First week: from June 29th to July 3rd.
We had debates for each issue presented here. The debates were
clear, interesting, relevant, engaging. Arguments were stated clearly and interestingly. Panelists were accurate and engaging.
July 1st. Issue 2: Should the Curriculum Be Standardized for All?
YES: Mortimer J. Adler, from "The Paideia Proposal: Rediscovering the Essence of Education," American School Board Journal (July 1982)
NO: John Holt, from Escape from Childhood, (E. P. Dutton, 1974)
Philosopher Mortimer J. Adler contends that democracy is best served by a public school system that establishes uniform curricular objectives for all students. Educator John Holt argues that an imposed curriculum damages the individual and usurps a basic human right to select one's own path of development.
Paideia Proposal- is the principal of equal educational opportunities, which includes the suggestion that inequalities due to environmental factors must be overcome by some form of preschool preparation.
Meaning- the compulsory schooling of 12 years may be 13, 14, or 15 years.
QUESTION: IN YOUR OPINION, IS DEMOCRACY BETTER SERVED BY A COMMON CURRICULUM OR BY FREEDOM TO CHOOSE ONE’S OWN CURRICULUM? EXPLAIN.
July 1st. Issue 9: Do High-Stakes Assessments Improve Learning?
YES: Nina Hurwitz and Sol Hurwitz, from "Tests That Count," American School Board Journal (January 2000)
NO: Ken Jones, from "A Balanced School Accountability Model: An Alternative to High-Stakes Testing," Phi Delta Kappan (April 2004)
High school teacher Nina Hurwitz and education consultant Sol Hurwitz assemble evidence from states that are leading the movement to set high standards of educational performance and cautiously conclude that it could stimulate long-overdue renewal. Teacher and education director Ken Jones believes that much more than test scores must be used to develop an approach to school accountability that effectively blends federal, state, and local agencies and powers.
Extra info: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0207coltrane.pdf
Issue: Jan 1998
A Fair Test analysis of state-level test results on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) shows that states with high-stakes tests perform worse, not better, on NAEP math and reading tests. This finding undermines the arguments of test proponents that high-stakes tests will result in improved learning. This view is found, for example, in the grading formula used in Quality Counts, the recent Education Week report, in which states received points for having high-stakes tests.
High Stakes Tests Do Not Improve Learning demonstrates that students were less likely to reach a level of "proficient" or higher on the NAEP math or reading tests in states which had mandatory high school graduation tests. Those states also had more students who failed to reach NAEP's "basic" level. In addition, such states were less likely to show statistically. significant improvement in moving their students to the "proficient" level than were states without high school graduation tests.
http://www.fairtest.org/high-stakes-tests-do-not-improve-learning
July 2nd. Issue 19: Do Computers Negatively Affect Student Growth?
YES: Lowell Monke, from "The Human Touch," Education Next (Fall 2004)
NO: Frederick M. Hess, from "Technical Difficulties," Education Next (Fall 2004)
Lowell Monke, an assistant professor of education, expresses deep concerns that the uncritical faith in computer technology in schools has led to sacrifices in intellectual growth and creativity. Frederick M. Hess, while sharing some of Monke's observations, believes that the tools of technology, used appropriately, can support innovation and reinvention in education.
Personal ideas on the matter:
Positive aspects: Information acquisition and financial support;
Need of new experiences by the learners; New lesson(s) with new strategies; technology with Human Purpose.
Negative effects: Intellectual growth and creativity are sacrificed; spontaneity and instinctive responses of the learner decreases. Ecological Impact and Change in values; in wrong hands can be damaging.
July 2nd. Issue 5: Should Global Competition Steer School Reform?
YES: Marc Tucker, from “Charting a New Course for Schools,” Educational Leadership (April 2007)
NO: Herb Childress, from “A Subtractive Education,” Phi Delta Kappan (October 2006)
Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, summarizes the work of the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce on which he served as vice chairman. Herb Childress, director of liberal studies at the Boston Architectural College, argues for a completely different approach to improvement of our efforts to educate.
Extra view
Year after year, AISD officials wrestled with competing state and federal rating
systems. McCallum high school could be on the Newsweek’s list of the nation’s “Best
High Schools” yet would be labeled “Needs Improvement” under the federal No Child
Left Behind Act while in the Texas system of ratings be called “Academically
Acceptable.”
These ratings, using different criteria yet fully reported in the media, created, in
Forgione’s words, “an oppressive and mechanistic accountability that allows no credit for progress” made in schools with high percentages of poor minority students and English Language Learners (ELL). Under NCLB, proficiency levels have to be reached each year.
Strong gains in test scores are not even considered if the level—the set percentage is not reached for an entire group or any of the sub-groups. So, too, did the TEA raise the bar on test scores that students had to meet each year but did at least recognize increases in test scores. As unfair as NCLB was to those schools where students raised their scores far higher than the previous year and still fell short of the level for the current year, that “oppressive and mechanistic accountability” scarcely slowed down either the pace or
reach of district reforms that the entrepreneurial Superintendent proposed and the Board of Trustees adopted.
July 2nd. Issue 22: Are Undocumented Immigrants Entitled to Public Education?
YES: William J. Brennan, Jr., from Majority Opinion in Plyler v. Doe (June 15, 1982)
NO: Warren Burger, from Dissenting Opinion in Plyler v. Doe (June 15, 1982)
Justice William Brennan argues that the action of the Texas state legislature to authorize local school districts to deny enrollment in public schools to children not “legally admitted” to the country violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren Burger, in dissent, counters that the Court has no business assuming a policymaking role simply because the legislative branches of government fail to act appropriately.
Other views
Should Undocumented Immigrants Have Access to In-State Tuition?
