Author: Emily Parsons

Is Education Reform Just the Same Thing Over and Over Again?

Posted on Author Emily Parsons

“While we reform at a frenzied pace, we have rarely dug deeply enough into the underlying system of districts, schools, and teachers to start reshaping the educational landscape.”[1]—Frederick M. Hess

Education scholar Frederick M. Hess is the director of the Educational Policy at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, which is an American think tank. The quote above addresses his criticism of American education reform. According to Hess, while “new” education legislation is constantly created, none of them are powerful enough to disrupt the status quo and change the current education system. Hess argues rather that these education remedies only tweak former ones or claim to instate a new reform, while actually never introducing a new system. Is Fred Hess right? Are we just doing the same thing over and over again?

Through the analysis and comparison of President George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” bill and President Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” grant program, it is apparent that Fred Hess is more accurate than America and education reformers may want to believe.  Overall, the lawmakers and education advocators of No Child Left Behind and the lawmakers and education advocators of Race to the Top agree in what public schools need in order to improve and be successful. Whereas the wording and minutia may be different between No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, the larger emphasis remains the same. Fred Hess is accurate that reformers have a tendency to get stuck on certain reform styles, such as accountability. Education reformers definitely also have a fear to completely dissociate from previous reforms in order to introduce something completely new and different. However, Hess does not give education reformers enough credit. While No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are eerily similar in the sense of what reform styles they advocate for, analysis of congressional records display their attempts to amend the previous failures of Congress and the federal government when it comes to education reform.

President Bush argued during the debate of No Child Left Behind and education reform that, “public schools are America’s great hope, and making them work for every child is our Nation’s great duty.”[2]  As a result in 2001, the legislation bill H.R. 1 No Child Left Behind was passed by Congress. The main idea behind NCLB was solutions based on accountability, choice and flexibility in federal education programs. Furthermore, NCLB reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The goals of No Child Left Behind are to close the achievement gap, create equal opportunity for every child, achieve proficiency in reading, and to improve low-performing schools.[3]

Increasing accountability for states, school districts, and schools is a major part of No Child Left Behind. NCLB required states to implement statewide accountability systems, mainly assessments, for all public schools and students. Congressman Cass Ballenger comments, “the bill takes a two-track approach, expanding flexibility for States and local school districts while holding them strictly accountable for increasing student achievement.”[4] With the data from these assessments, schools will be ranked. Schools that fail to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) received punishments. On the other side of the spectrum, schools that met or exceeded the AYP became eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards. In exchange for this increase in accountability, states received more flexibility in the use of federal education dollars.[5]

No Child Left Behind presented parents and students with greater accessibility and options for school choice. The fear that children would remain stuck attending low-performing public schools motivated this part of NCLB. Congressman Boehner comments again on the significance of school choice, “the bill also includes a school choice ‘safety valve’ for students trapped in chronically failing schools that fail to improve after three consecutive years of emergency aid.”[6] However, through a choice program, children would be able to attend a successful public school, which may include a charter school in the district. As a result, NCLB required state districts to provide transportation for these children attending non-district public schools such as public charter schools or magnet schools. It also required the use of Title I funds to obtain supplemental educational services from the public or private sector.[7]

With the implementation of No Child Left Behind, President Bush called for every student to be proficient in reading by the year of 2014. This statement is reflective of the stronger emphasis placed on reading in NCLB. A program, Reading First Initiative, helped increase federal investment in scientifically based reading instruction programs in the early grades. Other program changes within “No Child Left Behind” include class size reduction, English language support, and improving teacher quality. [8] With the change in presidency from President Bush to President Obama, a new education reform was established.

In 2010, after the passing of the Race to the Top program, President Obama claims, “we have an obligation to lift up every child in every school in this country, especially those who are starting out furthest behind.”[9] In 2009, with the help of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, President Obama passed the education incentive grant program Race to the Top. RTTT is designed to spur systematic reform and embrace innovative approaches to teaching and learning. Race to the Top calls for education reforms such as accountability, standards, improving teacher quality, charter schools, along with other reform styles. The goals of RTTT are to close the achievement gap, improve student achievement for all children, cultivate a society ready for college and the workforce, and improve low-performing schools.

A significant aspect of Race to the Top is the promotion of design and implementation of rigorous standards and quality assessments that are properly aligned with the standards. Greg Jones, Chairman of California Business for Education Excellence, participated in the Committee on Education and labor debate on April 29, 2009, reaffirming other congressmen opinions;

“First, it is not enough to have excellent standards. They have to be aligned test, meaningful accountability and high-quality instruction, as well. Second, holding all students to the same expectations, and reporting results publicly revealed disturbing achievement gaps based on race and economic levels. And, third, we have data that demonstrates irrefutably that these achievement gaps can be closed without lowering standards or expectations to meet them.”[10]

Race to the Top calls for a system of common academic standards created by the states, as well as the improvement of assessments to match these new standards. The idea behind these assessments is that the states will have more data to help them inform decisions and improve instruction. Additionally, RTTT calls to create a statewide longitudinal data system and to make results more accessible.

