Having grown up in a suburban part of the greater Boston area, I greatly valued being a student at a diverse high school. However, my town was not particularly diverse itself, but rather it participated in a program called METCO, also known as the Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity. This program allowed for minority, inner city kids to come to predominantly white, wealthy suburbs for a good public school education. This program was always important to me, as I felt fortunate to be educated along side people who were so different from me. Though I valued the program in my own education, I did not know a lot about the program as a whole outside of my friends who participated and my town, which sparked my curiosity to learn more. Specifically, I wanted to know how the experiences of the first METCO participants and those in more recent years differed.
The METCO (Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity) program seeks to address two major issues in the Massachusetts public school system by placing inner city, minority (Asian, Hispanic, and Black) students in predominately white suburban schools. The first is the “racial imbalance” that is experienced in the districts sending students. That is, the concentrated amount of minority groups in public schools. The second and less obvious issue is “racial isolation.” This issue pertains to the school receiving METCO students, where students are almost exclusively accustomed to interacting with other white students. Studies have shown the importance for students of all races to have the experience interacting with races different than their own (Cubeta, 2014.) METCO has proven these studies correct. According to research done by Harvard University in 1997, a whopping ninety-one percent of students participating in METCO reported that “they had a good or excellent experience in learning to get along with people from other backgrounds.” Eighty-two percent of students said they had “a good or excellent experience with the academic program.” Though nearly all METCO students describe good experiences, I was surprised that over 50 percent of students reported an experience of discrimination by teachers (Harvard, 1997). In addition to this, although METCO students can be sent to the receiving public school from the early age of pre-kindergarten, they still have an extremely lower average test scores than their peers in school (Cubeta, 2014).
Susan Eaton, a researcher on Civil Rights issues, wrote an in depth account of the experiences of sixty-five of the earliest METCO participants. Now adults, they reflected on their experiences both good and bad in the revolutionary program. One main issue they had with being placed in these suburban schools was their feelings when placed in either high performing or low performing classes; both caused problems. When a black student was placed in a high performing class, he or she was often the only black student in the class. They described a feeling of isolation and unworthiness. They also described feeling that “the smallest slip would land me in trouble” (Eaton, 71). The adults Eaton interviewed described a constant feeling of need to prove themselves because of a believed pre-conceived notion by their educators and white peers that black students were not as smart as their white counterparts. The METCO students also reported that they and their other African American friends were placed in low performance classes even when they were excelling students academically (Eaton, 72). Eaton identifies the three major problems with the tracking system and METCO students. One of these is the possibility that the suburban schools had higher standards than the schools the METCO students had come from. The second is that long term METCO students still underperformed in comparison to their white peers, despite having the same education. The third and most troubling issue is that black METCO students were being placed in lower performing classes because of their teachers’ and administrators prejudices (Eaton, 72).
Sources
“METCO Program.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. N.p., 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
“METCO Study Finds Broad Support from Parents/Students.” The Harvard University Gazette. N.p., 25 Sept. 1997. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
“Segregation in Neighborhoods and Schools: Impacts on Minority Children in the Boston Region.” Lewis Mumford Center Census 2000 American Newcomers Report. N.p., 1 Sept. 2003. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Dentler, Robert A. “Barriers to Northern School Desegregation.” Daedalus 95.1, The Negro American—2 (1966): 45-63. JSTOR. Web. 06 Apr. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20026966?ref=search-gateway:087cad3cdf71390e31ff194c00dac63a>.
Cubeta, Kate, Regina Caines, and Bonie Williamson. “METCO an important Program.”The Arlington Advocate. N.p., 05 Apr. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Eaton, Susan E. The Other Boston Busing Story: What’s Won and Lost across the Boundary Line. New Haven: Yale UP, 2001. Print.
Research Question: When did music education appear in elementary/secondary schools, and how advocates’ reasons for music education change over time?
Why this topic deserves to be researched:
Throughout my childhood, instrumental music was something that always took great prominence in my life and in my household. When reflecting on this, I think about the reasons for this importance and why it was so stressed in my family. After attending Trinity for the past year and a half, I realize the importance of music after witnessing those who didn’t have the opportunity to immerse themselves within the musical world as a child. Seeing others not be able to read music or simply the idea that they just don’t know how to play an instrument in the first place, was quite startling for me when attending Trinity; especially when coming from a community in a suburb right out of D.C., where a focus on musicianship and the importance of musical-mental development was so broadly understood by parents, students, and teachers alike. From this perspective and realization, I am intrigued in learning more about where musicianship, as a school course, first developed, and why it did so in the first place.
Through the research I have done thus far, I have learned that the beginning of the 20th century did hold some “music appreciation classes,” where the focus was enjoying and admiring music, but not necessarily the act of performing music the way we do today. This lackadaisical approach is something I plan on exploring further and will help lead me to the shift from this Progressive Era approach of teaching a hands-off approach of musicianship to the more current understanding of music class and the prevalence it holds in today’s educational sphere.
Research Strategy:
When addressing my research question, I plan on using the techniques my professor, Jack Dougherty, indicated during our previous conversation/meeting earlier last week. As a result, I have found searching strategies like Google Scholar, America: History and Life, JSTOR, and Trinity’s WorldCat database to further examine the rationale behind the evolution of musicianship as a class taught wide amongst contemporary affluent society. I find it more difficult, however, to use our class readings and lectures for this topic because we haven’t studied it too closely in class. This said, based on the sites I have found so far, I doubt there to be much of an issue in finding applicable, scholarly sources for my project. Nonetheless, I have set up an appointment with a research librarian at Raether Library so that a professional can accentuate my current research strategies.
Kelstrom, J. M. “The Untapped Power of Music: Its Role in the Curriculum and Its Effect on Academic Achievement.” NASSP Bulletin 82.597 (1998): 34-43. Print.
Research Question: When did drug education first become part of our schools’ curriculums and how have changes in American culture impacted these drug education programs?
Why I think this question should be researched: When people look back on America’s cultural history, they often consider the many wars America has participated in, the Great Depression, the iconic 50s housewife, Hollywood and Marilyn Monroe, the Space Race, Woodstock, McCarthyism, the internet technology boom of the ’90s, and the revolutionary work of Steve Jobs. While all of these are important events in our history, people often fail to consider another large aspect of American culture: the struggle we continue to have even to this day over illegal drugs and their abuse, commonly referred to as the “war on drugs.” These two aspects of American life are much more closely related than one would believe. I am curious to know not only how these historical events led to the mainstream drug use, but how American education became a platform for anti-drug rhetoric for the “war against drugs.” When exactly did recreational drug usage become an epidemic severe enough that educators felt the need to include such anti-drug rhetoric in their students’ required curricula? Additionally, how have these efforts changed with time as different cultural factors and drugs have emerged into the mainstream culture? Was there a noticeable shift in focus around these educational programs when the crack cocaine epidemic hit America in the mid-80s through early ’90s, etc. In researching this question, I feel that one can learn more not only about the history of American drug culture but also about the educational politics and the resulting relationship between them. This research topic is also extremely significant as the misuse of drugs is not only a problem of the past, but one that continues to haunt American youth in the present.
Research Process:
To first begin the research for this paper, I wanted to first understand the history behind America’s pattern of drug abuse so that I might be able to pinpoint certain epidemics that might have resulted in a change in the educational methods regarding drug abuse. I began with the website for the government’s Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.) which was created in 1973 and enforces controlled substance laws and regulations. There, I found useful fact sheets on different drugs that have risen and fallen in popularity throughout history such as marijuana/cannabis, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy/MDMA, heroin, and many other which have arguably risen to epidemic levels of abuse in the recent decades. Additionally, I learned from the website that the D.E.A. has a museum, whose site I also visited.
The museum’s website was also helpful for my understanding the history behind the rise of modern drug abuse.
The museum was also helpful for me to understand the rise of modern drug abuse. On the site there are also virtual exhibits, which proved useful in further understanding how small cultural changes, such as how a change in music style might influence drug use and later, drug awareness education. The museum website provides graphics, timelines, and other resources that will be helpful in fleshing out the story and link between history, drug culture, and educational practices.
Another thing I did in researching this topic was to input the phrase “drug education” into Google’s Ngram viewer, to see when people first started using this phrase regularly. The Google service suggested that the phrase wasn’t commonly used until the ’60s, and essentially peaked at around 1977. Obviously, the term “drug education” is still commonly used, but has potentially taken a hit as other terms came into fruition such as the Gates D.A.R.E. program of the 1980s.
The next thing I researched was the D.A.R.E. program itself. As I went to a parochial institution in New York, I am actually unfamiliar with this program. I first asked a friend of mine who grew up in Massachusetts about it, and then chose to Wikipedia it, for an overall summary. From the Wikipedia page alone I was able to glean interesting facts about the initiative such as the fact that it has been implemented into 75% of the nations school districts. From this page, I was able to also see potential resources related to the topic of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program that is so popular, even thirty years after its inception.
How have the experiences of METCO (Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity) students changed since the programs establishment in 1966? How has the program, then and now, both positively and negatively affected the children sent to the suburbs, as well as those living in the suburbs?
Relevance
There has been a long-standing national crisis of educational disparities among different racial groups. Research has shown that of whites and minorities in the same socioeconomic group, minorities generally live in much more impoverished neighborhoods (Logan, 2003). As a result of these racially concentrated neighborhoods and districts, minorities are often stuck with far worse educational opportunities than whites. The METCO (Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity) program seeks to address two major issues in the Massachusetts public school system by placing inner city, minority (Asian, Hispanic, and Black) students in predominately white suburban schools. The first is the “racial imbalance” that is experienced in the districts sending students. That is, the concentrated amount of minority groups in public schools. The second and less obvious issue is “racial isolation.” This issue pertains to the school receiving METCO students, where students are almost exclusively accustomed to interacting with other white students. Studies have shown the importance for students of all races to have the experience interacting with races different than their own (Cubeta, 2014.) In examining the experiences of several of my close friends in the METCO program, it seems that students have a very positive experience today. In fact, in a study conducted by Harvard University, researchers found that “91 percent of students said that they had a good or excellent experience in “learning to get along with people from other backgrounds”” and “82 percent of students surveyed reported a good or excellent experience with the academic program”(Harvard, 1997). These statistics provide extremely persuasive evidence for the positive impact METCO has on the lives of inner city children and young adults. Though they have positive experiences, the METCO students, some of them had been in the suburban schools since kindergarten, still have substantially lower test scores than their peers in school (Angrist, 2004).
I would like to explore further the more negative experiences of METCO students that are not explicit in these statistics. For example, whether or not METCO students have been marginalized based on their race in a predominantly white school, or if they were potentially discriminated against in their classes. I would also like to find out more about the experiences of METCO students in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and how potentially these experienced based on the specific town.
Research Strategy
To begin my research, I searched “education and race” in Google Scholar. However, the results were far too broad. I narrowed my search to “northern school desegregation.” After searching this phrase, I gathered a few useful articles based in the contemporary. When I was looking for articles in the years leading up to and during the start of the METCO program, I performed that same search in Google scholar, but limited my search between the years 1964 and 1972. I found a wonderful chapter called “Barriers to Northern School Desegregation” from a book on “Jstor.” This provided good insight into what scholars were saying at the time about racial inequality and ways to approach tackling it. Finally, I wanted to get a contemporary, local level article on METCO. I searched “METCO Massachusetts” into the basic Google search engine. I found an article from the local newspaper of Arlington, Massachusetts explaining all of the wonderful attributes of METCO in that specific town.
Sources
“METCO Program.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. N.p., 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
“METCO Study Finds Broad Support from Parents/Students.” The Harvard University Gazette. N.p., 25 Sept. 1997. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
“Segregation in Neighborhoods and Schools: Impacts on Minority Children in the Boston Region.” Lewis Mumford Center Census 2000 American Newcomers Report. N.p., 1 Sept. 2003. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Dentler, Robert A. “Barriers to Northern School Desegregation.” Daedalus 95.1, The Negro American—2 (1966): 45-63. JSTOR. Web. 06 Apr. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/20026966?ref=search-gateway:087cad3cdf71390e31ff194c00dac63a>.
Cubeta, Kate, Regina Caines, and Bonie Williamson. “METCO an important Program.”The Arlington Advocate. N.p., 05 Apr. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
What underlining factors cause the educational pendulum to oscillate between centralized and decentralized schooling models: specifically in New York City over time? Are we fixing old problems, or simply creating new ones?
Is centralization or decentralization ultimately a ‘bottom-up’ or ‘top-down’ decision? In other words, do politicians need to reconcile the differences between centralized and decentralized education? Or do grassroots and communal movements need to discover/create concrete solutions for political support and action?
Justification:
Among all the public, private, magnet, charter, homeschool and many other forms of education in New York, are centralized or decentralized schooling models causing, creating or closing achievement, opportunity and learning gaps to emerge, remerge or dissolve? Is early childhood education and universal educational access the answer? Or will re-centralizing public schools eventually be the remedy we’re searching for? Somehow – teachers, administrators, reformers, families and politicians will need to reach a consensus – or America’s education will continue to fall through the cracks.
Research Process:
Ever since the New York City School Decentralization Law of 1969, there has been a heated debate about the advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized schooling models, primarily between local/community School Boards and City Boards. As a result, my research will be more focused on what has been done, accomplished or implemented, and less focused on what has been said. Decentralization was a rational shift for New York school districts because of its extensive urban schooling layout. Although New York’s decentralization has produced meager results, smaller and additional community control districts could compensate for centralized schooling in New York. I will also examine different measurements among districts and between public and charter school performance in New York.
Bibliography:
Alvarado, Anthony. “Reengineering Reform: Adopting a New Approach to an Old Problem.” Centerforchildrensinitiatives.org. Ed. David Jones and Arthur Levine. Report of the New York City Council Commission on the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Oct. 2005. Web. <http://www.centerforchildrensinitiatives.org/images/cfe.pdf>.
Berger, Joseph. “Board of Education: A Thing of the Past?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Feb. 1996. Web. 07 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/18/nyregion/board-of-education-a-thing-of-the-past.html>.
Boland, Maureen. “School Types: The Difference between Public, Private, Magnet, Charter, and More.” BabyCenter.com. Baby Center, Apr. 2012. Web. <http://www.babycenter.com/0_school-types-the-difference-between-public-private-magnet-ch_67288.bc>.
Cortines, Ramon. “Asking Too Much of Decentralization.” Edweek.org. Editorial Projects in Education, 27 Sept. 1995. Web. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F1995%2F09%2F27%2F04cort.h15.html>.
Greenblatt, Jonathan. “Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation.” Whitehouse.gov. The White House, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/sicp>.
