The Million Dollar Question
So my favorite blogger edwahoo has just asked the question: "What is the single most major reform needed in American education today?"
He is proposing an edublog debate of sorts and has asked bloggers to post their answers on their own blogs and then send him the link. Here's his brainstorm idea:
"Schools have to be reformed in their pedagogical structures (and everything that flows from them, possibly including but not limited to classroom design and assessments) so that they have the singular goal of critical thinking."
I thought it would be cool if we join in so here's my brainstorm idea:
I am a proponent of Richard Rothstein's notion that environmental factors can account for up to 80% of a child's success rate in education and therefore schools cannot put up blinders to socioeconomic status. I believe there are two main approaches to fixing education: one is we first have to fix the societal problems that exist; health care, nutrition, early child care, employment, affordable housing etc which will ultimately equalize education. The second option is to create schools designed to address the societal issues listed above (like what Harlem Children's Zone does). Thus, schools would become community centers of sorts where children could receive healthcare, nutrition, etc, and parents would receive housing, employment, training, and educational help.
Any other ideas?
7 Comments:
-
Your proposal just bankrupted the country and is ridiculous. Rothstein, Kozol, and you fail to take into account the schools that ARE educating poor students and those that haven't been successful in school (ever heard of KIPP???) Also, check out the recent survey by Teach for America. This discussion is more about expectations than you think. You, along with the general teaching force (minus Teach for America teachers and other brave souls) don't have any expectations for these kids - its no wonder why there are so many of them failing in public schools.
By
, at November 09, 2005 9:29 PM
-
To dsb,
By
thank you for commenting, i appreciate your contribution to the dialogue. I find it interesting that everytime I bring up socioeconomic status and schools, someone always gets on the defensive accusing me of having low expectations of students and then mentions KIPP and TFA. First off, I (nor Rothstein or Kozol) ever said we shouldn't have high expectations of children. Every school obviously should challenge students and have high standards. That is a non-negotiable. But just focusing on school alone is not good enough. Nor will it equalize things. Low income children come to school with twice the rate of vision problems, dental and overall health issues than middle class children. This affects their ability to concentrate and learn. Poor children are also arriving to school with a 3-5 thousand vocabulary word deficit compared to middle class children. This has everything to do with their environment, before they enter the classroom. Personally, I love TFA and I have heard great things about KIPP. Our children are better because these programs exist. However, if we are talking about widespread institutional change, we cannot put schools solely in charge. We need to have honest dialogues about how poverty and SES affect our children and then figure out ways to make sure that all kids begin school on an equal footing. That, in my opinion, is truly having high expectations.
KF, at November 10, 2005 3:16 PM
-
I agree w/ Emily that we can't pretend that socioeconomic factors don't play a role in how easy school success will be for kids.
By
Now, there are 2 ways you can use that information. One is as an excuse for low achievement. The other is to create an accurate assessment of the challenges that schools face--and to not stop until all the challenges are met.
Why is it that it's assumed that when people talk about structural disadvantage, they are making excuses? KIPP, TFA, and others don't ignore social inequality... they use it (and its inherent unfairness) as energy to drive their missions.
On an only semi-topical aside, I'd say that Kozol thinks we should have high academic expectations for all kids, but I really don't know how he envisions us getting them to Love of Knowledge Land. He decries that "testing" and "standards" (said with scorn usually reserved for cuss words) are killing the light in poor inner city children's eyes. Well, fast forward 10 years from the precious, innocent kindergartenders he rightfully adores... if they're 10th graders who can't read, the light will also be pretty darn dim. And before testing and standards, far too many children ended up there. It's still too early to judge about what will happen in the future, but I fail to see how most these kids are going to be any worse off. NMD, at November 10, 2005 3:54 PM
-
KF,
By
Ok, I realize you are trying to have a discussion about how to improve schools. But when you start talking about reforming the country into a welfare state you are exiting the parameters of realism and entering fantasy. Poor students need help NOW, not tomorrow when Congress might get around to acting. That's why I'm such a big supporter of KIPP and TFA. They realize there is a serious problem and are out doing something about it now. And they are pretty dang successful. If KIPP (and other schools) can educate every child, why do we need to discuss health and poverty issues? I think it detracts from the discussion of education reform. Educators should be about finding ways to help students learn their ABC's, no matter what the circumstances. When the discussion turns to factors outside of our control, it provides an opportunity for educators to make excuses for lack of success (i.e., "responsibility avoidance"). And teachers love to avoid taking responsibility (myself included a few years ago).