Context
Immigration issues have become controversial in recent years due to the influx of immigrants into the United States and fear over security and safety post-9/11. From driver’s licenses to welfare—these issues have caused emotional debate as both sides wrangle over the rights and needs of immigrants. Since 2001, state legislatures have been battling another contentious issue – whether to provide undocumented students who have lived in this country for many years a chance at an affordable college education. It’s a subject that heats up each legislative session in as many as twenty states across the country. Fights have been so ugly that legislators have received threatening messages, been lambasted on the radio and removed their sponsorship of the bills.
In the last five years, nine states passed legislation allowing undocumented immigrants to receive in-state tuition.
Observations
Federal law guarantees all students, regardless of legal status, an education from kindergarten through high school. Few feasible options exist for these students to continue on to a postsecondary education.
In 1982, federal legislation was enacted entitling all students to a free public education from kindergarten through 12th grade. That same year, the Supreme Court upheld this legislation in the case Plyler v. Doe, stating that this policy further guarantees all access to K-12, regardless of immigration or legal status. A federal guarantee is not extended to students wishing to go on to a college or university. In Virginia, for example, the state attorney general’s office has prohibited any postsecondary institution from admitting students without documentation. In Arizona, a 2004 ballot initiative was approved that restricts all public services including tuition and financial aid, to citizens and legal residents.
State and local government employees also will be charged if they fail to report suspected illegal immigrants seeking any public services.
Policy matters US government. http://www.aascu.org/policy_matters/v2_6/default.htm
Worth reading: http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/american_academic/issues/january07/Frum.pdf
Issue 23. Is No Child Left Behind Irretrievably Flawed?
YES: Sharon L. Nichols and David C. Berliner, from “Testing the Joy Out of Learning,” Educational Leadership (March 2008)
NO: Dianne Piché, from “Basically a Good Model,” Education Next (Fall 2007)
Education professors Sharon L. Nichols and David C. Berliner cite evidence of the negative effects of test-dominated schooling under the influence of NCLB. Dianne Piché, executive director of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, supports the testing and accountability measures of the federal law as the best way to advance the interests of the poor and minorities.
Further information: Proven methods find them on this site.
They are worth reading.
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/list.jhtml
July 3rd. Issue 16. Is “Intelligent Design” a Threat to the Curriculum?
YES: Mark Terry, from “One Nation, Under the Designer,” Phi Delta Kappan (December 2004)
NO: Dan Peterson, from “The Little Engine That Could . . . Undo Darwinism,” The American Spectator (June 2005)
Biology teacher and science department administrator Mark Terry warns of the so-called Wedge Strategy being employed by the Discovery Institute to incorporate the “intelligent design” approach into the public school science curriculum. Attorney Dan Peterson presents fact-based arguments that separate “intelligent design” from previous campaigns for inclusion of “creation science” in the biology curriculum and cause evolution theorists to possibly adjust their standard positions.
Comments on the debate: great insights by the participants. Real clashing views. Here is something that goes towards some of the ideas presented…..
“Well, guess what? It is there. It’s chromosome number two, unique to humans. Our second chromosome emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. As a 2005 paper in Nature pointed out, the precise fusion site has been located. How would intelligent design explain this? Well, it can’t—unless it claims that a designer designed human chromosome number two to look as though it was formed by the fusion of chromosomes of a primate ancestor—in short, a designer who was determined to fool us. That’s an odd notion—one that is supported by neither science nor theology. At Dover another of the central ideas of intelligent design—irreducible complexity—fell apart. This is the concept that some complicated biochemical structures, such as the bacterial flagellum couldn’t have been produced by evolution. Behe says “an irreducibly complex system can’t be produced the way that evolution works, by numerous successive light modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing apart is by definition nonfunctional.” In other words, a complex, multipart biochemical machine can’t be the result of evolution because the individual parts have no function of their own. Intelligent design’s poster child for this argument is the bacterial flagellum. At Dover, Behe argued that the 30 or 40 proteins in a bacterial flagellum all have to be present or there’s no function”.
If you want to read more: http://www.bard.edu/alumni/publications/bardians/2006sum/pdfs/darwinism_design.pdf
July 3rd. Issue 17. Is There a Crisis in the Education of Boys?
YES: Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens, from “With Boys and Girls in Mind,” Educational Leadership (November 2004)
NO: Sara Mead, from “The Truth About Boys and Girls,” An Education Sector Report (June 2006)
Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens, researchers in gender differences and brain-based learning at the Gurian Institute, contend that our schools, structurally and functionally, do not fulfill gender-specific needs and that this is particularly harmful to boys. Sara Mead, a senior policy analyst at Education Sector in Washington, DC, assembles long-term data from the federally sponsored National Assessment of Educational Progress to show that the “crisis” emphasis is unwarranted and detracts from broader social justice issues.
Other views:
What do we know about differences in how girls and boys learn?
There are differences in best practice for teaching girls compared with teaching boys. That doesn't mean that all girls learn one way and all boys learn another way. It DOES mean that there are significant differences in the ways girls and boys learn. Those differences are more substantial than age differences in many ways. In other words, a 7-year-old girl and a 7-year-old boy differ, on average, on parameters such as "How long can you sit still, be quiet, and pay attention?" Those differences between a same-age girl and same-age boy are larger than differences between, say, a 7-year-old girl and a 9-year-old girl. Most American schools segregate kids on the basis of age differences: they put 7-year-olds in one classroom and 9-year-olds in another classroom. And yet, the research clearly demonstrates that the sex differences in learning (between a 7-year-old girl and a 7-year-old boy) are larger than the age differences (e.g. between a 7-year-old girl and a 9-year-old girl).
Interesting article from NASSPE
http://www.singlesexschools.org/research-learning.htm
Hearing differences: http://www.genderdifferences.org/hearing.htm
July 3rd. Issue 18. Should Homework Be Abolished?
