Why Education?
The articles for this week's discussion were the perfect choice for me to understand why I am pursuing a career in the higher education field. After I completed my undergraduate with a B.A. in Economics, I was unsure of what I wanted to pursue my Master's in. While I contemplated what would be the perfect degree for me, I fell into the current job that I am in now, materiel management for the US Air Force. If anyone would have told me that I would be working for the air force, I would have laughed. If anyone had told me I would ever pursue a degree in higher education, I would have balked. Reading these articles clarified how my personality and my background relate to job satisfaction and to my future career choice.
In reading the article by Vila, Garcia-Aracil, and Mora, it made me think back to my parents and the many things that they imparted with me. It wasn't just genetics that my parents gave me, I got from them my motivation and drive, my need to excel academically, and my excitement in learning. That being said, growing up, my parents told me I could be anything I wanted—as long as it wasn't an educator. Both of my parents were educators, my mother a British literature teacher and my father a high school principal. My parents wanted me to have a career with prestige and earn “big bucks,” as they said, not the meager pay of a teacher. As I majored in what my parents wanted and had taken the job they said was good, I realized my personality did not mesh with my job, therefore my job satisfaction was clearly very low. Even though I feel that the Vila article was true in using the standard economic theory to positively associate job satisfaction with income and negatively with number of hours worked (pg 100), it failed to hit the mark in my account. Although I make a substantial salary for my age and only work 40 hours per week, my satisfaction in my job is low because I feel that it does not fit my personality, something that was stressed by Smart, Feldman, and Ethington, in relation to Holland's theory (Porter, 432).
I also found the Porter and Umbach article particularly insightful. Speaking on gender, Porter stated that women chose roles, such as teaching and nursing, based on their gender role orientation (pg 431). I would agree, as I have always gravitated towards educational jobs. Throughout college I worked teaching English as a second language, tutoring collegiate athletes, or working with America Reads. Also, Porter's article resonated with me when he said that students who were highly involved in social activism were more geared towards the social sciences and education fields, the two fields that I have been drawn to (pg 432). Reading these articles that compare personality and environment to career choice, on further lead me to believe that it was almost “destiny” that led me to my current state.
When I sit back and assess why I have chosen the education career field, sure, a lot of background factors come into play: gender, my family, and my academic ability. It is apparent, having read the articles, that students do tend to flow into careers that their specific degrees prepared them for. I, on the other hand, finally pursued my passion and have found my niche in higher education. Even though it is cliché, I know that I am turning to higher education because of the great experience that I had when I came to GSU. I would love to know that I was the driving influence in a student's life that spurred them into following their passion and continuing their education in a field that inspires them.
Educational Research/EDUR 7130
Moral Behavior: How Do I Know Not to Eat My Dog?
The question of how a person's moral behavior is determined has long been debated. In some cultures it is morally and socially acceptable to eat cats and dogs, foods that we, as North Americans, see as our household pets and would put as off-limits on the dinner table. How have these cultures rationalized eating these animals? Their moral reasoning and behaviors have allowed them to come to these conclusions. On the other side of the spectrum, in the field of education, educators are constantly concerned with how their students will come to moral decisions, and whether or not their decisions will result in a positive outcome. These decisions effect their behavior in the classroom, their relationships with other students, and, ultimately, the futures that their decisions choose for them. In researching what drives a student's moral behavior consideration needs to be given to what actually develops a person's moral reasoning ability. But does moral reasoning influence moral behavior, or does the influence come from something external altogether? A student's moral behavior does stem from moral reasoning, but the moral reasoning is also heavily influenced by the external factor of culture and also the need to create a cohesive society. Overall, many studies agree that there is a direct correlation between moral reasoning and moral behavior, yet we will explore several studies that dispute the theory that moral reasoning has an impact on a person's moral behavior.
How Do We Arrive at Moral Behavior?
