Education: What's Needed?

I think one overriding question in class was whether students need other races, or ethnic groups to learn. As I said in class, it depends on your definition of learning. Any child can be taught the basics of education, reading, writing, math, etc, though the debate on how well they are taught is ongoing. We know that students who are home schooled, effectively put in an environment where they have minimal interaction with with a variety other students in the classroom, learn their subjects quite well. However, I stand by the idea that the social environment is as important as the educational environment in a school. It is this interaction, even on a basic level, that enables us to move beyond simple tolerance to acceptance of people who are different than us. As Patricia said in class, when we first come to an atmosphere beyond our high school, we know that there is a tendency for those not exposed to different cultures to stereotype the people they encounter. I went to an all white rural high school. I was successful, learned what I needed to, graduated and went on to college. There wasn't a "need" for different races to be present for me to do all that. However, that doesn't mean I didn't miss out on valuable lessons that could have been taught outside the classroom. At the time, I didn't recognize that my school was segregated, that was just our community. But, I have to wonder what the perspective of my fellow students, many of who still live in that same community, would be if they had regular exposure to different perspectives. Our nation, undoubtedly has many racial issues both in education and beyond. I firmly believe that integration in school, can go along way toward fixing some of these issues in society. By continuing to segregate our schools, we are doing a disservice to the students, both in education and when they finish with school. In class we found a possible solution in segregation by individuals choosing to educate themselves multiculturally, making an effort to learn about others. This article (http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/101707/local_20071017012.shtml) shows how a group of students from several different schools did just that. Not only did they learn more about each other, but helped to educate the community as well. We may not be able to generalize this case to all, but it would be hard to argue that everyone involved did not benefit from interaction and education of, with and by many different races and cultures.

Another idea I wanted to touch on was the idea of adequate versus equal education. I'm not sure that if I were a parent and was asked if it was okay that my child was received an adequate education, that my answer would be positive. I would want my child to receive the best possible education. I think this can only be done through equalization. If we simply settle for adequate education for our children, we are not decreasing that ever present racial and economic gap. One child with limited resources may get adequate education that meets the required standards while another, wealthier student may get the best education possible. That gap still remains, one child is still further ahead in learning than the other. By equalizing education we are hopefully, ensuring that all students move well beyond an adequate education, which would be our goal. Certainly the wealthy will not settle for an education that is below adequate. Of course this is much more difficult to do than assuring adequate education, but I think it is necessary to give the best possible education and in turn opportunities to all students, and not simply settle for a lesser goal simply because it is easier to achieve. Equal education will in all likelihood ensure education that is well beyond adequate.

Solutions to NCLB

I think most agree that the way No Child Left Behind is designed today, it has flaws that inhibit rather than promote closing the economic and racial gap. In some ways it even encourages the gap to grow by punishing schools that already find themselves behind academically. While I disagree with much NCLB, there are some aspects that it includes that can be used in finding a true solution. The well-educated teacher is key to closing this gap. This includes more than simply having the information teachers need to educate, but an understanding of the process both within the class and within the system. Teachers, as well as schools, need to understand that students learn differently, that there are certain circumstances that inhibit a child's learning, and the overall picture of why the gap exists and knowledge that they need to encourage all students learning abilities. Ideally this is what we would have. Some good teachers know this information, others do not and we are generally finding that those who do have this knowledge are not serving the economically disadvantaged. So perhaps we give them financial incentives to teach in low-income and minority schools, to help these children.

I also believe there needs to be some form of evaluation of the students and teachers. That does not have to be standardized testing, but there must be some form of assessment that whatever program is being used by the teacher is effective. I don't believe in a "cookie-cutter" one size fits all curriculum. Just as students learn differently, teachers teach effectively in different ways. Perhaps we leave that evaluation to the school system or maybe to an outside source that would be informed and unbiased. At the heart of the problems with NCLB seems to be standardized testing and the punishment system that goes along with the results. By attaching financial stipulations to an education program, we are encouraging schools to teach to the test rather than give the students the education they need to learn. Any financial stipulations that hurt those who need the money to should be eliminated and evaluated publicly by and independent third party or parties.

I like the idea of the KIPP school and the function of the charter schools, however, I do see a problem that may prevent these schools from succeeded on a national scale. In the case of KIPP and most charter schools, the parents, teachers and students are in a radically different program voluntarily. They all know and accept what is expected of them. If we are to force longer hours and stricter stipulations on all that are involved we can expect backlash much like we are seeing with NCLB. I do think there are many aspects of these schools that can be nationalized, but rather than force teachers, students, and parents into these intensive programs, we should encourage them all to take a more active role in education. Should we expect teachers to work 10-12 hours a day, five days a week, be on call at any and all hours and work a full school year at the money they are making now. As tight as the government is with giving money toward education right now I doubt they could be encouraged to give raises to teachers that would make them willing to make such sacrifices. As I said, I do not disagree with the programs, in fact I think they do work, and there are many aspects that could be translated into our public schools today as part of any revision, but I just do not think we can forcibly put these programs and the vast expectations on people who may not be willing or even able to meet them.

Here is an interview with a PR representative from KIPP, he answers some good questions, including one (at the end) on what kind of children KIPP is producing compared to students in public schools:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3741224&page=1

Here is a short audio clip (about 5 minutes) that discusses the pros and cons of charter schools:

http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/popup.php?id=6081153&type=1&date=15-Sep-2006&au=1&pid=26643374&random=3522574645&guid=00003ACCEED307183986A32061626364&uaType=WM,RM&aaType=RM,WM&upf=Win32&topicName=Politics___Society&subtopicName=Education&prgCode=NEWSNOTES&hubId=-1&thingId=6081152&ssid=&tableModifier=&mtype=WM

Unequal Curriculum

One of the questions posed in class was whether or not those who set policy and curriculum understand the children they are setting those policies for. The simple answer is to say that they do not and can not understand the differing situations of these children, particularly of the poor and working class. I pose the question as to whether they want to know these children's situations? They undoubtedly know of these children, but as we are learning make little effort to make changes to benefit them. Perhaps it is easier for them to turn a blind eye to the situation and therefore not face the undeniable facts of how bad the situation truly is. Unfortunately this is no the worst that happens. As I said, they must know that schools are unequal, and all too often they choose to not only ignore these children, but take steps to assure that they do not have the means to achieve beyond their current status. This a problem that has been seen for many years. This article from 1999; California Lawsuit Notes Unequal Access to AP Courses shows how California appears to have denied AP classes to low-income students. As we heard in class, some AP classes are weighted heavier in college admissions. By denying low-income students the same opportunity in curriculum afforded to their wealthier counterparts, they are preventing students from developing their full potential, which is counter to what the educational system should be doing.
In this post; Can Public Schools Fix the Achievement Gap? the author sites three different recent incidents where the curriculum was different dependent on the race and economic status of the students. This is unfortunately a problem that has continued to happen not only now, but the recent past and undoubtedly much further back than that. These actions are ingrained into our schools and political process so deeply that it may indeed take years to change the situation. I think that change is possible, but first we must recognize that children are treated differently and through various political and legal processes create change. While we would ideally like to think that the problem could be corrected by simply recognizing the inequality and then expecting those who set policy to correct it, perhaps the only way to truly change the system is to force those who may be causing the problem and who are already aware of the discrepancies to make the necessary changes.