OvarianTumor
2010-04-02 20:41:06 UTC
American kids wasted eight years of their schooling on Bush's inane
"project."
------------------
"A new agenda for school reform"
By Diane Ravitch
Friday, April 2, 2010; A17
I used to be a strong supporter of school accountability and choice.
But in recent years, it became clear to me that these strategies were
not working. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program enacted
in 2002 did not produce large gains in reading and math. The gains in
math were larger before the law was implemented, and the most recent
national tests showed that eighth-grade students have made no
improvement in reading since 1998. By mandating a utopian goal of 100
percent proficiency, the law encouraged states to lower their
standards and make false claims of progress. Worse, the law
stigmatized schools that could not meet its unrealistic expectation.
Choice, too, has been disappointing. We now know that choice is no
panacea. The districts with the most choice for the longest period --
Cleveland and Milwaukee -- have seen no improvement in their public
schools nor in their choice schools. Charter schools have been
compared to regular public schools on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, and have never
outperformed them. Nationally, only 3 percent of public school
students are enrolled in charters, and no one is giving much thought
to improving the system that enrolls the other 97 percent.
It is time to change course.
To begin with, let's agree that a good education encompasses far more
than just basic skills. A good education involves learning history,
geography, civics, the arts, science, literature and foreign language.
Schools should be expected to teach these subjects even if students
are not tested on them.
Everyone agrees that good education requires good teachers. To get
good teachers, states should insist -- and the federal government
should demand -- that all new teachers have a major in the subject
they expect to teach or preferably a strong educational background in
two subjects, such as mathematics and music or history and literature.
Every state should expect teachers to pass a rigorous examination in
the subjects they will teach, as well as a general examination to
demonstrate their literacy and numeracy.
We need principals who are master teachers, not inexperienced teachers
who took a course called "How to Be a Leader." The principal is
expected to evaluate teachers, to decide who deserves tenure and to
help those who are struggling and trying to improve. If the principal
is not a master teacher, he or she will not be able to perform the
most crucial functions of the job.
We need superintendents who are experienced educators because their
decisions about personnel, curriculum and instruction affect the
entire school system. If they lack experience, they will not be
qualified to select the best principals or the best curricula for
their districts.
We need assessments that gauge students' understanding and require
them to demonstrate what they know, not tests that allow students to
rely solely on guessing and picking one among four canned answers.
We should stop using the term "failing schools" to describe schools
where test scores are low. Usually, a school has low test scores
because it enrolls a disproportionately large number of low-performing
students. Among its students may be many who do not speak or read
English, who live in poverty, who miss school frequently because they
must baby-sit while their parents look for work, or who have
disabilities that interfere with their learning. These are not excuses
for their low scores but facts about their lives.
Instead of closing such schools and firing their staffs, every state
should have inspection teams that spend time in every low-performing
school and diagnose its problems. Some may be mitigated with extra
teachers, extra bilingual staff, an after-school program or other
resources. The inspection team may find that the school was turned
into a dumping ground by district officials to make other schools look
better. It may find a heroic staff that is doing well under adverse
circumstances and needs help. Whatever the cause of low performance,
the inspection team should create a plan to improve the school.
Only in rare circumstances should a school be closed. In many poor
communities, schools are the most stable institution. Closing them
destroys the fabric of the community.
We must break free of the NCLB mind-set that makes accountability
synonymous with punishment. As we seek to rebuild our education
system, we must improve the schools where performance is poor, not
punish them.
If we are serious about school reform, we will look for long-term
solutions, not quick fixes.
We wasted eight years with the "measure and punish" strategy of NCLB.
Let's not waste the next eight years.
[Diane Ravitch is a historian of education. Her most recent book is
"The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing
and Choice Are Undermining Education."]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040101468.html
"project."
------------------
"A new agenda for school reform"
By Diane Ravitch
Friday, April 2, 2010; A17
I used to be a strong supporter of school accountability and choice.
But in recent years, it became clear to me that these strategies were
not working. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program enacted
in 2002 did not produce large gains in reading and math. The gains in
math were larger before the law was implemented, and the most recent
national tests showed that eighth-grade students have made no
improvement in reading since 1998. By mandating a utopian goal of 100
percent proficiency, the law encouraged states to lower their
standards and make false claims of progress. Worse, the law
stigmatized schools that could not meet its unrealistic expectation.
Choice, too, has been disappointing. We now know that choice is no
panacea. The districts with the most choice for the longest period --
Cleveland and Milwaukee -- have seen no improvement in their public
schools nor in their choice schools. Charter schools have been
compared to regular public schools on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, and have never
outperformed them. Nationally, only 3 percent of public school
students are enrolled in charters, and no one is giving much thought
to improving the system that enrolls the other 97 percent.
It is time to change course.
To begin with, let's agree that a good education encompasses far more
than just basic skills. A good education involves learning history,
geography, civics, the arts, science, literature and foreign language.
Schools should be expected to teach these subjects even if students
are not tested on them.
Everyone agrees that good education requires good teachers. To get
good teachers, states should insist -- and the federal government
should demand -- that all new teachers have a major in the subject
they expect to teach or preferably a strong educational background in
two subjects, such as mathematics and music or history and literature.
Every state should expect teachers to pass a rigorous examination in
the subjects they will teach, as well as a general examination to
demonstrate their literacy and numeracy.
We need principals who are master teachers, not inexperienced teachers
who took a course called "How to Be a Leader." The principal is
expected to evaluate teachers, to decide who deserves tenure and to
help those who are struggling and trying to improve. If the principal
is not a master teacher, he or she will not be able to perform the
most crucial functions of the job.
We need superintendents who are experienced educators because their
decisions about personnel, curriculum and instruction affect the
entire school system. If they lack experience, they will not be
qualified to select the best principals or the best curricula for
their districts.
We need assessments that gauge students' understanding and require
them to demonstrate what they know, not tests that allow students to
rely solely on guessing and picking one among four canned answers.
We should stop using the term "failing schools" to describe schools
where test scores are low. Usually, a school has low test scores
because it enrolls a disproportionately large number of low-performing
students. Among its students may be many who do not speak or read
English, who live in poverty, who miss school frequently because they
must baby-sit while their parents look for work, or who have
disabilities that interfere with their learning. These are not excuses
for their low scores but facts about their lives.
Instead of closing such schools and firing their staffs, every state
should have inspection teams that spend time in every low-performing
school and diagnose its problems. Some may be mitigated with extra
teachers, extra bilingual staff, an after-school program or other
resources. The inspection team may find that the school was turned
into a dumping ground by district officials to make other schools look
better. It may find a heroic staff that is doing well under adverse
circumstances and needs help. Whatever the cause of low performance,
the inspection team should create a plan to improve the school.
Only in rare circumstances should a school be closed. In many poor
communities, schools are the most stable institution. Closing them
destroys the fabric of the community.
We must break free of the NCLB mind-set that makes accountability
synonymous with punishment. As we seek to rebuild our education
system, we must improve the schools where performance is poor, not
punish them.
If we are serious about school reform, we will look for long-term
solutions, not quick fixes.
We wasted eight years with the "measure and punish" strategy of NCLB.
Let's not waste the next eight years.
[Diane Ravitch is a historian of education. Her most recent book is
"The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing
and Choice Are Undermining Education."]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/01/AR2010040101468.html