In order to fully understand how a student's moral behavior is influenced by moral reasoning, one must first understand the factors that influence moral reasoning. The most common factor found in many research studies that shaped reasoning was that of culture. Unfortunately, not all cultures consider what our North American society views as morally wrong. In every study on moral behavior it was found that although rules change according to cultures, all moral issues involve the same issues: questions of harm, rights or justice (Haidt, Koller & Dias 1993). Although many studies take into account issues of harm, there are other variables that extend beyond such clear cut issues, many of which involve issues that appear harmless, yet transgress already set social norms (Haid, Koller & Dias, 1993). In a study by Haidt, Koller, & Dias (1993), interviews were conducted on children and adults from both low and high socioeconomic statuses in Philadelphia, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and Recife, Brazil. Each group was read stories that were considered harmless-offensive, yet did not have a harmful intention or consequence (Haidt, 2001). The results that were found supported the theory that culture is a crucial influence on moral reasoning. The data collected illustrated the fact that the harmless-offensive stories were moralized more frequently in non-westernized cities, such as Recife, Brazil because their culture teaches them to have a more extensive view of those acts viewed as non-harm-based morality (Haidt, 2001).
Narvaez, Getz, Rest & Thoma (1999) also described how cultural ideology correlates with moral judgment, making for a two-process, parallel theory of moral thinking. This study focused on the contrast of two types of views: Orthodoxy, the moral authority in traditional religions, and Progressivism, the moral authority associated with the modern age (Narvaez, Getz, Rest & Thoma, 1999). The research established that not only does the cultural ideology affect the moral behavior, but it is also influenced with the need to create and maintain the norms of society (Narvaez, Getz, Rest, & Thoma, 1999). Haidt also determined that moral cognition is based on the desire to create and encourage social harmony (Saltzstein and Kasachkoff). Giving in to the need to create social and cultural harmony by agreeing with others, people are opening themselves up to be directly influenced by their persuasions (Haidt, 2001). Chartrand and Bargh affirmed how deeply a person can be affected by his peer's judgments by demonstrating the “chameleon effect,” in which that person adapts his postures and expressions in order to mimic individuals they have interactions with (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999, as sited in Haidt, 2001).
Moral Reasoning
Not all researchers agree on the affect of moral reasoning on moral behavior. There have been many studies on what influences a person's moral behaviors, and there have been many conclusions for each study, one being that moral reasoning plays no role in determining the behavior. In a study conducted by Haidt, the concept was discussed that moral behavior was rooted in the outcomes of moral intuitions and not the resultant of moral reasoning (Saltzstein and Kasachoff, 2004). In order to better understand the difference between moral intuition and moral reasoning, a distinction between the two needs to be made. Unlike reasoning, which is a rather slow and conscious process, intuitions happen almost instantaneously and the process involves little consciousness (Haidt, 2001). Haidt (2001) makes the argument that moral reasoning is a cognitive process that influences the intuitions of people. When exploring Haidt's thesis, reasoning then becomes the outcome instead of the actual origin of the moral behavior. Instead of using moral reasoning to determine what is an appropriate behavioral responsible, the reasoning is instead used to justify judgments that have already been made (Saltzstein and Kasachkoff, 2004). Haidt's theory could be reduced to the fact that “moral reasoning does not take place other than when it is artificially induced” (Saltstein and Kasachkoff, 2004, pp. 277). Unfortunately, Haidt also doesn't take into account the fact that our ability to make moral decisions is in fact affected by those around us. Haidt proposed the example of Martin Luther King's “I Have a Dream” speech, in which he stated that it did not actually appeal to the listeners' rationality, rather it appealed more to their emotions (Saltzstein and Kasachkoff, 2004).
Discussion
Because moral beliefs are based upon a myriad of variables, all studies are limited in the fact that every culture studied, and every person at that, will have different influences that affect them in different ways. Although there are many theories on what actually influences a person's moral behavior, the belief that moral reasoning does directly influence moral behavior is supported by many researchers. The critical point behind that, though, is that there are many components that factor into the actual influence of moral reasoning. The belief that culture plays one of the most important roles in how a child will determine their morals and be able to distinguish the difference between right and wrong has been supported by many of the studies researched. Many of the same studies that bolster the affects that culture has on moral behavior, also share the belief that moral behavior is heavily dependent on creating, and maintaining, a cohesive society. As a person grows and begins to understand society around him, his morals will shift from a self-only perspective to a more group oriented perspective that allows him to understand, and fit in with, how society is constructed (Thoma and Rest, 1999).