YES: Etta Kralovec and John Buell, from “End Homework Now,” Educational Leadership (April 2001)
NO: David Skinner, from “The Homework Wars,” The Public Interest (Winter 2004)
Learning specialist Etta Kralovec and journalist John Buell attack the assignment of homework as a pedagogical practice, claiming that it disrupts family life and punishes the poor. Editor David Skinner negatively reacts to Kralovec and Buell’s book, The End of Homework, citing research to undermine their position.
Other views:
“More is not better", says Harris Cooper, Ph.D., a professor of psychology and neuroscience who conducted the review. In fact, according to guidelines endorsed by the National Education Association, teachers should assign no more than ten minutes per grade level per night (that's ten minutes total for a first-grader, 30 minutes for a third-grader).
To read more go to http:
www.examiner.com/x-673-Education-Examiner~y2009m1d13-Should-homework-be-abolished
2nd Week -- July 6th to 10th Dr. Baptista
July 6th. Issue 14: Is Full Inclusion of Disabled Students Desirable? –
Susana Lisken as moderator
Maria Isabel Santana is the yes person – She is a Social Scientist and she has been in Education since 2007. She is a Third and Fourth Grade Elementary Teacher at Sant´ Anna American Int´l School.
YES: Richard A. Villa and Jacqueline S. Thousand, from “Making Inclusive Education Work,” Educational Leadership (October 2003) Education consultant Richard A. Villa and education professor Jacqueline S. Thousand review the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and suggest strategies for fulfilling its intentions.
Judy Dominick is the no person – She is passionate for education and she has been teaching since 2002. She is a teacher in Graded School in São Paulo.
NO: Karen Agne, from “The Dismantling of the Great American Public School,” Educational Horizons (Spring 1998) Education professor Karen Agne argues that legislation to include students with all sorts of disabilities has had mostly negative effects and contributes to the exodus from public schools.
For this assignment, I had to choose an issue from my text book Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues. This is a controversy paper. I am writing as a moderator and as an advocate for full inclusion.
With the passing of the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, schools were no longer able to exclude children with disabilities. The rights of disabled children were taken even farther, when in 1990, Congress reauthorized this act as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In 1997, amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act went on to define terms such as “least restrictive environment” and “Individualized Education Plan”. These laws mandated that all children, regardless of disability, were entitled to a free public education of the same quality, indeed under the same conditions, as nondisabled children. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and its amendments sparked the popular movement towards what is known today as inclusion (Liptsky and Gartner 1998). In order to discuss inclusion, we must first define handicap. A handicap, for our purposes, is any physical or mental disability. This could include a deaf or blind child. It could also include a child who is mentally retarded or one who has a genetic disease such as Down syndrome. A child who is autistic can also be considered handicapped. Handicapped may also include children who are emotionally disturbed or who have special learning needs (Noll 2008). The term handicap holds for a broad range of disabilities. The primary role of inclusion is to educate disabled and nondisabled children together in a general education setting with the use of supplemental aides and support as needed. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandated that all children, regardless of severity or nature of disability, must first be considered for regular class placement (Rudd 2002). The law stated that disabled children must be taught in the “least restrictive environment” possible. Disabled children should only be considered for segregated education when their individual needs can’t be met in a general education classroom, even with the use of supplemental aides and support. If a disabled child is to be moved to a special needs classroom, their IEP must be clearly documented as to why the move is necessary. The laws require educators and administrators to defend exclusion, rather than to defend inclusion. The law also allowed parents to take an active role in their disabled child’s education, requiring schools to make any decisions known and acceptable to the parents (Crockett and Kauffman 1998). There is no set strategy for a successful inclusion classroom. There are, however, some methods of teaching that have worked for some educators. There is co-teaching, parallel teaching, supportive teaching, and complementary teaching (Villa and Thousand 2003). While all of these methods differ significantly, each of them include a general educator, a special needs educator, and support staff and supplemental aides as needed. Everyone works together to meet each child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Another benefit of inclusion is that both nondisabled students and their parents learned not to be fearful of people with disabilities (Staub and Peck 1995). Perencevic and Hulbert found (as cited in Rudd 2002), that one of the highest rated positive outcomes for disabled students is the development of reciprocal friendships. They are able to interact with other children and develop the social skills needed to make friends (Bosworth 2001). Disabled students gain language and behavioral skills because they are exposed to children from their age group who are acting appropriately. They also benefit from inclusion in general education because a more diverse curriculum is usually offered (Walker and Ovington 1998). In summary, inclusion education seems to benefit everyone involved. Disabled students benefit both academically and socially. Nondisabled students become accepting of themselves and others. Parents of disabled children rest assured that their child is receiving a top quality education that will benefit their specific needs. Educators become more aware of needs of individual children, rather than a generic need by all. Inclusive Education has brought schools and communities closer together.
POSITION PAPER
July 6th. Issue 3: Should Behaviorism Shape Educational Practices?
Yes person - Daniel Martins, owner and coordinator at Colégio Harmonia in Cuiabá MS – Brazil he is also a Teacher for the subject Current Issues in High School at his school.
YES: B. F. Skinner, from Beyond Freedom and Dignity (Alfred A. Knopf, 1971) B. F. Skinner, an influential proponent of behaviorism and professor of psychology, critiques the concept of “inner freedom” and links learning and motivation to the influence of external forces.
No person – Patricia Ribeiro, passionate teacher, she is completely for constructivism and its practices, but this time she needs to stand for the no side. She is an elementary teacher at Chapel School in São Paulo.
NO: Carl R. Rogers, from Freedom to Learn for the Eighties (Merrill 1983) Professor of psychology and psychiatry Carl R. Rogers offers the “humanistic” alternative to behaviorism, insisting on the reality of subjective forces in human motivation.