Herszenhorn, David. “New York Rethinks Its Remaking Of the Schools.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Apr. 2006. Web. 07 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/nyregion/09Klein.html?pagewanted=all>.
Hess, Alfred. “Community Participation or Control? From New York to Chicago.” Eds.b.ebscohost.com. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Theory Into Practice. Vol. 38, Issue 4, 1999. Web. <http://eds.b.ebscohost.com>
McGrail, Kenneth R. “New York City School Decentralization: The Respective Powers of the City Board of Education and the Community School Boards.” Ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj. Fordham Urban Law Journal. The Berkeley Electronic Press, 1976. Web.
McGriff, Deborah. “Decentralization: Why, How, and Toward What Ends?” Decentralization: Why, How, and Toward What Ends? North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 26 July 1995. Web. <http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/go0dcent.htm>.
Smolover, Deborah. “America Forward.” Americaforward.org. New Profit Inc. and America Forward, 2014. Web. <http://www.americaforward.org>.
Stevenson, Harold W., and James W. Stigler. “What Can We Learn from the Learning Gap?” JSTOR. Ed. Hirotoshi Yano. American Educational Research Association. Vol. 22, No. 1, Jan. 1993. Web.
Tough, Paul. Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008. Print.
For my research paper, I am going to identify the problems in the lottery process for charter schools. My question is going to be, what factors cause the lottery process to be inefficient? Which is based off of the historical causation. With my question, I am not trying to imply that the process does not work, but there are definitely factors that cause the process from not being as fair and efficient as it could be.
The lottery process deserves to be researched because it can be such a positive aspect in someones life or can somewhat ruin their life. The lottery process determines children’s futures. There is so much emphasis on the way that children are educated so in cities like Harlem, being able to choose a different education is a way to redirect your life. Through research, I will be able to learn more and more about the complications that go into this process and what could be done to make the process fair for everyone. The process is supposed to be fair for everyone but there definitely are a couple hidden secrets that are part of the process which does not make it fair for everyone.
The movie, The Lottery, is a good source for me because that is what drew my attention to this process. The Lottery really showed how much people put their life into this process and many people get shut down time after time. I just get confused how people care so much about education that put their children through the lottery that why aren’t there better schools? Why are they still hiring unqualified teachers? It is so confusing and frustrating. In The Lottery, the process of finding out if you were accepted I thought was not the best way to inform the families. Obviously this process is not embarrassing, but not be accepted next to a family friend that is accepted is clearly a horrifying feeling. Watching these families get picked and dropped was devastating and heart warming, but when someone was picked all I could do was feel bad for the families that were not picked. Some charter schools inform their students by calling the home which I think is a much better idea.
Every state and city has different rules and a process of how the process happens. In order to make a process that was fair to everyone, all of the states should collaborate to make the process fair. Through more and more research I will be able to find more flaws. Since the charter schools are independently owned, it is hard to create a general process. Students with siblings all have preference. This makes it easier for their families to only be transporting children to one schools rather than various schools throughout the city. People complain that this rule is not always fair however.
Works Cited
“Enrollment FAQ.” New York City Charter School Center. N.p., 2012. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Lawler, James, and Madeleine Sackler. “The Lottery.” Documentary. Prod. Blake Ashman-Kipervaser. Manhattan, New York, 27 Mar. 2010. Television.
How has gifted and talented (G&T) programming transformed from the implementation of the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act of 1988 to present day? What are some of the benefits and critiques of G&T programs in urban cities like NYC?
Justification:
“Gifted individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g., mathematics, music, language) and/or set of sensorimotor skills (e.g., painting, dance, sports).” (nagc.org)
According to the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), Gifted and Talented programs have existed in some form since the early 19th century (nagc.org). As explained in the definition above, gifted students are those who are considered to be exceptionally skilled in one or more academic or extracurricular areas. In 1988, the Jacob Javits Gifted and Talented Act was passed to create the NAGC and to ensure that annual research on the state of G&T education is conducted and provide monetary grants. However, the nature and scope of G &T programs have changed immensely due to 1) there is no nationwide mandate for all public schools to have special G &T programming 2)budget cuts to spending on existing G & T programs and 3)new assessment practices for giftedness. With all of this in mind, it is important to look at how G & T programming has evolved from 1988 to present day. In 1988, G &T programs were at the forefront of education reform due to the publication of the 1983 report A Nation At Risk (nagc.org). However, this no longer seems to be the case in a lot of states. What happens to the students who are gifted in schools that do not offer accelerated learning opportunities? Especially in this new movement of alternative, charter/magnet schools, how have these programs changed? I would like to know if gifted students in regular classes are negatively impacted by the decrease in programming.
Research has proven that some students benefit greatly from G &T programming. However, the assessments of G & T programs also tend to be somewhat exclusive. With my second research question, I plan on looking at how students in urban areas are reached with this program. In the past 10 years, there have been studies that have shown that these programs are neither diverse nor inclusive for students of color. It is imperative that this issue is a point of focus for this project since it shows how some programs with good intentions still help to perpetuate social stratification. I plan to look at a specific school district like NYC since G&T programs are still apart of public elementary school education.
Research Process:
I searched for articles and scholarly journals by using the Education Full Text Database. I used terms like “gifted programs” and “urban” “students of color”. Then, I used google scholar to find more books that provide G&T history and different practices. I also used the National Association for Gifted Children website since it is a reputable site that provides a lot of context,external sources, and links to several studies that have been conducted. I also looked at the NYC DOE website to see what is in place for G &T assessments. Lastly, I will be working with Katy Hart (research librarian) to find more sources through older periodicals like the NY Times to find articles on Gifted and Talented programs that was highlighted in the news. This will show how G &T has been viewed in the past and present.
Bibliography
Clark, Barbara. Growing up Gifted. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill.1988.
Frasier, Mary ,Jaime Garcia, Harry Passow. A Review of Assessment Issues in Gifted Education and their Implications for Identifying Gifted Minority Students. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. 1995.
Gootmen, Elissa and Gebelboff Robert. “Fewer Children Entering Gifted Programs”. The New York Times: 28 October 2009. Web. 4 April 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/nyregion/30gifted.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>
Jost, Kenneth.”Educating Gifted Students”. The CQ Researcher. 7(12 ).1997. Web. 4 April 2014.
Luninski, David et. al “Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-year Follow-up of the Profoundly Gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 86(4) 718-729. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718.2001. Web. 4 April 2014. <https://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/2010-11_state_of_states/State%20of%20the%20Nation%20%20%28final%29.pdf>
Mazie, Jenna. “Equality, Race and Gifted Education: An egalitarian critique of admission to New York City’s specialized high schools” Theory and Research in Education 7.1 .2009: 5-25. Web 4 April 2014.
National Association for Gifted Children. “State of the nation in gifted education: A lack of commitment to talent development: An executive summary of the 2010-2011 State of the States Report]”. National Association for Gifted Children. 2011.National Association for Gifted Children. 2008. Web. 4 April 2014. <http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=607>
NYC Department of Education. Gifted and Talented Programs. http://schools.nyc.gov/ChoicesEnrollment/GiftedandTalented/default.htm. 2014.Web. 4 April 2014.
How has the Burmese schooling experience, education system, and its goals been transformed or affected by British colonization from the 18th to 19th century?
Relevance:
Schooling in Burma has changed significantly from its initial form and goals since the colonial era. Old ideas about education derived from monastic orders merged with the new ideas brought to Burma by the British who colonized the country from the early 1800’s to mid 1900’s. To weaken the two most powerful traditional institutions in Burma, the British abolished the monarchy and separated the church—which in this case was the Theravada Buddhist order– and state by setting up secular schools to replace the monastic schools where Burmese children usually received their education. To further their own political and economic goals and mitigate the collision of values held by the Buddhist natives with values held by the ruling British people, modern values and western education was promoted in these secular schools. The goal of these schools was to produce an educated Burmese class trained to be local administrators and implement colonial projects. While there were some benefits to the education system imposed upon the Burmese, such as increased access to education for women, there were drawbacks like a loss of cultural heritage and traditional ways that was replaced by more modern, scientific teachings conducive to empire-building colonial projects.
In the early 1900s, an group called the Young Men’s Buddhist Association (YMBA) emerged and began to mobilize the public and organize a Burmese nationalist movement, education being a major focus of their struggle. The struggle for a national identity began as tensions rose between those advocating for traditional Buddhist knowledge and those advocating for modern, colonial knowledge. Under U Nu’s rule, education became both compulsory and free but there were many challenges to establishing a functioning education system as Burma transitioned to self-rule after so many decades of colonial rule.The invasion of the Japanese also further complicated this process as they tried to further impose their ideas about education on the Burmese. The national schools movement grew as a reaction to these foreign influences in Burma, led by nationalists who wanted to try to “Burmanize” schools. What remains today is a broken, neglected education system seized by the military government.
When thinking about education reform in Burma, one cannot fully understand the current form of schooling and the goals of education that exists in modern day Burma without understanding its historical origins. For this reason, I feel that it is justified for me to do research about what events and ideas have helped shaped the education system in Burma as it is today.
Sources:
To gather background information and sources, I met with a librarian who helped me search for relevant sources on the Trinity Library database. I also looked at the sources cited by these articles to find additional sources that could be of help. I used goolge scholar as well as other search sites that helped me find journals that focused on Asia, such as the Journal of Asian studies. I accessed the old English newspapers (The Times from London) to find out more about colonial education. I have also found some books in the library on the history of Burma that contains information about education and how it has changed through time. There are also some books I found using Google scholar that are about colonialism and education in Burma but I have not been able to access them and am considering purchasing or renting them.
Although I have read through the secondary sources, I have yet to thoroughly go through the primary sources from the time. I am working with a librarian this week to find more primary and secondary sources that are relevant to my research project both in the main library collection and in the Watkinson.
Cady, John F. A History of Modern Burma. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1958. Print.
Cheesman, N. (2003). School, State and Sangha in Burma. Comparative Education, 39(1), 45-63. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3099630
Chie Ikeya. Refiguring Women, Colonialism, and Modernity in Burma. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2011. Project MUSE. Web. 6 Apr. 2014. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Furnivall, J. S. Colonial Policy and Practice; a Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India. New York: New York UP, 1956. Print.
Harris, Ian Charles. “Colonial Knowledge and Buddhist Education in Burma.” Buddhism, Power and Political Order. London: Routledge, 2007. 52-70. Print.
Harvey, Godfrey E. British Rule in Burma: 1824-1942. New York: M S Pr., 1974. Print.
King, Alonzo. Memoir of George Dana Boardman: Late Missionary to Burmah, Containing Much Intelligence Relative to the Burman Mission. Boston: Lincoln, Edmands &, 1834. Print.
Lwin, Thein. “Education in Burma (1945-2000).” Thinking Classroom (2000): n. pag. Web. 4 Apr. 2014. <http://www.thinkingclassroom.org/Education%20Papers/1.%20Education%20in%20Burma%20%281945-2000%29,%202000.pdf>.
Malcolm, Howard. Travels in South-eastern Asia: Embracing Hindustan, Malaya, Siam and China; with Notices of Numerous Missionary Stations, and a Full Account of the Burman Empire. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n.d. Print.
Whitehead, Clive. “Education in British Colonial Dependencies, 1919‐39: A Re‐appraisal.”Comparative Education 17.1 (1981): 71-80. Print.
Upon my arrival to Trinity College I learned something interesting when sharing our birthdays and ages at orientation; something that I hadn’t given much thought to until now. I am one of my youngest friends here and I am born in April, the fourth month of the year! It really surprised me to learn that students are in the same class but almost a full year or two older than me. Different states have different cut offs so I assumed that it was as simple as that, but then I learned of the redshirting phenomenon. Redshirting refers to the practice of postponing entering school with the intent that your child will have an advantage. Redshirting has created yet another inequality in the United Stated public education system. With that said, my interest is in researching: Is it immoral for parents to give their child the advantage of redshirting? And furthermore, are they cheating the system in doing so? What impact does redshirting have on the success of children’s lives in and outside of the classroom? And what inequalities have the practice of redshirting created?
Redshirting comes from the practice used by college athletic teams, a technique where an athlete sits out for a season. Redshirting is important because studies have shown that parents that are redshirting their children are more affluent. Not all students are able to get this advantage because there are parents who must put their children in school as soon as possible in order to defecate childcare costs (Schmidt). This ties in to another inequality in schooling that is a popular phenomenon called cultural capital. Cultural capital is when a student comes from an affluent family and are culturally exposed and educated before they even enter school. The students who are commonly redshirted are affluent and have already had many cultural and educational experiences before entering school and on top of that, redshirting gives them the opportunity for an additional year for culturally educating. Not only does this give the children a year for more cultural experiences, but also another year for their brain to develop. Studies have shown that there is a substantial difference in a child’s brain from year five to year six; a difference much greater than the difference between a twenty and twenty-one year olds (Konnikova). There is also a substantial amount of data on the social advantage redshirted students are getting. Research has shown that the older students in the class are typically the ones who take leadership positions and they also have an advantage in sports, because redshirted students are typically bigger because of that extra year of growth.
However, parents aren’t the only ones who are taking advantage of the system, the schools are as well. Schools aren’t necessarily opposed to redshirting because it is also beneficial to them, holding back kids at entry may order up the schools standardize testing scores (Safer). The working class parents who cannot financially keep their children back and the typically more affluent children are the ones redshirted they are more developed. Research has shown that the poorer students repeat grades three times more than more affluent children (Hansen- Bundy). The achievement gap tends to be a popular topic when it comes to the U.S education system. The achievement gap is high and some studies have shown that redshirting has contributed to this gap(Hansen-Bundy).
I started my research watching an intriguing 60 minutes on CBS by reporter Morley Safer. This informative 60 minutes started to get me thinking about the short and long term affects that redshirting has on a student, and also the disparity that it has created in the U.S education system – causing problems in both private and public systems. I read different blog posts and continued to further my research finding something that I originally hadn’t thought twice about was such a popular phenomenon with a lot of scrutiny around it. I also found several book reviews and books that have substantial data showing the ramifications that redshirting is having on the lives of the individual student that was redshirted as well as the effects that it has on the students classmates. I always assumed the purpose of holding a child back was so that they are not the youngest in their grade, but my research has proven that this phenomenon has a much larger effect on the student, his/her peers, and the education system as a whole.
How has the U.S. education system adapted to accommodate the needs of foreign speaking students since the beginning of the 20th century and in what ways is it still being transformed today?