Attracting great teachers and more importantly, keeping great teachers is an essential emphasis of Obama’s Race to the Top education program. In order to achieve this goal, RTTT calls to expand effective teacher support and to reform and improve teacher prep programs. U.S. Representative Susan Davis comments on the grant program in relation to teachers, “Grants would provide support for rewarding teachers for improving student academic achievement, encouraging highly qualified, effective teachers to enter classrooms with high concentrations of poor children, and developing and implementing performance-based teacher compensation systems.”[11] Also, RTTT signals for the revision of teacher evaluation, compensation and retention policies in order to ensure that good teachers remain in the system and poor teachers do not. Lastly, it encourages the placing of the best teachers in the lowest-performing schools.

Race to the Top hopes to demonstrate and sustain education reform throughout the years. In order to achieve this end result, it encourages expanding support for high-performing public charters, increasing the focus on science and math education, and promoting the collaboration between business leaders, educators, and other stakeholders to raise student achievement. U.S. Representative Rush D. Holt Jr. comments on the emphasis placed on math and science education, “states that include in their Race to the Top application a high-quality plan to emphasize science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education will receive a competitive preference.”[12] Additionally, U.S. Representative Jared Polis comments on the importance of charter schools in RTTT, “replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools will play a central role in the Administration’s education reform agenda. The charter school program has provided over $2.2 billion in financial assistance to States since 1995 for the planning, program design, and initial implementation of charter schools, and the dissemination of information on charter schools.”[13] While Race to the Top calls for accountability, standards, and teacher improvement, it also calls for these other reforms.

Despite the continuous attempts to amend the American public school system, Fred Hess is accurate in the sense that federal education reformers are calling for “the same thing over and over again.”[14] Regardless of the fact that President Obama states in 2010 while defending his Race to the Top program, “‘we get comfortable with the status quo even when the status quo isn’t good. When you try to shake things up, sometimes people aren’t happy.’”[15] While the actual wording of the legislation may differ, both No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top apply the same reform styles to the education system, thereby not actually breaking the status quo. Both call for closing the achievement gap, accountability, standards, school choice, and improving teacher quality.

Although both of these legislations are calling for essentially the same thing, they differ slightly in the fine print. For example, No Child Left Behind focuses on reading, while Race to the Top places a greater emphasis on math and science education. Whereas, NCLB desires to have every child proficient in reading 2014, RTTT wants to increase the high school graduation rate and send more children to higher education facilities, such as college.

In some respects, Race to the Top is an amended version of No Child Left Behind. The analysis of congressional debates and records reveals that congressman and education reformers agree with what No Child Left Behind attempted to accomplish. In a Congressional meeting, U.S. Representative Michael Castle of Delaware asked Secretary Duncan, “In No Child Left Behind, we adopted having standards and assessments…You have also used that expression. I want to make sure I understand what we are talking about?”[16] Secretary Duncan responds, “And what I think NCLB got fundamentally wrong is they were very, very loose on the goals. So you have 50 states, 50 different goal posts, all over the map. And you are exactly right. Due to the political pressure, the vast majority of those standards got dummied down.”[17]

However, these debates and records also reveal the belief that the implementation of No Child Left Behind failed to achieve its goal. As a result, Congress and the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan modified the application of the reforms of No Child Left Behind such as calling for assessments to match the standards of the state.  Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan states, “I look forward to working with President Obama, Secretary Duncan, and the Members of this Committee on reforming the No Child Left Behind Act…We must update this law with improvements.”[18] In addition to hoping to rectify flaws from No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top also added more reforms to complete their incentive grant program. For example, Race to the Top places emphasis on data systems as way to help improve instruction.

No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are both examples of federal education reform. Federal education reform has historically always been a controversial topic. First off, it is extremely challenging for everyone to agree on what remedy should be applied to the schools in order to improve them. Moreover, the federal government has its limits within the realm of public education. In fact, journalist Bill Swindell states,  “education has historically been mostly a state and local matter. The federal government’s involvement began with the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (PL 89-10), which provided aid to students in poor school districts.”[19] No Child Left Behind received criticism when it not only reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act but also introduced new sanctions.  Seemingly, in response to this criticism, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan made a conscious decision to dial back the federal government’s involvement by incorporating federal education reform through an incentive grant program while also encouraging state governments to improve their public schools.

