A little late, but considering my power was out for half the weekend, I excuse myself on this one.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2011/01/chinese_educators_leaders_questioning_focus_on_tests.html?qs=chinese+education
This entry was basically talking about another article (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/13/world/la-fg-china-education-20110113) which was talking about how China's PISA scores, etc, are always high, but that they are starting to realize that the scores aren't everything.
"'In the long run, for us to become a strong country, we need talent and great creativity," Xiong said. "And right now, our educational system cannot accomplish this.'"
I think that is a pretty strong quote, showing the true feelings of Chinese officials. While it is not new that China has consistently scored incredibly high on standardized tests, it is a change to see that they are not happy about this, but disappointed. It's interesting to learn that China is looking to the US, even though we have been scoring fairly averagely on tests, because of our focus on fostering creativity and imagination.
I think that is one thing the US has always valued, and it's inspirational to see that China is beginning to realize the importance of thinking outside the test.
02 May 2011
19 April 2011
globalization
article!
This blog topic was really difficult. I'm still not even sure I did the right thing. But I found an article that mentioned globalization and education. I'm just afraid the two aren't related in the right way in this article. No idea. Oh well.
Either way, the main point I took from this article was that kids these days are not being prepared well enough for work overseas.
To me, this kind of goes back to the argument that if America isn't number one, it's failing. I feel like we don't need to focus on taking over overseas. Why can't we focus on bettering ourselves over here? It's kind of the same point as the "just because we're not number one at math doesn't mean we're horribly stupid". We have valid jobs over here - granted fewer than normal - but I think breeding children to go be engineers overseas is going to greatly decrease the expansion and diversity in the US.
I think our creativity is a good thing. Our abundance of opportunities is a good thing. Our freedom to explore so many options we're puking out electives is a good thing.
I dunno, I like America.
This blog topic was really difficult. I'm still not even sure I did the right thing. But I found an article that mentioned globalization and education. I'm just afraid the two aren't related in the right way in this article. No idea. Oh well.
Either way, the main point I took from this article was that kids these days are not being prepared well enough for work overseas.
To me, this kind of goes back to the argument that if America isn't number one, it's failing. I feel like we don't need to focus on taking over overseas. Why can't we focus on bettering ourselves over here? It's kind of the same point as the "just because we're not number one at math doesn't mean we're horribly stupid". We have valid jobs over here - granted fewer than normal - but I think breeding children to go be engineers overseas is going to greatly decrease the expansion and diversity in the US.
I think our creativity is a good thing. Our abundance of opportunities is a good thing. Our freedom to explore so many options we're puking out electives is a good thing.
I dunno, I like America.
17 April 2011
OECD
Guess who just realized that just because it doesn't say wikispaces+blog entries due on d2l, it doesn't mean there's not an entry due! No wonder I felt like I wasn't doing enough blogs. Well, now I'm behind by two entries, unfortunately.
edweek is being really helpful at providing me with good articles, though!
like this one.
It really goes back to the discussion we had in class and our discussions about NCLB. Especially how America seems to believe that slow progress is no progress. How it's a tragedy if America isn't number one. Settle down, people. We're not last. We're average. In order to be average, there must be people doing worse.
I like the point they make about the fact that our leaders are trying to tell us they know what the problem is with education, that they know how to fix the problem. Of course, if this were the case, why would we have a problem in the first place? If they knew the perfect method of reforming schools, wouldn't that prevent any issues? Exactly.
I liked this paragraph: "Consider the two top contenders on PISA: Shanghai and Finland. These two places—one a very large city of nearly 21 million, the other a small nation of less than six million—represent two very different approaches to education. The one thing they have in common is that neither of the world leaders in education is doing what American reformers propose."
They also pointed out that American children are "accustomed not to intense discipline, but to a culture of free expression and individualism." I think this is a good point. Because PISA doesn't measure a child's creativity and free thinking. Yet those are incredibly highly valued traits in the US. So I think that maybe instead of being terrified of our low math scores, maybe we should look at the fact that we're breeding a generation of brilliant minds. Maybe they're not all going to be engineers, but there'll probably be a good crop of interior designers, chefs, software developers, who knows.
Another great point this article made (apparently I just really liked this article!) was that in Shanghai, instead of failing and closing schools that were having issues, the city partnered it with a high performing school. The "successful" (as we'd call them here) teachers and faculty help the failures, and apparently they all get up to a 100% passing rate. That's just nuts. I think we should adopt that sort of policy. Help schools instead of shut them down.
In Finland, there are no tests. So then naturally people wonder how they hold teachers accountable. Apparently, in Finnish, there is no word for "accountability". How.. progressive. Which is ironic, given they piggy-backed off of our progressiveness.