Why this topic deserves to be researched:
Attending a private institution, like Trinity College, has led me to a profound awakening, especially in regards to the importance of racial diversity. The racial diversity at Trinity (or lack thereof) is something I find to dominate the entire tone and nature of a college. It was only after attending Trinity that I realized how drastically the racial composition of one’s surroundings can influence a person’s perceptions and levels of acceptance. Growing up in a very multi-ethnic and racially diverse area right outside Washington D.C., I am used to a high level of sensitivity towards the words and actions used when discussing or interacting with a different race or socio-economic class. It was only after attending Trinity that I realized that this sensitivity wasn’t as wide-spread as I once thought. Instead, there seems to be an entirely different language to the school, a language that, as derogative as it is, is accepted here as being standard. During my first few months at Trinity last year, I remember how taken aback I was when listening to the causal racial references and slang thrown out during every-day conversation around campus. Even more shocking to me, was that I was the only person asking people to stop making these comments, and when I would bring up the importance of respecting and appreciating another students ethnic and racial background, no one ever seemed to catch on and almost seemed to be a foreign concept. This was so appalling to me that it led me to write my freshman-year-seminar final paper surrounding the racial climate on Trinity’s campus. Now, a year and a half later as a sophomore, I find it even more difficult not to avoid using the phrases my peers use, and I almost find myself succumbing to Trinity’s racial language. It worries me to think that I am loosing the racial awareness that was once so expected. In a grander context, it interests me to see that the level of one’s academic intelligence doesn’t always mirror one’s social and cultural understandings, something I hope to explore further in my paper. Furthermore, I believe that the language one uses reflects their levels of acceptance as well, something demonstrated by the levels of acceptance I see here versus the greater levels of acceptance I witness during interactions in my home town. When choosing a paper topic and considering this background, I wanted to pick something that concerned racial and ethnic relations but also something that examined an area of study I haven’t exposed myself to in previous classes or in previous papers. This is why I decided I wanted to center my focus around a foreign students understanding of the U.S. education system, as I see it as a topic that could also expose the priorital assistance we give some ethnic groups and not others, as we see fit. I believe this could also shed light on the reasons why we see greater trends of acceptance in public school settings than we generally do in private school settings.
Research Strategy:
When addressing my research question, I plan on using google scholar and online studies to examine international relations within the public school system, a tool that has already worked well for me when beginning to conduct my research. I find it difficult to use our class readings and lectures for this topic because we haven’t studied it too closely in class.
I think it would be helpful to incorporate a good deal of case studies regarding ethnic integration in private high schools in comparison to that of public high schools, and would add greater credibility and tangibility to my research question. I also plan to meet with a research librarian to help me conduct my research, especially since I currently don’t have much experience working with the tools and techniques offered by the library. Through further research, I hope to narrow down my research question so that it focuses more directly on the policies in place now in comparison to those of past decades. I also think it would be interesting to explore the success of the immersion programs in place, as they can be indicators of the quality of education provided in foreign speaking students classrooms as opposed to the quality of education American students experience at the same school.
Bibliography:
Ruiz-de-Velasco, Jorge, and Michael Fix. Overlooked & Underserved: Immigrant Students in U.S. Secondary Schools. Publication. Web. <http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449275.pdf>.
Howard, Elizabeth R., Julie Sugarman, and Donna Christian. Trends in Two-Way Immersion Education: A Review of the Research. Publication., Aug. 2003. Web. <http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report63.pdf>.
The Editorial Board. “Why Other Countries Teach Better.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2013. Web. 06 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/opinion/why-students-do-better-overseas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.
Wilde, Marian. “Global Grade: How Do U.S. Students Compare?” GreatSchools. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. <http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/1075-u-s-students-compare.gs>.
Research Question: What are the positive and negative affects of attending a private vs. public school in regards to the college process? Does one have an advantage over the other? And what changes over time have made this question so prevalent in todays society? Relevance: The debate between public and private education is one that is widely discussed in America. People often question if children will receive a better education if enrolled in private school but what defines “better education” or better school for a child. This debate often is associated with college admissions and the discussion of whether one type of school has advantages over the other. As a student who has attended both private and public schools I am interested in researching this question. I often wonder if college admissions do in fact prefer one school to the other.The comparison of private vs. public school is a newly established issue that I believe society has brought upon itself, I look forward to researching the social changes that have occurred that have influenced this new mentality of one type of school being better then the other.
Research Strategy: The question of whether private or public school has advantages over the other is something I have been interested since I first entered Trinity. Within my friend group a large majority of the people attended private schools, which happen to mostly be boarding schools. I want to research college admission websites and offices (I plan on going into the admissions office at trinity and speaking with someone). Thus far I have been on a few websites and read articles based on this topic and have found that many parents are concerned with where to place there children for high school. One major issue I want to research is people with lower socioeconomic status and there placements within public and private schools. These people are likely t have fewer options and may not have the means to provide there children with a private education which is unfair. A great method for my research will also be to look at college acceptances based on high schools. I have looked on both a public and a private school website and saw a list of schools their graduates have gone to. I want to compare the acceptances of the two. I want to understand how colleges look at private schools vs. public schools and eventually argue the somewhat unjust advantage of private school students that so many people feel is apparent.
Sources:
“Guidance Office: Answers From Harvard’s Dean, Last of 5 Parts.” The Choice Guidance Office Answers From Harvard’s Dean Last of 5 Parts Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2014.
Research Question: Next year will be the 45th year since the admission of the first undergraduate women to both Trinity College and Yale University. How did these to institutions experience co-education different in terms of the factors that led to the admission of women, the experiences of the first women to attend these institutions, and long-term effects of co-education?
Relevance: The late 1960’s were a tumultuous period on college campuses across the country. Controversy surrounding the presidency of Richard Nixon, the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War, and the Civil Rights movement was leading to activism and protests on an almost constant basis on college campuses.
“All the world over, so easy to see, people everywhere just want to be free.” The 1968 academic year at Trinity and Yale began with the Rascals topping the Billboard charts, and students were taking their words to heart, protesting against Vietnam, in favor of Civil Rights, and for the right of women to attend their institutions. Many NESCAC schools were in the midst of co-education movements in the late 60’s, and much of the Trinity community, including 76% percent of the student body (according to a Tripod poll), many members of the faculty, and the Dean of Faculty, Robert Fuller, were in favor of beginning to admit women. They provided a wide range of reasoning, from social equity to improved academic discourse to the College’s financial health. 1968 found Yale as one of the final Ivy League schools that hadn’t either adopted co-education or named a sister school, and student pressure was beginning to escalate rapidly. Even when Yale did first admit undergraduate women, it did so at a rate of 1 woman to every 7 men, and the fight for true co-education went on for another several years until Yale adopted a progressive “sex-blind” admissions policy.
Research Strategy: I plan of answering questions motives for co-education, the process of co-education, and the long-term effects at Trinity and Yale.
To begin, I plan on using databases to find academic writing on the pros and cons of co-education from both the 1960’s and today, and am interested in seeing what has changed in the discourse of co-education during this time.
Next, I plan on using primary sources from both institutions regarding the era leading up to and immediately following the admission of women. At Trinity, this will include issues of the Tripod, the Fuller Memo, the Lockwood interviews, and other sources available at the Watkinson. From Yale, this will include the Sarrell Papers, the Records of Office on the Education of Women, and other documents. This week I will contact a friend of mine who is an American History major at Yale for more information on how to make best use of the Yale archives, and probably will make a visit to the Yale library once I have made adequate plans to do so.
Finally, I will find interviews with some of the earliest women at Trinity and Yale, including the anniversary documents prepared for Trinity that are available at the Watkinson, and similar documents at Yale. I will then compare these with the modern experience of women at these colleges, which I hope to gather through personal interviews and with the help of Professor Hendrick in the Women, Gender, and Sexuality Department. I also plan on drawing from the findings of prior Ed. Reform students who have written on co-education, including 2013 graduate Devon MacGillivray
Sources:
“A Survey of Co-education in the Ivies.” The Harvard Crimson [Cambridge, MA] 4 Oct. 1974
Philip M. and Lorna Sarrel papers, 1966-2007 (inclusive), 1966-1980
Barreca, Gina. Babes in Boyland. N.p.: Lebanon, 2005. Print.
Miller, Beth K. The Evoluation of Coeducation at Trinity College, 1969-1983. Hartford: Trinity College, 2003. Print.
Trinity College Sit-in Watkinson Library Document Compilation
Dean of Faculty Robert Fuller, Memo to President Lockwood, “The Admission of Women Undergraduates to Trinity College,” 30 September 1968
Research Question: What historical events and trends prompted the creation of Montessori schools and how are the practices of Maria Montessori used today?
Relevance: Founded by Maria Montessori, the Montessori method is aimed at teaching students independence at an early age. This teaching method gives students the ability to go freely through their classroom for certain blocks of time where they are uninterrupted and given the opportunity to correct themselves if they find they are stuck. I am very interested in researching the emergence of the Montessori method because it differs greatly from traditional public school teaching methods. The Montessori method also puts an emphasis learning throughout one’s life not just when children enter first grade; learning goes deeper, in this teaching method, than books and tests. From my experience observing a Montessori classroom children navigate through their designated spaces with a purpose and with a sense of understand of what is going on in their given space, in other words if a student is in a “cooking” station that student is well aware that he/she will be cooking, and students proceed to prepare snacks for themselves. Within the Montessori method the term “teacher” does not exist, instead guides are part of the classroom, there to assist students if they seem really stuck and unable to complete a task. In Montessori schools students are viewed as distinctive individuals, carrying their own unique traits and characteristics, I believe this view is missing in traditional public schools, and Maria Montessori made it a point to give her students the power of uniqueness and independence, and I believe that this topic is worth studying because it will help make more clear distinctions between the Montessori method and traditional public school teaching methods.
Research Strategy: To begin my search I went on Google Scholar, which proved to be very helpful as I found two of my sources on Google Scholar. I typed in “Maria Montessori” and “Montessori Method” to start my search and found that some helpful articles came up in my search. I was also led to Wikipedia while searching for information on the Montessori method and found that Wikipedia was helpful in leading me to one of my sources. I also used the Ed 300 “search strategies” and reached the “Education Full Text” search engine that helped me find most of my sources. I simply typed in “Maria Montessori” and “History” and found articles linked to “100 years of Montessori”, this article will be helpful in my research as I am looking at the Montessori method and its changing characteristics over time.
Sources:
American Montessori Society. “Introduction to Montessori.” N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Apr 2014. <http://amshq.org/Montessori-Education/Introduction-to-Montessori.asp&xgt;.
Bagby, Janet1, and Tracey N.2 Sulak. “Connecting Leadership Development To Montessori Practice.” Montessori Life 25.1 (2013): 6-7. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
Boulmier, Prairie, prairieonz@yahoo.com. “Looking At How Children Succeed, Through A Montessori Lens.” Montessori Life 26.1 (2014): 42-46. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
Grazzini, Camillo. “The four planes of development.” NAMTA JOURNAL 29.1 (2004): 27-62.
Lillard, Paula P. Montessori Today. New York: Shocken Books Inc., 1996. Print.
Rathunde, Kevin. “Montessori education and optimal experience: A framework for new research.” NAMTA JOURNAL 26.1 (2001): 11-44.
Shortridge, P. Donohue. “Maria Montessori And Educational Forces In America.” Montessori Life 19.1 (2007): 34-47. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
How has distribution requirements changed over time at Trinity College ? When and how did Trinity College shift from highly unified to a more individualized curriculum? What factors did contribute to the changes?
Relevance:
Distribution requirements are what schools require all students to fulfill. It means that they are something that schools want all students to learn and experience while they are attending colleges. Because they indicate schools’ mission and value, each school has different general requirements. Even in liberal arts colleges, each has unique general requirements and emphasize different discipline.
For this research, I am planning to study how Trinity has shaped current distribution requirements (Arts, Humanities, Natural Sciences, Numerical & Symbolic Reasoning, Social Sciences, Quantitative Literacy, Writing Proficiency, Global Engagement, First Year Seminar, Writing Emphasis Part1, Part2, Second Language Requirements). As I found through the College Bulletins from 1800s, Trinity used to not have general requirements, and, rather, each class has the same schedule to follow and there was no registration for courses. As fields were specialized, schools let students to choose either Bachelor’s of Arts or Science, further to groups, and majors like what we have now.
In general, majors and general requirements have been more specific and narrowed since this college was established, and students got more choices to choose what to learn than students in 1800s. We take our general requirements granted, and students are just busy to fulfill these requirements. However, knowing the history of general requirements will enable students to understand better about where they are and what goals they have to pursue at Trinity College.
Research Strategy
I will mainly search the College Bulletin from the first to current one by ten years to compare differences and find how they changed. There are two books that I have Helen Lefkowitz’s Campus Life and Peter Knapp’s Trinity College in the Twentieth Century. These two books will help me to understand what has happened on campus from both students’s perspective and school administrators’ perspective. Depending on needs, I will search some sources the JSTOR and the New York Times, but I will mainly focus on the College Bulletins and those two books.
/// previous one
Relevance:
As a student at Trinity College, a prestigious liberal arts college, I realize that I should know what a liberal arts college is and what kinds of goals I want to pursue here. Personally, before coming to America, I did not know what a liberal arts college was. The fact that they have relatively small size classes and provide more interaction with professors was all that I knew, and it was good enough to bring me to Trinity. However, as I have spent my first semester at Trinity as a transfer student, I could see the uniqueness of liberal arts colleges besides the small size. Because I spent three semesters in a community college, where classes were mainly lecture-based, I could clearly see differences between liberal arts colleges and regular colleges. These differences interest me in exploring more about liberal arts college.
In the media, liberal arts colleges have been introduced as an alternative of higher education or colleges that produce individuals exactly who employers are looking for. Instead of focusing on vocationism and specialization, liberal arts colleges aim at strengthening students’ critical thinking skills and exposing students to a broad range of knowledge while allowing them to study one field in depth. However, as our society has developed, there are many changes that liberal arts colleges have gone through. As more schools take liberal arts education as their main pedagogies, the concept of liberal arts colleges seem to be watered down as institutions where students can guarantee their jobs simply by attending these schools. Some liberal arts colleges confront financial difficulties in keeping traditional liberal arts education because students and the job market want schools to teach specific skills or knowledge students can use when they are employed. Meanwhile, many have questioned how technologies in liberal arts education should be in responses to demand of employers.
By tracing back the history of liberal arts colleges, we can understand what has been transformed and what has been preserved as well as how uniquely this education has affected students’ lives. It will help us to know what values liberal arts colleges should pursue today. In addition, I want to observe Trinity College based on the research results and see in what ways Trinity College provides a liberal arts education.
