Week 7 Quotes

"Testing is a for-profit industry." (Spring 182)

This one statement sums up why we must be so careful of relying on tests. With so many companies holding a monetary stake in testing, it become hard to argue that the goal of testing is purely educational. Clearly, a company such as McGraw-Hill is not going to make business decisions based on what is best for students. To do so would be bad business. But if we're talking about education, our number one concern should be exactly that: what is best for students. I have no doubt that lobbyists for testing companies support legislation like No Child Left Behind simply because it means business for them. But decisions on education in this country can't be based on profit.

"If you were to review the actual items in a typical standardized achievement test, you'd find many items whose correct answer depends heavily on the socio-economic status of a child's family. There are also many items that measure the verbal, quantitative, or spatial aptitudes that children inherit at birth. Such items are better suited to intelligence tests. Clearly items dependent either on the affluence of a student's family or on a child's genetic inheritance are not suitable for evaluating schools." - W. James Popham (Spring 184)

This quote touches upon what we discussed in our presentation: genetic inheritance of intelligence and the role of environment. What Popham seems to be getting at is that tests do not measure actual learning, merely base knowledge. The ability to retain facts could be a genetic component of intelligence, but that does not necessarily account for all learning by the individual. Similarly, placing value on certain pieces of knowledge can vary along cultural or socio-economic lines. As I see it, placing value on something is a purely opinion-based decision. I used to hate multiple choice questions that asked "What is the best.." or "What is the most likely..." because these are highly opinionated. Even at an early age, I found myself trying to think, "What is the intent of the test takers with this question?" Such questions place more emphasis on the reasoning and logical thought process. Therefore, the "right answer" isn't really important if the child can demonstrate use of logic and reasoning.

"'Accountability, as written into federal law, was not raising standards but dumbing down the schools,' she [Diane Ravitch] writes. 'The effort to upend American public education and replace it with something that was market-based began to feel too radical for me.'" (Dillon 2002)

It says a lot about the current system when one of its designers turns against it. Still, I can't help but harbor some resentment toward this woman for the system she designed. She refers to replacing education with a market-based system as too radical. Honestly, what did she think would come of emphasizing testing? As a prominant figure in education, I'd hope she has some basic understanding of sociology. Even with my limited coursework in sociology, it's not surprising that emphasizing accountability resulted in a system where educators focus solely on the scores from assessments. After all, it's their jobs that are on the line. And while it's nice to assume that educators are all benevolent and would focus on what is best for the children, that's not really how humans work. The current emphasis on accountability has only resulted in the majority of educators feeling like they need to do what they can to protect themselves and their jobs. Part of me is glad Diane Ravitch realizes NCLB is flawed, but I just can't help but feel upset as I read this article and learn about her reasoning for implementing it in the first place. It just seems so flawed.

Week 6 Quotes

"U.S. court histories are filled with disputable efforts to define race." (Spring 62)

Reading Spring's history of how courts and the U.S. census bureau have defined race, I'm struck by the absolute absurdity of the decision histories. First, courts ruled skin color was not a valid criterion. So they instead adopted the idea of Caucasian identity. Then, that was rejected. I'm struck by how illogical the whole process is. I realize that racism often stems from misguided prejudice and ignorance, but there's simply a lack of reasoning behind these court decisions. If courts were not defining race based on skin color, then how can they possibly justify continued bias against people of color? I find the whole idea of replacing skin color criteria with Caucasian hilariously tragic, as if that someone clears up confusion. I think this whole history really helps to emphasize the idea that race is a purely social construct.

"Equal treatment by the law is the great principle unbderlying the idea of equality of educational opportunity. Everyone should receive equal treatment by the law. No one should receive special privileges or treatment because of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or wealth." (Spring 64)

I feel like some of Spring's personal opinion is shining through in this statement. I'm beginning to question the idea that everyone should receive the same treatment. Everyone should certainly have the same opportunities. But to enable everyone to have the same opportunities, some individuals will need special treatment. A good example is the discussion we had a few weeks back regarding funding to schools. Many people might argue that solving the problems of urban schools requires even funding of schools. But money itself only goes so far, and sme of these schools face so many problems that the only way they will become functionally equal to suburban schools is through increased funding. The end goal of special treatment is still an equality of opportunity, but in some situations it will take more work to reach that level. This is especially apparent when discussing students of color trying to succeed in a white-dominated society.