Instead of moral reasoning having a direct affect on moral behavior, some studies set out to prove that there is not such a concise affect on moral behavior as some seem to think. Haidt's study on moral behavior shows weakness when he contended that Martin Luther King's speech did not appeal to Americans morally, rather it was the use of visual images that stirred people into action (Saltzstein and Kasachkoff, 2004). The connection between King's words and his conscious appeal to people's moral reasoning ability shows that there is a link, no matter how small, to a person's moral beliefs. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer as to what directly, or indirectly, influences our moral behavior, yet the need to conform to what society views as right creates a large impact on our beliefs. When it comes to socially acceptability, although we as Americans might balk at the thought of eating Fido, the family pet, we have to realize the only thing that is separating us from those non-Westernized countries that do, is our culturally influenced moral beliefs.
References
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), October 2001, 814-834.
Haidt, J., Koller, S. H. & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 613-628.
Narvaez, D., Getz, I., Rest, J. R. & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Individual moral judgment and cultural ideologies. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 478-488.
Saltzstein, H. D. & Kasachkoff, T. (2004). Haidt's moral intuitionist theory: A psychological and philosophical critique. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 273-282.
Thoma, S. J. & Rest, J. R. (1999). The relationship between moral decision making and patterns of consolidation and transition in moral judgment development. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 323-334.
Higher Education Policy/EDLD 8435
The Optimistic Side of Higher Education
In most classes and textbooks, you only read about the negative side of higher education. How did tuition get so high? Why are we paying professor to spend their time doing research instead of teach our students? These questions, along with many other complaints, are valid and do have validity, but, like all stories, there is another side. While the public and the media spend their time focusing on the negativity surrounding much of higher education, there is just as much information that counteracts this. In Defense of American Higher Education is a volume of compiled articles that seeks the “best ideals of higher education: academic freedom, commitments to both inquiry and teaching, and preserving an independence of mind and spirit in the face of external pressures” (Altbach, Gumport, and Johnstone, 2001). From this volume, I chose to focus on three important and prevalent ideas. First, I chose to explore the idea behind rising higher education costs. I then wanted to focus on the importance of leadership within the collegiate environment. Lastly, I examined the actual perceived crisis that has plagued higher education throughout the years.
Out-of-Control Costs
In the article Higher Education and Those “Out-of-Control” Costs, D. Bruce Johnstone seeks to explain the real cause behind what the media perceives to be exorbitant rising tuition expenses. Johnstone does not dispute the fact that higher education can be quite costly, and that it is expected to only increase over the years. Yet what Johnstone notes is that given their productivity and cost-effectiveness, the increases are overstated. Although there are many costs associated with college, the costs that are most often analyzed are those of production costs associated with undergraduate degrees (Johnstone, 2001). The faculty/staff to student ratio is one that drives the unit cost, that of tuition. The rising cost of tuition is one of the most hotly debated topics in higher education. Unfortunately, may people do not have all the details correct. Although tuition is rising, the actual real annual increases during the 1980s and 1990s were only between two and three percent (Johnstone, 2001).What is really causing the cost of education to skyrocket is the instructional costs. The instructional costs are associated with things such as student-faculty ratios, support services, and student activities. In the private college sector, all the money that is given back to the university, whether it is through alumni giving or endowments, is recycled back into the university to better it through better faculty or facilities, instead of helping to relieve the burden of high tuition. Unfortunately, this is the case for not only private universities, but also many public universities. Johnstone (2001) also proposes that the rising cost of education is not only attributed to an increase in tuition and instructional fees, but also the actual cost incurred of young-adult living.
As Johnstone goes on to propose, the rising cost of college education is not the financial crisis that the media has made it out to be. Although tuition is rising, and will continue to rise, looking at it in real terms allows us to focus in on the real problem, the sometimes exorbitant instructional costs. Johnstone suggests some realistic solutions to the problem, such as placing a higher teaching load on professors at research institutes, graduate students teaching larger classes, and leaning out many excess staff positions.