Research Strategies:
My research will be mostly based on online sources. Using ERIC and JSTOR, I found some interesting sources. The American Council of Learn Societies’ book Liberal Arts Colleges in American Higher Education, provides overall views about the liberal arts colleges’ past, present, and future in depth and in length. Charles Blaich’s Defining Liberal Arts Education tries to define liberal arts education in various perspectives and relates the definitions to empirical applications. Among the papers I found in ERIC, some are data-based research articles, which can be useful evidence to see how well liberal arts colleges have performed. Also, I will look for how American colleges in general appreciate liberal arts colleges through the website of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and through the New York Times. As many educators have discussed the liberal arts education, there are many articles and columns related to this topic. Also, in order to compare these research results to Trinity College, I will use Trinity College’s handbook and website.
While exploring the webs about liberal arts education, I found a case from the University of Chicago on how it changed its curriculum focusing on liberal arts education, led by a former president, Robert Hutchinson in the 1940s. He changed general requirements and required all students to read and discuss Classics and Greek literatures. Despite a strong opposition at that point, the University of Chicago is now well known for building students’ strong foundation for success. Related to my topic, I will find more information about Mr. Hutchinson and the University of Chicago. In this case, I am planning to use WayBack Machine to see how its curriculum and general requirements have changed over time.
Source:
Blaich, Charles, Anne Bost, Ed Chan, and Richard Lynch. “Defining Liberal Arts Education.” Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts, 2004.
Eckles, James E. “Evaluating the Efficiency of Top Liberal Arts Colleges.” Research in Higher Education 51.3 (2010): 266–293. CrossRef. Web. 4 Apr. 2014. “Https://www.aacu.org/leap/what_is_liberal_education.cfm.” n. pag. Print.
Societies, American Council of Learned. Liberal Arts Colleges in American Higher Education: Challenges and Opportunities. American Council of Learned Societies, 2005. Print. 59.
Zernike, Kate. “Making College ‘Relevant.’” The New York Times 3 Jan. 2010. NYTimes.com. Web. 4 Apr. 2014.
How have educators over time explored the importance and success of first generation students in the United States, and how has this had an impact on their achievement compared to students who are also multilingual but have not grown up under these favorable conditions?
Relevance:
Recent evidence shows that first generation students have a significant advantage in achievement because their parents transmit values of motivation which lead them to perform better academically. At the same time, many first generation students, particularly in poor, urban areas may be disadvantaged simply because of their family background brings forth many setbacks in academia.
I first became interested in this topic early in the semester when learning in Education Reform: Past & Present how prominent one’s home life is in deciding one’s success. I grew up in a small town in Connecticut, raised by two Italian parents who immigrated to the United States 26 years ago. I began speaking Italian when I was born, and still hear stories today about how I walked into Pre-K and spent the first week trying to engage in conversation in Italian with other children, all the while receiving many blank stares. I think for a long time there has been a stigma associated with first generation students, or immigrant students in general – one that elicits they will be at a disadvantage because they may have to work twice as hard to do as well as a U.S.-born student. However, while my parents were never able to teach me proper English as they have never taken an English class, I lived each day knowing that the sacrifices they made to stay in the U.S. were for my sister and me. I was taught to put everything into what I did and to be strong in the face of defeat. I learned these values- bravery, courage, a strong work ethic – because I watched my parents exemplify them before my eyes as I watched them lived in a country they still, at times, find to be foreign. These principles transcended into my life in academia – I learned to put 100% into all I do, and thus, while never having the kind of parents who knew about the college process, understood the United States schooling system, or were able to help me with my schoolwork, I did well because I knew that I was being supported by them in other ways, because they had taught me through their actions how striving for greatness can pay off.
I believe this situation is not only limited to my own experience, but also showcased in the experiences of many other first generation students who have been exposed and surrounded by a different culture, way of life, and a myriad of motivation from the sacrifices and efforts of their parents. These social factors that are embedded in the home of most of these first generation students truly can drive them to work harder in school and ultimately succeed more than U.S.-born students because they have that additional weight on their shoulders. Dr. Hao, who was interviewed for an article in NBCLatino which studied this phenomenon, stated: “Immigrants who come to the U.S. are self-selective; they overcome difficulties to create a better life, and foreign-born immigrant parents transmit this motivation, values and expectations to their children,” she explains. Children absorb these expectations and their actions demonstrate a ‘mom and dad made all this sacrifice for me, I better do okay’ type of behavior” (Lilley 1). This subject, commonly referred to as the “immigrant paradox”, should be studied further because over a quarter of U.S. students are first generation Americans, and they account for some of the most successful of students who have left academia and gone into the workforce to become leaders in the world. Their contributions to the U.S. labor force help to boost the economy and ultimately benefit the nation as a whole.
This being said, it would be a mistake to assume that all first generation students succeed more in education than their American peers. There are many who, because of their family background or their location, success is not in the cards. This exemplifies the other side of the story, one where students may experience setbacks because they were not brought up in an environment that was conducive to the American way. Over time, programs have been put in place to branch out to these students to assist them in school.
Research Strategy:
Once I had examined my own experience with the theory I’m looking to test, I did a simple Google search to see what I could find. The first article I read was published by NBC Latino which performed the first study to prove that first generation immigrants normally do better than U.S.-born children. I then researched a number of journals and reports that furthered and broadened my subject matter. I came across studies that explained the correlation between success and first generation youth that delved into the complexities of family life.
My plan in continuing to research this topic is to find articles and reports that rebut the notion that first generation students tend to succeed by expressing the ways that some of these success stories are not typically found in urban areas where poverty is great and success is rare as well as to observe the way educations have looked at first generation students. I will research for reports that express the way first generation students have been treated in schools over time and the ways in which the assimilation of culture affects not only the first generation student, but the rest of the classroom itself.
I will look back into Paul Tough’s Whatever it Takes and use some of his examples of addressing how the home truly is the number one factor in deciding one’s success in education and life. Ultimately, I would like to look at how over time these two competing points have transformed to show how the multilingualism of a person, their experiences, and immigrant parents have a significant affect, both good and bad, on students.
Bibliography:
Christensen, Gayle, and Petra Stanat. Language, Policies and Practices for Helping Immigrants and Second-generation Students Succeed. Rep. N.p.: NALDIC, 2007. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
This report will strengthen the second theory I am looking at – one that sees the negatives that evolve in education in the lives of first generation students. It gives a great historical analysis to express the challenges first generation students face.
2.Kao, Grace, and Marta Tienda. “Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of Immigrant Youth.” (1995): n. pag. University of Pennslyvania SelectedWorks. Web. 3 Apr. 2014.
This article took my research one step further by explaining in depth what the NCBLatino article tested. It gives a lot of detail by articulating the differences between immigrant families and American families. It also explains the reasoning behind how first generation youth succeed over some of their other peers.
3. Lilley, Sandra. “Study: First Generation Immigrant Children Do Better in School than US-born kids.” NBC Latino. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.
This short article and study initially sparked my interest in studying this topic further. It gives statistics on the number of first generation immigrants in the U.S. and discussing the study that was done to prove how the “immigrant mentality” has helped to further the lives of first generation students in education.
4. Tough, Paul.Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, Co. Print.
I will use Tough’s book to bring out the theories that prove how significant home life is in deciding one’s achievement in education.
Question: How has the promotion of Magnet Schools in Hartford changed over time and does this affect whether enrollment of students from suburbs increases or decreases?
Why does this need to be researched? Before coming to Trinity College, I had never even heard of “Magnet Schools.” However, after living in Hartford for a year and a half, Magnet Schools have become a topic of weekly discussion in a variety of my classes. It is clear that they are a relatively new aspect to the educational system, and all of the hype about these schools make them seem revolutionary. I would like to know if this hype actually translates into the enrollment rates into these schools. Its is particularly important to focus on whether or not magnet schools are attracting more or less students from the suburbs over time. This is because one of the claims that magnet school supporters make is that desegregating schools benefits students’ education. Magnet School are supposed to be a tool for desegregation. Part of desegregation requires enrollment of suburban, often white upper-middle class, students to be attracted to magnet schools in the city. There is a trend of students wanting to leave the urban schools, and enroll in schools outside city. However, this is rarely reversed, it is not as common for suburban students to be drawn to urban schools. I am interested in finding out if the promotion of magnet schools has changed over time, and whether or not this promotion attracts more or less students from suburbs. How “magnetic” are these schools really, and does this follow the trend of increased or decreased promotion of the schools. It is easy to be blinded by the glaring promotion of Magnet Schools, therefore it is important to look at the facts surrounding them. Has the promotion of magnet schools changed over time, and does this translate into increased or decreased enrollment of students, particularly from suburbs? This is important to research because it offers a viewpoint on whether or not magnet schools are fulfilling their goal of desegregation.
Research Process:
The process of research is always a daunting task for me, so to begin I am going to search online databases such as Trinity College Library’s, ERIC, and GoogleScholar. I also am planning on scheduling time with a Trinity Librarian so they can assist me in finding the best and most relevant sources. I am beginning my search by looking for articles that provide an overview of what Magnet Schools are, when they began, distinctive characteristics about them, and the goals of the schools. I think this type of information will provide a good introduction to my paper. I also need to research supporters of Magnet Schools and find more information on why Magnet Schools are seen as a desegregation tool. I know that I cannot rely on just scholarly articles for this type of paper, I need to focus a lot on data. I will be using the Magnet School Racial Survey By Town of Residence conducted by the Public School Information System for the school years from 2005-2008 to see if magnet school enrollment has changed or remained the same. I will also find the most recent collection of this data. I will be looking at magnet school promotional pamphlets generously provided by Jack to see how different magnet schools were advertised in January 2007. I will compare this to magnet school websites that exist today, such as those on the CSDE website and take note on how their strategies have changed or remained the same. I will finally analyze my findings and see is there is a relationship between changes in promotional techniques and enrollment.
Sources:
Arcia, E. (2006). Comparison of the enrollment percentages of magnet and non-magnet schools in a large urban school district. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(33), 1-16. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ806067.pdf
Connecticut state department of education. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2681&q=320450
Rossell, C. H. (1979). Magnet schools as a desegregation tool. Urban Education, 302-320. Retrieved from http://uex.sagepub.com/content/14/3/303.full.pdf html
State of Connecticut Department of Education. (2005).Magnet school racial survey by town of residence . (also 2006, 2007, 2008)
assorted promotional pamphlets from Jan 2007 Magnet schools
Next Step: I am also interested in looking into whether or not the promotion or “hype” about magnet schools actually matches up with the results these schools produce. To make this fit the “change and continuity over time” aspect of this paper, I could research school level (or students level) data of test scores or another type of evaluation over the past few years. I would then analyze this data and from it decide if there seems to be trends in increasing or decreasing performance in magnet schools. I am hoping to possibly incorporate this into my paper. I also need to request recent data on student enrollment in magnet schools.
Question: How has the education of Autistic children in the public school system evolved over time in relation to the education of children with other learning disabilities?
Relevance: Autism is a prominent issue in today’s world because the amount of children being diagnosed is constantly increasing. Rather than find cures, another option is to educate them to the best ability. The school system structure is constantly being critiqued and new ideas are always being discussed as we learn in our class. However, we tend to study the broad reforms throughout history. There were not always classifications of children with disabilities. In the past they all fell under the category of “mental retardation”. I feel it would be interesting to research how the school practices dealt with these children throughout points in history.
Research Strategy: When beginning research for this project I was not exactly sure where to begin, but I knew I wanted a variety of sources. In class I really liked the way back machine and I am going to pick a specific region (West Hartford Public School District) and look at the school website. As well, I am going to find old IEP’s (individualized education programs). This term was not created until 1975 in the National Handicap law but it was modified before hand. As well, I will do extensive research in the area of scream rooms, isolation, and discipline tactics used for children with disabilities. Another aspect I will look for on school websites will be the classification process of identifying children with a learning disability. I want to compare it to all the documents that I have found from today. I also want to compare aspects such as due process and parental involvement throughout history. In order to do this I will try to find average working hours of parents.
Sources:
A Parent’s Guide to Special Education in Connecticut
HARTFORD, CT– On Friday morning March 7, 2014, the Appropriations Committee of the Connecticut General Assemble held a public hearing to discuss the potential amendments and concerns for Bill S.B. No. 340, a relatively recent Act raised concerning the further implementation and expansion of two-generational school readiness plans throughout the state of Connecticut. The Bill proposes an active plan to promote “long-term learning and economic success for low income families by addressing intergenerational barriers to school readiness and workforce readiness,” which would hopefully lead to the closing of the gap between the rich and poor in terms of income and education within the state.
First to present was Commissioner Sharon Palmer, from the Connecticut Department of Labor. While she agreed with and was pleased by the general concepts of the Bill, Palmer cited a need for further investment in job training, adult education, subsidized employment, transportation, and childcare. According to statistics collected by her department, 63% saw lack of childcare as a “significant barrier” for employment and 67% cited transportation difficulties limiting their employability. These statistics, which surprised Appropriations Committee Co-Chair Beth Bye with their severity are cited by Palmer as being the two largest factors preventing disadvantaged Connecticut residents from holding a steady job.
Second to present was Commissioner Bremby, from the Department of Social Services. Like Palmer, Bremby too cited a lack of access to affordable childcare for working parents or parents seeking adult education as a primary barrier in equalizing the gap between income and education level in Connecticut. Bremby also called for better coordination between the different providers of care and services. Too often, he claimed, individuals are forced to leave their adult education classes in order to meet with their social worker, which has a detrimental effect on their education, and, if this happens often enough, their ability to advance both in their education and in their level of employability.
Next to take the podium was Theresa Younger. As a representative from the Commission on the Status of Women, her approach to Bill S.B. No. 340 was more focused on gender parity rather than solely on education and economic improvements, though these issues were still relevant to her department. According to Younger, this two-pronged approach to educational and economic reform set forth in the Act proposed would help to bring families out of poverty, rather than just the parents or children. To Younger, further investment in adult education and quality childcare are insurmountably important to increasing the number of parents who can in fact work on a regular basis or go to school to further their employment opportunities so that they might stand a change to earn a somewhat sustainable income. The focus and additional funding on and for quality childcare would also help prepare the next generation, the children, for school.
Next to speak was Myra Jones Taylor, from the relatively new Office of Early Childhood. Taylor, in her testimony, highlighted a potential model already in place called the Even Start program, which operated using the two-generational approach proposed in Bill S.B. No. 340 to successful outcomes. According to the organization’s statistics, 35% or fewer had not made it past high school, 56% had had some high school, 86% were either at or below the state’s poverty level. The 40% of the children of these individuals were infants, and 52% were between the ages of three and six. Taylor notes that, after participating in the Even Start program, 48% had completed high school, and 82% of the students in the program were meeting grade proficiency standards. Despite these marked improvements, federal funding for the program was cut, and Taylor’s testimony suggested that the new Bill put forth highlight the Even Start program, and perhaps increase funding for it and programs like it to expand throughout Connecticut.