As a consequence of criticism from No Child Left Behind, the main difference between these two pieces of education reform legislation is their form. Patrick McGuinn comments on this difference. He states, “NCLB forced states to change many of their educational practices, but political resistance and capacity gaps at the state level meant that these changes were often more superficial than substantive.”[20] While on the other hand, “RTTT’s design—and specifically its use of a competitive grant process—was intended to avoid these problems by relying on incentives instead of sanctions to drive state reform.”[21] However, even with these differing styles of legislation, the application of these reforms is similar. In both instances if a school district does not follow the requested improvements then it will not receive federal funding.

If Race to the Top is not that different from No Child Left Behind, then how does education reform move forward? In order to move forward it is necessary to better understand the flaws with the current education reform. Fred Hess argues in an Education Next article “Taking Stock of a Decade of Reform” that there are three consistent problems with education reformers and their policies: “Problem One: Measures that are overly ambitious or poorly designed risk undermining popular support for sound and necessary reforms…Problem Two: Overpromising… Problem Three: Obsession with ‘gap closing.’”[22]  In other words, these education programs prevent “problem solving and policy tinkering,”[23] in order to improve not only the policy but also more importantly the schools. These reforms make it difficult to adapt the reforms to make sure that these reforms work when applied. Hess argues that with overpromising, education supporters are acting impatiently and as a result are “stifling creativity.”[24] Furthermore, Hess states, “for the past decade, school reform has been primarily about ‘closing achievement gaps’ by boosting math and reading proficiency and graduation rates, among black, Latino, and poor students.”[25] Both No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top embody all of these “problems”.

So where do education reformers go from here? According to Fred Hess, “building on the best of what remains of their architecture—and sweeping the rest out of the way—will take time and patience. But that’s what’s called for.”[26] In other words, education reformers need to stop trying to find the silver bullet and take a step back. Education advocators need to reflect on past reform and acknowledge what works and what does not. Collaboration with teachers and administrators in the school in order to discuss what actually works when implemented is necessary. Education reformers need to be patient and understand that education reform is not possible in one program. Rather, it is accomplished through a series of revisions and constant trial and error. In this essence, Race to the Top may be on the right track for federal education reform by looking at its mistakes in No Child Left Behind and attempting to improve the implementation of the reforms. However, Hess is right in the sense that Race to the Top still focuses on the same reform styles, just different methods.

 

[1] Frederick M. Hess, Same Thing Over and Over Again, ix.

[2] Public Papers of the President of the United States, 1020.

[3] Hon. John A. Boehner, Introduction of H.R. 1—the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congressional Record, Extension of Remarks, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, March 21, 2001, House of Representatives, 107th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001, E437.

[4] House of Representatives, No Child Left Behind Act Rewards Progress, Corrects Failure, One Hundred and Seventh Congress, First Session, May, 16, 2001, 107th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001, H2188.

[5] David Nather, “Student-Testing Drive Marks an Attitude Shift in Congress”, CQ Weekly, June 30, 2001, accessed on April 15, 2013, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/document.php?id=weeklyreport107-000000275608&type=hitlist&num=0.

[6] Introduction of H.R. 1—the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, E437.

[7] Nather, “Student-testing Drive Marks an Attitude Shift in Congress”, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/document.php?id=weeklyreport107-000000275608&type=hitlist&num=0.

[8] Nather, “Student-testing Drive Marks an Attitude Shift in Congress”, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/document.php?id=weeklyreport107-000000275608&type=hitlist&num=0.

[9] Associated Press, “Obama takes on critics of education plan” NBC News, July 29, 2010, accessed on April 15, 2013, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38467475/#.UWbIW3AXcml.

[10] House of Representatives, United States Congress. Strengthening America’s Competitiveness Through Common Academic Standards, Hearing Before the Committee on Education and Labor, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, April 29, 2009. 111th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009, 25-26.

[11] House of Representatives, United States Congress, The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda, Hearing Before the Committee on Education and Labor, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, May 20, 2009, 111th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009, 96.

[12] The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda, 87.

[13] The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda, 93.

[14] Hess, The Same Thing Over and Over Again, ix.

[15] “Obama takes on critics of education plan”, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38467475/#.UWbIW3AXcml.

[16] The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda, 30.

[17] The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda, 30-31.

[18] The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda, 52.

[19] Bill Swindell, “States Give Low Marks to Education Law,” CQ Weekly, April 10, 2004, accessed on April 15, 2013, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/document.php?id=weeklyreport108-000001101370&type=hitlist&num=0.

[20] Patrick McQuinn, “Stimulating Reform: Race to the Top, Competitive Grants and the Obama Education Agenda”, Educational Policy (November 28, 2011): 138.

[21] McQuinn, “Stimulating Reform: Race to the Top, Competitive Grants and the Obama Education Agenda”138.