Change and Presidential Leadership
I chose the next article on higher education presidential leadership because of Georgia Southern's own hunt for a new president. Richard M. Freeland's article, Academic Change and Presidential Leadership, draws a unique comparison between a university's propensity towards change and the role of the collegiate president. Although many critics make the charge that universities are unresponsive to social change, Freeland proposes that higher education has been more than responsive to change and has actually embraced it and led the way for many other arenas. The reconversion of veterans through the GI Bill in 1940s, the extension of access to higher education to minority youth in the 1960s, and the technological innovations of the 1970s and 1980s can all be linked to the adaptability of universities over the years (Freeland, 2001). Unfortunately, the drive behind the need for colleges and universities to embrace change cannot be as easily pinpointed. During Freeland's fifty year study of schools in Massachusetts, he arrived at the conclusion that institutional change is an interaction of ideas, struggles for power, and competitiveness between institutions (Freeland, 2001). The most frequent permeating force in the evolution of colleges and universities has been the competition for resources, as well as for prestige (Freeland, 2001). Without the competitive nature between colleges, there would be no drive to evolve and provide students with an affordable and comprehensive education.
Just as critics feel that universities are not adaptable, many of those same critics feel that the university president is an antiquated position that often times hampers the process of change. Freeland takes the stance that although today's university is less sensitive to presidential authority than that of turn of the century institutions, the leadership ability from presidents is essential to progress (pt 235). Without the decisiveness of a competent leader, an institution cannot sustain the mission nor can it adapt to the changing times. I full-heartedly agree that a university president is not only important, but indispensable to function of the university. Although Freeland points out that there are many compelling forces besides that of the president's influence, without him the institution would be left adrift at sea.
Higher Education Crisis
The last article that I wanted to focus on was that of the higher education crisis, or the crisis that has been purported for almost half a century by many critics. The authors of the article The “Crisis” Crisis in Higher Education: Is that a Wolf or a Pussycat at the Academy's Door? define a higher education crisis as being one that “fulfills three criteria: it threatens values critical to one or more constituencies, existing channels of influence and modes of rhetoric are inadequate to address it, and it is claimed to require immediate action including the allocation of additional resources” (Birnbaum and Shushok, 2001). Have any of the so called crisis in the history of higher education satisfied these requirements? In my opinion, and that of Birnbaum and Shushok, there is no clear evidence for the claims of dramatic crisis in higher education. The most frequently claimed crisis has been that of finance. Enrollment growth and declines first stirred the pot on fiscal crises in the 1960s, followed shortly by the idea that tuition was rising at a rate that parents and students could not afford (Birnbaum and Shushok, 2001). As proven by Johnstone, that was not the case. Even economist J. L. Doti stated that that was not the case and it was “based on irrelevant data and faulty statistical methodologies” (as cited in National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education, 1998).
Although in the past higher education has been very hands off and lax in lobbying for their causes, the term crisis is very harsh and definitive in description. There have been serious problems in the past and many will continue into the future, but they are no worse than they were in the past, in my opinion. The higher education road will continue to be bumpy and there always will be critics along the way, yet higher education is an industry built to persevere and cannot be matched in achievement.
Because I am new to the field of higher education, I find it comforting to see higher education put into a more optimistic perspective instead of the dismal attitude that is often portrayed in the media and in many textbooks. I do not believe that higher education is free from any problems, yet I believe that many of the issues have been over-sensationalized. After having read In Defense of American Higher Education, the prevailing problem throughout all the articles was the rise of educational costs and how institutions are prepared for social change. With exceptional leadership, such as that from a effective president, many of the so called crises can be avoided. Even though it has taken years for higher education to step up to the plate in the government and actually take control of their own futures, there have been improvements that show promise and appease the critics, at least until the next “crisis” is developed.
