The phrase “separation of church and state” never appears in the constitution, even though it is upheld by this doctrine. As part of the first amendment’s establishment and free exercise clause, the constitution states, “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Little did the writers of the 1787 document know what a profound impact these few words would have on public education.
Separation of church and state was not specifically addressed until five years after the constitution was drafted. In a letter to Danbury Baptist Church Association in Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson introduced the metaphor as a “wall of separation between church and state” in response to requests on making a religious public address around the Thanksgiving Holiday. Although Jefferson saw separation of religion and government as necessary, it took almost another 150 years for this phrase to permeate the field of public education.
In 1947, the U.S. Supreme court heard the case of Everson versus the Board of Education. Everson was filing a petition saying that tax-raised funding should not be used to pay for the busing of parochial school students. The Court, however, did not agree with Everson’s stance, stating “the state must remain neutral, not adversarial in its relation with religious groups….[although] the wall between church and state must be kept high and impregnable.” It was only after this landmark court case that this common phrase became mainstream. The caseload surrounding separation of church and state in public education since this time period has grown exponentially.
Much of the debate arises over how to respect individual religious rights under the umbrella of public education. As The United States becomes more religiously diverse, these cases are becoming more complex. In the past, America was a primarily Christian nation; however, the influx of several new cultures and religions over the years has forced citizens of the United States to expand their view on religious rights. It was not until recently, that any official guidelines on the role of religion in public education were established.
In 1995, after fifty years of controversy, President Clinton directed the U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, to develop a list of guidelines describing the extent to which religious activity and expression could be addressed in public schools. Riley highlights ten aspects of religion in public education and lays the foundation for what can and cannot be done in public schools. Riley works to “neither foster religion nor preclude it” in public schools. This document highlights courses of action for graduation and baccalaureate practices as well as student assignments and school literature. A diverse group of religious individuals, who were attempting to find common ground for religion in public education, influenced Riley. This group consisted of 37 different religious groups who established a canon, “Religion in Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law,” which addresses a common concern: public education should be a “religion-free zone.” This document offers educators the knowledge of legally acceptable religious practices in public education.
These recent attempts to clear the murky waters of religion in public education have come after a long series of battles both for and against religious stances in education. Court cases have emerged on leading organized prayer, teaching evolution, and religious clubs. In most of these cases, an extremist, either for or against religion in education, attempts to levy his or her point of view at the Supreme Court level. It is the court’s place to help keep public education in balance with respect to the constitution, so that it neither endorses nor excludes a particular sect. Evolution, for instance, has been a heated topic in education. Extreme religious advocates would have taken the stance that evolution should be completely removed from the science curriculum in public education. However, extreme anti-religious sects would argue that evolution should be the only theory expressed in the science program of study. Both views need balance. Creationists need to leave room for the educational process in science, while evolution fanatics must also realize that their view is also only a theory.
Throughout the past sixty years of debate over the separation of church and state in public education, more steps have been taken to establish a balanced practice in schools. Students are permitted to be religious individuals, and faculty is responsible for ensuring students’ beliefs are not forced onto classmates. “Religious Expression in Public Schools” and “Religion In the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law” are two examples of the present documents aiding educators in establishing this balance.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Charter Schools
Charter Schools
By Amy HubbsCharter schools are public schools that are funded through the district in which they are located. According to Public School Review, they tend to be small schools, with a median enrollment of 242 students and serve different communities with a variety of curriculum and instructional practices. A charter school cannot charge tuition and is required to be open to all students on a space-available basis. If the number of students seeking admission is larger than the number that can be admitted, charter schools will use a lottery system or keep waiting lists. These schools run independently of the traditional public school system and tailor their programs to fit the needs of the communities. They are required, by law, to meet the same academic standards and assessment requirements adopted by the Department of Education for all public schools and adhere to their charter contract. Charter contracts last between three and five years. If a charter school does not meet the state standards for educational effectiveness and fiscal responsibilities, it can be closed.
First of all, charter schools create a choice to parents and students within the public school system. Since many charter schools are located in urban areas, they provide an alternative to the area’s public schools, which may be underperforming. A charter school also has the power to select its curriculum and can tailor it to meet the needs of its students. As mentioned above, charter schools tend to have smaller numbers of students, which allows for more instruction and support for individual students. in addition, charter schools have a great accountability to get results. If the school fails to measure up to state standards, students may be pulled out or the charter can be taken away altogether.
On the other hand, charter schools are taking money away from public education. Charter schools are funded by the district in which they are located, and they are also eligible for state and federal funding. Traditionally, charter schools are small in size and have a limited number of available spaces for students. Therefore, they can only provide an option for a limited number of families. Additionally, these schools have fewer resources and money for start-up costs, which can result in poor facilities and a lack of classroom resources. Charter schools can also be easily closed due to poor management or financial problems. From a teacher’s perspective, charter schools are not unionized. This is a disadvantage to teachers because they are not protected in the same ways as a public school teacher.