[22] Fred Hess, “Taking Stock of a Decade of Reform,” Education Next, Spring 2001: 61-65.

[23] Hess, “Taking Stock of a Decade of Reform,” 63.

[24] Hess, “Taking Stock of a Decade of Reform,” 63.

[25] Hess, “Taking Stock of a Decade of Reform,” 65.

[26] Hess, “Taking Stock of a Decade of Reform,” 65.

Research Proposal: Is there a conscious change from No Child Left Behind to Race to the Top?

Posted on Author Emily Parsons

Research Question:

According to Fred Hess, education reform and reformers have been applying the same reform styles to improve the education system, meaning that they have been doing the same thing over and over again. How do President Bush’s bill No Child Left Behind and President Obama’s program Race to the Top either confirm or challenge Fred Hess’s opinion?

Relevance:

Fred Hess is challenging the effectiveness of educational reformers and their reforms. By analyzing the actual legislation of No Child Left Behind and the program details of Race to the Top as well as the internal congressional discussions, it will be apparent whether or not he is accurate. If Fred Hess is right, then our government needs to seriously revamp their logic and reforms. However, if Fred Hess is wrong, it may be that the public is too critical of the government and their efforts to reform schools. The answer to this question is extremely relevant because it needs to be answered correctly in order to insure progress is being made for education reform.

Research Process:

Initially, I met with Katy Hart, the librarian, to help me find some sources. However, I did not have a focused enough question in order for that to be the most productive. As a result, I decided that I needed to meet with you. With your help, you gave me Patrick McQuinn’s book on No Child Left Behind, which help lead me to other secondary sources, another written by him as well. Furthermore, through the perspective of Fred Hess I felt it was appropriate to have full access to his book The Same Thing Over and Over. In order to receive some summary of what was happening in Congress in regards to these two pieces of legislation I researched New York Times articles and found plenty. Additionally, I searched through the Congressional Records database on the library website and found a sufficient amount of sources for No Child Left Behind. However, personally, I struggled to find congressional records in regards to Race to the Top. In order to solve this dilemma I met with Katy Hart again and she was extremely helpful. From there, I found more than enough dialogue and discussion within Congress in regards to No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.

Bibliography:

Alvarez, Lizette. “House Votes for New Testing to Hold Schools Accountable.” New York Times, May 24, 2011.

 

Brown, Cynthia G., Hess, Frederick M., Lautzenheiser, Daniel K., and Owen, Isabel. “State Education Agencies as Agents of Change: What It Will Take for the States to Step Up on Education Reform.” Center for American Progress. July 2011.

 

This report “will provide the basis for a complete re-examination of the role of state education agencies and their chiefs in transforming the SEA into an agent of change that can assist districts in the crucial task of remaking our public schools to meet the needs of our children in the 21st century.”[1]

 

Dillon, Sam. “Dangling $4.3 Billion, Obama Pushes States to Shift on Education.” New York Times, August 17, 2009.

 

Hess, Frederick M. The Same Thing Over and Over: How School Reformers Get Stuck in Yesterday’s Ideas. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010.

 

Hess, Frederick M., Petrilli, Michael J. and West, Martin R. “Taking Stock of a Decade of Reform: Pyrrhic Victories?” Education Next11 no. 2 (Spring 2011): 58-65.

 

House of Representatives, United States Congress. Challenges to American Competitiveness in Math and Science, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, Hundred Ninth Congress, First Session, May 19, 2005. 109th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005.

 

House of Representatives, United States Congress. Implementation of No Child Left Behind Act, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Education and the Workforce, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, July 24, 2002. 107th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.

 

House of Representatives, United States Congress. Strengthening America’s Competitiveness Through Common Academic Standards, Hearing Before the Committee on Education and Labor, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, April 29, 2009. 111th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009.

 

House of Representatives, United States Congress. The Future of Learning: How Technology is Transforming Public Schools, Hearing Before the Committee on Education and Labor, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, June 16, 2009. 111th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009.

 

House of Representatives, United States Congress. The Obama Administration’s Education Agenda, Hearing Before the Committee on Education and Labor, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, May 20, 2009. 111th Cong. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009.

 

McGuinn, Patrick. No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005.” St. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2006.

 

McGuinn, Patrick. “Stimulating Reform: Race to the Top, Competitive Grants and the Obama Education Agenda.” Educational Policy (November 28, 2011), 136-159.

 

“This article offers an analysis of the origins, evolution, and impact of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top (RTTT) competitive grant program and places it in the broader context of the debate over the No Child Left Behind Act and the shifting intergovernmental relations around education.”[2]

 

Schemo, Diana Jean. “Bush Seems to Ease His Stance on the Accountability of Schools: Favors Senate Bill Over a Stricter House Version.” New York Times, July 10, 2001.