References
Birnbaum, R. and Shushok, F. Jr. The “Crisis” Crisis in Higher Education: Is that a Wolf or Pussycat at the Academy's Door?In Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Johnstone, D.B. (Eds.). In Defense of American Higher Education (pp. 59-84). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Freeland, R. M. (2001). Academic Change and Presidential Leadership. In Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Johnstone, D.B. (Eds.). In Defense of American Higher Education (pp. 227-248). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Johnstone, D. B. (2001). Higher Education and the “Out-of-Control Cost.” In Altbach, P. G., Gumport, P. J., & Johnstone, D.B. (Eds.). In Defense of American Higher Education (pp. 144-178). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. 1998. Report of the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. <http://www.gwu.edu/~eriche/Library?ncche.html#appendixe>
Politics of Higher Education/EDLD 8439
No Child Left Behind
The topic of educational reform is neither a new nor innovative topic, yet it is one that is wrought with problems and has stirred up many contentious debates. Of all the reform topics that promise to deliver high quality education to our nation's youth, President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act has to be the most widely, and heatedly at that, discussed. From this, the question arises as to how has No Child Left Behind impacted our K-12 education system and whether or not those implications can be viewed as helpful or harmful. This paper will explore the historical background, the impact since its implementation on crucial participants, and what the future will hold for this bill that is now in limbo in Congress for reauthorization. The state of education in America has constantly been called into question and educators, as well as Congress, have consistently sought to heighten our standards so that we can keep pace with the rest of the world today, as well as for tomorrow. According to the Ohio Education Association (2007), a partnership has been created between federal, state, and local governments that has addressed how poverty has impaired education and the need to supply these poverty stricken areas with federal aid. In doing so, we have targeted our nation's neediest students and schools and have made great strides in bringing them up to par with the rest of America. No Child Left Behind was set out to not only improve the quality of education that America is bestowing its students with, but to also impart them with 21st century skills, a sense of good character, as well as making them more informed citizens (“Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan...,” 2009). It is without a doubt that No Child Left Behind is a bold and lofty law, but it is one that many of our country's leaders, including President Barrack Obama and former Senator Edward Kennedy, have fullheartedly put their signatures, and their voices, behind. In order to understand where on the path of educational reform NCLB will lead us, first we must understand the historical background that indicates how we came to this critical point.
Historical Background and Influences
No Child Left Behind is the new name given to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. When signing this Great Society program into effect, President Johnson declared, “No law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of America "(Kafer, 2005). With the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the government expressed that it had come to the realization that access alone would not be enough to give America the education it so greatly needed (Meier & Wood, 2004). The Act established funds for primary and secondary schools and included authorization of funds for resources to supplement educational programs, professional improvement, as well as instructional materials for classrooms. Since its implementation in 1965, it has been reauthorized approximately every five to six years. With its initial focus during the years of 1965 to 1980 being on schools receiving Title I allocated funds, funds that affected low-income, poverty stricken schools that were comprised of predominately poor students, ESEA evolved in several phases. During the decade of the of the 1980s, education came to the forefront of American awareness with the Reagan Administration's report titled A Nation at Risk: An Imperative for Educational Reform. This commission, created by Secretary of Education T. H. Bell and headed by Chairman David Gardner, presented that the nation was severely at risk, stating that:
This report is concerned with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments (Gardner, 1983).
During this era, education was catapulted into the nation's line of sight as a political hot topic that was important to the voters. By 1988 when ESEA was up for reauthorization, we saw the first significant shift in how Title I dollars were distributed, forcing states to begin to show school improvements before receipt of the money (“The E.S.E.A. of 1965,” 2007). By the early 1990s, educational reform began to focus on accountability for the federal aid that was being doled out to schools so readily. President Bill Clinton reauthorized the bill by tacking on his own improvements, including Goals 2000, which was passed in 1993, and Improving America's Schools Act (DeBray, 2006). Goals 2000 required schools to develop standards for reading and math and called for report cards for the schools to be issued (“The E.S.E.A. Of 1965,” 2007). IASA went one step further by requiring states to develop and administer statewide assessments to low-income students at least once during elementary, middle, and high school (“The E.S.E.A. Of 1965,” 2007). Although education was making huge strides in reform, 1999 proved to be a set back when ESEA did not get reauthorized. It was during this time that an alternative proposal was developed. When President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he followed through with his campaign to “leave no child behind,” and, along with Senator Edward Kennedy, laid the ground work for the current NCLB Act. Senator Kennedy, along with Representative George Miller, was momentous in advocating for and helping unite the Democrats with this plan for standards-based reform. Although there were major hurdles to be overcome, such as the abandonment of vouchers, the fight over the definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and the battle for more funding, and the unforeseen terrorist act of September 11th, the new revision of the ESEA was ready for a vote in December 2001 (“The E.S.E.A. Of 1965,” 2007). With the final bill being nearly 1,100 pages long, the Act passed both houses of Congress and was signed by President George W. Bush, coming into affect on January 8, 2002.
Impact Since Implementation
“The teachers overwhelmingly expressed their belief that NCLB will not live up to its expectation for universal proficiency for all students by 2013-2014” (Fingon, 2009). This is a overpowering assumption made by the education community, one that has been echoed out around the nation. But the question is not necessarily how teachers and educators feel about this bill, but what has the impact been since it has come into affect? NCLB set out to drastically change the face of public education by holding schools accountable for the improved academic achievement of disadvantaged students, all the while increasing federal funding so that they might have a fair opportunity to obtain high-quality education (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In order to track the progress of NCLB, the assessments that judge “Adequate Yearly Progress” need to be investigated.
