’m assuming) the job security of tenure as well as a business association with a publishing firm which sells his book at $70.00 for a paperback.
I have to first look at my concerns for my own children. An educational goal for my husband and me is that our children will be educated in a way that allows for them to feed themselves. We are no longer farmers. We do not produce the food that we put on our table. We provide for that food by earning an income. We are not wealthy. Our children will not inherit the money to sustain themselves. Neither are we self-employed. We do not have a business that we can pass on to our children. Their only hope for a secure future is through their education.
Furthermore, I believe that the Business Community is justified in going to our schools, informing them with regards to what they are finding. A friend of mine who is employed in Boeing's administration was reading an article (I have asked him for a copy) that stated, when interviewing potential employees coming out of our public high schools, roughly 70% of high school graduates do not have the reading skills, the math skills nor the communication skills required by businesses. I feel that it is not only fair, but wise of our business community to let our schools know that for their purposes a high school diploma from an Amercian public school is not adequate.
What does a high school diploma from an American school represent? Shouldn’t a diploma represent a specific level of mastery that will open doors for the graduate, whether the graduate is seeking employment or further education? I am reminded of Frank McCourt’s experience that he wrote about in Angela’s Ashes when he applied to the teacher’s program at NYU. He did not have the required undergraduate courses but he had a high school diploma from Ireland. The Admissions Officer told him that it was her experience that high school was more rigorous in Ireland than in America and Mr. McCourt was admitted. His Irish diploma represented something to the admissions officer and it opened a door for him, opened a door to a life he might not have had otherwise. Is this not what education is supposed to do for an individual?
This brings me to the issue of Bilingual Education in America. It is perhaps ironic that I would not support a policy requiring bilingual education. As a language major I not only understand the advantages of having another language, I also appreciate the opportunity to study a foreign language in our schools. This is a separate argument, however, from requiring our schools to offer instruction in a student’s native tongue. One reason is obvious; we can not possibly offer every immigrant student the opportunity to be educated in his/her birth language. Nor should we want to. A child will continue to learn his/her birth language at home. Being in our schools is their opportunity to not only learn English as their second language but to master it.
I am, however, in support of schools where instruction in two languages is offered. Perhaps along our Southern border with Mexico, instruction would be in English and Spanish. Perhaps along our Northeastern border with French speaking Canada, instruction would be in English and French. Along our Pacific border, English and Japanese, Korean, Chinese and/or Russian, as a community sees fit. This is different from requiring our public schools to instruct in the birth language of every student in our public schools. In an American school, as well as in American life, mastery of English is vital and a high school diploma should reflect that mastery.
Also in Dr. Spring’s book, a table was displayed showing gender bias in the work place. The assessment was based on income statistics. The table showed that females with a high school diploma earn less than males with a high school diploma, and so on with higher education. It seems that this table, however, is more a reflection of occupations chosen by gender rather than gender bias in the work place. I am not denying/ignoring gender bias but for me, a more useful table would be one showing income-earnings, delineated by gender among occupations. In other words a more accurate assessment would come from looking at how much females and males earn in the same occupation.
And then, if these statistics show that females are selecting occupations that earn for them a lower income, it seems more beneficial to look at the myriad of reasons behind that.

Reading First

01/19/09 It seems that the search for answers always leads to more questions and that there are no simple answers. An assignment for our BEDUC 405 Class: Contexts of Learning and Schooling, is to attend a School Board Meeting. I was able to attend one in the Mukilteo School District. This is my family’s district so I was able to attend as a UWB student and a parent. Governor Gregoire’s new budget was heavily discussed which led to new questions:
A) What is the history for funding for our schools?
B) Where do the funds come from; i.e., local, state, federal, lottery?
C) How are the funds spent,; i.e., who determines what goes where?
I will add these to my previous questions and I am sure that my search will go on long after this quarter has wrapped up.

Now for my first question from last week, what is Reading First? According to a USAToday.com article written 7/01/08, Reading First is a program proposed by President Bush in 2002 to teach low-income elementary students to read. A key part of No Child Left Behind, Reading First grew out of a pact between policy makers and brain researchers at the National Institute of Health. Since 2002, the Federal Government has spent $1 Billion/year on Reading First or roughly $17.7 million/state.
Early reviews of the program were generally positive. Some educators say the money has been a godsend, allowing them to train teachers in scientifically based reading methods, buy quality supplies and help school children learn to read.
The controversy erupted over squabbles about how the Education Department handed out money. House hearings have focused on financial ties between Reading First’s top advisors and major textbook publishers. In April 2007, in a hearing by the Education and Labor Committee, it was found that “mismanagement and conflicts of interest were pervasive in the Reading First Program.”
Furthermore, a 2008 study from the Department of Education concluded that the Reaing First Program is ineffective.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-07-01-reading-first_N.htm
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/rel042007rf.html

What is No Child Left Behind?
(per wikipedia.com article updated 01/19/2009)
Proposed by President Bush, it was a bi-partisan piece of legislation co-authored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH) and George Miller (D-CA) and Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) in 2001. It took effect in 2003. The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve schools by increasing standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools. It also provided parents more flexibility in choosing which school their children can attend.
NCLB requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. These assessments are to be given to all students in certain grades. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard. Standards are set by states.
Congress increased federal funding of education from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. Funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion.