In sum, the debate about whether charter schools are more effective than public schools is not going away. With our current administration in support of charter schools, it will probably become a more heated topic. We must keep in mind that the debate is not about whether charter schools are better than public schools. In fact, it is about which individual schools use their tools effectively and are producing students that are ready to contend with our global competitors. According to President Obama, “The future belongs to the nation that best educates its citizens.”
NCLB in Obama Administration
Mary Higgs
No Child Left Behind in the Obama Administration
In March, President Obama issued his Blueprint for Reform which is his reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The name No Child Left Behind (NCLB) will no longer be used due to the controversy surrounding the current act. President Obama wrote a letter that explains his new reform efforts. He stresses that our students need to compete on a global scale. His goal, therefore, is that by 2020, “the United States will once again lead the world in college completion”. Obama feels that the key to this success will be the nation’s teachers, school leaders, and principals. Obama also recognizes that communities and families also play a part in a child’s education. However, some would argue that all of the responsibility for this new plan is placed on educators. One criticism of Bush’s NCLB was that there was not enough funding to follow through with necessary interventions. President Obama and Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, want to see the federal government play a leading role in reforms for schools while still giving a lot of flexibility to states individual initiatives.
No Child Left Behind in the Obama Administration
In March, President Obama issued his Blueprint for Reform which is his reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The name No Child Left Behind (NCLB) will no longer be used due to the controversy surrounding the current act. President Obama wrote a letter that explains his new reform efforts. He stresses that our students need to compete on a global scale. His goal, therefore, is that by 2020, “the United States will once again lead the world in college completion”. Obama feels that the key to this success will be the nation’s teachers, school leaders, and principals. Obama also recognizes that communities and families also play a part in a child’s education. However, some would argue that all of the responsibility for this new plan is placed on educators. One criticism of Bush’s NCLB was that there was not enough funding to follow through with necessary interventions. President Obama and Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, want to see the federal government play a leading role in reforms for schools while still giving a lot of flexibility to states individual initiatives.
The Obama proposal will provide funds both to states and districts to assist in funding for the development of effective teachers and leaders. He would like to see teachers and leaders rewarded for their effectiveness. It is also very important for effective teachers and leaders to be in schools that are struggling. States will be asked to become more involved with teacher preparation programs. They will monitor their effectiveness and also invest in programs that are developing successful graduates.
Under President Obama, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, expects that all students graduate from high school ready for college and a career, no matter their income, ethnic or language background, race, or disability status. States are being asked to develop standards in language arts and mathematics that prepare students for college or careers. States can upgrade their current standards or also work together to adapt common standards. While NCLB placed emphasis on mathematics and science, President Obama will also focus on history, technology, the arts, literacy, civics, and foreign languages. Assessments will be put in place to better assess higher- order skills and also provide measurements of student growth.
One big difference between Bush’s plan and Obama’s plan is the emphasis on reward and punishment. President Obama not only wants to reward teachers but also schools and school districts. The focus will switch from students passing a grade level test each year, such as the NJ Ask, to students showing improvement from year to year and closing the achievement gap. The Race to the Top incentive will continue. Schools that are willing to take part in the comprehensive reforms will be rewarded. Obama supports the expansion of public charter schools and also the option for public school choice within and across school districts.
The ultimate goal of Obama’s plan is to make all students’ college or career ready by 2020. One way to do that is by supporting early education including the Head Start program. As we know, it is important that students come to kindergarten prepared for school. States are expected to examine their standards and ensure that they are properly preparing students for high school graduation and either college or careers.
Schools that are not succeeding will be labeled “Challenge Schools”. These schools will be forced to implement one of the models suggested by Obama as an intervention. Grants will be given to these schools to assist with the needed interventions. Interventions can be severe including hiring new leadership, teachers, and even closing the school. Therefore, while this plan promotes rewards, there are specific punishments in place for failing schools.
While this plan has just been recently released, a lot of good and bad criticism has already been discussed. According to Fox News, The American Federation of Teachers is concerned that all of the responsibility for failing students will be placed on teachers and school leaders. They feel that if teachers are unable to consistently produce successful students, they will be penalized financially. The National Education Association (NEA) feels that the new plan is going to force states to compete against one another for critical resources. This is due to the part of the plan that rewards highly successful teachers and districts. The hope of the NEA was the funding would be equally distributed among the states. Another concern is that there is still too much emphasis placed on standardized tests. Standardized tests are still one of the ways that Obama suggests we use to measure students success. It is a tough issue because there is not many other ways to assess student’s progress and compare them to students across the country. Teacher’s unions worry that as the criteria of teacher preparation programs become more rigorous, we are not providing a better work force but actually creating a teacher shortage. Teacher’s unions feel that NCLB under former President Bush was not effective. They are not convinced that President Obama’s changes are enough to make the bill effective. According to the New York Times, lawmakers from Oklahoma, Alaska, and North Carolina are concerned that the new plan does not effectively help rural schools and may actually hurt them.