 

Tanner, Daniel. “Race to the top and leave the children behind.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 45, no. 1 (February 15, 2013): 4-15.

 

Tracks the education reform movement from President George H. W. Bush to President Obama and more specifically the charter school movement, “The modern movement for charter schools was advocated by President George H.W. Bush in America 2000, issued in 1991, and subsequently expanded in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed by President George W. Bush. The charter school movement, coupled with nationalized testing, was to gain great momentum under President Barack Obama in Race to the Top––raising a clear and present danger of splitting up the school system.”[3]

 

 

 

[1] Cynthia G. Brown, Frederick M. Hess, Daniel K. Lautzenheiser, and Isabel Owens, “State Education Agencies as Agents of Change: What it Will Take for the States to Step Up on Education Reform,” Center for American Progress, July 2011.

[2] Patrick McGuinn, “Stimulating Reform: Race to the Top, Competitive Grants and the Obama Education Agenda,” Educational Policy (November 28, 2011), 136.

[3] Daniel Tanner, “Race to the top and leave the children behind,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 45 no. 1 (February 15, 2013): 4.

West Hartford Board of Education Looking for Support for Their Plans for “Unique Schools”

Posted on Author Emily Parsons

On March 6, 2013 the Connecticut State Board of Education met in the State Office Building in room 307 at 9:30 AM. This meeting began a little different than normally due to the unexpected passing away of one of the members of the board, Ellen Camhi. After the usual pledge of alliance there was a moment of silence in memoriam of Ellen followed by a speech by the chairperson of the board, Allan B. Taylor, commemorating Ellen’s honor. Taylor remembers Ellen as someone who “cares deeply and passionately about public education.” But the commemoration of a board member was not the only unusual activity of the Board today.

After the commemoration of the memory of Ellen Camhi, the meeting proceeded through the agenda. Rather than running straight through the agenda, the board skipped around from number II, Public Participation, to number VIII A, Items Requiring Action: West Hartford Plan to Increase Racial Diversity In its Unique Schools, causing a little confusion for a first timer at the meeting and making it a little harder to follow. However, it was easy to figure out what the topic being discussed was based on the presentation with the help of the printed out agenda.

After the public participation presented, the board jumped right into the issue number VIII A, which was “West Hartford Plan to Increase Racial Diversity in its Unique Schools.”

Members of the West Hartford School District along with one of the founders and a politician dealing with the “unique schools” Charter Oak and Smith in the West Hartford district were presenting their plan for the future with these schools. Charter Oak and Smith were granted “unique school” status by the Commissioner of Education. In the “Regulations to Implement the Racial Imbalance Law”, a “unique school” is defined as “an interdistrict or intradistrict magnet, local or state charter, lighthouse, regional vocational agriculture, regional vocational-technical, alternative, or special education school or other school designated by the Commissioner which offers specialized programs or provides for the voluntary enrollment of students.”[1]

The Racial Imbalance Law was passed to help increase the racial diversity of schools, and requires schools to have a certain percentage of minority students. However, the status of Charter Oak and Smith as “unique schools” makes them exempt from the Racial Imbalance Law. Despite these exemptions, the presentation at the Connecticut State Board of Education meeting today displayed that both Charter Oak and Smith schools will be at 61 percent, which is higher than the 41 percent district average.

The new plan that the West Hartford Board of Education presents is possible because the schools, Charter Oak and Smith, now qualify as diversity schools.  According to West Hartford News, “a Diversity School enrolls a percentage of minority students that varies from the average district minority population plus or minus 25 percent, according to the board.”[2]

Furthermore, this legislation provides access to more money as well as the possibility for up to 80 percent state reimbursement for construction.[3]

The new plan that West Hartford has planned will hopefully increase the racial diversity in its unique schools, Charter Oak and Smith. In addition to the increase in diversity, the West Hartford Board of Education claimed to have plans to create build a new building, which would allow the school to accommodate more students, to improve its marketing, as well as its programs such as a more expansive pre-k offering.

After the presentation made by members of the West Hartford Board of Education, the chairperson of the Connecticut State Board of Education, Allan B. Taylor, opened the floor for questions, starting first with questions purely dealing with the facts about the school before moving on from there. Surprisingly, many members of the Connecticut State Board of Education were unsure of what defined a school as a “unique school” and Attorney Laura L. Anastasio, who is a member of the Division of Legal and Governmental Affairs who works with the West Hartford Board of Education and was on panel for the presentation helped to clarify these confusions.