As educators we have to play the cards that are dealt to us. I really think we can turn things around without a discussion about social factors. It’s being done. , at November 11, 2005 9:15 AM
-
DSB, I disaggree that your pet program, KIPP, ignores social factors. One of their premises is that their students have A LOT of catch up to do, and that knowledge drives their school model. Witness KIPP's extended class days and mandatory Saturday and summer school. The extra time in school slowly but surely chips away at the students' cumulative disadvantage, and as a result, their students are well-prepared for the nation's top prep schools, high schools, and beyond.
By
The people who formulated this program refuse to use social factors as an excuse for student failure, but it's certainly untrue to say that their program doesn't directly address the educational challenges posed by social inequality. NMD, at November 11, 2005 2:33 PM
-
Nicole is totally correct in her comments about the assessment of KIPP.
By
I disagree about not including social factors in education policy discussions. I understand that most of our country believes in the values of meritocracy and "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" to become a successful citizen. I realize that my suggestions violate these deeply ingrained notions. However, schools alone will not close the achievement gap, b/c middle and upper class families have more advantages outside of school that will always put them ahead of lower class children. Therefore, we have to think about education differently. I am not advocating for a welfare state, or for teachers to use social class as an excuse for failure. I am however, advocating for programs such as widespread quality early preschool/childcare where healthcare and nutrition are included. I also think that summer and after school programs for students of all ages are incredibly important to help negate social inequities. While it is important to focus on the NOW (which can be done by community based efforts), we have to also begin building long term, sustainable programs that will become institutionalized so that in 20 years from now, we won't be having these same coversations. KF, at November 11, 2005 3:48 PM
-
"What is the single most major reform needed in American schools today?"
By
"Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures, so that the only source of the pupil's respect for the teacher is the human and intellectual qualities of the latter." --Albert Einstein--, __Ideas And Opinions__, p. 61, (Three Rivers Press).
The education business is not a natural monopoly, and above a rather low level there are no economies of scale at the delivery end of the education business as it currently operates. Natural monopoly and economies of scale are the usual social-welfare arguments for State operation of an industry. Education only marginally qualifies as a "public good" as economists use the term, and the public goods argument implies subsidy (as in school vouchers) and regulation (compulsory attendance, institutional qualifications for voucher acceptance), at most, not State operation of schools.
Compulsory unpaid labor is slavery; black or white, male or female, young or old. If you suppose that students can do what schools require and observe that they don't do what schools require, it is reasonable to conclude that they don't want to do what schools require.
The poor overall performance of US schools and the income-related and race-related test score gaps are directly related to the different incentive structures which students face. School is designed by Professors of Education and Public Policy, by people who are good at school, by people who have spent their entire lives in school. The goals they invite students to entertain and the incentives they offer are foreign to many normal students.
"Academic" has become a synonym for "irrelevant" to many students (and adults). Training a mechanically or artistically inclined child for an academic career using a transcript as the incentive is like teaching a cat to swim using carrots as the reward.
"What works?" is an empirical question which the State-monopoly school system cannot answer. It's guaranteed $400 billion+ yearly subsidy gives system insiders little incentive to improve.
Chubb and Moe (__Politics, Markets, and America's Schools__, Brookings, 1990) suggest school vouchers. I suggest Parent Performance Contracting (tm), in which your legislature would mandate that school districts --hire parents-- on personal service contracts to provide for their children's education, if the parents apply for the contract.
Make payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-ed per pupil budget. Make payment contingent on performance at or above age-level expectations on standardized tests of reading vocabulary, reading comprehension (any language) and math. Count children as enrolled in the school they would otherwise be compelled to attend. Parents could then homeschool, hire tutors, or supplement the contract value and send their children to independent or parochial schools.
School vouchers and Parent Performance Contracting would allow parents to match their children's interests and aptitudes to schools' curricula. Faced with competition, school administrators and teachers would have the incentive to improve, or go out of business.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Adolescence.pdf
http://www.educationnews.org/School-Corruption-Betrayal-of-Children-and-the-Public-Trust.htm
http://www.worldbank.org/research/journals/wbro/obsfeb97/educate.htm
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/pdfs/economics%20of%20compulsion.pdf , at November 25, 2005 4:55 PM
<< Home
from: :: permalink