Supporters of Obama’s plan are confident that these changes will help the plan become more effective. Supporters of the bill feel that accountability standards are necessary to foster achievement and growth in all districts. This is a point that most people, including teacher unions, agree with. NCLB keeps the focus on reading, writing, and math. The new plan continues to ensure that special education students, English language learners, minorities, and low-income families receive the same education as everyone else. Education week reports that state superintendents sat down to talk to Arne Duncan about the proposed changes in NCLB. Alabama’s state superintendent said that the meeting was productive and they are off to a good start. Duncan is listening to concerns from these top educators and wants to work together.
It seems that most people are in agreement that high standards are a necessary part of education. Overall, there are many positive points in the blueprint President Obama has created. However, many people feel that they need to see the changes before they support the plan.
School Choice and Vouchers March 31, 2010
School Choice and Vouchers
By Donna Lacovara
“We cannot continue to pour money into schools that won't teach. As opposed to subsidizing failure, we ought to free the parents to make a different choice.” George W. Bush.
The advantages of offering school choice to families are many. According to the Washington Post, 2009, A U.S. Education Department study found that District students who were given vouchers to attend private schools outperformed public school peers on reading tests. Research on the value of school vouchers are difficult to contest when results like these are proven. The Anti-Defamation League also adds that a benefit to school vouchers is that the standard program proposed in dozens of states across the country would distribute money vouchers to parents of school-age children, usually in troubled inner-city school districts. Theoretically, this approach is seen as a benefit to students who attend schools where more discipline and violence occurs than learning and education. Lastly, it is believed that vouchers will create good competition among schools. Currently it is believed that public schools have no incentive to improve the quality of their education to attract students. Regardless of the quality of education, they will always be in demand. Distribution of vouchers will force public schools to become more rigorous and rewarding so they ultimately may be the school of choice. The bottom line is that the majority of parents know what is best for their children. Surveys have shown that the number one reason parents choose a school is academics (Center for Education Reform).
Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers states, “Vouchers are bad education policy, and we will continue to fight efforts to introduce them into public education. Our nation’s commitment to public education is longstanding, built upon the principle of open and equal access for all our children,” said Feldman. “This Supreme Court decision undercuts that principle and commitment.”
Disadvantages are also weighty. Just because a family is provided with a choice of which school they feel best suits their child’s needs does not mean that the voucher will cover the entire tuition the school requires. Since each private school charges its own tuition, and since most voucher system proposals would determine the worth of the voucher, there is no guarantee that a voucher will completely cover the cost of private education. At an inexpensive school, a voucher will cover much of the cost of tuition. At an expensive school, a voucher will make no difference to an economically disadvantaged parent. So where is that choice? Many voucher systems would be financed by corresponding reductions in public school funding. Aid that is provided to the public schools by the government would be decreased so that they may provide vouchers to families that wish to choose their child’s school. Does that not defeat the purpose of public schooling? A larger issue is the separation of church and state. The majority of vouchers would be used in schools whose main focus is religion. Providing government funding to support this attitude goes directly against the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state. Is this fair? A large thrust of school choice is that exactly…choice. What parents are not aware of is the fact that their child must apply to attend the school of their choice. Ultimately, it is the decision of the school whether or not they admit a child. Is there truly a choice? Lastly, American public schools are doing a fine job at educating their children. The U.S. has one of the highest graduation rates and U.S. schools steer more students to college than any other country. Why fix what is not broken?
In these troubled economic times, school choice and vouchers are sure to remain a hot political topic. You decide.
By Donna Lacovara
“We cannot continue to pour money into schools that won't teach. As opposed to subsidizing failure, we ought to free the parents to make a different choice.” George W. Bush.
The advantages of offering school choice to families are many. According to the Washington Post, 2009, A U.S. Education Department study found that District students who were given vouchers to attend private schools outperformed public school peers on reading tests. Research on the value of school vouchers are difficult to contest when results like these are proven. The Anti-Defamation League also adds that a benefit to school vouchers is that the standard program proposed in dozens of states across the country would distribute money vouchers to parents of school-age children, usually in troubled inner-city school districts. Theoretically, this approach is seen as a benefit to students who attend schools where more discipline and violence occurs than learning and education. Lastly, it is believed that vouchers will create good competition among schools. Currently it is believed that public schools have no incentive to improve the quality of their education to attract students. Regardless of the quality of education, they will always be in demand. Distribution of vouchers will force public schools to become more rigorous and rewarding so they ultimately may be the school of choice. The bottom line is that the majority of parents know what is best for their children. Surveys have shown that the number one reason parents choose a school is academics (Center for Education Reform).
Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers states, “Vouchers are bad education policy, and we will continue to fight efforts to introduce them into public education. Our nation’s commitment to public education is longstanding, built upon the principle of open and equal access for all our children,” said Feldman. “This Supreme Court decision undercuts that principle and commitment.”
Disadvantages are also weighty. Just because a family is provided with a choice of which school they feel best suits their child’s needs does not mean that the voucher will cover the entire tuition the school requires. Since each private school charges its own tuition, and since most voucher system proposals would determine the worth of the voucher, there is no guarantee that a voucher will completely cover the cost of private education. At an inexpensive school, a voucher will cover much of the cost of tuition. At an expensive school, a voucher will make no difference to an economically disadvantaged parent. So where is that choice? Many voucher systems would be financed by corresponding reductions in public school funding. Aid that is provided to the public schools by the government would be decreased so that they may provide vouchers to families that wish to choose their child’s school. Does that not defeat the purpose of public schooling? A larger issue is the separation of church and state. The majority of vouchers would be used in schools whose main focus is religion. Providing government funding to support this attitude goes directly against the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state. Is this fair? A large thrust of school choice is that exactly…choice. What parents are not aware of is the fact that their child must apply to attend the school of their choice. Ultimately, it is the decision of the school whether or not they admit a child. Is there truly a choice? Lastly, American public schools are doing a fine job at educating their children. The U.S. has one of the highest graduation rates and U.S. schools steer more students to college than any other country. Why fix what is not broken?
In these troubled economic times, school choice and vouchers are sure to remain a hot political topic. You decide.
Year-Round Schools
Marc Pierlott
Fundamentals of Curriculum Development
Dr. Jay Dugan
March 30, 2010
A Brief History of School Schedules in America
Schools in America have been on a 10-month schedule since the 1800’s. Many believe summer vacation was created to meet the demands of an agrarian society. Others suggest that if that were the case children would need time off in the spring for planting and in the fall for harvesting. The summer vacation, they contend, was centered on the needs of the wealthy who could afford to retire to the cooler air of a summer cottage in the country or back to Europe to visit relatives and to tour. Either way, the 10-month schedule has become the traditional schedule of the vast majority of schools in America.
Although most districts utilize the 10-month schedule, experiments with year-round schedules began with the influx of immigrants into our larger cities around the beginning of the 1900’s. As a means of organizing the overcrowded schools and as a way of providing remedial help to non-English speaking children, schools created a tracking schedule whereby some students would be in school while others where on vacation. This lowered class size while allowing for immediate remediation for those falling behind in their studies.
Year Round Schedules
The typical year-round schedule operates on the same 180 day system as the 10-month schedule. A popular year-round schedule is the 45-15 plan with students in class 45 days then getting 15 days off (the equivalent of three weeks). Other options include the 60-20 and the 90-30 plans. Schools can operate these schedules as a single-track (that is when everyone in the school is on the same schedule) or a multiple-track system (that is when some students are in session while others are on vacation.) When overcrowding is a concern schools turn to the multiple track system to lower class sizes.
Over the years, the majority of American schools that have instituted year-round schedules are located in western states that have experienced population booms and the subsequent strain on their education infrastructure. In fact Education Bug reports that, 55% of students enrolled in year-round schools during the 2006-2007 school year resided in California. However, to put this number in perspective, only approximately 15% of public schools in California are year-round schools.
Arguments for Year-Round Education
In a school system suffering from overcrowding, year-round schooling provides accommodations for students and staff. However, there are other reasons to experiment with year-round schooling. Advocates such as Charles Ballinger of the National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE) suggest that the shorter break between marking periods might increase retention of previously learned material. If so, less time will be required to review material at the beginning of each marking period. Additionally, the breaks between marking periods provide opportunities for remediation and enrichment. That way, teachers work with students before they fall too far behind their classmates while enrichment programs offer students opportunities for discovery and exploration in a more relaxed academic setting.
Arguments against Year-Round Education
The most significant argument against year-round schooling is the lack of evidence suggesting that students actually learn more or perform better on standardized tests. Critics, such as Ohio State University’s Paul von Hippel, question the amount of information students forget over the course of a summer, as well as, if some lost information is worth the costs and efforts associated with changing the traditional school schedule. Year-round schooling can create difficulties in scheduling after-school activities (sports, theatre, music, etc.). These scheduling challenges are further complicated if a school is operating on a multiple-track system where students will have to come to school for practice and rehearsals during their vacations. In a multiple-track system it is possible for siblings to end up on different schedules making family vacations impossible and presenting challenges to fulfilling child-care needs (older siblings or babysitters may not be available.) Additionally, year-round schedules would create far- reaching changes to summer jobs, internships as well as the tourism industry. Lastly, districts will have to absorb the costs of equipping schools with air-conditioning to alleviate the heat during the summer months.