A UNIQUE SCENARIO – Reggio Emilia and possibilities in Education
Jean Piaget and B. F. Skinner meet on the preschool playground in Reggio Emilia, Italy, not to dispute ideas but to "share" theoretical issues that would contribute to a quality and functioning on early childhood classroom. How beneficial this would be for preschool teachers who are struggling to apply the views of Reggio Emilia within their educational training and background of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). Add the behavioral perspective of the special needs teacher to the mix and there is a canvas on fire for philosophical issues merely painted on that piece of cloth. Who is right? Do early childhood educators have to dichotomize among philosophies, or can they integrate and take advantage of various theories as Reggio Emilia does.The complexity of teaching in early childhood is not an either/or situation. It requires enacting a continuum of ideology with no theory practiced in isolation. The Reggio Emilia approach, with its infusion of various theories and innovative practices, achieves a harmony among many contrasting philosophies and sheds light on how to reconfigure such a rigid categorical system (Gardner, 1998). Enthusiasm for the Reggio Emilia approach came at a time when there was considerable professional discourse over the content of DAP guidelines and constructivism as educational practices (Mallory & New, 1994). With its blended educational and cultural perspectives, Reggio has not only inspired educators, but has also stimulated the creation of a powerful arena for reflecting on and questioning educational practices. The increased excitement and notable strengths of instructional practices used in Reggio Emilia are recognized as being compatible with DAP. These advantages, combined with the increased number of special needs students included in preschools, forces the early childhood teacher to filter through a wide variety of adaptations and approaches. Can early childhood educators consider themselves developmentally appropriate, have children engage in long-term projects that provide for communicative skills and patterns of discourse, and "scaffold" children to their developmental potential, plus integrate behavior analytic teaching methods (such as Direct Instruction and Precision Teaching)into their fully inclusive classrooms?
The contrasts between these philosophical foundations are clear, but the commonalities are often ignored. Both constructivism and behaviorism have as their goals the development of independent learners, learners who have the skills to construct their own learning (Skinner, 1968). Both suggest that sufficient support be provided so that the skills needed to learn are developed. Both focus on the learning of individual students, tailoring instruction to ensure that learning. Behaviorism as well as constructivism asserts that knowledge is constructed by the learner, rather than transmitted to the learner (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Skinner, 1968).
POSITION PAPER AS A NO PERSON - Susana Lisken
July 9th. Issue 12: Do Charter Schools Merit Public Support? Moderator - Adriana Yes person: Patricia Ribeiro – Chapel School
YES: Joe Williams, from “Games Charter Opponents Play,” Education Next (Winter 2007) Journalist Joe Williams, a senior fellow with Education Sector, reviews the development of the charter school movement and finds multiple unwarranted bureaucratic impediments to its acceptance.
No person: Susana Lisken – Sant´Anna American Int´l School
NO: Marc F. Bernstein, from “Why I’m Wary of Charter Schools,” The School Administrator (August 1999) School superintendent Marc F. Bernstein sees increasing racial and social class segregation, church-state issues, and financial harm as outgrowths of the movement.
NO PAPER – CHARTER SCHOOLS: A FACTUAL OVERVIEW OF THEIR PROFILE.
What are Charter Schools?
Charter Schools are schools of choice: choice to parents, students, teachers, and administrators. Parents and students get to choose to enroll in a school that may offer a unique learning environment, alternative learning methodologies, etc. Teachers and administrators get more authority to make decisions than most traditional public schools. Basically, these schools are free from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools.
FACTS
Charter Schools tend to be small schools (median enrollment is 242 students compared to 539 in traditional public schools) and serve different communities with a wide variety of curriculum and instructional practices.
On one hand there are success stories where some charter schools receive renewals of their charters because they met the goals of their charter. On the other hand, there are schools whose charters have been revoked due to lack of proper financial management or lack of achievement.
Stanford Study: 111 charter schools closed in Florida over the last years. They achieved poorly in student learning. Other numbers brought by Stanford present 2,400 charter schools showed the following results:
46% had similar results if compared with public schools;
17% had almost the same results of public schools;
37% presented inferior results than public schools.
In 2006 President Bush asked for $219 million dollars in support in grants for 1,200 new and existing charter schools. He also asked for $50 million for a Choice Incentive Fund for an innovative voucher system that would allow parents to transfer their students to other public, private, or charter schools. Bush also asked for $37 million to help charter schools to help them obtain the needed credit to renovate, lease, or buy school facilities.
To better understand what a charter school is, you need to know what lawmakers seek to do by drafting charter school laws. In most states, they want to:
Increase opportunities for learning and provide access to quality education for people.
Create choice for parents and students within the public school system
Provide a system of accountability for results in public education
Encourage innovative teaching practices
Create new professional opportunities for teachers
Encourage community and parent involvement in public education.
Leverage improved public education
(Source: US Charter Schools (http://www.uscharterschools.org)
Finally if you ask me if I am for maintaining this type of support for Charter schools I should say NO, because I believe that they haven´t proven efficient in all states and their main aim wasn´t reached in the period promised to the communities where they are established.
July 6th. Issue 1: Should Schooling Be Based on Social Experiences?
YES: John Dewey, from Experience and Education (Macmillan, 1938) NO: Robert M. Hutchins, from The Conflict in Education in a Democratic Society (Harper & Row, 1953) Philosopher John Dewey suggests a reconsideration of traditional approaches to schooling, giving fuller attention to the social development of the learner and the quality of his or her total experience. On the other hand Robert M. Hutchins, noted educator and one-time chancellor of the University of Chicago, argues for a liberal arts education geared to the development of intellectual powers.
My view
Although experiential education has come to mean simply "learning by doing" for some, educators utilizing this approach recognize both its distinguished historical and philosophical roots and the complexity of applying what appears to be so elementary. When education is said to be experiential, it means that it is structured in a way that allows the learner to explore the phenomenon under study - to form a direct relationship with the subject matter - rather than merely reading about the phenomenon or encountering it indirectly. Experiential learning, then, requires that the learner play an active role in the experience and that the experience is followed by reflection as a method for processing, understanding, and making sense of it.
Experiential education, most generally, occurs in different kinds of programs that have as their goal the construction of knowledge, skills, and dispositions from direct experience.
