Archive for January, 2007

NCLB: New and Improved?

{ January 29, 2007 @ 10:07 pm } · { Standardized Testing }
{ } · { Comments (1) }

While watching the State of the Union address last Wednesday, January 24, I was rather surprised to hear President Bush request a renewal of the No Child Left Behind legislation. It seems that there are very few people in this country who are directly concerned with education – school administrators, teachers, students, parents – that actually approve of this bill and believe it to be an effective tool. Why, then, does the government wish to continue its practice? “Bush Proposes Broadening the No Child Left Behind Act,” an article from the New York Times, states that there are 1,800 schools across the country that have failed in the past five years to meet the requirements set by NCLB. That is a rather significant number, especially considering that failing schools can lose federal funding and even be shut down.

 

It does appear, however, that Bush realizes his legislation needs some improvement. As a result, he has added a few details to it that may be more appealing to teachers and students alike.

Other administration proposals seemed likely to be more acceptable, among them: a call for a federal fund that would give extra pay to teachers who are most effective in raising children’s test scores, or who agree to teach in the neediest schools; and allowing districts with failing schools to first offer children tutoring before allowing them to transfer.

Giving monetary incentives to teachers may make them more excited about NCLB, but it also dampens the spirit of teaching. Teachers should enjoy coming to class everyday and teaching their students. They should not transfer to a needy school solely for money, and then become miserable and hate their job. Although these additional proposals may make NCLB look more appealing, they still do not tackle the problem of education in our country. I believe that we need to get back to the basics of teaching and teach students for the sake of learning, not for the sole task of passing a standardized test. If students can get excited about learning and can be under the watch of gifted teachers, then our country will see an improvement in literacy that NCLB will never be able to achieve.

 

I believe that this issue is one which fits in nicely with what we have been learning in class.  We have learned to make teaching more approachable and applicable, so that perhaps children will be more excited about coming to school.  Teachers need to focus more on direct contact with their students, which will maybe improve standardized test scores nationwide.

“Bush Proposes Broadening the No Child Left Behind Act”

January 25, 2007

by Diana Jean Schemo

Complete Article

Religion in School

{ January 20, 2007 @ 8:23 pm } · { Religion in Schools }
{ } · { Comments (5) }

An issue that has always been of great interest to me is that of the separation of church and state, more specifically religion in schools.  Where does one draw the line?  What is okay for one student to do and another not to, according to this policy?  For example, in my high school a group of kids gathered between class and lunch to say a prayer together.  Although they were not disturbing anyone and were not trying to push their beliefs onto others, the school forbade them to do this, saying that it went against the separation of church and state.  Yet these same administrators allowed couples of all sexual orientations to openly make out in the halls, homosexual students to let everyone know about their lifestyle choice, and students to express their practice of such “religions” as Wicka.  Where is the justice in that?  How is it that students who simply want to pray together are denied their freedom of speech and religion but those who are trying to make a statement are not?

A recent incident in a British school involved the school administration letting a Muslim woman (who was a teacher assistant) go because she refused to remove her veil. 

Mrs Azmi had said she was willing to remove her veil in front of children, but not if male colleagues were present.

 The school and authority argued that pupils needed to see her face to understand what she was saying in lessons.

I do not believe that the veil prevented students from understanding Mrs. Azmi so much that she needed to remove it.  Having studied a great deal about Islam and its beliefs, culture, and way of life, I know how important the veiling of woman is to Muslims.  Islam is so much more than a religion, it is a way of life; and taking away Azmi’s veil is like taking away a part of her identity as a person.

A few years ago, France enacted a policy to secularize the government, particularly the school system.  No longer is any form of religious symbol allowed inside the school, whether it be the Muslim hijab (veil), the Christian cross, etc.  Although I can understand this move as a way to minimize the problem of church vs. state, I also believe that it takes away a person’s liberties.  For many people, their religion identifies who they are and though they should not be allowed to force it onto others, they should have the option of physically displaying their religion.  What happened to Azmi demeans her right to be an individual and shows the inconsideration that people have for that which they do not understand, such as Islam.

Veil row woman challenges sacking

BBC News

January 20, 2007 at 14:37 GMT

Complete Article

NCLB: Good or Bad?

{ January 12, 2007 @ 8:43 pm } · { Standardized Testing }
{ } · { Comments (1) }

I believe that a major issue concerning the instruction of English language arts today is standardized testing as a result of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Although I agree that it is necessary to hold students and teachers accountable for the work that they do in the classroom, I feel that it is unrealistic to do so solely through the standardized test. How can one objectively test a student accurately in English, an area that is in itself so subjective?

 

An article from the BBC News discusses a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research in which the IPPR suggests teacher assessment rather than standardized testing for 11- and 14-year old students in England.

The IPPR report criticized what it called the negative effects of the current testing regime, which included narrow learning, shallow learning, question spotting and risk-averse teaching.

It said the testing system encouraged “teaching to the test” rather than providing skills for secondary school.

Although this report is directed at the testing in England rather than the United States, it is still very much applicable. Schools are so concerned with meeting the requirements of NCLB that they simply teach to the test instead of teaching relevant material. They spend excessive amounts of time going over what will be on the test and telling students how to successfully answer the questions. How is this supposed to help them in the future? How is a student supposed to become competent in the study of English when he is not correctly taught the basics and tools of the subject?

As a high school English teacher, I do not plan on succumbing to these low standards of instruction that so many teachers today have. Hopefully by the time I have my own classroom, the burden of NCLB and standardized testing will not be as immediate as it currently is. Although teaching to the test may help students in passing the test, it will in no way help them to truly learn. English students need to be creative and have the option of expressing their opinions without worrying if their answer is right or wrong based on government guidelines. To be effective, English classrooms should continue teaching literature, grammar, and writing skills while only briefly touching on the standardized test material. If a teacher does his job correctly (teaching the proper material and addressing the individual needs of his students), then students should be fully prepared to tackle the nuisance that is the standardized test.

Pupil tests ‘should be replaced’

December 27, 2006 at 10:00 GMT

by BBC News

Complete Article