Tag: <span>American</span>

Today The American Education Is Being Reinvented

Posted in Education by anshbookstore on September 22, 2022 @ 2:16 am

Today the American education is being reinvented. The assumptions that have governed its structures and power relationships for more than a century are being replaced. This reinvention is breeding all manner of novel approaches to schools, and hybrid arrangements that blur the line that has long separated public and private schools. For example, the best of what have come to be called charter schools possess elements of today’s public and private systems. Moreover, this new model is not an unbridled, laissez-faire, free-market one. The public retains its interest in the delivery of educational services paid for by public funds. Public authorities continue to set standards for educational performance-especially student achievement standards-of all schools receiving public funds and monitor whether those standards are achieved.

– Shift of power from producers to consumers. Public education has long been producer-oriented. The primary beneficiaries of this model are the school and its employees, not its customers. Bureaucrats, experts, and special interests control the system and make decisions within the framework of a public-school monopoly.

New studies show that students want higher standards of behavior and achievement, and that nearly six out of ten parents with children in public schools would send their children to private schools if they could afford to, which the analysts interpreted as “a public poised for flight.”

– Emphasis on results. The second principle guiding reinvention is the primacy of what children learn and how well they learn it-not on what rules schools follow, how they are run, the (worthy) intentions of educators, or what they spend. Administrators should monitor the academic results of education, letting individual schools decide how to achieve them-including yearly calendar, daily schedules, staffing arrangements, student grouping, budget decisions, and so forth.

– Accountability. Schools must establish accountability and create an assessment system that measures results. An accountability system begins with a clear set of learning standards or expectations. There are two types of standard. Content standards define the skills and knowledge students should attain at various stages-what they should know and do. Performance standards-sometimes called achievement levels-specify an expected level of proficiency-what is good enough to advance from one stage to the next.

Students should be promoted and graduate only when they have met specified standards; universities should admit students only when they meet college-level entry norms; and employers should examine transcripts and use them in their hiring decisions. Likewise, teachers, principals, and other responsible adults should be rewarded for success, penalized for failure, and dismissed if they or their schools cannot get the job done.

– School choice. Also guiding the reinvention of American education is the notion that schools can be different from one another rather than identical and that families should be free to choose among a variety of educational opportunities and settings. Schools should fit the differing needs of families and kids-not bureaucrats, state and local regulations, or union contracts. Various current proposals would allow non-government schools and home schoolers to receive money under choice plans: tax credits, tax-free K-12 education savings accounts, publicly (and privately) funded scholarships, and others. Because these scholarship dollars would be aid to families, not schools, they could be used at any lawfully operating school-public, private, or religious.

– Professionalism. The reinvention model holds that those who work in schools should be treated like-and conduct themselves as-professionals. This means deregulating the schools, freeing them from bureaucratic control and micromanagement, and allowing individual schools, educators, and parents wide latitude in decision-making on issues such as teaching loads and methods, staffing, and resource allocation.

– The education profession itself should be deregulated. Recruitment of educators for the reinvented public school should not be limited to graduates of teacher- or administrator-training programs. The teachers’ unions may be an obstacle to such reforms, but even they have shown some hopeful signs.

This new vision of American education is spreading rapidly, redefining public education, and blurring the line between public and private schools. It is creating a radically new system of education in which families choose from a continuum of opportunities and learning designs, with public money following the child to the school of choice. As lines blur and private and public schools become more alike (and different from today’s schools), private schools too will change. Mounting private school opposition to vouchers suggests that some would rather keep their independence than participate in a blurring that is apt to bring considerably more control from others. States, however, already have the authority to regulate private schools; it is thus unlikely that reinvention will destroy their autonomy. The new model allows them to remain “private” in several important ways: they are self-governing, free from most regulations, able to hire whomever they like, in control of their own curriculum, and attended by youngsters whose parents choose them.

The central principle organizing the academic program of most parochial schools is a core curriculum for all students regardless of background and future educational plans. Electives are limited, and required courses predominate.

Students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds respond well to the challenge. The focused core curriculum of a parochial school improves student achievement, particularly among disadvantaged students, and protects against the academic fads that sweep through the education world with such depressing frequency. Schools of the future will require more core academic coursework of their students, particularly socially and economically disadvantaged ones.

Such a structure requires a strong communal organization. Parochial educators view teaching as a vocation, a ministry of service. The schools promote personal interactions and shared experiences among those who work in, attend, and support them. Numerous activities unite staff, students, and supporters-including athletic events, fundraisers, rallies, school plays, alumni gatherings, retreats, and various forms of religious ritual and prayer. Academically, the core curriculum plays this unifying role. These promote a commonality of purpose that supports the school’s mission.

Parochial schools are typically less constrained by centrally controlled bureaucracies than are public schools. Nearly all important decisions are made at the school site, under the leadership of the principal. This allows a school to develop a distinctive character and sensitivity to the unique needs of students and families.