According to NCLB, each state must develop measurable objectives for AYP for all students in general, as well as certain selected groups: students that are economically disadvantaged, those from major racial and ethnic groups, students that have disabilities, and also students without English proficiency (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). Currently, each state can utilize their own exams to assess performance in reading and mathematics, but they must also administer the National Assessment of Educational Progress to a selected sample of students, making it an easier comparison of proficiency rates between what the state is reporting and the NAEP results (Lips, 2007). The content standards vary widely in their rigor, making the definition of performance vary broadly from state to state. For example, according to the State Department of Louisiana in 2001, only 7% of students scored proficient or higher on the state Grade 8 mathematics assessment, as compared to 92% of the same grade students passing the mathematics assessment in Texas that same year (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). Because the states set the content standards for their tests and control the passing boundary, there is an incentive for the states to lower their standards in order to avoid federal penalties and to show that they are making Adequate Yearly Progress (Lips, 2007). The 2005 report from the National Center for Education Statistics points out that there have not been any significant changes since NCLB's implementation, stating that the average reading scores for 9 year olds and 13-year olds were higher in 2004 than 1971, but that there had been no significant improvement in the scores of 17-year olds since 1971 (Gilmore, 2007). One opponent of NCLB, Richard Elmore, a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, declared that the AYP requirement was not more than a mathematical function with no “defensible knowledge or theory of school improvement” (Gilmore, 2007). If there has not been a significant improvement since implementation, then the question is what kind of impact has there been and who has been affected the most? In order to fully understand the implications of NCLB, two significant groups need to be discussed.
Impact on English Language Learners
One potentially hot topic for the impact of NCLB is that of students who do not have an English language proficiency. Students who do not claim English as their first language fall under the broad umbrella category of disadvantaged students (Haynes, 2007). Those categorized as English learners (Els) feel the impact the most from NCLB because they are tested on the same level, with the same tests as their native English speaking counterparts are (Haynes, 2007). Previously,many states chose to make non-English proficient students exempt from state-wide testing, something that the National Association of Bilingual Education has lobbied against, saying that it undermines the accountability of the schools and that most students were plainly ignored (Peterson, 2002). Schools in areas that are heavily populated with Els, such as the Houston Unified School District in Texas, are finding it difficult to show AYP because of the large population of Latinos in their school that have a low English proficiency (Arce, Luna, Borjian & Conrad, 2005). The Houston school district, and many others in the same situation, is experiencing the withholding of funding. It is mandated by NCLB that for each year a state fails to meet the Adequately Yearly Progress, 25% of NCLB allocations will be withheld (Haynes, 2007). In accordance with NCLB, all English learners who have been in the U.S. School system and have been tested using their native language must be tested in English for reading and language arts, and now as well as subject-area academic skills (Haynes, 2007). NCLB already has lofty goals, but it can be even more intimidating for EL students because it generally takes four to seven years to become proficient in the classroom, something that is not validated through NCLB's views, as many Els are tested after only three years in school (Arce, Luna, Borjian, & Conrad, 2005). NCLB does allow for special testing accommodations for Els, such as test translation for up to five years for a student, a relatively easy accommodation, yet it is minimally used ( Arce, Luna, Borjian, & Conrad, 2005). Unfortunately, NCLB's AYP provisions seem conflicting to the objectives of the remaining bilingual programs that have endured since its inception. A proven successful way to help students become literate in English is to conduct bilingual programs, which include literacy instruction in the student's native language (Peterson, 2002). In 2002, there were over 4.4 million, and growing, English language learners enrolled in the public school system, making a good case for the government to support their integration into the school system and help forge a path of success (Peterson, 2002).
