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:
Here is a short audio clip (about 5 minutes) that discusses the pros and cons of charter schools:
2 comments:
Mike,
I like what you had to say about each student learning differently and educators teaching effectively using different methods. As you said, one size fits all curriculums often do not work. Trying to get all of the children in your classroom on the same level is completely unrealistic. That's what makes NCLB laughable. It is not impossible to imagine learners excelling and even exceeding our expectations under this current legislation. To expect all students to be at equal levels of proficiency is ludicrous. Charter schools may be having greater success at helping students reach higher standards. We need to implement the practices which are helping those schools increase academic gains into all public schools.
Good point, Mike. The voluntary aspect of KIPP sets it apart from "normal" schools. But is it so bad to require people to sign a contract in regular schools? Maybe that element could be used if a community effort is brought forth. The problem, however, with regular schools is that some people view it as a requirement rather than a necessity. They send their kids to school so that the government won't come looking for them.
Post a Comment