Curricular Effects
The year-round schedule offers curriculum writers many opportunities. First, the standard curriculum would change to match the shorter length of the marking periods. Using Dr. Dugan’s “Quick & Dirty Method of Curriculum Mapping”, one could plan an effective marking period by choosing the essential curriculum and organizing material by the number of teaching days in the marking period. Next, the opportunity to create brief interventions or remedial courses to fit within the vacation period would require teachers to examine the core lessons of the previous marking period and to generate differentiated learning experiences for their struggling students. Lastly, the opportunity to create enrichment activities for students that extend the knowledge gained in previous marking periods by applying it in creative ways could inspire students to become life-long learners.
Conclusion
There is no clear evidence that year-round schooling increases student achievement. Gene Glass, associate dean of research in the College of Education at Arizona State University stated, “The conclusion is that 180 days of schooling a year gives you 180 days of schooling output, regardless of how you arrange it or how you spread it out.” Therefore, I would recommend year-round schooling for districts struggling with overcrowding. For districts seeking ways to improve student achievement, I would recommend that you invest money in teacher training, curriculum development and more immediate remediation such as in-school, after-school and Saturday-school support programs.
Quotes against Year-Round Schooling
“It is absurd to suggest that children aren’t learning during the summer. It’s a different type of learning, which simply is not tested.”
Dr. Leo Wisenbender
L. A. Unified Program and Evaluation Branch, 1994
“You can’t scrape up a piece of solid evidence that academic achievement is superior on that calendar.”
Dr. Gene Glass
Associate Dean of Research, College of Education, Arizona State University, 2001
“The evidence was that it would be about as effective as changing the color of the school bus.”
Dr. Chris Newland
Psychology, Auburn University, 1998
“Advocates of year-round schooling have sometimes oversimplified and exaggerated the financial benefits . . . In some instances, savings have been so minimal that year-round schooling has been abandoned after just a few years of implementation.”
Barbara J. Merino
“The Impact of Year-Round Schooling, a Review”, Urban Education, 1983
“As long as we’ve been on year-round schedule, we haven’t improved academically.”
Principal Lynda Haynes
Stripling Middle School, Fort Worth, Texas, 1998
“We found that students in year-round schools learn more during the summer, when others are on vacation, but they seem to learn less than other children during the rest of the year.”
Paul von Hippel
Sociologist, Ohio State University, 2007
Fundamentals of Curriculum Development
Dr. Jay Dugan
March 30, 2010
A Brief History of School Schedules in America
Schools in America have been on a 10-month schedule since the 1800’s. Many believe summer vacation was created to meet the demands of an agrarian society. Others suggest that if that were the case children would need time off in the spring for planting and in the fall for harvesting. The summer vacation, they contend, was centered on the needs of the wealthy who could afford to retire to the cooler air of a summer cottage in the country or back to Europe to visit relatives and to tour. Either way, the 10-month schedule has become the traditional schedule of the vast majority of schools in America.
Although most districts utilize the 10-month schedule, experiments with year-round schedules began with the influx of immigrants into our larger cities around the beginning of the 1900’s. As a means of organizing the overcrowded schools and as a way of providing remedial help to non-English speaking children, schools created a tracking schedule whereby some students would be in school while others where on vacation. This lowered class size while allowing for immediate remediation for those falling behind in their studies.
Year Round Schedules
The typical year-round schedule operates on the same 180 day system as the 10-month schedule. A popular year-round schedule is the 45-15 plan with students in class 45 days then getting 15 days off (the equivalent of three weeks). Other options include the 60-20 and the 90-30 plans. Schools can operate these schedules as a single-track (that is when everyone in the school is on the same schedule) or a multiple-track system (that is when some students are in session while others are on vacation.) When overcrowding is a concern schools turn to the multiple track system to lower class sizes.
Over the years, the majority of American schools that have instituted year-round schedules are located in western states that have experienced population booms and the subsequent strain on their education infrastructure. In fact Education Bug reports that, 55% of students enrolled in year-round schools during the 2006-2007 school year resided in California. However, to put this number in perspective, only approximately 15% of public schools in California are year-round schools.
Arguments for Year-Round Education
In a school system suffering from overcrowding, year-round schooling provides accommodations for students and staff. However, there are other reasons to experiment with year-round schooling. Advocates such as Charles Ballinger of the National Association for Year-Round Education (NAYRE) suggest that the shorter break between marking periods might increase retention of previously learned material. If so, less time will be required to review material at the beginning of each marking period. Additionally, the breaks between marking periods provide opportunities for remediation and enrichment. That way, teachers work with students before they fall too far behind their classmates while enrichment programs offer students opportunities for discovery and exploration in a more relaxed academic setting.