Last to speak on the proposed bill was Elaine Zimmerman, from the Connecticut Commission on Children. It was her belief that a two-pronged approach would be particularly beneficial to the children as “adults are more involved in their child’s learning if they are learning too.” This is to say that, by opening up opportunities for adult education and employment, one could also foster a sense of increased involvement from the parents in their children’s schooling. In order for this to work, however, Zimmerman stressed that educators teaching adults had to be better trained for addressing the needs of young adults, who were easily discouraged from furthering their education. By assuring their involvement in their education, Zimmerman argued, their children would also benefit. In her testimony, Zimmerman noted the reality that the state does not have unlimited funds, and rather highlighted the idea that funds be re-appropriated from less impactful uses to her proposed addition to the Bill.
As Co-Chairs Walker and Bye heard these different opinions on the Bill, it became more and more evident how necessary such a refocusing of government funds was needed in order to aid the struggling families of Connecticut. Only time can tell if the propositions made by the speakers will be adopted in the final passage of the Bill, which is suspected to in the relatively near future.
Appropriations Committee Public Hearing, LOB 2C. March 7, 2014. Photograph courtesy of Alexandra Clark.
The Hartford Board of Education held a conference at the Asian Studies Academy at Bellizzi School on Tuesday evening. During this workshop session, the board and the researchers were discussing the Adult Education Feasibility Study. The researchers presented the information that they had found during the study about the adult education concerns. The board and the researchers collaborated their knowledge and collectively came together with information and questions. The audience consisted of a few adults that seemed to be writing on the workshop, as well as some adults who seemed to be potential adult education students.
This session started with some background on the study and on adult education in general. The study was approved to start in September of 2013 and ended in December of 2013. The purpose of the study was to gather information that would improve the lives and needs of the adults that are residing in Hartford. The consultants had discussions with many different types of people. They consulted with adult education students in both the day and evening programs. They also talked to the faculty and staff of the adult education program. In addition, they discussed with stakeholders, such as community agencies, city and state officials, higher education experts, funders, and other selected stakeholders. This information collected in this study was obtained through documents, interviews, and identification of resources.
The Hartford adult education program mandates that adult education services is free of charge to any person that is older than 16 and not enrolled in the public school. The program operates four state mandated adult education programs: 1. Elementary School Completion, 2. Secondary School Completion, 3. United States Citizenship, 4. English as a Second Language. The researchers stressed that 30.2% of the adult population in Hartford does not have a high school diploma, while 15.2% of the adult population does not even speak English. This statistic was shocking and means that the Hartford community is in need of resources to better educate the adults. The funding is crucial as well. These statistics are from over the past seven years (2005-2012). They explained that the statewide adult education budget in Connecticut is $20 million, which funds $2,295 per student in Hartford. This is not enough to educate the amount of adults that are in need of a proper education in this district.
Obtaining productive employment by successful Hartford Adult Education students is a critical outcome objective for these researchers. 55% of the adult education students are unemployed at the time of their entry into the program. 72% of the adult students say that obtaining or maintaining employment is the reason why they are enrolled into the program. Middle skilled jobs require more than a high school diploma, but less than a traditional four-year college degree. The salaries for these jobs average between $30,000- $60,000.
Business leaders explained that they expected there would be entry-level jobs that could eventually lead to middle-skilled employment opportunities. Employers also expressed that a GED does not prepare people enough for actual job readiness. Employers are really looking for people that are prepared for the work they will be confronted with, which the adult education program can help achieve. The gap needs to be closed between the classroom at Hartford adult education programs and the realities of a work place.
This meeting, as well as the audience that attended it, was very interesting. A lot of the audience members seemed as if they could be potential adult education students so they seemed very invested in what the researchers had to say. The concept of adults “stopping out” as opposed to “dropping out” was especially interesting. The reasons for stopping out are based on the reality of adults’ every day lives. They have responsibilities that ordinary students would have such as taking care of children, families, and homes, as well as maintaining a job. As the audience was listening to the researchers, it became clear that adult education could drastically improve the situations in Hartford. It could teach the large number of adults that cannot speak English as well as teach valuable employment skills to the great percentage of unemployed adults in the Hartford area. Before this is all fixed, it is obvious that the funding is going to have to be improved as well, as the system currently cannot meet the demand for adult education in this area. One of the concerns of one of the board members was dwindling down the waiting list that currently exists in the program. He asked the researchers how much money they would need to eliminate these waiting lists, a question for which they did not have the answer.
Though the board members made it clear from the get-go that they would not make any decisions during this meeting, a lot was achieved from this workshop. Most importantly, the audience gained an understanding for how greatly this program could improve the Hartford area, which is in desperate need of help.
Hartford Board of Education held a Workshop Meeting at the Asian Studies Academy at Bellizzi School in Hartford Connecticut, on the evening of Tuesday March 4th 2014. The Workshop was held in the auditorium of the school, a panel of the Board of Education faced the audience, and across from them sat the two men giving the presentation on their study of Adult Education Feasibility. The meetings goal was not to pass any legislation but instead to have a conversation about the information found in the study and pose any questions and concerns the board had.
The meeting began with background information about the Superintendent and Board of Educations’ agreement with the CREC to manage a feasibility study of Adult Education Services. The goal was to acquire information and find potential resources for adult education. Adults (16 +) are eligible for a free education by Connecticut state law, if they are not enrolled in school. The presentation provided detailed information about the labor market, business stakeholders and partnership opportunities, resources and feasibility study recommendations. The statistics found in the study were quite eye opening, 30.2% of the adult population in Hartford (18+) has not received a high school diploma and 15.2% of the adult population does not speak English. Poverty and unemployment in Hartford are direct results of illiteracy that were found in this study. The study also found that 72% of adult education students reported that their reason for joining the program was because they wanted to obtain or maintain employment. Most adults who go through the program are not concentrated on advancing into a higher education; most of these jobs want middle-skill sector jobs. As one presenter said, “ These students need to learn the skills and fundamentals of reading and writing of 1st, 2nd and 3rd graders.” That statement truly shows why an Adult Education Mandate is needed in Hartford, where an immense amount of adults are lacking the fundamental literary skills that are crucial in life.
The Adult Education Mandate divides its students into two groups: Students who need help with basic literacy skills –these students are further away from employment through the program, and students that are closer to the possibility of being successful – who have had jobs and they have the necessary skills to keep a job. One board member raised an interesting point that was missing from the research, and that was whether or not the researchers had conducted any interviews with students who are currently in an Adult Education Program. One in the audience could tell that this made the presenters a bit uncomfortable when they replied saying that they had not conducted any interviews with students. Most individuals would find that this would be a very useful piece to incorporate into the study and the same bored member continued to pose questions that the presenters couldn’t answer. The meeting was not held to get any legislation approved but it is evident that there are some holes in the study that would have been useful information for the board members to know.
Connecticut has the largest achievement gap in the country and Hartford has an even larger achievement gap than the rest of Connecticut. With that said their needs to be major reforms and mandates in Hartford to try and close the achievement gap. Right now there are four Adult Education Mandated Programs: Elementary School Completion/ Adult Basic Education, Secondary School Completion (GED, National External Diploma Program), United States Citizenship, and English as a Second Language. After studying several education reforms I’ve learned that many reformers say that inadequate funding is preventing their reform for taking off. The researchers found that the funding for Adult Education was not nearly enough, with a statewide budget of 20 million 65% state – 35% local funding. With those funds the enrollment is only 1,323, which is only .03% of what the community needs. Inadequate funding is one of the major problems that it preventing the Adult Education Mandate from taking off and making a difference.
This board meeting attracted many middle-aged women and men whom may have been interested in the Adult Education Mandate. The arrangement of the meeting was a little off putting with the two presenters backs were faced to the audience. Based on the questions that the board members were posing it seemed that the two presenters were not as prepared as they should’ve. They were not able to answer several of the board members questions, the questions posed should have been able to be answered. Overall the meeting was informative because we had not known of the Adult Education Mandate. A mandate that would help not only individuals struggling with illiteracy and unemployment but it would also help Hartford as a whole by improving employment and closing the achievement gap.
Then there was a snap-change in the meeting’s agenda. The “Presentation” by Stephen Tracy was pushed to the beginning, and the “update” on the AGT report was moved towards the end. However, it turned out to be a dual-presentation, one of which was on what’s to come (DCF), and what’s going to be done (AGT), blending aims for the present with goals created in the past to bridge Connecticut’s achievement gap.
Steven Tracy launch his presentation with DCF’s mission statement: “To promote learning, school success and personal fulfillment for children and young people whose life experiences have included trauma, family disruption or involvement with the juvenile justice system.” Tracy then followed this statement up with the challenges of their mission by addressing how many of the students they engage are at the bottom half of Connecticut’s achievement gap. Tracy outlined his presentation through four components, which consisted of: Pilot Programs, Academic Tracking, Case Planning, and DCF Facility planning.
Tracy delved into how their Pilot Programs are geared towards increasing the academic achievement of students who are in state custody. Tracy explained how they have hired coordinators in the three cities of Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven where legislation has provided funding, conducted listening session to hear about positive and negative academic experiences in school, and established liaisons with school leadership teams in these three cities where the program has been implemented. Tracy furthered that the next steps are: to get these newly hired coordinators into the field so that they can identify students who are in need of improvement, work with school leaders, and craft interventions that will provide more opportunities for these students. Tracy ended this segment by saying that he hopes to have more to show by the end of the program on, June 30, 2015.
In regard to tracking the academic progress of all children who are in state custody, Tracy announced that they have creating a data sharing agreement with the DOE, and are beginning to gather data for all children enrolled in DCF. However, he mentioned that they are going to need to extend that arrangement, so that it also includes attendance, academic achievement and discipline data as well.
Turning our attention to Case Planning, Tracy notes that this aspect has taken up most of their time and attention. He furthers that any child in state custody requires a preliminary case plan that’s used to specify educational goals and performance for each individual student. Tracy moves on to say that they “have also implemented, or are implementing a new process for getting records,” through a new protocol that’s specific in terms of students’ attendance, achievement, behavior and stability.
Lastly, Tracy mentions how they will inspect their own DCF facilities and develop a report of the educational needs for all of the students who attend their schools, and proposes to return at the end of the school year with a completed update and preview of their results. Tracy concluded his presentation with how their program is focused on the “issue of engagement and motivation [because it] is generally overlooked in our school reform efforts in Connecticut.” Tracy’s presentation provided an insightful vision for things to come, and its adagio progress and process seemed to stir a little skepticism due to the overwhelming challenges of its goals.
The meeting then shifted its lead to the voice of David Kennedy, who introduced AGT’s newly published strategy to eliminate the achievement gap in a Drafted Master Plan. This plan outlines, explains and identifies 17 key ingredients that are divided into two major categories of: conditions inside and outside of school, which will, in theory, bridge educational gaps. Kennedy explains that this Master Plan develops a “recipe, a kind of very poor analogy, but I do enjoy cooking … of all the components that are going to be needed to close and end the achievement gap in Connecticut.” The Master Plan includes teacher and administrative preparation guides and practices, grids on results and measurements, plan and policy recommendations, among many more strategies aimed at bridging the achievement gap.
Throughout the rollout of AGT’s Master Plan, I couldn’t help but relate it to Whatever It Takes, because the ideas and structures seemed to bounce back and forth among specialized education plans and central schooling models, practices and approaches, along the similar veins of Geoffrey Canada‘s thinking. Kennedy stressed how their plan’s “focus is not education reform, [it’s] about ending the achievement gap.” The plan is to intervene with families and provide early care and education, much like HCZ. However, Kennedy furthers that the “achievement and opportunity gap exists because of economic disparities,” which Connecticut has yet to report on. The plan describes the conditions that need to change inside of school, such as training teachers to address the achievement gap and how to engage English language learners, a curriculum that is designed to close educational gaps, and an investigation into the role of time over the course of both school days and summer vacations. These notions are coupled with the conditions that will need to change outside of school, which include early care and education, family engagement, affordable housing and addressing the issues and challenges of poverty.
As the presentation-update came to a closure, it’s emphasized that the plan isn’t about education reform or failures in schoolhouses, it’s about recognizing that the achievement gap is a statewide and communitywide concern, and addresses and acknowledges the academic challenges in different communities through a broader lens. The AGT was very proud to announce the publication of their newly scripted plan because it was a product of hundreds of meetings over the past couple of years that includes four years of data input. Their ideas were very refreshing and uplifting, but will be interesting to see if this paper-based plan develops into Connecticut’s systemwide educational praxis.
Education Committee: Achievement Gap Taskforce, Tuesday, March 4, 2014.
HARTFORD, CT—On Friday morning at 10:00 am, the Education Committee convened at the Legislative Office Building to hold an informational forum to discuss the implementation of the Common Core curriculum standards in Connecticut. Commissioner of Education Stefan Pryor and Executive Director of the Council of Chief State Schools Officers Chris Minnich were among the proponents of the Common Core that presented at the forum chaired by Senator Andrea Stillmann and State Representative Andrew Fleischmann.
Citing the high remediation rates in both Connecticut’s state university and community colleges and drawing up pie charts showing that 56% of employers in the state were having trouble hiring qualified workers, Pryor presented the use of Common Core standards as a vital measure to improve the future of students and the economy.
“Even if we look at the future of our work and at what is required of our youngsters, the common core is going in the right direction. And more importantly, our educators… have long been saying that we shouldn’t be focused on rote knowledge and pure recall, on drilling kids in our classroom. We want to be focusing on higher order thinking skills, critical thinking skills, on the kinds of approaches that will enable our youngsters to succeed in college and careers,” said Pryor. According to Pryor, in 2020, around 60% of the jobs in Connecticut’s economy would require a college or other higher education degree and the state schools simply aren’t churning out enough college- and career-ready students.
Minnich expressed his understanding that while everyone was in support of the notion of having higher standards for students, they found the Common Core standards controversial because of how it was being implemented and the process of how the official document was written. He emphasized that there was public involvement in every state and that educators played a major role in the process of writing the Common Core standards, adopted in July 2010 in Connecticut.
“This is really giving teachers the flexibility they need to be great teachers,” said Minnich, who believes that teachers can still freely decide on how they want to tailor their lessons to local needs to meet national standards. Minnich stated that approximately 73% of teachers polled were in support of the Common Core .This statistic, which seems to be at odds with the popular conception that most teachers didn’t support the Common Core standards, was a subject of scrutiny and repeatedly brought to question throughout the duration of the forum.