This market responsiveness is moderated by the fundamental beliefs and values that permeate the school. The unique educational philosophy of a parochial school affirms the existence of fundamental truths and includes a special, religiously based respect for the dignity of each person and the sacredness of human community. This perspective determines not only what students know but also the morality they will follow and the moral community the school creates.

Perhaps the greatest difference between the public and private realms is this explicit moral education, character development, and, in religious schools, religious instruction (though public schools in recent years have become more mindful of these issues).

Charter schools-(mostly) independent public schools of choice accountable for the results of student learning-comprise a serious attempt by the public sector to reinvent education along these lines and give public schools full autonomy. Unfortunately, not all charter school laws are equal: some display the facade of freedom but not the reality. Policymakers must resist the temptation to constrain charter operators with the current web of state statutes, rules, collective bargaining agreements, and the like.

As charter schools demonstrate, a public school is coming to mean any school willing to embrace high standards, enroll students without discrimination, and be accountable for its results, regardless of who owns or operates it. Public money follows the child to these schools, and what unites them is a compulsory set of academic outcomes confined to a core list of broadly accepted knowledge and skills.

American “public” schools of the future will not look, feel, or act like “government.” But they are plainly larger than the individual or family. In that sense, they satisfy the classic definition of a “mediating” institution, They are, in fact, examples of what contemporary analysts term “civil society.” They are voluntary institutions, neither compulsory nor monopolistic. They are more responsive to their communities than schools created by large public bureaucracies.

Schools, of course, should play a fundamental role in this process, but today’s conventional public schools are hobbled by bureaucratic constraints against religious education. Of course, in a pluralistic society there are bound to be varying ideas of what this means. Unfortunately, the current system of American public education cannot accommodate such variety. Thus if we are to revitalize our communities, if we are to rebuild the social capital of our families and neighborhoods, if we are to educate our young people, especially those who are most disadvantaged, we must allow families much more choice in schooling, and with it a flowering of variety, pluralism, and freedom. Antiquated laws and attitudes that favor the status quo are the only real limit on the future of American education.

Source by Megan Wilson

23 Aug

Equal Education For All American Students

Posted in Education by anshbookstore on August 23, 2022 @ 1:08 am

This paper argues that for most of the 20th century, schools have constructed multiple categories of “unlikeness” or unlike ability, and that these categories were created or soon appropriated to mean “children who cannot learn together.” Important evidence collected throughout the century, but most especially in the past twenty years, reveals that school categories favoring children’s likeness, rather than their “unlikeness” promise to improve educational fairness and the country’s educational quality. Ability grouping has been bolstered by the argument that equal opportunity in a democracy requires schools to provide each student access to the kind of knowledge and skills that best suit his or her abilities and likely adult lives. To make the argument more palatable in a culture that, rhetorically at least, values classless and colorblind policies, educators and policymakers have reified categorical differences among people. So, in contemporary schools, there are “gifted” students, “average” students, “Title I” students, “learning disabled” students, and so on, in order to justify the different access and opportunities students receive. Assessment and evaluation technology permits schools to categorize, compare, rank, and assign value to students’ abilities and achievements in relationship to one another (as well as to students in other schools, states, and countries-past and present). Homogeneous grouping began in earnest early in the 20th century. It matched the prevailing IQ conception of intelligence, behavioral theories of learning, a transmission and training model of teaching, and the factory model of school organization. It fit with schools’ role in maintaining a social and economic order in which those with power and privilege routinely pass on their advantages to their children. Homogeneous grouping embodied a belief that permeated schooling during the 20th century-that we understand most about students when we look at their differences, and the more differences that can be identified, the better our understanding and teaching. Homogeneous grouping provided policymakers and educators a way to “solve” an array of problems attributed to the growing diversity of students. New immigrants needed to learn English and American ways. Factories needed trained workers. Urban youth needed supervision. And schools needed to continue their traditional role of providing high-status knowledge to prepare some students for the professions. Policymakers defined equal educational opportunity as giving all students the chance to prepare for largely predetermined and certainly different adult lives. Concurrently, two phenomena shaped a uniquely American definition of democratic schooling: (1) universal schooling would give all students some access to knowledge; (2) IQ could justify differentiated access to knowledge as a hallmark of democratic fairness. While most current grouping practices don’t rely on IQ-at least exclusively-the early dependence upon it set a pattern that continues today. Standardized achievement tests, strikingly similar to IQ tests, play an important role in dividing students into ability groups and qualifying students for compensatory education programs; standardized language proficiency tests determine which class “level” is appropriate for limited English students. In conjunction with other measures, IQ remains central in the identification of gifted and cognitively disabled students.