Arguments against Year-Round Education
The most significant argument against year-round schooling is the lack of evidence suggesting that students actually learn more or perform better on standardized tests. Critics, such as Ohio State University’s Paul von Hippel, question the amount of information students forget over the course of a summer, as well as, if some lost information is worth the costs and efforts associated with changing the traditional school schedule. Year-round schooling can create difficulties in scheduling after-school activities (sports, theatre, music, etc.). These scheduling challenges are further complicated if a school is operating on a multiple-track system where students will have to come to school for practice and rehearsals during their vacations. In a multiple-track system it is possible for siblings to end up on different schedules making family vacations impossible and presenting challenges to fulfilling child-care needs (older siblings or babysitters may not be available.) Additionally, year-round schedules would create far- reaching changes to summer jobs, internships as well as the tourism industry. Lastly, districts will have to absorb the costs of equipping schools with air-conditioning to alleviate the heat during the summer months.
Curricular Effects
The year-round schedule offers curriculum writers many opportunities. First, the standard curriculum would change to match the shorter length of the marking periods. Using Dr. Dugan’s “Quick & Dirty Method of Curriculum Mapping”, one could plan an effective marking period by choosing the essential curriculum and organizing material by the number of teaching days in the marking period. Next, the opportunity to create brief interventions or remedial courses to fit within the vacation period would require teachers to examine the core lessons of the previous marking period and to generate differentiated learning experiences for their struggling students. Lastly, the opportunity to create enrichment activities for students that extend the knowledge gained in previous marking periods by applying it in creative ways could inspire students to become life-long learners.
Conclusion
There is no clear evidence that year-round schooling increases student achievement. Gene Glass, associate dean of research in the College of Education at Arizona State University stated, “The conclusion is that 180 days of schooling a year gives you 180 days of schooling output, regardless of how you arrange it or how you spread it out.” Therefore, I would recommend year-round schooling for districts struggling with overcrowding. For districts seeking ways to improve student achievement, I would recommend that you invest money in teacher training, curriculum development and more immediate remediation such as in-school, after-school and Saturday-school support programs.
Quotes against Year-Round Schooling
“It is absurd to suggest that children aren’t learning during the summer. It’s a different type of learning, which simply is not tested.”
Dr. Leo Wisenbender
L. A. Unified Program and Evaluation Branch, 1994
“You can’t scrape up a piece of solid evidence that academic achievement is superior on that calendar.”
Dr. Gene Glass
Associate Dean of Research, College of Education, Arizona State University, 2001
“The evidence was that it would be about as effective as changing the color of the school bus.”
Dr. Chris Newland
Psychology, Auburn University, 1998
“Advocates of year-round schooling have sometimes oversimplified and exaggerated the financial benefits . . . In some instances, savings have been so minimal that year-round schooling has been abandoned after just a few years of implementation.”
Barbara J. Merino
“The Impact of Year-Round Schooling, a Review”, Urban Education, 1983
“As long as we’ve been on year-round schedule, we haven’t improved academically.”
Principal Lynda Haynes
Stripling Middle School, Fort Worth, Texas, 1998
“We found that students in year-round schools learn more during the summer, when others are on vacation, but they seem to learn less than other children during the rest of the year.”
Paul von Hippel
Sociologist, Ohio State University, 2007
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tiffany Harris-Greene
Fundamentals of Curriculum
Dr. Jay Dugan
No Child Left Behind- The Obama Era
The Blueprint: President Obama’s reforms to
No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a revision of the 1965 Federal Law, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It has been revised numerous times in the last few decades, but none with as much discontent, as when the past President George Bush revised it in 2002. The changes to the ESEA under past President Bush included the following:
- Annual testing to show progress.
- Progress must be determined as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
- Penalties are enforced when AYP is not met.
- There is no credit for incremental improvement. It is all or none, when it comes to AYP.
- Treats all schools and students the same. Does not take into consideration diversity or learning ability.
Our new president, President Obama released his reauthorization to the ESEA, which falls under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The first stark difference is that President Obama has chosen to distance himself from the whole term NCLB. He is choosing to call his educational improvement plan, A Blueprint for Reform.
In my opinion, the first major change to the previous NCLB is that the 2009 A Blueprint for Reform is more supportive of education, school systems and teachers. Its overall tone and perspective is to celebrate educational growth. The new reform does not zero in on a standardized test score, but the progression up the learning scale. Do not get me wrong the Blueprint for Reform does still have testing as part of its accountability. However, the assessments are authentic and provide meaningful feedback for immediate improvement.
According to President Obama’s A Blueprint for Reform unveiled in March 2010, the goal for this administration’s educational plan is for all students to graduate high school prepared for college and a career by 2020. Outlined below are some benefits and some difficulties that may arise from the changes to ESEA.