So I thought that post was pretty interesting. I really enjoyed basically all the points Diane brought up. Now, let's see if she has an entry on globalization...
edweek is being really helpful at providing me with good articles, though!
like this one.
It really goes back to the discussion we had in class and our discussions about NCLB. Especially how America seems to believe that slow progress is no progress. How it's a tragedy if America isn't number one. Settle down, people. We're not last. We're average. In order to be average, there must be people doing worse.
I like the point they make about the fact that our leaders are trying to tell us they know what the problem is with education, that they know how to fix the problem. Of course, if this were the case, why would we have a problem in the first place? If they knew the perfect method of reforming schools, wouldn't that prevent any issues? Exactly.
I liked this paragraph: "Consider the two top contenders on PISA: Shanghai and Finland. These two places—one a very large city of nearly 21 million, the other a small nation of less than six million—represent two very different approaches to education. The one thing they have in common is that neither of the world leaders in education is doing what American reformers propose."
They also pointed out that American children are "accustomed not to intense discipline, but to a culture of free expression and individualism." I think this is a good point. Because PISA doesn't measure a child's creativity and free thinking. Yet those are incredibly highly valued traits in the US. So I think that maybe instead of being terrified of our low math scores, maybe we should look at the fact that we're breeding a generation of brilliant minds. Maybe they're not all going to be engineers, but there'll probably be a good crop of interior designers, chefs, software developers, who knows.
Another great point this article made (apparently I just really liked this article!) was that in Shanghai, instead of failing and closing schools that were having issues, the city partnered it with a high performing school. The "successful" (as we'd call them here) teachers and faculty help the failures, and apparently they all get up to a 100% passing rate. That's just nuts. I think we should adopt that sort of policy. Help schools instead of shut them down.
In Finland, there are no tests. So then naturally people wonder how they hold teachers accountable. Apparently, in Finnish, there is no word for "accountability". How.. progressive. Which is ironic, given they piggy-backed off of our progressiveness.
So I thought that post was pretty interesting. I really enjoyed basically all the points Diane brought up. Now, let's see if she has an entry on globalization...
are we really leaving no children behind?
NCLB - blog from edweek
I love the points the author of this article makes. I especially appreciate when she says "My reaction: This is crazy. Why would the federal government create a system so mad that it labels a good school as failing?"
That's exactly my problem with the program. Well, I mean, I have a million issues with NCLB. (Mostly surrounding AYP, as my paper suggested. And by suggested, I mean plainly stated over and over.)
But I don't understand why, when a school is progressing too slowly, it is labeled as failing. Obviously, progress is not failure. That's just illogical. The basic definitions of the words themselves completely contradict each other.
Progress: "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage."
Failure: "deterioration or decay."
Now, don't those seem to be complete opposites? That's 'cause they are. A school making progress, even if it may be less than the "adequate" progress, is still making progress. Still moving toward a goal, not deteriorating nor decaying. I think it's ridiculous that the label of failure needs to be used at all. Why not try something a bit more positive? Like, simply, "making progress".
I understand that the fear of being seen as failing helps push people to do better. But what happens once that stigma is in place? Once a person fails, they have two options. Try again and try harder. Or accept failure and stop trying.
With NCLB, it's difficult for schools who have hit that failure position to achieve. Mostly because, once a school is considered at the failing point, it's because they haven't been progressing quickly enough for more than a few years. Usually logic would dictate that missing AYP by a few points a few years in a row means the schools is somewhat peaking. A steady growth of 2% a year is not suddenly going to jump to 15% (because they'd have to make up the gap as well.)
But still, my question is, why is a growth of 2% so much worse than a jump of 15%? Shouldn't we celebrate the success of 2% instead of deeming it "not good enough"?
America, what are you coming to?
I love the points the author of this article makes. I especially appreciate when she says "My reaction: This is crazy. Why would the federal government create a system so mad that it labels a good school as failing?"
That's exactly my problem with the program. Well, I mean, I have a million issues with NCLB. (Mostly surrounding AYP, as my paper suggested. And by suggested, I mean plainly stated over and over.)
But I don't understand why, when a school is progressing too slowly, it is labeled as failing. Obviously, progress is not failure. That's just illogical. The basic definitions of the words themselves completely contradict each other.
Progress: "a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage."
Failure: "deterioration or decay."
Now, don't those seem to be complete opposites? That's 'cause they are. A school making progress, even if it may be less than the "adequate" progress, is still making progress. Still moving toward a goal, not deteriorating nor decaying. I think it's ridiculous that the label of failure needs to be used at all. Why not try something a bit more positive? Like, simply, "making progress".
I understand that the fear of being seen as failing helps push people to do better. But what happens once that stigma is in place? Once a person fails, they have two options. Try again and try harder. Or accept failure and stop trying.