“The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative …. Any experience is miseducation that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience …. A given experience may increase a person's automatic skill in a particular direction and yet tend to land him in a groove or rut; the effect again is to narrow the field of further experience”. (Dewey, pp. 25 - 26)
July 7th. Issue 4: Is Constructivism the Best Philosophy of Education?
YES: David Elkind, from “The Problem with Constructivism,” The Educational Forum (Summer 2004) NO: Jamin Carson, from “Objectivism and Education: A Response to David Elkind’s ‘The Problem with Constructivism’,” The Educational Forum (Spring 2005) Child development professor David Elkind contends that the philosophical positions found in constructivism, though often difficult to apply, are necessary elements in a meaningful reform of educational practices. Jamin Carson, an assistant professor of education and former high school teacher, offers a close critique of constructivism and argues that the philosophy of objectivism is a more realistic and usable basis for the process of education.
My view
Constructivism in education has been approached in a variety of perspectives and levels. I will be limiting my discussion to those who have attempted to apply constructivism into a practical pedagogy. Though many different models have been created and put to test, none have been satisfactorily implemented. The failure of the constructivist is its inability to implement reforms that are particularly instructive. Constructivist reforms start from an epistemology. This sets constructivism apart from those educational reforms inspired by political events (such as the curriculum reform movement spurred by the Russian launching of the Sputnik) or by social events (such as the school reforms initiated by the Civil Rights Movement) or by a political agenda (e.g., A Nation at Risk [National Commission on Excellence in Education 1983]; the No Child Left Behind initiative). That is to say, the constructivist movement is generated by genuine pedagogical concerns and motivations.
The various interpretations of constructivism have in common the proposition that the child is an active participant in constructing reality and not just a passive recorder of it. Constructivism echoes an implicit philosophy in which is argued that children have their own ways of knowing and that these have to be valued and respected. It also reflects the Kantian resolution of the nature/nurture controversy. Kant argued that the mind provides the categories of knowing while experience provides the content. Piaget (1950) created the contemporary version of constructivism by demonstrating that the categories of knowing, no less than the contents of knowledge, are constructed in the course of development. Vygotsky (1978) added the importance of the social context to the constructivist and the knowledge acquisition. There is nothing correct or incorrect about constructivism is the way or path oneself wants to approach it.
July 7th. Issue 6: Can the Public Schools Produce Good Citizens?
YES: Stephen Macedo, from “Crafting Good Citizens,” Education Next (Spring 2004) NO: Chester E. Finn, Jr., from “Faulty Engineering,” Education Next (Spring 2004) Princeton politics professor Stephen Macedo expresses confidence in the public schools’ ability to teach students to become active participants in our democracy, suggesting that naysayers may wish to undermine all public institutions. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation president Chester E. Finn, Jr. contends that the diversity of the American population makes the public schools ill-equipped to produce the engaged citizens our democracy requires.
My view
Benjamin Franklin declared that the ability to govern one's passions in spite of temptation, to be just in one's dealings and temperate in one's pleasures were qualities of far more real advantage to a person than being "master of all the arts and sciences in the world besides."
We know how to teach languages, math, social studies, PE, art. But, how do we teach children to be good citizens? How do we teach them to be fair, to measure their pleasures, to behave with prudence and respect towards others.
How can we teach these concepts in a public school setting? How does character education fit in with our established curriculum? In Brazil there is no place for this kind of education in Public Schools. Teachers have tried to establish this set of instruction but violence and disrespect have taken the place of citizenship. Only a few schools have achieved and mastered the status of being accredited by Government because of the homework done.
The most important quality of a good citizen, in a free society, is the capacity for responsible self-governance. This means we must not only teach young people such virtues as honesty, respect, and responsibility, but also temperance, self-control, and self-reliance.
Good citizenship is determined more by one's desires than one's knowledge, and less by one's ability than one's character. But how can a teacher appropriately influence a child's desires and help mold his or her character without violating parental concerns or legal requirements for public schools? How can it be done within the limitations of time, resources and opportunity available to the teacher?
Benjamin Franklin answered this question some two-hundred and seventy-seven years ago. His answer?: by teaching them how to read the sacred book of nature.
XXX. Issue 8: Can Federal Initiatives Rescue Failing Schools?
YES: Andrew Rotherham, from “A New Partnership,” Education Next (Spring 2002) NO: Paul D. Houston, from “The Seven Deadly Sins of No Child Left Behind,” Phi Delta Kappan (June 2007) Education policy expert Andrew Rotherham argues that new federally imposed accountability standards will enhance opportunity and overhaul failing schools. Paul D. Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators, offers a totally new agenda to replace the current federal legislation.
My view Rotherham gives several examples of states pulling up their minority test scores because of accountability provisions. He goes on to explain that these results probably wouldn’t have been achieved without accountability. He basically says that some states have made little to no progress, and without federal involvement, they will continue to make little to no progress. He says that the states’ need the federal governments help in making sure they have the funding and resources needed in order for accountability to be successful.
Some of NCLB's major objectives are outlined by Schrag and he states that NCLB requires that “schools ensure that every student achieve proficiency”, yet it never gives a definition of ‘proficiency’. It allows for the individual state to determine their proficiency standards. NCLB mandate’s that every classroom have a ‘highly qualified’ teacher; again, there is no definition of ‘highly qualified’. Each state determines what makes a teacher highly qualified. NCLB also states that students from a low-performing school be allowed to transfer to a better school. Schrag cited, “Of the 250,000 Chicago students eligible for choice slots………19,000 applied and fewer than 1,100 were placed in other schools.” These statistics are sad. It’s almost like the children never even have a chance. Worse than anything else, though, is the funding for NCLB, or lack thereof. The schools feel that they are being required to do more for and with the students with no more money from the government. This money crunch is putting schools backs against the walls and some are resorting to lowering their own proficiency benchmarks to make themselves look better.