Positives to A Blueprint for Reform, as outlined by the articles, Obama on no child left behind from the Education Magazine and Obama’s no child left behind revise: A little more flexibility from the Christian Monitor, both published in March 2010 are:
· There is less emphasis on yearly improvement, but provides flexibility and broadens the measurements to show progress. With this resources can be provided.
· Schools have the opportunity to improve without the fear of losing funding.
· Money is provided to implement broader assessments to evaluate- higher-thinking skills, technology, research, scientific investigations, present and defend ideas; then provide immediate feedback for improvement.
· Authentic assessments show knowledge in meaningful ways.
· All groups (ESL, Special Education, etc.) assessed appropriately to show growth, even if incremental.
· Continuous progress along the learning continuum, measures beyond reading and math.
· Creative incentives must be used to get students to stay through high school graduation.
· Recruitment of STEM teachers.
· Recruit, develop and retain teachers in high-need areas and high-need fields.
· With the college track projected for all students, this can open more doors and opportunities.
Even with the evident positives to the reform to ESEA, there are still difficulties that can be argued. Some of these are:
· The college track for some students can be too difficult and can increase the drop-out rate.
· The recruitment of STEM teachers outside of the classroom can produce teachers that do not know how to teach and just spew knowledge without concern about the students and the learning.
· “Highly Qualified/Effective Teachers and Principals” can benefit from incentive pay for high performing students, but leaves other performing teachers and principals out in the cold.
After researching the current changes to ESEA, I can begin to see a shift in the thinking and approach to education and the diversity that encompasses it. Preparing all children of the future with the best education is now not only a cause for the schools, but for the Nation as a whole.
Monday, March 29, 2010
School Choice and Vouchers
Adam Lee
School Choice and Vouchers
3-29-10
School choice and the voucher system are certainly not new concepts. Many states and individual districts have tried instituting this system for well over 100 years in America. Essentially, the voucher system consists of the state giving the parent their alotted education money to send their child to whatever school they would prefer. Vermont has had vouchers since 1869. 95 percent of Vermont’s towns have no public high school. The debate about whether or not school choice works to better educate the American student is the issue at hand. There seem to be many advantages when instituting school choice. However, the detractors will site a multitude of negative factors to counter every positive sign of progress. Using the interviews of many different education experts, this paper will examine the advantages and disadvantages of school choice and the voucher system.
School Choice Advantages
The advantages of school choice are usually ideas based on helping those students who come from bad neighborhoods or bad schools and giving them the opportunity to succeed in a safer learning environment. According to Paul E. Peterson, from Harvard University, there have been pilot programs in Dayton, Ohio and Washington D.C. that have shown math scores increase for African American students attending a different, private school with a voucher. However, the reading gains were not as significant and Peterson attributes this to school being the primary place for learning math and that reading begins at home.
Another advantage, according to Peterson, is that parent satisfaction is very high with a voucher system. He claims that, “If Parents are given a choice they are very happy.” This idea that parents like to have control over their child’s education is a very strong argument. Politically, parental choice is a popular subject. What parent is going to disagree with the state letting them choose the school of their choice? Thus, some politicians have tried to use this to gain popularity and leverage with voters.
One of the apparent disadvantages of the voucher system is that it takes funding that would normally go to the school district for improvements and allocates the money to Catholic or private schools. Those who are proponents of school choice would say that vouchers actually provide more funding for the public school. Their argument is that the voucher money comes from the state and that the local school budget is never touched. Therefore, for the students still remaining in the school, there is more money for every student because a percentage of the population has gone elsewhere but the funding for the school has stayed the same.
According to Clint Bolick, from the Goldwater Institute's Center for Constitutional Litigation, inner city students who have access to vouchers and choose Catholic schools, actually end up receiving a more diverse education then they would have in the inner city. His argument is that inner city schools are not very racially diverse and when an African American student uses their voucher to enter a predominantly white Catholic school, they receive a more well-rounded education. The voucher program in Cleveland has mostly African American recipients and most of these students are attending Catholic schools. This theory was in response to the question of whether or not placing these students in Catholic schools was beneficial.
School Choice Disadvantages
Rudy Crew was the chancellor of New York’s public schools for 4 years. The largest and most obvious disadvantage of school choice and vouchers according to Crew would be that it takes away the money that should be given to public schools to improve conditions and test scores. His argument is that some children use these vouchers to go to a private or a religious institution, and the other 2/3 of the students are left in failing schools without enough state funding. If a school is broken then it should be fixed. The answer is not to give up on that school and send some of the students elsewhere. What does that teach the children about life?