With NCLB, it's difficult for schools who have hit that failure position to achieve. Mostly because, once a school is considered at the failing point, it's because they haven't been progressing quickly enough for more than a few years. Usually logic would dictate that missing AYP by a few points a few years in a row means the schools is somewhat peaking. A steady growth of 2% a year is not suddenly going to jump to 15% (because they'd have to make up the gap as well.)
But still, my question is, why is a growth of 2% so much worse than a jump of 15%? Shouldn't we celebrate the success of 2% instead of deeming it "not good enough"?
America, what are you coming to?
09 April 2011
equal opportunity schooling... hm...
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2011/03/dear_diane_if_george_orwell.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BridgingDifferences+%28Education+Week+Blog%3A+Bridging+Differences%29
Well first, that's an incredibly long link but I think the article is super so I'm keeping it. I really enjoyed the entire quote from Obama. Even though I'm pretty sure nothing is actually getting done to change things, it's still pretty amazing to hear him talk like that; who knows, maybe he'll change things!
" Too often, what we've been doing is using these tests to punish students or to, in some cases, punish schools. And so what we've said is, let's find a test that everybody agrees makes sense; let's apply it in a less pressure-packed atmosphere; let's figure out whether we have to do it every year, or whether we can do it maybe every several years; and let's make sure that that's not the only way we're judging whether a school is doing well."
Amen Obama! Let's get on that! I'm glad he realizes that there is a flaw in the testing system, because there is. I've always thought that standardized tests are a horrible way to judge schools. Or rather, that the punishments to schools that do not succeed or pass the tests are far too severe. It's just ridiculous. How is a school logistically supposed to have every single one of its students proficient?!
And it does affect the students as well. Not only does the establishment where they spend 1/3 of their day get penalized and thus the situation there worsened, but they can be singled out. Well, if they're part of a subgroup, that is. Because you can more easily single out those in subgroups than in the majority, and you can tell which subgroup isn't doing quite as well as the majority.
It's a horrible system and I do not like it.
Well first, that's an incredibly long link but I think the article is super so I'm keeping it. I really enjoyed the entire quote from Obama. Even though I'm pretty sure nothing is actually getting done to change things, it's still pretty amazing to hear him talk like that; who knows, maybe he'll change things!
" Too often, what we've been doing is using these tests to punish students or to, in some cases, punish schools. And so what we've said is, let's find a test that everybody agrees makes sense; let's apply it in a less pressure-packed atmosphere; let's figure out whether we have to do it every year, or whether we can do it maybe every several years; and let's make sure that that's not the only way we're judging whether a school is doing well."
Amen Obama! Let's get on that! I'm glad he realizes that there is a flaw in the testing system, because there is. I've always thought that standardized tests are a horrible way to judge schools. Or rather, that the punishments to schools that do not succeed or pass the tests are far too severe. It's just ridiculous. How is a school logistically supposed to have every single one of its students proficient?!
And it does affect the students as well. Not only does the establishment where they spend 1/3 of their day get penalized and thus the situation there worsened, but they can be singled out. Well, if they're part of a subgroup, that is. Because you can more easily single out those in subgroups than in the majority, and you can tell which subgroup isn't doing quite as well as the majority.
It's a horrible system and I do not like it.
23 March 2011
common school movement say what?!
hello blog, it's been a while.
I'm no good at writing when I have nothing to say. luckily, I have something to say now. let's try and catch up on some blog entries we didn't quite do on time.
so I choose you, common school movement!
the common school movement interests me. I'm not really sure why I didn't blog about it right away. I love historical things like that, after all. I was probably busy. I'm always busy. back to the point. the common school movement is pretty intriguing. it's just strange to think that there once was a time when there wasn't public education. when children wanted to go to school and it was a privilege to do so. the kids I work with whine, complain, scream, basically do everything they can to make sure we know they do not want to be there. no matter how hard you try to drill into their minds that kids in other parts of the world would love the opportunity for schooling, they just don't get it.
so that's why it's hard to think of a time without school. a time of apprenticeships and where your last name was an indication of your job title ("good morning mr. baker" "oh hello there mrs. smith"). it gets me thinking, what would have happened had nobody had the idea to implement a school system. obviously lessons would still have been passed down through generation and from master to student. but how would it have affected the gap between rich and poor having no common education system.
because of the shift from only rich being able to secure education to everyone getting to go to school (well, we know that "everyone" is subject to the usual disclaimer of "white") the gap between classes narrowed. fewer things separated the rich and the poor. no longer could rich parents boast that their child was more educated because now education was available to the poor children as well.
unfortunately, the education was not quite up to the same standards as private schooling. what did you expect, really. paid teachers are obviously going to be of higher quality than teachers working to provide free education. simple economics. or logic.
but still, despite the obvious differences (clearly the rich would still get better education,) the fact that education of any sort was now available led to an eventual evening out of the playing field and made it easier for those who previously had been stranded to play and even get ahead of their peers.
it's interesting. a lot of what ifs. I think we're lucky that we managed to get this far with education, to be entirely honest.