July 7th. Issue 10: Should "Public Schooling" Be Redefined?
YES: Frederick M. Hess, from “What is a “Public School’? Principles for A New Century,” Phi Delta Kappan (February 2004) NO: Linda Nathan, Joe Nathan, Ray Bacchetti, and Evans Clinchy, from “A Response to Frederick Hess,” Phi Delta Kappan (February 2004) Frederick M. Hess, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, advocates a broadening of the definition of “public schooling” in light of recent developments such as vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling. Linda Nathan, Joe Nathan, Ray Bacchetti, and Evans Clinchy express a variety of concerns about the conceptual expansion Hess proposes.
My view
It is possible to offer a more progressive purpose that puts the power of learning back into the hands of the community. Putting the standardized tests on the back burner, but not forgetting about them, is the first step in redefining the purpose of public schools. If we really are to fit the needs of the community, districts and states should be actively involved in providing funds for cutting-edge research to improve student progress through new technology, with better resources, innovative teaching styles, and effective teaching practices. The funds tied up through these standardized assessments would be working towards the benefit of the state and nation as a whole to support improvement.
“The purpose of schools could then be focused on:
• creating productive members of society who are critical thinkers;
• meeting the needs of a diverse population of students, including students with disabilities, gifted and talented students, students from a variety of cultures students from different income levels, and other backgrounds;
• creating learners with a profound understanding of foundational content;
• teaching the standards set by the states through innovative instructional techniques that make learning student-centered; • * involving the community in student success and their progress.”
In Redefining Public Schools Stephanie T. Scott (2008)
July 8th. Issue 11: Has the Supreme Court Reconfigured American Education?
YES: Charles L. Glenn, from “Fanatical Secularism,” Education Next (Winter 2003) NO: Paul E. Peterson, from “Victory for Vouchers?” Commentary (September 2002) Professor of education Charles L. Glenn argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris is an immediate antidote to the public’s school’s secularist philosophy. Professor of government Paul E. Peterson, while welcoming the decision, contends that the barricades against widespread use of vouchers in religious schools will postpone any lasting effects.
Other views – FACTS
In one of its most important establishment clause cases in a century, a divided Court upheld an Ohio school voucher plan and removed any constitutional barriers to similar voucher plans in the future. The public schools in many of the poorer parts of Cleveland were deemed failures, and the legislature enacted the Pilot Project Scholarship Program in an effort to address the problem. The program provided tuition vouchers for up to $2,250 a year to some parents of students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools in the city and neighboring suburbs; it also allocated tutorial aid for students who remained in public school. The vouchers were distributed to parents according to financial need, and the parents chose where to enroll their children. Because the number of students applying to the program greatly exceeded the number of vouchers available, recipients were chosen by lottery from among the eligible families. In the 1999–2000 school year 82 percent of the participating private schools had a religious affiliation; none of the adjacent suburban public schools joined the program; and 96 percent of the students receiving vouchers were enrolled in religiously affiliated schools.
Result
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it passed a five part test developed by the Court in this case, titled the Private Choice Test. The decision was 5-4, with moderate justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor and conservative justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in the majority.
Under the Private Choice Test developed by the court, for a voucher program to be constitutional it must meet all of the following criteria:
the program must have a valid secular purpose,
aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
there must be adequate nonreligious options.
The court ruled that the Ohio program met the five-part test in that 1) the valid secular purpose of the program was "providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system", 2) the vouchers were given to the parents, 3) the "broad class" was all students enrolled in currently failing programs, 4) parents who received vouchers were not required to enroll in a religious-based school, and 5) there were other public schools in adjoining districts, as well as non-sectarian private schools in the Cleveland area, available that would accept vouchers.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris
July 8th.Issue 13: Is Privatization the Hope of the Future?
YES: Chris Whittle, from “Dramatic Growth Is Possible,” Education Next (Spring 2006) NO: Henry Levin, from “Déjà Vu: All Over Again?” Education Next (Spring 2006) Chris Whittle, founder and CEO of Edison Schools, contends that public school systems still operate in an eighteenth-century mindset and offers an “independent learning” model as a replacement. Professor of economics and education Henry Levin criticizes the assumptions on which Whittle bases his prediction of successful operation of schools by for-profit management organizations such as Edison.
Other clashing views -- A Failure of Imagination
We've had a national failure of imagination when it comes to what our schools can and should be. We don't believe there is anything particularly new to discover in schooling, so, as a society, we don't set out to find it. Columbus believed. NASA believed. When it comes to schools, we don't. For sure, there are pioneers here and there, but our national mindset does not embrace the possibility that our schools could be and should be radically different.
Instead, because "the way school is" was imprinted on all of us with Intel-like precision by our own 12 years of schooling, America believes that schools are governed by a set of immutable, almost physical, laws, which include:
1. In schools, adults must supervise children virtually all of the time (Dickens would feel right at home).
2. The school day must be rigidly organized, generally chopped up into 45-minute or one-hour blocks (changing this to longer periods of time was, some years back, viewed as a grand breakthrough).
3. The smaller the number of children in a class, the better the education results (never mind if a smaller class might mean a teacher who is paid less and is less prepared).
4. Adults must run all aspects of the school--and do all the work within it (that many teenagers now work after school and on weekends is a fact to ignore).
5. There are no efficiencies, economies, or new qualities to be found in "design breakthroughs"; greater spending is the only way to improve education (disregard more or less flat education results after two decades of real-dollar annual spending increases).
What if all of the above "truths" are incorrect--truths that we will someday regard as myths, artifacts of a forgotten era? What if we approached the organization of a school without any of these "truths" as cornerstones? Where might simple logic and our own real-life experiences take us?
Let me suggest what some of the new truths of school design might be:
1. Learning accomplished through individual effort, or through working in small teams, is as "sticky" (well retained) as that served up in a classroom group, no matter what its size.
2. Learning can come in many forms, and the size of the learning group can vary greatly without any penalization of effect.