Minnich also reported that the ACT, Collegeboard, and the business community also offered feedback on standards set in the Common Core to ensure that it was comprehensive and contained what future employers were looking for in employees.
“The vast majority of our country is aiming towards higher standards. Are we going to glide towards them or are we going to be left behind?” asked Minnich, citing that 45 out of 50 states had accepted the standards and that states like Kentucky and Tennessee had achieved great gains on NAEP test scores.
Education Committee Informational Forum on the Common Core Curriculum at the LOB February 28th, 2014 Photo: Ada Chai
A heated Q&A session followed the presentations of Pryor and Minnich, though each of the 16 representatives of the state present was limited to asking only one question as Minnich had to depart early.
Hurried along by Representative Fleischmann, the representatives voiced concerns, as parents and on behalf of parents and teachers, about the flawed implementation of the common core that were pressing “too much too quickly” on children and putting a strain on small school districts that had to write their own curriculum to match the core curriculum standards. Representative Bolinsky mentioned “disenfranchised and frightened” educators and parents with children coming home terrified of tests, who were questioning the intent behind the Common Core standards and asked about how they intended to engage the community in this conversation. Concerns were also raised over the use of technology and the failure of the common core to include social and emotional development of children as part of the curriculum.
At the forum, Pryor also announced that Governor Malloy was creating a task force for January of 2015 to help implement the Common Core Standards that would include educators to ensure practitioner input. He also made assurances that more support, including a team of Common Core coaches to aid professional development and a “Dream Team” that would make model units, lesson plans and other resources available through their website (www.ctcorestandards.org), would become available to teachers.
Despite Pryor and Minnich’s favorable presentation of the controversial Common Core standards, there were some among the general public who were not convinced that the implementation of the standards would make students critical thinkers or more competitive in the future nationally and internationally. One such group, consisting of parents and teachers, was conspicuously dressed in bright red shirts with an octagon shaped stop sign which read “Stop the Common Core in CT”. They apparently disagreed that the Common Core standards would lead to students becoming critical thinkers.
“We need to let teachers teach so that children become critical thinkers, not robots that follow a format,” said one of the red-shirted parents, Malcom McGough. McGough views the implementation of the Common Core standards as an invasive act carried out by the government that treats children like guinea pigs.
“It is clearly against what the founding fathers wanted,” he said, claiming that the standards were nothing less than an attempt to indoctrinate students rather than allowing them the freedom necessary to become critical thinkers, the freedom which in the first place is what led to innovations that made the United States one of the greatest nations in the world.
The Lottery is a documentary directed by Madeleine Sackler. This film focuses on four different families throughout the New York City area that are involved in different urban schooling. These four families are currently enrolled in the charter school lottery to hopefully become a part of the Harlem Success Academy. The viewer has the opportunity to have an insight of the city’s schooling system through listening to the families, policy makers, administrators, and strong advocates speak their minds. The message that Sackler tries to communicate to the audience is that the local public schools are not giving most children the opportunities that would truly advance them. Together, as a country, we can help this problem by emphasizing the importance of education and providing equal opportunities through each school zone.
The theory of change throughout the film starts with the problem that there is not enough space for all of the students that deserve a spot, to receive a spot at Harlem Success Academy, or for that matter, any succeeding charter school. If the public school system was not failing in neighborhoods like Harlem, the charters schools would not be at such high demand. The public schools, in places like Harlem, are failing for many reasons. The emphasis gets put on the teachers, but it is also on the students. The teachers are not as qualified as other teachers throughout suburbia because of the conditions of the school, the staff, etc. With these poor conditions because of the income of the area, less qualified teachers are going to be attracted to these public schools. The students also play a factor because they are less interested in learning. The poor teachers add to this disinterest, but their home lives add to this as well. These students come mostly from poor families; there is a large chance that their families cannot even speak English or did not get diplomas from college or even high school. With unsupportive families at home and unqualified teachers, the educational success results are low. The policy chain is in affect, but has not yet worked itself out. Parts of the policy chain would be: the wait list and the attempt to gain more space for the school which would gain more students. The goals for HSA is that more students have the chance to get a better education to better educate the country, especially is higher poverty areas that are in need of this. This filmmakers did a great job in portraying these problems and goals. Documentaries can get repetitive because of too much narration on a single person. The film jumps from narrator to narrator where the viewer can see who is speaking. Being able to see the average day of the students and families really made the documentary feel real. The viewer was able to be in the classroom, in the homes of the families, on the playground, and on the streets of Harlem. Seeing all of these places in the documentary lets the viewer feel a connection.
The film makers address the problem of public and charter schools by having people with all different views and backgrounds explain how they feel about their current situation on education. Sackler focuses mostly on people that are in favor of the charter schools. When the charter schools attempted to take over some space of a local public school, the strong advocates against charter schools spoke up. That was the only time that the viewers heard the critical side of charter schooling. The critics about the charter schools stand their ground because they believe the charter school system is unfair. They don’t believe that their ways of educating the students is poor and they don’t agree with the fact that not every student will get the chance to get this education. They are also part of a teacher union and they will not let this dissipate. Their future runs on their union, and the charter schools are run completely differently which could leave them unemployed. These public school teachers believe that the charter school system is bringing about too many problems. In the United States, there are 365,000 students that are currently on a wait list for a charter school. The problem with these protestors though against charter schools come off as too harsh. Both times that they were portrayed they came off as arrogant because of how harshly they criticized the charter schools with such distaste. These critics were arrogant because of the way that the presented their ideas and concerns. Obviously they have more of a reason to worry because their income is based off of the way that the public schools run; they are also being criticized. But, the way that they present it is very aggressive. During the scene where both sides come together in the gymnasium, the critics come off as angry and forceful towards the advocates while the advocates seem to just voice their opinions with reasonable evidence.
This image is some of the members of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN). There are groups around the city like ACORN that are against charter schools or different types of school that take away from public schools. They hold protests hoping to inform more people about why they dislike the charter school systems. Again, this way of protest seems immature compared to the way that the advocates hold debates and lectures to inform rather than walk around with signs. They make claims like, “They only succeed because of their small class sizes,” or, “They do not educate the children with special needs (27:02).” Fortunately these claims are not true and are proven in one of Moskowitz’s conferences. She explains that the average Kindergarten class size at HSA is about 27 students, which is larger than the average public school class size. She also explains that the average amount of students with special needs is 18% which is larger than the average public school percentage (50:19).
Eva Moskowitz is the founder of the HSA and she claims that she has never heard of parents that do not care about education; she claims they just do not have the resources to help their children like the wealthier parents do (9:27). Different people throughout the film have different thoughts on why there is such a gap amongst the students and amongst the education. Gotbaum believes that poverty is the main cause of the educational problems (16:38) and that charter schools are not the answer. Gotlin believes differently and thinks that poverty is not the reason. She believes that there are many challenges, and the school has to take more of a stance and address the problems and figure out how to solve them rather than blame it on something like “poverty (17:10).”
This is an image of Moskowitz having a conference with fellow coworkers. Personally, I really liked this scene and thought that this was a great clip because of multiple components. First, all of the employees seemed very engaged in what Moskowitz was explain during her conference. Second, the amount of writing on the board shows that the teacher really cares because it seems so intricately laid out; taking the time to use different ways of posting, different colors, etc. Lastly, the YALE sign on the door has a lot of symbolism. It allows the viewer to see that the charter schools are advocates for getting to the college level and actually into college. It is also presented that the teachers also have excellent educations, even from the best college in the country.
Jessica Reid explains that her only goal for her students is to educate them, but at public school she had little support from her coworkers and peers so it became increasingly difficult. At HSA, the support was more obvious and kept her morale boosted which resulted in her work paying off (23:21). She has meetings with coworkers that want to better their students, like Moskowitz is having above. When someone is able to speak from experience from both sides, like Reid, it adds a lot of evidence. Moskowitz states that the lottery proves that there are thousands and thousands of parents who are most likely in poverty, but are searching for a phenomenal education for their children (25:08). This proof supports Reid’s comment as well.
Louis writes an opinion piece on the Daily News about “The Lottery.” Her writing, in my opinion, was everything that I thought. SInce she is such a well educated woman and travels to see Moskowitz’s school and deeply agrees with her approach, it gives me all more of a reason to believe in Moskowitz’s methods. Louis also touches on Ravitch which I thought was interesting because we have been talking about her ideas on education. Louis explains that there are definitely hardships, she states, “That’s easier said than done. In Harlem and other communities, outstanding performance by charters has provoked envy, resentment and an organized backlash by teachers unions.” But these hardships are cancelled out by the opportunities and positivity that Moskowitz and her employees are providing for the students in Harlem.
The Lottery was a very touching film that explained, in depth, the problems behind public education in areas like Harlem. Harlem Success Academy provides opportunities for students in need, but unfortunately does not have the means to provide for enough students. In order to help fix this problem, we need to spread awareness in order for local public schools to have qualified teachers to educate the students. The more educated students we have in our country, the better the country will be.
Works Cited
The Lottery. Dir. Madeleine Sackler. Perf. Eva Moskowitz, The Goodwine Family, The Yoanson Family, The Horne Family, and the Roachford Family. 2010. DVD.
Louis. “‘The Lottery’ Documentary Shows Education Is a Sure Bet.” NY Daily News. Daily News, 28 Apr. 2010. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
In The Cartel, Bowdon highlights common misconceptions that people have based on misinformation about the education system, promotes the concept that an increase in the number of schools available will increase competition and create better schools, and reveals the corruption that exists within the public school system that allows for the country that spends the most on education to be the country with the lowest academically performing students in the world. Bowdon utilizes a Friedman framework to supposedly better enable disenfranchised students by giving them more school choices, however he seems to completely miss the point for why the students/parents are choosing these alternative schools. It is not for the love of a “better school,” but rather for the love of a safer school.
In this documentary, Bowdon highlights critical problems that exist within the public school system which he identifies as “inherent structures” reflective of a “monopoly model” that is rampant nationwide to the grave disadvantage of the children. He identifies one monopoly that does indeed exist, and rather than address what can be done to the betterment of all children or even what the true underlying problems of all the existing structures that have influenced the educational system, he advocates for another monopoly system, because the children are not the crux of his issue, it’s money. So he promotes school choice within a Milton Friedman framework of free market autonomy that reduces education to a product which can be bought and sold. This effort, this movement, to consumerize and commercialize education to match market demands which views parents as clientele, and efficiency and competition as hallmarks of success is not only disastrous for the educational realities of the children this system purports to be supporting, but is actually apathetic to their struggle and all of the context that engulfs them on a daily basis to either succeed or fail in spite of themselves. Because fundamentally Bowdon is most concerned with a monopoly that does act as a disservice to most children in this country, however not because of the inherent injustice of what that disservice represents, but rather because of the money that is “lost” or wasted as a result of that disservice. Money that is wasted, depending on who you are talking to (since there are individuals that are gaining that money), and money that is also used as power by the force of the teachers’ unions to protect the interest of the teachers, so they say. But most importantly, money that belongs to whom? Money that belongs to him actually, as a resident of New Jersey, and all of his fellow tax paying stateswomen/men. So, really, he’s concerned with what’s happening with his money, not what’s happening to these children, and is manipulating their very real strife to his own economic, and even sociopolitical advantage (in an effort to also gain some power for himself and his “cause”). However, none of this is in regards to the children. Again, those precious minds whose very minds are being used as pawns to further everyone else’s agenda (whether pro school choice or anti school choice), but never actually being considered worthy in of themselves, only to the extent of how they can be monopolized to promote some other agenda, thus being forced to justify their own existence. And not all precious minds, but the minds of those children in the lower socio-economic branch of our society. Because if this was all really about the children, providing the best “public” education system for the children, if this was really a documentary about trying to understand what is going wrong in the public education systems that exist within these neighborhoods, with how the teacher’s union operates within these neighborhoods, than why not explore positive public education systems in other neighborhoods and how the teachers unions operate there? Why not identify a problem, that is obviously an economic issue, but then see how/if at all these same economic issues exist in public education systems in other neighborhoods and how such problems were addressed? In neighborhoods where public schools flourish and success is even normative. Thus, being forced to examine the underlying, insidious, disastrous, cyclical, systematic oppressive forces that exist to the detriment of these children educationally and otherwise. Thus, being forced to recognize different ways that tracking systems do exist still within these neighborhoods to ensure that some students never succeed and are filtered into a life of crime (petty and otherwise) in an effort to either fill prisons or the military, both of which are industries that have also been corporatized and privatized (although the choice is not for the prisoner/soldier “consumer” but the corporate-fueled producer). So of course, neo-conservative individuals, publications, news outlets, etc. support this movie, and ultimately support decentralization and the school-choice movement, which conveniently does not consider the lasting and continuous effects of privilege, racial and otherwise.
Despite his very journalistic and fact-heavy approach to this documentary, using both pathos and enough ethos to both educate and move the audience, the taxpayers, even Bowdon acknowledges, if only for a moment, that what is at the heart of the educational plight of children in urban environments. Hope Academy is a charter school that is not comparatively exemplary to local public schools statistically, according to test scores, and other quantitative measures. Yet, the students who attend, do not only continue to choose Hope Academy, they feel it is their salvation in many ways. Not for the better quantity education, but rather for the better quality education. A quality that cannot be measured and quantified, but does have scientific support and does indeed yield positive results over time. A high-stress environment, including actual or the threat of physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional violence is not conducive to learning, especially concerning the first six years of life, the early formative years of cognitive development. School becomes a place one must survive physical, emotional, psychological, or sexual harm, and the consequential development of maladaptive behaviors is a normal response to an abnormal situation. So, the parents who are either beyond elation, or devastatingly crushed when it comes time for the lottery are not happy or upset that their child is going to have better test scores. Whether it’s a lottery for a charter school, private school, voucher school, or just another public school in a better neighborhood, these parents recognize the opportunities that such places can provide for the kind of person their child can become, not just the kind of student they can become. They realize that they can indeed, have a chance.
But such relief should not be seen as only possible in the consumerized and commercialized market world of the school choice movement, it should be inherent within the public school system. Education is not a random birthright privilege for some, and a random numerical privilege for those who are willing to fight for it. Because the right to learn within a safe environment is a basic human right that should not be trivialized to a product that can be negotiated and manipulated. And it is the responsibility, as well as the economic advantage, of our government to provide such an education system for all of it’s children.
Bibliography:
Olin, Andy. “Director wants to school viewers on the public education system.” Chron. April 23, 2010. Retrieved, March 1, 2014, from http://blog.chron.com/peep/2010/04/director-wants-to-school-viewers-on-the-public-education-system/.