Barry W. Lynn is the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and he says that a large problem is that most of the recipients of vouchers in Cleveland are using their choice to attend religious schools. The problem is that now the government is taking money and diverting it towards religion. Different religions and their schools, nationwide, would now be jockeying for money and for power in individual districts. Also, the state is now seen as helping to promote religion. Lynn calls this a violation of most state constitutions and of the U.S. Constitution. The line between the separation of church and state becomes very blurred.
Also, vouchers promote something called, “skimming.” Skimming is the practice of taking the best kids out of a failing school and sending them to private institutions. This leaves the school with only the failing kids. It also leaves the school with a lack of involved students for sports programs and other extracurricular activities. It isn’t only the best students that are skimmed. The best parents are skimmed as well. These are the parents that are super involved in PTA’s and are a great asset to any district.
We have to carefully examine the issue of school choice and the voucher system. Our current system is not one that can be easily changed. There are many advantages and disadvantages of the voucher system and every one of the pros and cons needs to be thoroughly tested before any widespread change is made to the American education system.
School Choice and Vouchers
3-29-10
School choice and the voucher system are certainly not new concepts. Many states and individual districts have tried instituting this system for well over 100 years in America. Essentially, the voucher system consists of the state giving the parent their alotted education money to send their child to whatever school they would prefer. Vermont has had vouchers since 1869. 95 percent of Vermont’s towns have no public high school. The debate about whether or not school choice works to better educate the American student is the issue at hand. There seem to be many advantages when instituting school choice. However, the detractors will site a multitude of negative factors to counter every positive sign of progress. Using the interviews of many different education experts, this paper will examine the advantages and disadvantages of school choice and the voucher system.
School Choice Advantages
The advantages of school choice are usually ideas based on helping those students who come from bad neighborhoods or bad schools and giving them the opportunity to succeed in a safer learning environment. According to Paul E. Peterson, from Harvard University, there have been pilot programs in Dayton, Ohio and Washington D.C. that have shown math scores increase for African American students attending a different, private school with a voucher. However, the reading gains were not as significant and Peterson attributes this to school being the primary place for learning math and that reading begins at home.
Another advantage, according to Peterson, is that parent satisfaction is very high with a voucher system. He claims that, “If Parents are given a choice they are very happy.” This idea that parents like to have control over their child’s education is a very strong argument. Politically, parental choice is a popular subject. What parent is going to disagree with the state letting them choose the school of their choice? Thus, some politicians have tried to use this to gain popularity and leverage with voters.
One of the apparent disadvantages of the voucher system is that it takes funding that would normally go to the school district for improvements and allocates the money to Catholic or private schools. Those who are proponents of school choice would say that vouchers actually provide more funding for the public school. Their argument is that the voucher money comes from the state and that the local school budget is never touched. Therefore, for the students still remaining in the school, there is more money for every student because a percentage of the population has gone elsewhere but the funding for the school has stayed the same.
According to Clint Bolick, from the Goldwater Institute's Center for Constitutional Litigation, inner city students who have access to vouchers and choose Catholic schools, actually end up receiving a more diverse education then they would have in the inner city. His argument is that inner city schools are not very racially diverse and when an African American student uses their voucher to enter a predominantly white Catholic school, they receive a more well-rounded education. The voucher program in Cleveland has mostly African American recipients and most of these students are attending Catholic schools. This theory was in response to the question of whether or not placing these students in Catholic schools was beneficial.
School Choice Disadvantages
Rudy Crew was the chancellor of New York’s public schools for 4 years. The largest and most obvious disadvantage of school choice and vouchers according to Crew would be that it takes away the money that should be given to public schools to improve conditions and test scores. His argument is that some children use these vouchers to go to a private or a religious institution, and the other 2/3 of the students are left in failing schools without enough state funding. If a school is broken then it should be fixed. The answer is not to give up on that school and send some of the students elsewhere. What does that teach the children about life?
Barry W. Lynn is the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and he says that a large problem is that most of the recipients of vouchers in Cleveland are using their choice to attend religious schools. The problem is that now the government is taking money and diverting it towards religion. Different religions and their schools, nationwide, would now be jockeying for money and for power in individual districts. Also, the state is now seen as helping to promote religion. Lynn calls this a violation of most state constitutions and of the U.S. Constitution. The line between the separation of church and state becomes very blurred.
Also, vouchers promote something called, “skimming.” Skimming is the practice of taking the best kids out of a failing school and sending them to private institutions. This leaves the school with only the failing kids. It also leaves the school with a lack of involved students for sports programs and other extracurricular activities. It isn’t only the best students that are skimmed. The best parents are skimmed as well. These are the parents that are super involved in PTA’s and are a great asset to any district.
We have to carefully examine the issue of school choice and the voucher system. Our current system is not one that can be easily changed. There are many advantages and disadvantages of the voucher system and every one of the pros and cons needs to be thoroughly tested before any widespread change is made to the American education system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)