3. Children are capable of tremendous focus and responsibility, and they can be taught these traits at a much younger age than many people might think.
4. Variety matters in learning; too much of any one thing, like sitting passively in a classroom for 12 years, has rapidly diminishing returns; and lack of variety negatively affects teachers as much as children.
5. Students can teach as well as learn. Has your child ever taught you anything? Has one of your older children ever taught something to one of your younger ones?
The Future
Working from these potential new "truths," let's imagine what a school of the future might look like. In fact, in key respects, the best school of the future might share some aspects of the school of the past, the 19th-century past that existed in many places of America up to the 1920s: the schoolhouse where older students were instructors, teaching under the guidance of a highly qualified adult. Indeed, we can reconstruct a school of the past that is appropriate to the modern era, where teachers' salaries are competitive with other professions, where students are taught by older peers under the supervision of master teachers who can use technology for pedagogical purposes.
Suppose, for example, that beginning in the 1st grade children spent an hour a day learning on their own, not under the direct supervision of a teacher (although perhaps watched over by an older peer). Let's presume that by the 3rd grade, the amount of time students were "on their own" increased to two hours per day. By the 6th grade and throughout middle school, let's assume that only half of a student's time was spent in what we now think of as a classroom. Finally, imagine that by high school only one-third of a student's time was in a traditional classroom setting. If this sounds overly radical, consider that many college students are in class fewer than 15 hours a week, half the time of a high-school senior. College freshmen are only 90 days older than high-school seniors. Did something magical occur in that short period to make them more capable of independent learning? Remember that fully half of all high-school seniors enter college.
If students are not in a classroom, where are they? Sleeping at their desks? Playing video games on school computers? Well, the answer is that they are learning--just not at that very moment with a teacher, just not in a class, but still "in school." More often than not, they will be reading! Educators believe deeply that students should read, but there is very little time in the school day for that to happen. And after a long day at school and with other homework and important activities, how much time is realistically available in the evening? They also will be working with a small group of other students. And they might be on their computers, writing, researching, exploring, mining that almost endless, great new ethereal library--the Internet. All the while, they will be monitored by their somewhat older peers, just as graduate students supervise and aid undergraduates in college environments. Though they will not be in class half of their day, they will be in a school building all of it.
Many educators reading this are probably saying, perhaps in less kindly terms, "This idea is hopelessly naive. Students cannot be entrusted with their own education; they cannot be expected to manage their own time. Students don't understand the importance of education and, therefore, can't be expected to manage it."
My response: schools have failed to make students the masters of their own learning, and we have the results to show for it. We are still operating in an 18th-century mindset, believing that these young, half-civilized things called children must be literally whipped into shape, if not with a stick then with a never-ending schedule. If students don't understand the importance of education enough to take charge of their own, it is because the schools we have designed don't spend any real time helping them understand this.
You can read more at http://www.mywire.com/pubs/EducationNext/2006/03/22/1385063/print/?printcomments=true
July 8th.Issue 15: Can Current High School Reform Curtail Dropouts?YES: Thomas Toch, Craig D. Jerald, and Erin Dillon, from “Surprise—High School Reform Is Working,” Phi Delta Kappan (February 2007) NO: Robert Epstein, from “Why High School Must Go: An Interview with Leon Botstein,” Phi Delta Kappan (May 2007) Thomas Toch, Craig D. Jerald, and Erin Dillon, think-tank researchers at Education Sector, review recent efforts at high school reform by the Gates Foundation, the National Governors Association, and other groups, identifying many signs of progress. Scholar, author, and editor Robert Epstein, interviewing college president Leon Botstein, explores the abolition of high school as it now exists. Other views
New studies on the impact of the wide-ranging efforts over the past half-decade to reform the nation's public high schools have produced important—and encouraging—findings, researcher Craig Jerald reveals in a new Education Sector report titled "Measured Progress: A Report on the High School Reform Movement."
The American high school is not as impervious to change as many believe it to be, the new research shows. Reformers in many cities have replaced large, "comprehensive" high schools with smaller, more personal learning communities where anonymity gives way to a sense of shared purpose, and as a result, teachers and students are motivated to work harder.
Requiring students to take greater numbers of rigorous courses that are more likely to prepare them for college does not necessarily lead to lower graders or higher dropout rates, if the courses are taught by capable teachers, the new research suggests.
Intensive "catch-up" courses help a significant percentage of students who enter high school well behind their peers reduce their chances of dropping out and get on the track to college.
But researchers have found that though creating more supportive educational environments for students is critical, doing so produces more significant improvements in student learning when combined with high expectations and rigorous instruction. Improving school climates alone is not the answer.
Many students learn demanding academic content better when it is infused with workplace applications and problems. But teachers need help in creating such courses, researchers say.
And there's a growing consensus that struggling high schools require directive support from outside organizations—especially the 15 percent of the nation's high schools (2,000 schools) that produce 50 percent of its dropouts.
Issue 7: Has Resegregation Diminished the Impact of Brown?
YES: Gary Orfield, Erica D. Frankenberg, and Chungmei Lee, from “The Resurgence of School Segregation,” Educational Leadership (December 2002/January 2003) NO: William G. Wraga, from “The Heightened Significance of Brown v. Board of Education in Our Time,” Phi Delta Kappan (February 2006) Harvard professor Gary Orfield and his research associates present evidence that school resegregation has been increasing almost everywhere in recent years, placing a cloud over the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the Brown decision. Education professor William G. Wraga offers a different perspective, concentrating on the fundamental democratic ideals bolstered by Brown that are in need of further attention.