Orange, Michelle. “Documenting Our Crooked Educational System in The Cartel.” New York Village Voice. Apreil 13, 2010. Retrieved, March 1, 2014, from http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-04-13/film/documenting-our-crook-educational-system-in-the-cartel/.
“The Cartel.” http://www.thecartelmovie.com/cgi-local/content.cgi?g=23.
Bowdon, Bob. The Cartel. 2009. Film
Ravitch, Diane. The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York: Basic Books, 2010.
Alexander, Michele. The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press, 2010.
In 2009, news anchor Bob Bowdon wrote, directed, and produced The Cartel, an award winning documentary that offers a critical view of the American public education system by examining issues plaguing the schools of New Jersey, a state ranked number one for per pupil spending in the United States. Using interviews, news clips, data from international and national test scores, and statistics about school funding, Bowdon weaves together a tragic story of New Jersey’s students floundering and trying to escape from the failing public schools that are rampant with bad teachers and bureaucratic corruption. In this film, Bowdon attempts to convince viewers of the negative effects of teacher unions and school officials who control public education, “a multi-billion dollar cartel”, and advocates for market-based reform based on school choice and accountability.
The documentary begins with a statistic that “only 38% of high school seniors can read at 8th grade level” ( Bowdon, 00:01:26) to shock the audience into awareness of exactly how bad the public schools are doing. After doling out more statistics about falling test scores to expose the poor quality of education in public schools, Bowdon informs viewers about the amount of spending per classroom annually to make his first point: government spending on education is excessive and pumping more money into schools is not the solution. He uses New Jersey as the perfect example of this, revealing that despite the exorbitant amounts that the state spends on education, the schools are failing their students.
Given this juxtaposition of quality of education versus the public expenditure on schools, viewers naturally would be wondering : where is the $300,000 – $400,000 spent per classroom actually going if not to improve the quality of education? Bowdon highlights news stories of local corruption and interviews public officials and schools administrators to show that the money is either being ill-spent or pocketed by “cigar-chomping superintendents” and other such school bureaucrats. According to the documentary, the overpaid administrators and teachers care more about lining their pockets than looking out for the interests of students and that they aren’t being held accountable . Such reports of corruption at the expense of the students and their parents no doubt will elicit the concern and anger of indignant viewers.
Bowdon then accusingly turns towards the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), New Jersey’s teacher Union that appears to be obstructing necessary reform measures, such as getting rid of tenure and giving merit-based pay to teachers. He suggests that the politically powerful NJEA, by protecting bad teachers and blocking the movement for vouchers and charter schools are denying parents better education choices for their children and increasing educational inequality. The film’s most emotionally moving scene takes place at the lottery for a charter school when big tears begin to roll down the face of a little girl who appears extremely heartbroken because she failed to escape the horrible New Jersey public school system (Bowdon, 01:17:51).
(01:17:51)
Bowdon’s advocacy for school choice and accountability as the solution to ensure quality education for students is aligned with the notion of market-based reforms. He uses his documentary to show that vouchers and charters schools, such as the Northstar Academy in New Jersey where students are “trained in behaviors of the professional world” (Bowdon, 01:10:45) and are therefore prepared to succeed in a capitalist society. Although there is no shortage of references to how a school should be run like a business, such as car dealerships and coffee shops, Bowdon fails to address the negative effects of school choice and schools being run like businesses. On its sister website, www.thecartelmovie.com, viewers are encouraged to “learn about charter schools, vouchers, and other educational alternatives—and support the efforts of groups such as the Alliance for School Choice, New Jersey’s Excellent Education for Everyone, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, the Center for Education Reform, and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.”
The Cartel won numerous prizes, which they listed on their website, and appeared to be well received by the public. The New York Post which stated, “For parents of kids in public schools, the heartbreaking documentary ‘The Cartel’ is a revelation” and that “few documentaries have covered such an important matter so convincingly and with such clarity” (Smith, 2010). New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also praised the film as “very important” and claimed it helped mold his policy decisions (BowdonMedia, 2011).
Aside from its poor video quality and bad animations, the film was criticized for a number of things ranging from its biased, limited interviews, its failure to offer the opposing side of the story, to its implicit messages. The lack of debate and one-sidedness in this documentary is apparent as Bowdon interviews very few members of the opposition and only speaks to frustrated teachers and administrators who have failed to help reform schools from within. He also does not mention past reform efforts that have possibly influenced the negative educational outcomes seen today, such as the No Child Left Behind policy. It is clear that Bowden’s interviews and news clips are not meant to offer the audience a variety of views on the issues of public education. Rather, Bowdon takes a biased approach in which he is “cherry-picking” and guiding interviewees to share opinions and evidence that support his view, and in some cases goes as far as to put words in people’s mouth, so to speak (Bowdon, 2009) (00:25:02 ; 01:01:06). According to the New York Times movie review, “Mr.Bowdon …employs an expose-style narration lousy with ad hominems and emotional coercion” (Catsoulis, 2010).
In response to Bowdon’s pro school choice push, Stephen Whitty, a reporter for the Star Ledger, a Newark based online newspaper, gives reasons for why school choice might not solve the national education mess. According to Whitty (2009), Bowdon ignored issues of whether charter schools are any better as well as the problem of their “self-selecting nature” as only certain parents would take advantage of such schools. Whitty also asks, “What if the vouchers didn’t cover the tuition at the prep you wanted, or the school didn’t want your child? How about that whole pesky church-state thing…?” (2009). Whitty also discloses that Bowdon got “post-production support from a couple of partisan groups, including a pro-voucher organization” (2009).
In her book The Reign of Error: the Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools, education historian, professor, and policy analyst Diane Ravitch points to how the charter movement has become “a vehicle for privatization of large swaths of public education” which results in a loss of the democratic control of schools and creates a system in which charters competes with rather than complementing and collaborating with public schools (2013). She reveals that charter schools under private management, which have not produced consistent high scores nor proven their superiority over public schools, are exempt from state laws and financial auditing and actually spend more public dollars on their students than public schools (Ravitch, 2013). She also warns of the danger they pose in increasing racial and class segregation( Ravitch, 2013).
According to Harvard Educational Review (Brion-Meisels, 2011) the kind of charter schools and reforms that Bowdon praises makes clear some implicit messages of the film. Firstly, it sends the message that the purpose of public education is simply to give students equal access to economic opportunity (Brion-Meisels, 2011). Secondly, it sends the message that “the culture of high-accountability charter schools is more valuable than the cultures from which these low-income students may come” and devalues the culturally unique ways in which these students’ parents support them (Brion-Meisels,2011).
Using test scores as the measure for success, The Cartel paints a dismal picture of public schools in New Jersey to imply that public schools throughout the nation are failing horribly and that a market-based approach to reform would reduce the costly inefficiencies. He focuses only on the misfortunes of one State and claims that this story is equally true for schools throughout the nation. Though the statistics Bowdon uses to win his audience over are verifiable and come from legitimate resources, he fails to tell the story behind these numbers that put them in a real world context that would lead to an accurate understanding of what they mean. Bowdon’s poorly made documentary appears to be nothing more than a biased propaganda for the school choice movement leading towards the privatization of the public education system. The real threat of misleading documentaries like this one lays in the fact that it might prevent people from the true underlying causes of the public education mess in America, such as the systemic economic and social inequalities that exist.
Sources:
Bowdon,B. (Director). (2009). The Cartel [Documentary].United States: Moving Picture Institute
BowdonMedia. (2011, January 2). Chris Christie comments on The Cartel movie. Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://youtu.be/-9KY8uAxIJA
Brion-Meisels, G. (2011). The Cartel/The Lottery/Waiting for “Superman”…. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 751-761.
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Smith, K. (2010, April 16). Nj paradox: Piles of cash, failing schools. New York Post, Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2010/04/16/nj-paradox-piles-of-cash-failing-schools/
Madeleine Sackler’s The Lottery describes the conflict between public schools and charter schools, one of the hottest issues in American public education. She shows the two contrasting views on charter schools. On one side, there are thousands of parents who are eager to send their children to charter schools for a better education. On the other side, teachers union in public schools strongly oppose them and trying to prevent them from increasing their capacity. In order to show this contrast, the film follows four families in Harlem, New York, whose children apply to the lottery to get into the Harlem Success Academy, a thriving charter school in NYC. The film describes different perceptions about charter schools with strong favor of them, and it tempts people to conclude that charter schools are good, and public schools are bad. However, despite the one-sided point of view, this film has a significant message for all the viewers regardless their opinion on charter schools: children are being neglected while educators and politicians are fighting for their own sakes. The problem in education is not children or parents, but the adults who are controlling the system.
In the American public education system, there are public schools and charter schools. Both are publically funded by state taxes. The difference is that public schools follow the government’s regulation and are tied to teachers union contracts whereas charter schools are free from unions and have more autonomy in school management.
Since many public schools in Harlem have failed, and charter schools have been the key to education reform for the last two decades, serving as an alternative to poor-performing public schools in the city. In the film TheLottery, charter schools encourage teachers to work harder and to pay more attention to their students while parents are asked to actively get involved in schools. The movie shows that they have accomplished significant improvements in students’ performance. Watching both successful stories of charter schools and failures of public schools, many parents turn their eyes to the more promising one. However, due to their limited capacity, charter schools have to select their students by lottery, as prescribed in the federal law.
Some blame children or their careless parents for the failure of Harlem’s education system. However, the filmmaker makes a strong point that they are not the ones causing the schools’ failures. According to the Huffington Post, Sackler says, “what gives me the most hope is the reason I made the movie: there are so many parents that are eager for something better” (Thelma Adams). Lower class parents are interested in good education as much as, or even more than, middle and upper class parents. Lower class parents are desperate for the good education because they believe that lack of education blocks them from being successful.
Each of the four families introduced in the film are going through difficulties: Eric Jr. Roachford, whose mother is schooling their kids by herself; Gregory Goodwine Jr, whose father is in prison and lives with his mother; Ammenah Horne, whose single parent mother has speaking disability; Christian Yohanson, whose family members are scattered in Africa and in America. Despite these tough circumstances, they all express that they want good education for their kids. In The Lottery, Eric’s mother says, “I am looking for a school that is going to look at my child and see what his strengths and weaknesses are and teach him according to those weaknesses” (Sackler 6:02).
The film delivers the message that not only parents, but also children cannot be an excuse for failing schools. The filmmaker uses Harlem Success Academy to prove that students’ inability is not the problem in education. Once high quality education was provided by Harlem Success, 100% of students passed the state exam, and their enhancement rate in literacy and math has been remarkable. Meanwhile, the film displays many shots of innocent children, such as children with a smile and curious face, and these lead viewers to consider children as victims, not the causes of educational problems.
Parents’ inattention or children’s inability are not the issue. Rather, the fundamental problem in education system is what Eva Moskowitz, the CEO of Harlem Success Academy, calls, “union-political-educational complex”. Moskowitz says that the problem is not children or parents, but “the system that protests academic failure and limits the choices that parents have” (Sackler 10:12). Public schools are bound with teachers union, and unions exists to protect the rights of teachers for a better learning environment. Despite its purpose, the union ends up hindering public schools from being improved. The union contract sets all the rules for teachers, and schools have no powers over the contract. It prevents schools from requiring longer prep hours for classes or firing poor-performing, unmotivated. Making matters worse, as people in the union consider charter school as threats to them, they obstruct the growth of charter schools and make it harder to provide good education to more students.
A parent against giving Harlem Success Space during the space hearing (00:32.43)
As a result of the strong opposition of the teachers union against charter schools, educators in charter schools and public schools fight each other while neglecting real issues that need attention. A space hearing about moving Harlem Success Academy is given as an example of the fight. Six weeks before the lottery, there was a public meeting about the proposal to move Harlem Success Academy II to the public school that is closing due to low-performance. For the Harlem Success Academy, it was very crucial to assure that they had enough capacity for students chosen from the lottery. Parents, who are sending their kids to public schools, are upset and offensively reject the Harlem Success Academy’s moving in because they think that the charter schools threaten their community by taking over their public school. However, it turns out that the union hires the organization called ACORN and asks them to protest, pretending as if they are people in the community. Without knowing the real story, people in the local community are deceived that charter schools are their enemy.
Although the filmmaker points out the negative impact of the teachers union and the advantages of charter schools, her arguments have holes. In the example of the space hearing, the film only presents the situation from the charter school’s perspective. Harlem Academy has made surprising improvements, but this does not justify neglecting the existing community. Public schools play an important role to bind people together in a community, and this is as important as enhancing the quality of education. In addition, the filmmaker portrays charter schools as if they are the only answer for the problem, and she does not show negative aspects of charter schools. According to the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) in Stanford University, only 17% of charter schools in the United States succeeded better than traditional public schools; 43% showed no difference from public schools; 37% were actually worse than public schools in 2009 (CREDO 1). In reality, not all charter schools are as successful as Harlem Success Academy. If the filmmaker wanted to truly describe charter schools, the film should have formed claims more objectively, noting both advantages and disadvantages of them.
About three thousand people gather for the lottery (1:07:34).
At the end of the film is the most significant moment when the lottery takes place. At this point, all the viewers would come to the same conclusion that something needs to be done for those kids whose future is determined by random selection regardless of their abilities or efforts. It is too cruel for children to wait for luck to attend a good school. When lottery-winners’ names are called, they look as happy as if they already achieved success; on the other hand, parents of those who are not chosen look hopeless. Their kids do not know why their parents are so depressed. The four families’ reactions to the lottery result are dramatized with emotional background music and tears of parents and kids. Watching this scene, nobody would deny that the victims of grown-ups’ conflicts are children, the hope of our future. Even though the film has many arguable points, The Lottery leaves the message that people need to recognize and take action in order to help children to have a good education beyond arguing and fighting over charter schools versus teachers unions.
She is very happy for her daughter winning the lottery (1:11:42)Children are waiting for their names to be called during the lottery (1:11:11)
Works Cited
Adams, Thelma. Charter School Controversy: A Q&A With The Lottery Director Madeleine dddddSackler.” The Huffington Post. N. p., 15 June. 2010. Web. 23 Feb. 2014.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) Stanford University. Multiple dddddChoice: Charter School Performance in 16 States. CREDO. Stanford University, dddddJune 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. <http://credo.stanford.edu>.
The film “Race to Nowhere” was originally made because of Vicki Abeles’ concern for her own children after a thirteen year old girl committed suicide because of her schoolwork. The tragedy that was Devon Marvin’s death caused this mother to think more critically about her own children’s experiences in school. It takes a thoughtful and provocative look at the American educational system, why kids are under such stress, and asking the question “is it even paying off?” The answer, according to the movie, is absolutely not. “Race to Nowhere” chronicles the stories of many young people in the school system, some of which have had mental illness as well as physical manifestations of their extreme stress. It also interviews teachers and education reformers, questioning them on their thoughts on the system currently in place and, more importantly, how we can fix this disastrous problem.