Impact on Teachers
Although students are ultimately the ones who are affected the most, there is another group, often times overlooked, that also has been seriously affected: the educational community, teachers most importantly. In a study done by Joan C. Fignon (2009), one teacher interviewed commented that “all children are different and should be educated differently to best meet their individual needs.” One size does not fit all, not with education, not with students, and definitely not with teachers. With the implementation of NCLB, and the provisions on accountability, came many new adjustments not only for students, but also for teachers. Before NCLB came into affect, teachers were paid based on their time in service and and educational background, with many not having any incentive to perform to the highest standards. Now, with the implementation of NCLB, advocates of test-based accountability argue that academic achievement will show improvement only when teachers are held accountable in terms of their students' performance (Stecher, Hamilton & Gonzalez, 2003). By attaching high stakes to the performances on these assessments, teachers, and their schools alike, may either be financially rewarded, or they may face the branding of being a failing school (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). NCLB requires that all teachers be “highly qualified” in their subject areas in order to teach (Gilmore, 2007). In order to be considered highly qualified, a teacher candidate must have a bachelor's degree at the least, hold a certification by the state, and pass basic skills and subject area tests (Selwyn, 2007). This type of absolute definition of certification defines quality in terms of content knowledge and has influenced many states to institute testings as the litmus test for qualifications (Selwyn, 2007). Prospective teaching students now must document that they have indeed taken and met all requirements that are required by the state that they wish to teach in, which often times is expensive and labor intensive in terms of time (Selwyn, 2007). Also, for those teachers who are teaching several subjects, as is the case for many rural areas or underfunded, large urban schools, the qualifications can be extremely daunting because they will have to present that they are indeed highly qualified in all subject areas that they are teaching (Selwyn, 2007). Qualifying teachers based solely on their paper credentials can lead to problems within the classroom. If a state defines a qualified teacher as one who has a certain number of years in the classroom, will all other teachers who do not possess that time be let go? Also, given a teacher that teaches in a manner that helps the students actively learn, yet does not hold all qualifications, versus a teacher that teaches the test and is considered a “snoozefest” by his students and holds all certifications, is it actually more advantageous to keep the less engaging teacher? According to testimonies from the Public Education Network, many of the successful teachers are being passed over for those who will teach the test and produce stated objectives (Lewis, 2005). NCLB also requires that states pass on certification and qualification information on to the parents and communities, yet it has been found to be inconsistently done by many states (Lewis, 2005). The demands of the teaching profession are changing. Now, instead of focusing on using innovative teaching styles to encourage a student to learn, teachers are being judged on an outcomes-based system that is built on common standards set by NCLB. Teachers are now “diagnosticians of student learning styles,” making them the gatekeepers of what each individual student needs to master, and must also possess the know how in order to get, and keep, that student on track with their designated educational plan (Lewis, 2005).
Future of NCLB
Educators, politicians, researchers, and the general public, all have one question: What is to come of NCLB? This lofty plan, so far, has not produced the lofty results that it promised on the eve of its inception. In President Obama's plan for education (2009), he believes that the goal of NCLB is one that can be achieved, but only with much reform, as he too, like much of America, sees the flaws within the design. The President has vowed to improve the current assessments with ones that evaluate higher order skills, such as technological abilities, and also improve accountability, including appropriate assessments for English language learners (“Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan...,” 2009). While these propositions for change are valid, more will need to be done to keep NCLB not only afloat, but successful.
When NCLB was up for reauthorization in 2007, conservative lawmakers proposed a bill that would allow states to opt out of NCLB and still use federal funding as long as they still used, and publicly reported, assessments to evaluate progress made by students (Lips, 2007). This plan draws into question accountability all over again. If accountability was turned over to the states again, would the standards still be upheld? Unfortunately, many of the critics of NCLB do not see any improvements since the implementation. Some proponents of NCLB applaud the objective of a national curriculum, yet others view this as unconstitutional and socialistic by allowing the federal government to have such a large hand in educational reform (Gilmore, 2007). A report in 2007 from the Commission on No Child Left Behind proposed to expand testing to include standardized test for the sciences and to develop uniform state tests, a proposal backed by Senator Edward Kennedy (Gilmore, 2007). Another argument has been spurred about the funding coming down the pipeline to the schools. Democrats have been claiming that NCLB is underfunded and that more money is needed in order to see actual improvements at the schools; when, in actuality, states have accumulated over $5.75 billion in unspent funds in the bank (Kafer, 2004). The problem being that many states became over saturated with funding and so caught up in the red tape behind the regulations that they gave up and silently took a backseat to NCLB.