Finally, Board member Joseph J. Vrabely Jr. asked the presenters to clear up some of his confusion, most importantly being “what exactly is being asked of the Board?” Laura, once again took the initiative to answer this question. Laura first acknowledges the uniqueness of the situation that West Hartford is embarking upon. There are no other schools in the state of Connecticut that are considered “unique schools”, Charter Oak and Smith School are the only two. Therefore, there is not a plan filed in Racial Imbalance Requirements Statue nor is there much documentation on how to proceed. Therefore, the West Hartford Board of Education is “asking for support rather than formal approval.” They are hoping that by having the Connecticut State Board of Education, institutional support, that it will help them win support over the Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor.

By having no precedent, the West Hartford Board of Education on what the correct procedure is for insuring that their plan for the future of Charter Oak and Smith School can move forward without any delays or obstructions.

With the support of the Connecticut State Board of Education, the West Hartford Board of Education hopes to cover all of its bases. Furthermore, the West Hartford Board of Education expects that if the town of West Hartford or any other organization tries to interfere with their plans for Charter Oak and Smith School that the support from the Connecticut State Board of Education will help to alleviate these problems promptly as well as prevent them from ever arising.

[2] Kathleen Schassler, “New law allows for millions for West Hartford ‘Diversity School’ construction,” West Hartford News, October 12, 2012, accessed on March 6, 2013, http://www.westhartfordnews.com/articles/2012/10/10/news/doc5072d0b9ba042098519431.txt.

The Lottery

Posted on Author Emily Parsons

“The Lottery” is a documentary that follows four different families with the focus on four children, Eric Jr., Greg Jr., Christian, and Ameenah. Through the lens of these children, the film tracks their hopes of being admitted into a local charter school Harlem Success Academy through luck of the lottery. The film presents the knowledge of these individual children as well as the parents desires to send their children to an excellent school, which they believe is Harlem Success. It intertwines these personal stories with interviews that demonstrate the benefits of charter schools as well as the debate and controversy surrounding charter schools.

A movie review by the New York Times, highly criticizes the film “The Lottery”. In fact, the review critiques, “With a little tweaking “The Lottery” would fit nicely into the marketing materials for the Harlem Success Academy”.[1] The review continues to group this documentary with others such as “Cartel” for advocating for charter schools. However, unlike some other documentaries like “Cartel”, “The Lottery” pulls at the heartstrings of the viewer, hoping to convince people that more charter schools are needed.

In concordance with the New York Times review of the movie, the filmmaker makes very little effort to hide the support of charter schools. The movie comments on the ever-pressing achievement gap between white students and black students as well as the achievement of white students and Hispanic students. Without blatantly or directly stating that charter schools will fix this issue, the film actually comments on the importance of a good school, the value of motivated teachers, and the influence of parenting and the family life on a student’s performance. The filmmaker obviously believes that a good school consists of engaged teachers who can stimulate their students, while also having a strong support system of the family. In fact, the movie even states that it is not the children who fail the system, but rather it is the system that fails the children because all children are capable of learning.

The film also addresses some of the problems that public schools face. Through an interview of a principal at a local public school in Harlem, the bureaucracy that “saddles” the public school system, as Eva Moskowitz calls it, is presented. However, the film is making an attempt to not be completely biased by getting her opinion.  Furthermore, Ms. Moskowitz comments on the issue with teachers unions and tenure. She argues that public schools have difficulty firing teachers that are not qualified or good teachers while at the same time insinuates that Harlem Success Academy is so successful because they can fire poor teachers without the bureaucratic process.

"The Lottery" - 0:20:49

The filmmaker uses a taped interview with Charlie Rose and the speaker for the Teachers Union as well as statistics to drive this point home.[2]

A direct consequence of the Teachers Union that Ms. Moskowitz argues against is that it prevents the collaboration of teachers, principals, and other people of authority such as herself to improve their teaching skills. In order to be able to participate in this engagement of collaboration though, Ms. Moskowitz feels it is necessary to be able to observe the teachers in their classroom, especially unannounced. However, public schools do not have that privilege because the Teachers Union prevents unannounced observations of teachers.

Continuing with the theme of playing on the emotions of the viewers, the principal of the Harlem Success Academy speaks of the public school where he formerly worked. To add to the dramatics, the principal tears up while he speaks of the poor conditions of the school and as a result the system failing the children he taught.

"The Lottery" - 0:26:28

To contrast all the promotion for charter schools, the film interviews the members of ACORN who were outsourced by the Teachers Union to help rally against Harlem Success Academy 2 take over the building of a current public school in Harlem.[3]

"The Lottery" - 0:32:58

Furthermore, the film shows part of a “space hearing” that was held in regards to Harlem Success Academy 2 replacing the local public school. Some of the mothers and families of the children who attend the local neighborhood public school feel very passionately against shutting down the public school and replacing it with a charter school. [4] The argument against the Harlem Success Academy 2 is not necessarily an argument about public school v. charter school but rather it is not necessary to close the neighborhood pubic school in order to create a new charter school.