Over the course of the 20th century, compulsory education laws and the necessity of a highschool diploma drew more and more students to school-even those previously considered uneducable. States and local school systems developed an array of special programs for students who, in earlier times, simply would not have been in school. By the 1960s, the federal government had turned to special categorical programs as its principal way to guarantee education for all American students. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provided categorical funding for “educationally deprived” students. Lau et. al. v. Nichols et. al. was brought on behalf of Chinese students in San Francisco and led to legislation requiring that all schools provide special assistance to their students whose native language is not English. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provided funds to classify students with physical and neurological problems and provide these students with special education programs when it was believed that they could not be accommodated in regular programs. Advocates for “gifted” students increasingly used the “bell curve” logic to argue that the gifted and the cognitively disabled are like a pair of bookends, and that those at the high end of the curve also required special support because they are as different from “normal” students as the disabled. Educators responded in culturally predictable ways. They identified students who were “different,” diagnosed their differences as scientifically as possible, and assigned them to a category. They then grouped students for instruction with others in the same category and tailored curriculum and teaching to what each group “needs” and what the culture expects. So, today, educators routinely assign “normal” students to “regular” classes at different levels (e.g., high, average, slow). They place the others in “special” programs for learning disabled, behavioral problems, gifted, limited English, poverty-related academic deficiencies, and more. Within homogenous groups, teachers assume students can move lock step through lessons and that all class members will profit from the same instruction on the same content at the same pace. Lurking just beneath the surface of these highly rationalized practices, however, are the illusion of homogeneity, the social construction of classifications, the prevailing biases of race and social class, and self-fulfilling prophesies of opportunities and outcomes.

The considerable student differences within supposedly homogenous classes are obvious and well documented. And yet, for most people, the characteristics and categories by which students are sorted remain more salient than the “exceptions” that impugn those categories. Many educational constructs, including those used to classify students, began as narrowly defined, highly specialized, technical terms or measures. However, as they make their way from research to professional journals and teacher preparation programs to popular media to the everyday talk of policymakers and the public, they loose their narrow definitions and specialized uses. What may have begun as specific technical concepts or as informal notions such as “at risk,” “gifted,” “high ability,” “college prep,” “attention deficit,” “hyperactive,” “handicapped,” etc. are quickly reified and become a deeply embedded feature of students’ identities in their own and others’ minds. African American, Latino, and low-income students are consistently overrepresented in low-ability, remedial, and special education classes and programs. This is not surprising, given that grouping practices grew from the once accepted practice of preparing students of different racial, ethnic and social-class backgrounds for their separate (and unequal) places in society. In part, placement patterns reflect differences in minority and white students’ learning opportunities that affect their preparation and achievements. But they also reflect the fact that US schools use white, largely middle-class standards of culture and language styles to screen for academic ability and talent. Teachers and school psychologists sometimes mistake the language and dialect differences of Hispanic and Black students for poor language skills, conceptual misunderstandings, or even poor attitudes. An additional hazard for students of color is that schools often confuse cultural differences with cognitive disabilities, particularly retardation. Researchers have noted for the past 25 years that students with identical IQs but different race and social class have been classified and treated very differently in special education placements. The misidentification problem triggered both federal and state court decisions requiring that potentially disabled students receive due process. In a far reaching decision, the California courts ruled in Larry P. v. Wilson Riles (1979) that schools could no longer use intelligence tests to identify minority students as mentally retarded. However, substantial problems remain and new ones emerge, including recent evidence that African American boys are disproportionately identified as having Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Placement in a low class becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of low expectations, fewer opportunities, and poor academic performance. Poor performance begins the cycle anew, giving additional justification to schools to reduce expectations and opportunities. Extensive research makes clear that, in every aspect of what makes for a quality education, kids in lower tracks typically get less than those in higher tracks and gifted programs. Finally, grouping practices help shape students’ identities, status, and expectations for themselves. Both students and adults mistake labels such as “gifted,” “honor student,” “average,” “remedial,” “learning disabled,” and “mild mental retardation” for certification of overall ability or worth. Everyone without the “gifted” label has the de facto label of “not gifted.” The resource classroom is a low-status place and students who go there are low status students. The result of all this is that most students have needlessly low self-concepts and schools have low expectations. These recommendations reflect growing support for heterogeneous grouping as necessary to ensure that all students have access to high-quality curriculum, teachers, and learning experiences. For example, early analyses of the disappointing performance of U.S. students on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) support mounting concerns that the low scores stem, in part, from the tracking of most American students in less academically demanding math and science classes. Increasingly, educators and policymakers are developing an awareness that schools cannot teach or achieve social justice unless they eliminate grouping practices. A number of school desegregation cases have cited the practice as a source of continuing racial discrimination. However, this goal will not be accomplished quickly, and policy reports will simply gather dust unless enlightened educators understand and act to change the norms and political relations these grouping practices embody. There is a long, hard road ahead.