I'm no good at writing when I have nothing to say. luckily, I have something to say now. let's try and catch up on some blog entries we didn't quite do on time.
so I choose you, common school movement!
the common school movement interests me. I'm not really sure why I didn't blog about it right away. I love historical things like that, after all. I was probably busy. I'm always busy. back to the point. the common school movement is pretty intriguing. it's just strange to think that there once was a time when there wasn't public education. when children wanted to go to school and it was a privilege to do so. the kids I work with whine, complain, scream, basically do everything they can to make sure we know they do not want to be there. no matter how hard you try to drill into their minds that kids in other parts of the world would love the opportunity for schooling, they just don't get it.
so that's why it's hard to think of a time without school. a time of apprenticeships and where your last name was an indication of your job title ("good morning mr. baker" "oh hello there mrs. smith"). it gets me thinking, what would have happened had nobody had the idea to implement a school system. obviously lessons would still have been passed down through generation and from master to student. but how would it have affected the gap between rich and poor having no common education system.
because of the shift from only rich being able to secure education to everyone getting to go to school (well, we know that "everyone" is subject to the usual disclaimer of "white") the gap between classes narrowed. fewer things separated the rich and the poor. no longer could rich parents boast that their child was more educated because now education was available to the poor children as well.
unfortunately, the education was not quite up to the same standards as private schooling. what did you expect, really. paid teachers are obviously going to be of higher quality than teachers working to provide free education. simple economics. or logic.
but still, despite the obvious differences (clearly the rich would still get better education,) the fact that education of any sort was now available led to an eventual evening out of the playing field and made it easier for those who previously had been stranded to play and even get ahead of their peers.
it's interesting. a lot of what ifs. I think we're lucky that we managed to get this far with education, to be entirely honest.
09 February 2011
critical pedagogy
"Traditionally, we have been taught to keep our academic discourse cool and detached."
What a load of bologna. Not the statement, that's true. But the truth about the statement is upsetting to me.
Even the beginning of Wink's article gives me something to think about: detachment. Immediately after reading that I thought back to the meeting we had at Hamilton for our After School Program my first year tutoring. We were told not to hug the kids because it would give them ideas that they were allowed to grab people. I broke that rule every single day. It took me all of three minutes to realize that it was going to be a lost cause for me to try and avoid hugging the children. I know there are rules about how much contact is "acceptable" between a tutor and a child (ex, don't hit them) but when a 5 year old yells "hi Jennifer!" and wants a hug, well, just try and stop me from getting that hug.
That's what thought immediately struck me with just the first paragraph of the article. "We come from a tradition of thought that teaches that advocacy and passion are irrational and detachment equals rationality." And it's so true. We are taught that kids will be spoiled if we touch them affectionately, that they won't take us seriously. I have never found that giving a child a hug detracts from the respect they give you. If anything, denying a child their hug reduces their respect that they have for you. I've seen the children act around people who live by the "no affection is the best way" rule, and it's not pretty.
They know when they are not being treated fairly. They can tell when we treat them like objects instead of people, and It's so sad how often that becomes the case.
What a load of bologna. Not the statement, that's true. But the truth about the statement is upsetting to me.
Even the beginning of Wink's article gives me something to think about: detachment. Immediately after reading that I thought back to the meeting we had at Hamilton for our After School Program my first year tutoring. We were told not to hug the kids because it would give them ideas that they were allowed to grab people. I broke that rule every single day. It took me all of three minutes to realize that it was going to be a lost cause for me to try and avoid hugging the children. I know there are rules about how much contact is "acceptable" between a tutor and a child (ex, don't hit them) but when a 5 year old yells "hi Jennifer!" and wants a hug, well, just try and stop me from getting that hug.
That's what thought immediately struck me with just the first paragraph of the article. "We come from a tradition of thought that teaches that advocacy and passion are irrational and detachment equals rationality." And it's so true. We are taught that kids will be spoiled if we touch them affectionately, that they won't take us seriously. I have never found that giving a child a hug detracts from the respect they give you. If anything, denying a child their hug reduces their respect that they have for you. I've seen the children act around people who live by the "no affection is the best way" rule, and it's not pretty.
They know when they are not being treated fairly. They can tell when we treat them like objects instead of people, and It's so sad how often that becomes the case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)