Although there are plenty of critics of NCLB, there are those proponents of the bill. The provision that allows students attending failing schools to choose a better education at a different school has garnered many accolades and may prove to be one of NCLB's saving graces. Schools receiving Title I funding that fail to reach the AYP target for two consecutive years are obligated to offer their students a choice of schools that are making adequate yearly progress that they might transfer to (Hess & Finn Jr., 2004). One of the benefits of providing students with additional educational services is that it can be an effective tool in improving both individual and overall school performance, which can also help the school to meet the AYP requirements (Hess & Finn Jr., 2004). Those same schools that fail to meet AYP requirements for three years in a row are then required to give the student the chance to enroll in “supplemental educational services,” which can also come from private tutoring companies (Hess & Finn Jr., 2004). Schools that fail to meet these standards also have the potential to face much harsher penalties, such as reopening as a charter school or face a complete restructuring by the state government (Hess & Finn Jr., 2004). Empowering parents and students alike with the knowledge that will allow them to make informed decisions concerning their education is a powerful tool that will bring continued success to our students, as well as our educational system.
Conclusion
In the close to 40 years since ESEA was introduced by President Johnson, the government has created various programs to try and tackle the daunting task of educational reform. No Child Left Behind is the latest in the fight to reform our struggling education system, and also the only one to have an approach based on accountability (Stecher, Hamilton & Gonzalez, 2003). As the finish line of 2014 fast approaches, states are feeling the pressure to perform. Unfortunately, 2014 may come with many schools falsely celebrating the fact that under the law, and under the slippery standards their own states have set, all of their students have obtained proficiency and the schools are no longer labeled as “in need of improvement” (Lips, 2007). No Child Left Behind set out with good intentions to reform our educational system and usher in a new wave of successful students who would be able to compete in this era of globalization. Like all other educational programs from America's past, problems have, and will continue to, plague NCLB, affecting not only the students, but also the educators who must perform according to the law. It is hard to tell what will come of NCLB, as it has only been in place less than ten years, but there is hope for a revitalized educational system through a newly reformed NCLB, one that truly leaves no one behind.
References
Arce, J., Luna, D., Borjian, A., & Conrad, M. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Who Wins? Who Loses?. Social Justice, 32(3), 56+. Retrieved November from http://www.questia.com/ PM.qst?a=o&d=5015870930
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan for Lifetime Success Throughout Education. (n.d.). Retreived from www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: From War on Poverty to No Child Left Behind. (2007). Ohio Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.ohea.org/GD/
Templates/Pages/OEA/OEADetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=170&Content=8038
Fingon, J. (2009). What Teachers Say about School Reform Does Matter. Reading Today, 18.
Gardner, D. (1983). A Nation at Risk: Letter of Transmittal. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/letter.html
Gilmore, J. (2007, July 9). What Grade Does NCLB Get? in This Fifth Year, the No Child Left Behind Act Is Up for Reauthorization amid a Cacophony of Assenting and Dissenting Voices. What Is the Bottom Line?. The New American, 23, 25+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5021887662
Haynes, J. (2007). Getting Started with English Language Learners: How Educators Can Meet the Challenge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=113853070
Hess, F. M., & Finn Jr., C. E. (2004). Inflating the Life Rafts of NCLB: Making Public School Choice and Supplemental Services Work for Students in Troubled Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 34. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5007120511
Kafer, K. (2004). No Child Left Behind: Where Do We Go From Here? Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/bg1775.cfm
Lewis, A. C. (2005). WASHINGTON COMMENTARY: Highly Qualified Teachers We Know 'Em When We See 'Em. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 563. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5009329146
Linn, R., Baker, E., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability Systems: Implications of Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), pp. 3-16.
Lips, D. (2007). Saving 'No Child Left Behind' from Itself. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed042307a.cfm
Meir, D. & Wood, G. (2004). Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act Is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. Boston: Beacon Press.
Peterson, B. (2002). E.S.E.A. Watch: Leaving English Learners Behind. Rethinking Schools Online, 17(1). Retrieved from: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/17_01/Leav171.shtml
Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Recommendations from the Center on Educational Policy. (2007). Center on Educational Policy. Retrieved from
Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly Quantified Teachers: NCLB and Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2). Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5020358569
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Elementary and Secondary Education: Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, Sec. 1001. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
No comments:
Post a Comment