My view
Like all other educational issues, this one is very complicated. In order to answer the question, you have to understand the history of desegregation. I looked up additional information on the History Channel website and found the following information. The first major event happened in 1896 in the case Plessey v. Fergusen where it was ruled that “separate but equal” was constitutional according to the 14th amendment. In 1954, this ruling was reversed in Brown v. Board of Education. However, it was very difficult for the federal government to enforce this law. In 1957, the “Little Rock Nine” brought attention to the struggle of true desegregation. The Arkansas governor tried to send in the National Guard to STOP the nine African American students from entering Central High School. Not until President Eisenhower and the federal government stepped in by sending the National Guard and Army to protect the students, were they able to safely enter. The 1960s brought President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Act, which helped increase the desegregation movement in America.
So the question is: Has Resegregation diminished the impact of Brown? Gary Orfield, Erica D. Frankenberg, and Chungmei Lee say “Nearly half a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) initiated decades of progress in the struggle to desegregate public schools. But now that progress has been reversed: Segregation has been increasing almost everywhere for a decade.” On the other side, William G. Wraga writes, “Although desegregation has yet to be satisfactorily achieved and gains toward that end stalled during the 1990s – halted by federal court decisions – the impact of the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown decision remains significant.”
Orfield, Frankenberg, and Lee feel that court actions since the 1970s have caused the progress of desegregation to be reversed. They also discuss residential patterns and school choice programs, but do not think that these have played a significant role in resegregation. They feel that the problem of resegregation is now on educators to solve.
I have two questions for further discussion
Do you think school choice programs cause resegregation?
How do educators fix the problem of unequal education caused by segregation?
July 9th.Issue 20: Should Alternative Teacher Training Be Encouraged?
YES: Robert Holland, from “How to Build A Better Teacher,” Policy Review (April & May 2001) NO: Linda Darling-Hammond, from “How Teacher Education Matters,” Journal of Teacher Education (May/June 2000) Public policy researcher Robert Holland argues that current certification programs are inadequate, especially given the growing shortage of teachers. Education professor Linda Darling-Hammond offers evidence of failure among alternative programs and responds to criticism of standard professional preparation.
Other views
AMERICAN SCHOOLS need more teachers. American schools need better teachers. Practically everyone with a stake in the education debate agrees with those two premises. However, there is sharp disagreement as to whether more regulation or less is the way to go.
At the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP), a twelve-month master's program at Stanford University, in Palo Alto, California, theory and practice don't merely coexist; they actively and continually inform each other.
Not only does coursework overlap with clinical work (homework assignments for the Curriculum and Instruction course, for instance, often include planning the next lesson in a real classroom), but STEP students also benefit from devoted professionals whose job is to make those connections seamless.
Cooperating teachers at partnering K-12 schools, STEP faculty, and STEP supervisors make up a trio of mentors for the program's inductees. Between weekly meetings, constant feedback, and continual communication and reflection, "you couldn't fall through the cracks here, even if you wanted to," explains Rachel Lotan, STEP's secondary-education director.
At STEP, a commitment to serving traditionally underserved urban student populations, as well as an emphasis on personalized learning and education-reform initiatives, is paramount. Program leaders aim to prepare not only excellent teachers but also agents of change in education. STEP, therefore, makes sure to cultivate these ideals within its growing network of reform-oriented professional-development schools, where candidates do their real-world training. These teachers share a unified vision for urban-school reform, including an emphasis on community connections and the importance of smaller schools.
July 9th. Issue 21: Can Merit Pay Accelerate School Improvement?
YES: Steve Malanga, from “Why Merit Pay Will Improve Teaching,” City Journal (Summer 2001) NO: Al Ramirez, from “How Merit Pay Undermines Education,” Educational Leadership (February 2001) Steven Malanga, a senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute, draws on examples from the corporate world and from public school systems in Cincinnati, Iowa, and Denver to make his case for performance-based merit pay for teachers. Associate professor of education Al Ramirez contends that merit pay programs misconstrue human motivation and devalue the work of teachers.
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE
1. The issue of her merit pay, or pay-for-performance, for teachers is certainly not new, but is one of the bitterest controversies in today's school reform debate. The current push to improve public education and to hold individual schools more accountable for achievement has rekindled the argument over merit pay as a replacement for reward system is primarily on seniority and earned course credits.
2. Although some forms of merit plans were widely used in the early part of the 20th century, the economic depression of the 1930s prompted conversions to uniform pay scales. Teachers unions, which gained strength throughout the remainder of the century, were not supportive of incentive pay schemes.
3. Since the 1980s, and particularly since the passage of the "No Child Left Behind" legislation, pressure for an accountability system containing specific rewards for teachers and schools that meet desired outcomes has vastly increased.
4. The matter of how to appropriately and fairly evaluate teacher performance remains a major stumbling block in the adoption of merit pay plans. According to Sandra McCollum, in "How Merit Pay Improves Education," Educational Leadership (February 2001), merit pay programs are often discontinued because of one or more of the following reasons: a. They are unfairly implemented; b. Teachers unions refuse to endorse them; c. They create poor teacher morale; d. Legislators who support them leave office; e. They're simply too costly and difficult to administer.
5. Then economists viewed as offered by Darius Lakdawalla in "Quantity Over Quality," Education Next (Fall 2002). He contends that schools have been hiring more teachers in an effort to reduce class sizes but have not been rewarding them for quality performance.
6. According to David C. Burliner, “Educational Leadership (May 2001) the US is saying to its educators that they are not really important; if we thought they were important, we would pay them a larger share of our gross domestic product, as other nations do. Yet, Berliner is also worried that merit pay plan based primarily on student achievement could lead to teach teachers doing the wrong thing in their classrooms-cheating and narrowing the curriculum.
7. Some guidelines for the fair evaluation of teacher performance put forth by Thomas H. Hoerr in “A Case for Merit Pay,” Phi Delta Kappan (December 1998) .
a. There must be trust between the administration and the faculty; b. Judgments must be treated with confidentiality; c. There must be recognition that both what is valued and how it is measured will vary by context; d. Teachers who do not perform satisfactorily and do not respond to supportive intervention should not be rehired.
SUPERVISION AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