However, it quickly moves back to appealing to people’s hearts with the scene of Greg Jr. going to visit his dad at the correctional facility.

"The Lottery" 0:42:09

Through segments of an interview with Greg Sr., the father of Greg Jr., he comments on the importance of education and how it may have prevented him from being where he is today. [5] He also reflects on the motto of the Harlem Success Academy of telling the children that their goal is to be a college graduate and says, that in his entire life he has never been told that, which is a powerful thing.

The interview with Greg Sr. is paired with an interview of a Harlem Success parent, Karl Willingham, who speaks of the greatness of the charter school. He says, “Do you remember when you were a child and you wanted to be an astronaut or a scientist or president of the United States and you couldn’t because no one taught you which direction to go to get there. So wanting to be an astronaut seemed as far away as the moon which, um, its really no that far but no one told you that and you just don’t want to see anyone else miss out because no one told them they could have it”.[6] This scene is very powerful because its asking a parent if they want to take away the dreams of their children, while also insinuating that charter schools are the way to put them on the path to the dreams because the public schools will fail them.

"The Lottery" 1:11:44

The last scene of the movie before recapping what the future holds for each child that they followed it the actual lottery. It is not possible to not tear up during this scene unless you are heartless and do not want any child to have a future. [7] That’s the power of the film, it convinces the audience that these kids will not have a future by going through the local public school system, they need to attend a charter school in order to achieve success in their life. The excitement expressed by the mother of Ameenah is relief and hope and confidence all raveled into one that her daughter will now have the best life possible for her because she will be attending Harlem Success Academy.

The film obviously advocates for the education reform movement of choice through the creation of charter schools. Besides addressing the flaw of charter schools taking the place of neighborhood public schools, the film fails to address any other flaws of the charter schools. For instance, it never addresses any of the statistics that state charter schools are not always more successful than the local public school.  However, the film does do a rather impressive job of addressing the perspective of the children, the parents, the teachers, the members of the Teachers Union, and the principals. On the other hand, most of these people are advocates for charter schools.

 

[1] Jeannette Catsoulis, “Education by Chance”,  New York Times, June, 10, 2010, accessed February 19, 2013, http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/movies/11lottery.html?_r=0.

[2] The Lottery, directed by Madeleine Sackler (2010; Variance Films), 0:20:49.

[3] The Lottery, 0:26:28.

[4] The Lottery, 0:32:58.

[5] The Lottery, 0:42:09.

[6] The Lottery, 0:55:55-0:56:53.

[7] The Lottery, 1:11:44.

Avoiding Plagiarism

Posted on Author Emily Parsons

Example 1: Plagiarize the original text by copying portions of it word-for-word

Diane Ravitch argues against using student test scores to decide if an individual teacher is effective. She reports that Sean Corcoran, an economist at New York University, found that that the average “margin of error” of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points.

 

Example 2: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, without copying it word-for-word

The evidence of Corcoran says that there is an average “margin of error” of plus or minus 28 points, making it unpredictable to judge a teacher from year to year because between each year these value-added scores may change, causing these results to be instable. These flaws make it challenging to trust the results of the student test scores.

 

Example 3: Plagiarize the original text by paraphrasing its structure too closely, and include citation

Diane Ravitch uses the evidence of economist Sean Corcoran to prove that the “margin of error” between teachers to too large and that the scores fluctuate between years. As a consequence, this makes the value-added scores to be hard to trust.

Works Cited:

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2010.

 

Example 4: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, and include a citation to the original source

By using the evidence presented by an economist at New York University, Sean Corcoran, Ravitch proves that the “margin of error” is too large to have a teachings ranking actually hold merit. Furthermore, this “margin of error” varies each year as well as the rankings of teachings, there by creating unreliable data.[1]

Works Cited:

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2010.

 

Example 5: Properly paraphrase from the original text by restating the author’s ideas in different words and phrases, add a direct quote, and include a citation to the original source

Diane Ravitch makes a case that the value-added scores to judge teachers are unreliable. With the evidence from an economist from New York University, which states that “the average ‘margin of error’ of a New York City teacher was plus or minus 28 points”,[2] which means that the rankings of teachers is invalid.

Works Cited:

Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2010.

[1] Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Revised and Expanded Edition (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 270-271.

[2] Diane Ravitch, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education, Revised and Expanded Edition (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 270-271.

Women and Public Speaking in 19th Century

Posted on Author Emily Parsons

Were 19th-century women permitted to be public speakers? 

To answer the presented question I used my prior knowledge and skills from being a history major to approach the question. I used the Trinity College Library online resources and databases to search for sources that would be able to answer the question. I personally prefer JSTOR, so I searched through JSTOR.