Source by Megan Wilson

28 Nov

The 5 Myths Encompassing American Public Education Reform

Posted in Education by anshbookstore on November 28, 2021 @ 8:20 pm

For over 30 years America has been trying to “reform” our Public Educational system. Yet, was it ever broken to begin with? It has in fact functioned well wherever possible despite some missing pieces and occasional mission drift. We can back track this terrific sham to 5 main premises never adequately questioned or disputed. Was it, and is it, fair or in our interests to compare this nation to nations such as China, India, Russia or other European countries academically? And, did we ever fully digest the drastic differences in national values, lifestyles, and overall accomplishments between the U.S. and those nations? We did not.

Since the 1980’s to present and in reaction to the Reagan Administration’s, A Nation at Risk commission on “our failing public education system,” education reformers have fully invested in 5 mythical premises:

1. We are to compare our national educational statistics to that of our international economic competitors

2. We are to align our educational standards to meet the needs of a future global workforce

3. We are to rely heavily on standardized test scores to measure student performance for international comparison

4. We are to blame teacher quality, or lack thereof, for this proposed failure of our national education performance output

5. We are to tinker heavily in the privatization of education throughout the nation

First, as mentioned in previous articles, how could we ever compare nations with different governmental structures, differing values, differing statistical integrity standards, and differing societal/class distinctions, etc.? For example, China is a communist country which imposes national educational standards upon its students, ignoring the uniqueness and intricacies of locales. They do this because they embrace communism and “the state” decides what, which, and where their industries are to be established. Their workforce is selected, tracked, and groomed from the elementary stage into adulthood. The absence of individual choice is trumped by a fierce utilitarian function embedded into their political system. This is not an American value and we have learned of the historical dangers of practicing such ideologies.

We are compared to India with its middleclass growing exponentially along with growth in software engineering, manufacturing, and medical industries. Their results at face value, is impressive. However, we overlook their impasse with issues of gender discrimination, class/caste distinctions, and racial barriers. While the US is no stranger to these issues, and certainly not innocent of them, we have put mechanisms in place to confront them, (though steadily losing their potency). Women are more likely to be educated and valued in the US presently. America still professes to value the combination of individuality and equality. Another historical lesson we have already embraced and implemented through our ideal of providing Public Education.

The globalized workforce affecting our educational priorities is a sketchy assertion at best. Why? Because it relies wholly on political agendas and policy decisions made during each US election cycle. Industry travels wherever corporate taxes are lowest and to where labor is cheapest. Since economic policy changes can be made within a single election cycle, does this mean we are to change our educational priorities along with time each time? Are we to focus on mathematics more simply because China and/or India are producing more engineers? Is quantity the issue or quality? And, are those nations producing more because of their quality, or because of their larger populations and more exploitable workforce? There was a time when America took pride in its citizenry and their quality of life, (or we at least professed this). Education rooted firmly materialism cannot thrive. The globalized workforce is a concept embracing the value of production, but ignoring our historical embrace of domestic innovation and citizens’ quality of life.

Standardized test scores may only make sense when attempting to justify funding from an outside source (a legislator) that is not present in the classroom, having no knowledge of a particular locale’s economic engine, and is a stranger to a community’s resources, challenges and cultural makeup. It is a one-size fits all suit, where a tailor made one is obviously best. Just as there may be multiple learning styles, there are multiple assessment tools to demonstrate learning and understanding. In America, we value individuality, individual growth, the uniqueness of community, and the benefits to diversity. Did we sensationalize test standardization to address educational quality, or to justify punishment and prepare for hostile takeover of school districts? This issue is linked to teacher quality. A teacher may only be as good as the resources made available, the support they receive, the development made ready, and the quality of life this professional may enjoy as a result of their commitment.

Lastly, privatization has been the cure all presented to the public at large. However, it subtly eludes the murky question of accountability. There is no guarantee to every citizen in the private domain. The private institution tackles admission as it pleases, administers discipline as it wishes, pays employees however it wants, and the bottom line is its ultimate concern. The private institution runs itself as a monarchy making decisions from the top down, appointing its nobles rather than collectively considering merit, and selling us convenience and speed while ignoring the necessary time to debate, analyze, compromise, and collectively agree. Democratic practices are lost.

These are the values in which we should be proud of and should celebrate: 1) we do not track our students, we facilitate them, 2) we do not compete our students against each other, but rather against their own circumstances, 3) we strive to value ALL of our citizens and their quality of life, 4) we embrace diversity, because we are proudly a diverse nation, and 5) we value our natural environment, our multilingual, multi-racial, multi religious and non-religious differences and recognize that citizenship in our nation requires advanced citizenship. We educate to create societal citizen engineers. America suffers from an education equality problem in distribution, NOT an educational quality problem.

Source by John Julian Reyes, BA, M. Ed.