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.
19 April 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)