"The lack of training of classroom teachers and the limited availability of aides and special education resources make implementing inclusion difficult. Not surprisingly, the lack of adequate funding underlies all." (Spring 78)

I have mixed feelings about inclusion. In principle, I fully support it. The idea that students with cognitive disabilities are not segregated from their peers is an agreeable one. I remember my elementary school years when inclusion was not a common practice. There was a special education classroom down the hall. We rarely saw or spoke to the students. Looking back on it, it seems so wrong and borderline cruel to isolate them like that. But in practice, inclusion seems largely unsuccessful. In my experiences as a substitute, many special education students get left behind in the regular classroom. The idea that they are motivated by the higher achieving students is largely a joke; the lower students more commonly become discouraged and begin to look down on themselves. Special education teachers seem to struggle to provide these students with truly meaningful, long lasting supports as opposed to quick, reactive supports based on whatever lesson they're working on at the time. And finally, in a system with standards and testing and so many other responsibilities, many teachers are simply logistically unable to individual lesson plans. I would be wary of saying the teachers are overburdened. While some may resent the idea of individualizing lessons, I think some would truly try if they had the time. But with all the problems inherent in the educational system, I just question how effective inclusion really is in terms of helping students with disabilities.

"The Court made it clear that it did not reject the idea of Bible reading as a part of a study of comparative religion or the history of religion. Nor did the Court exclude the possibility of studying the Bible as a piece of literature. What the court objected to was the reading of the Bible as part of a religious exercise." (Spring 267)

I think this is a very important distinction of how religion is used in the classroom. Unfortunately, this is often confused or misunderstood by many people. Schools can - and in my opinion should - bring the Bible and other religious texts into the classroom to promote an understanding of diverse religions. The schools are not asking students to actually believe in these religions, nor should a school ever advocate belief in a specific religion. But considering religion is a big part of the society we live in, it is vitally important that students have an understanding of it. It's no different that studying a political belief. Schools should not ask students to follow certain political views, but they certainly teach students why some people believe in a certain view. Similarly, students should understand what other religions believe, why they believe, and how that guides actions throughout history and in the present.

Week 5 Quotes

"The school was one of the many 'themed academies' that had been newly founded in New York, but it was academic only in its name and it turned out to be a bleak and grimy institution on the top floor of an old five-story building in East Harlem in the lower floors of which an elementary school was housed." (Kozol 142-143)

The word "academy" has really become a catch-all term in education to imply some degree of enrichment. I doubt any educator could really give a decent definition of it off the top of his or her head. Kozol highlights how academy is being used to describe special schooling for urban youth that, in principle, is suppose to enrich them beyond the regualr schooling. In practice, the academies are in some ways worse than the regular schools. But even outside of urban districts, the term has lost meaning. At one school where I worked, each day had a block of time known as "academy time." By using the term academy, the school hoped to imply that this time would provide extra enrichment. The block of time was little more than a glorified study hall, and teachers often scrambled to provide some extra activity outside of their regular curriculum as mandated by the administration. Forced enrichment is not really enriching.

"You have to do what children do and breathe the air the children breathe. I don't think that there is any other way to find out what the lives that children lead in school are really like." (Kozol 163)

As I read Kozol's descriptions of the deplorable physical conditions within these schools, I'm reminded of the famous photographer and social worker Jacob Riis. Jacob Riis used the new technology of flash powder and photography to document the awful conditions in the ghettos of New York City at the turn of the century. People outside of the ghettos had heard of the conditions, but never before had they actually seen them. Riis used the new technology to actually share vivid, graphic images of human suffering in the heart of New York City. I'm wondering if someone could do something similar nowadays with the schools Kozol is describing. It's one thing to read about the conditions, but to actually see a video might really open some eyes. Showing some sort of video of a class might also show people the worth in these children. Too often, outsiders seem to characterize these children as troublemakers not worth the effort. Showing them in the class would go a long way toward dispelling myths.

"The original goals of public schools centered on citizenship training, equality of economic opportunity, and reduction of crime... Most of the original goals of schooling still guide the work of educators." (Spring 5)

I was surprised by this quote by Spring, as it seems quite idealistic. In principle, I guess these original goals are still the guiding principles. But in practice, they're not really the focus. Equality of economic opportunity has been replaced with workforce training. Students are now marched through schooling with the idea that they should be thinking of a future career. Reduction of crime is a bit of an odd goal, though ultimately by creating better citizens this goal is achieved. However, I think about the stories we've read about and heard from various sources about poor and minority students being marginalized. I believe Dr. Love said something to the effect of, "If you keep treating them like criminals, they're going to start acting like it." Is it any wonder crime rates seem to soar in urban areas when we as a society treat them as inferior? I wonder how many students the educational system has unintentionally railroaded into a life of deliquency. Finally, the idea of education being centered on citizenship training is, quite frankly, laughable. When I attended school, there were no civics or public policy classes offered. Social studies was equated with history and only history. And as we've discussed before, history is so often presented as being important "so that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past." Students are not truly taught how to participate in society or even to understand why the tensions in society today exist. The education system has created citizens detached from the society in which they live.