Primary Supportive Claim for NCLB asserts that systematic testing provides data that shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills. This allows interventions to be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantage and disabled students.
Claims made in favor:
- Improved Test Scores
- Improvement over local standards
- Increased accountability
- Attention to minority populations
- Quality of education; emphasizes reading, writing, math,and science as “core academic subjects.”
- School choices
- Funding
- Public perception of public education.

Primary Criticism asserts NCLB may cause states to lower achievement goals and may motivate teachers to teach to a test.
Criticisms:
- Gaming the system
- Problems with standardized tests
- Incentives against low-performing students
- Incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students; some schools are only funding instruction for core subjects or remedial special education.
- States refusal to produce non-English assessments
- Narrow curriculum
- Narrow definition of research
- Limitations on local control
- Facilitates military recruitment
- Some students may not learn as well; NCLB places a “one-size-fits-all” standard on individual students.

NCLB pushes for quality teachers and more professional development. This is not fully funded by NCLB monies. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) initial sponsor of NCLB states, “The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place but the funds are not.”

Proposals for reforms. The Forum on Educational Accountability proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communities and holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

No Child Left Behind

UWB EDUC 427 JOURNAL
Ann Van Cotthem

1/12/09 Last Tuesday, January 6th, Cohort X10 started a new Quarter at UW Bothell. We will be taking two classes:
B EDUC 427 Reflective Seminar: Becoming a Professional Educator
Instructor: Dr. Jane Van Galen
and
B Educ 405 Contexts of Learning and Schooling
Instructor: Dr. Janice Kelly
In Tuesday’s class I heard mentioned the “Reading First” program This is apparently a Federal program with benchmarks to be met that are tied to Federal funds. I have not heard of this program before. The program was only mentioned in passing but it seemed that Dr. Van Galen believes the Federal government is over-stepping its bounds. I hope that we will discuss this in more detail and I plan to see what I can find on the internet regarding this.
I have friends who work in our public schools. When they speak about No Child Left Behind, it is usually with frustration and/or disapproval. I have not worked in the Public School System and have no first hand knowledge of what requirements NCLB places on schools and what the consequences are for not meeting these requirements. But it seems to me that, if our schools are going to accept Federal funds - the public’s money - there must be accountablility. What demands can the government justifiably place on schools and what rubric can our school system use to demonstrate that they are accomplishing their Number 1 responsibility, to educate our young?
In our Fall class, B EDUC 402 Human Growth and Learning, we were challenged to question the efficacy of testing students. Just what does a test tell us about a student’s knowledge? This makes sense to me. I understand the inefficiencies and inaccuracies of a test. But what is the alternative? How can children’s academic growth be measured and monitored so that one can see that a student is growing intellectually and not just physically?
As a parent with children in Washington Public Schools, I have watched the WASL evolve and grow in influence. It was my belief that it began as a test to see how well the school was performing. It was not to have an emphasis on student placement. Shortly, however, exceeding the benchmark in Writing became a criteria for placement in Honors Language Arts at my son’s Middle School. It would soon become a requirement for High School graduation.
I have seen teachers teaching for the WASL with lessons planned around passing it. I’ve seen math lessons turned into writing lessons as a student must now be able to write an explanation as to how s/he came to a math answer.
I believe that the intent of the WASL was good, to assess how well our schools are educating our children, to assess how effective our teaching is. I, also, believe that the swing of the WASL’s pendulum as gone too far. And we are now hearing cries from all areas - teachers, parents, legislators - for reforms and changes to the WASL.
But how can our schools reassure the public that they are effectively doing their job? Are they free to spend the public’s money which is entrusted to the schools in the faith that our youth will be educated, with no guidelines and no accountability? And, if we, as a public, want guidelines and accountability, what should those be? What is a fair analysis of our schools’ progress with regards to educating our children? What is a fair analysis of our children’s progress? I so hope that these issues will be addressed in our upcoming classes.
We saw a film in our BEDUC 405 class last Thursday about the history of Public Education in America. The film began in the 1770’s with Thomas Jefferson promoting “education for the masses.” Jefferson’s bill would be defeated three times as citizens did not want the state interferring in what was perceived to be a local issue. Horace Mann of Massachusettes, our first Secretary of the Board of Education, would take up the cause. He called it The Great Duty of Educating. Mann, too, would find resistance. Locals did not want the state meddling in their schools.
We now look back on this period in history with a different perspective and most of us agree that Jefferson and Mann were right in their efforts to promote a public educational system, “the great equilizer of the condition of men” according to Mann. I wonder how we will be perceived two hundred years from now. Will our Federal government’s cause of “leaving no child behind” be perceived as noble and our public school’s resistance to this Federal mandate be perceived as colloquial and quaint?
It seems that I have the following questions:
1) What is Reading First?
2) What is No Child Left Behind?
a. Goals
b. Criteria & Guidelines
c. Consequences
3) How to fairly assess students’ progress with regards to education and learning?
4) How to fairly asses our schools’ (public & private) role with regards to students’ progress?
5) How to fairly assess teachers’ role with regards to students’ progress?

I hope to address these questions in the coming weeks.