A struggle and very important aspect of searching in JSTOR is the keywords that you use to search. In my first search I used the keywords “19th century”, “women”, and “public speaking”. I further narrowed my results by only searching for results in English that are articles, books, or reviews, and narrowed the discipline to American Studies, Education, Feminist and Women’s Studies, and History. My results were very scattered, in order to narrow it down and to get better results I modified my search and added the keyword “American” in addition to my previous keywords. My search results yielded this. After that, I read the titles of the works and picked out a few that I thought would help answer my question. The following titles are the articles that I thought would help me to answer the question: “Schooling Women in Citizenship”, “woman’s High Calling: The Teaching Profession in America, 1830-1860”,  “On the American Dream: Equality, Ambiguity, and the Persistence of Rage”, and “Allowed Irregularities: Women Preaches in the Early 19th-Century Maritimes”.

In the article “Schooling Women in Citizenship” by Susan Douglas Franzosa, I found a quote that read “In the schools, girls and boys learned to revere and support the laws that provided for women’s disenfranchisement and prohibition from speaking in public, owning property, holding political office, and voting”.[1]  On the other hand, in the article “Allowed Irregularities: Women Preachers in the Early 19th-Century Maritimes” by D.G. Bell it reads “This study uncovers no tradition of female preaching in Maritime Protestantism, but the findings suggest tat female preaching was not uncommon”.[2] A female preacher suggests that women were allowed to be public speakers and in front of audiences of both men and women. However, it has a religious dimension attached to it. It does not answer the question of whether a woman would be able to give a public speech on something other than religion. In addition, in the article “woman’s high calling: the teaching profession in America, 1830-1860” it says, “When the movement to improve the public schools took hold in the 1820s and ‘30s, leading reformers could point to women teachers and pupils in the female seminaries as qualified instructors for common schools”.[3]

In order to further my search, I went out on a limb and googled the presented question. Most of the times nothing but Wikipedia or other unreliable sources come up.  However, this time it presented me with an interesting source “Social Conditions Inspired Women to Speak Up – In Speaking Up Women Changed History”, which said “Women could not speak in public without fear of being hit with rotten vegetables or worse”.[4] Eventually, “A few of the young women at Oberlin, led by abolitionist and feminist Lucy Stone, organized the first debating society ever formed among college girls. At first they held their meetings secretly in the woods, with sentinels on the watch to give warming of intruders and later at the home of an old black woman at the edge of the wood”. [5] Furthermore, Phillips the author of this article comments, “Stone, who graduated from Oberlin in 1847, refused to write a commencement speech since she would not be allowed to read it. Ten years later, in 1857, Oberlin College finally allowed a woman to read her part at the public ceremony”.[6] Phillips argues that after the middle of the century women were beginning to be allowed to speak in public.

With this knowledge I went back to JSTOR and used “lucy stone”, “19th century”, “America”, and “public speaking”. I did not find many different sources. In order to find more sources I decided to use a different database, Google Scholar. I just typed in “lucy stone 19th century public speaking” and discovered a book titled Lucy Stone: Pioneer of Woman’s Rights”. I then searched within the book for “public speaking”. With these results I was able to confirm the discoveries of the article by Lois Phillips, that Lucy Stone was able to public speak as a woman and was headlining this campaign. However, it was not until after half way through the 19th century that this was possible.

[1] Susan Douglas Franzosa, “Schooling Women in Citizenship”, Theory into Practice , Vol. 27, No. 4, Civic Learning (Autumn, 1988), 278.

[2] D.G. Bell “Allowed Irregularities: Women Preachers in the Early 19th-century Maritimes”, Acadiensis , Vol. 30, No. 2 (SPRING/PRINTEMPS 2001), 4.

[3] Keith e. Melder, “woman’s high calling: the teaching profession in America, 1830-1860”, American Studies , Vol. 13, No. 2 (fall 1972), 20.

[4] Lois Phillips, ‘Social Conditions Inspired Women to Speak Up – In Speaking Up Women Changed History”, 4.

[5] Phillips, 7.

[6] Phillips, 7.

 

What I Wish to Learn in EDUC 300

Posted on Author Emily Parsons

As a history major, I am very interested in the history of the education system of America. Therefore, this class seems to fit perfectly in what I am interested. I hope to learn how the education system got to where it is now.  The main reason I want to learn this is because I want to be able to analyze potential ways to continue to reform and improve the education system. I hope to learn about the history and be able to apply it to the present and future.

In addition, I hope to learn journalistic writing and overall improve my writing skills. I am very excited about having to attend and critique a public event on educational policy. I think that it will be very interesting to view the current issues and problems that the education world is dealing with. Furthermore, I am excited to be able to relate it to the history of education reform.