The filmmakers of “Race to Nowhere” do not pinpoint one specific problem in the educational system, because every interviewee has a different idea of what that problem is. Some think the problem is too much homework while others believe it is the overemphasis of Advanced Placement courses. Different interviews in the film focus on different ages of children. There are problems in the film that are specific to elementary school children, or middle or high school students. However, the generally agreed upon issue is that there is an overarching theme of extreme pressure placed on students which causes an excessive amount of stress. This stress results in both mental illness and physical illness. One nineteen year old, Natalie, describes her experience with Anorexia Nervosa (Abeles 13:45). She cites the reasoning for the onset of her eating disorder as it giving her insomnia, which translated into having more time for homework. Her eating disorder became so severe that she was asked to leave her school, but decided to get her GED instead of dealing with the process of transferring. Dr. Ken Ginsburg, an Adolescent Medicine Specialist at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, says that most negative behaviors, such as eating disorders, are usually caused by stress (Abeles 15:09). These physical manifestations can also be seen in the countless reports of stress induced headaches and stomachaches from children starting at an early age. The second, but less emphasized problem was the fact that despite the pressure placed on children, we are still being outperformed by a number of different countries. The desired goal of the filmmakers is to create an educational system that emphasizes learning and the process of learning rather than just grades and tests. This system would allow students to think creatively and be invested in their own learning. It would also produce happier children that were healthier mentally as well as physically.
By doing things like eliminating homework, the SATs, and even abolishing grading, the hope would be that students would genuinely want to go to school to learn, and that would therefore increase their performance. Jay Chugh, a teacher at Acalanes High School in Lafayette, California, cut the assigned homework for his Advanced Biology course in half one year. The results of the AP tests were actually higher than any other year (Abeles 26:00.) This shows the necessity to reassess how we think students learn and question the hours and hours of homework assigned to high school kids every night. “Stop Homework,” which was founded by Sara Bennett (also interviewed in the film) makes a very strong case against homework. According to the foundation, countries like Japan, Denmark, and the Czech Republic assign very small amounts of homework, but are still among the highest scoring countries on performance tests. In addition, a study done at Duke University showed that there was “very little correlation” between the amounts of homework assigned to students and their performance in elementary school and middle school, and in high school it was found that too much homework caused more harm than good.[1]
One critic of the film, Washington Post writer Jay Matthews, argues with Abeles, saying that as opposed to too much homework, students are receiving too little. He also complains that the film focuses “not on data but feelings.” He also disagrees that low-income students face large amounts of academic pressure.[2] This complaint is in response to a scene in “Race to Nowhere” where a character named Isaiah discusses his specialized struggles as a high school student living below the poverty line (Abeles 44:00). Isaiah’s interview pans his apartment, showing how poor his living conditions are. Isaiah describes his massive amounts of homework, as well as the pressure he feels to rise above his neighborhood. He says that his counselor told him he needed to take Advanced level courses if he wanted colleges to even look at giving him scholarships. He took Advanced Environmental Science and received a D (Abeles 44:54). He also sites that he cheated multiple times throughout his college career to cope with his stress (Abeles 45:00). This scene shows that even in urban, impoverished schools, students are still getting a lot of work and are under an incredible amount of pressure.
Just as there are many different problems brought up in the film, there are also many goals. The main two, however, are the improvement of the well being of children, as well as the increased performance of students. The policy chain in this movie can also be confusing because everyone has a different opinion. Education reformers and teacher bring different ideas to the table on how to improve our educational system. For families, Abeles says that, as a parent, she has begun asking her children less about school work, and creating conversation in other ways (1:13). Dr. Deborah Stipek, Dean of the School of Education at Stanford University, tells us that there is no easy fix for our system, but that we need to fundamentally change our culture and our expectations of students (Abeles 1:16.) Reformers like Sara Bennett suggest eliminating homework, or even abolishing grading, because of an ethical responsibility for the well being of our nations children (Abeles 1:16). Dr. Madeline Levine commends schools for eliminating Advanced Placement courses and colleges for changing the way they require SAT scores (Abeles 1:17). The hope through all of these actions is that students will have less work, and will therefore be less stressed and will enjoy school more. Through this, they would be more invested in their learning and their performance would improve.
[1] Bennett, Sara, and Nancy Kalish. The Case against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do about It. New York: Crown, 2006. Print.
[2] Mathews, Jay. “Why ‘Race to Nowhere’ Documentary Is Wrong.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 03 Apr. 2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Madeleine Sackler’s The Lottery wholeheartedly expresses the urgent need to support local charter schools. Specifically, the film illustrates this urgency through the failed attempt to establish Harlem Success Academy 2, in New York City (0:56:56). The documentary highlights how Harlem Success, and the broader charter school movement are determined to end cycles of poverty by turning around America’s failing education system. Moreover, the film emphasizes how charter schools only have a limited capacity to admit a small portion of students who apply to enroll in schools like Harlem Success via lottery, which is a public event that gives everyone in a designated school district an equal opportunity to benefit from a high-impact tuition-free charter school education. The need for charter school reform is realistic and evident throughout the vivid imagery of rundown communities and large prisons. The film explains how there are up to four year “achievement gaps” (0:02:53) in education among different schools, races and minorities, and that people expect and plan for a percentage of these underserved students to go to prison. Despite the film’s effective display of the need for education reform, my thesis is that, the documentary is harmful to the broader education reform movement, because it creates enemies and further divides partisan interests and beliefs.
The need for charter schools is at the forefront of every edited clip, and the counterarguments displayed by public school advocates are weak to none. The Teachers Union and local government officials are demonized and pinned as the enemies of education reform, while charter school advocates and parents shed tears, share heartfelt anecdotes and pray to God that they will receive a spot at Harlem Success. The documentary opens by explaining the proven success of charter schools across America, then asks: “why don’t we have more of them [charter schools]?” (0:03:38) The question is raised in many different forms throughout the film, and is indirectly answered by pointing fingers at those who prevent the growth of charter schools. Among every modified scene and statement, the entire film is designed to meet its ending message: (Sackler, 1:16:54).
The Lottery, 1:16:54. The last scene of Madeleine Sackler’s documentary, asking viewers to Mentor, Teach, Donate and Vote to support the charter school movement.
As a result, the targeted audience seems to be uninformed community members or participants in America’s education system, because public schools advocates and those who are actively engaged in educational policy will probably not be persuaded by the subjective nature of the film.
In summary, the focal points of the film: schools, parents, students and low-income communities, implicitly align with the charter school movement’s theory of change: If schools have excellent high-performing teachers, proactive parents, and the larger community provides support, space and funding, then any student from any neighborhood can achieve at the same or higher academic levels when compared to their wealthier counterparts, and will move on to earn a college degree. However, the United Federation of Teachers, local government and protests by local organizations such as Acorn, are restricting the opportunity for an equal education and alternative schooling options in low-income districts. Meanwhile, 365,000 struggling students who deserve a better education hopefully wait for a chance to reserve their seat at a charter school.
Throughout the film, the Teachers Union and local government are shown to be the antagonists of education reform and equality. President Obama addresses the need to fix America’s achievement gap, and his comments imply that local governments are to blame for widening the opportunity gap. The film supports its argument with evidence from a recording in 2008, when the President of the Teachers Union, Randi Weingarten, says there should be a “due process procedure” (0:19:50) for firing underperforming teachers, and then seemingly lies about the amount of tenured teachers fired that year. At a City Council hearing on charter school expansion, Eva Moskowitz, the founder of Harlem Success, silences a council member after he attributes her schools’ success to its class sizes (0:52:53), and makes another council member appear untrustworthy after she doesn’t believe that Ms. Moskowitz lives in Harlem (0:53:40). One of the most shocking attacks on the Teachers Union occurs when Ms. Moskowitz mentions the “thuggish,” and “Godfather-like tactics” (0:49:04) that the Teachers Union has used to threaten her. Thus, the film depicts those who are opposed to education reform as nothing more than selfish, aggressive and irrational liars.
In the midst all of the educational and political controversy, viewers are introduced to Eric, and his supportive parents; Gregory, who has a mother that works fulltime and a father in prison; Christian, who lives with his father who recently recovered from a stroke, and are separated from the rest of their family in Africa; and Ameenah, who has a single and deaf mother. Each family anxiously waits for their opportunity to be chosen via lottery, and admitted into Harlem Success. Despite their desperation, only Ameenah ends up attending a charter school. The one-sided argument for the charter school movement is also depicted at a Public Space Hearing, where parents protest the implementation Harlem Success at PS 194. Their comments about how charter schools “divide our neighborhoods,” and “disrespect our [public] schools” (0:30:30) are ephemeral and marginalized. One mother even yells that Harlem Success will only get space over her “dead body” as her child holds her hand and appears to be clueless about what’s going on: (Sackler, 0:32:50).
The Lottery, 0:32:50. A son cluelessly watches his mother protest Harlem Success Academy’s presence in their neighborhood, at a Public Space Hearing.
In turn, Harlem Success advocates remind parents to think about their children, and the parents who protest Harlem Success are portrayed as angry, self-centered individuals who don’t understand the needs of their children. In an interview with Madeleine Sackler, she says the main reason she made the movie is because: “There are so many parents that are eager for something better” (Adams, 2010), but also shows how some parents are harshly opposed to the charter school movement. Additionally, parents who want better for their children is an innate constituent of responsible parenting, and reflects nothing new.
I believe that the film effectively demonstrates the need for charter schools, but it creates too much conflict by pointing fingers at specific individuals, committees and organizations that impede on the growth of charter schools. If charter schools are realistically going to make a greater impact on America’s education system, they must work together with the Teachers Union and local governments, instead of vilifying these influential denominators. When asked about the most disheartening aspect of the charter school movement, Madeleine Sackler responds: “That the obstacles are so entrenched and systemic, which means that it will require a tremendous amount of political will to overcome it” (Adams, 2010), but her film seems to further entrench those obstacles, and does not speak this broadly about them. Moreover, the film could prompt more political controversy than will. There is a spirit alive in the education reform movement that in an odd way resembles that spirit of other populous movements including the union organizing movement. Common good and finding common ground underpin our democracy in the United States.
While the deeper message beyond the film is that students and parents get left behind because of politics, I believe it spends too much time creating and focusing on enemies. By provoking emotion and anger, the film causes people to take action. But reactions to the film may not be the ones that Madeleine Sackler intended people to take. Jeannette Catsoulis’ article “Education by Chance” in The New York Times calls the film a “one-sided charter-school commercial,” (Catsoulis, 2010) and I completely agree. The Lottery should have hashed out the need for education reform in a more balanced way by interviewing dropouts, then Success Academy graduates; by taking a broader view of a student’s life, and not just showing how badly they want to win the lottery; and by comparing the environment of a Success Academy classroom to a failing classroom. This kind of data is available; and I’m not sure why common ground can’t be examined as part of the urgent quest to improve America’s education system. A more balanced and intellectually honest approach would further strengthen this film’s overall message and impact.
Works Cited
“The Lottery (2010).” N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2014.
Singer, Matt. “Review: “The Lottery,” Where Winning Really Is Everything.” IFC.com. Independent Film Channel, 2010 Tribeca Film Festival, 30 Apr. 2010. Web. <http://www.ifc.com/fix/2010/04/the-lottery>.
The Lottery by Madeleine Sackler is a documentary that captures the dire state of public education in Harlem, New York. Sackler presents statistics that show that the achievement gap between African-American and white students is constantly growing. As a result of thousands of parents’ interest in a high-quality education for their children, successful charter schools like Harlem Success Academy are mandated to hold lotteries and turn away families every year. Through the presentation four hopeful families vying for a spot in Harlem Success Academy, the film reveals that the public school system is failing and children essentially have to be “lucky” to receive a good education. Although the film may appear to be a charter school advocacy film, The Lottery underlying purpose is to shows that parents want and deserve more for their children. In order to make it possible, the flaws of the public school system need to be addressed.
Statistic of the Achievement Gap (Sackler 2:49)
As shown in the opening scenes in the film, the average black 12th grader is performing at the same level as a white 8th grader (Sackler, 4:45). 58% of black 4th graders are functionally illiterate (Sackler, 3:08). Who is at fault for this significant achievement gap? Is it the students, the parents, and/or the teachers? According to Sackler, it is a combination of the bureaucratic, failing public school system and the false belief that parents in urban neighborhoods do not care about their children’s education. Teachers, principals, and education reform advocates appear in the documentary to share their view of the issues with public schools. By using Harlem Success Academy, Sackler and charter school advocates show that it is possible for minority children to attain academic success in public school. The film shows that although successful charter school models are painted as a threat to the community, the number of applicants for 475 seats at Harlem Success Academy continues to increase each year (Sackler).
To drive this point, Sackler frames the discourse around of the stories of four out of 5000+ families who enter the charter school lottery. This allows the audience to take a glimpse into the trials and tribulations in the lives of those who desperately want their children to receive a high quality education. The four 5-year-old children (Eric Roachford, Gregory Goodwine Jr., Christian Yoanson and Ameenah Horne) tug at the audience’s heart through their innocence and wit. The stress of being a part of an arbitrary, life-changing process was clear as the parents’ hopefully waited for their children’s names to be called. In the end, Ameenah and Gregory are the only two students out of the group who were lucky in the lottery.
The film seems to be targeted towards viewers who do not know a lot about education reform or the charter school movement, and it explains everything at a rudimentary level. Eva Moscowitz (the founder of Success Academy) explains “On our practice exams, 100% of the students ace the exam. There is no school in Harlem that has more than 58% of students passing” (Sackler, 15:19). Unlike most public schools, Harlem Success Academy wants their students to graduate from college rather than simply passing standardized exams. By presenting these statistics, Sackler dispels the belief that poverty is the main reason students of color are not doing well in public school. These statistics are powerful and numbers truly speak louder than words. Moscowitz goes on to pose the question “If we in the charter school movement can provide education at equal or less per pupil spending, why can’t the other schools do it? “ (Sackler, 18:17). From this point, Sackler begins to highlight the bureaucracy of the Department of Education and why many public schools are unable to provide a high quality education for students.
Harlem Success Academy faces opposition from public officials and public school administrators because it causes parents to question the status quo. If parents see children going to a public, charter school that boasts high academic achievement, they begin to want the same in their zone schools. We see the extent of this opposition in one of the most crucial scenes in which Moscowitz tries to get the space to open a second school and ‘community members’ vehemently protest outside of P.S 194. However, the documentary reveals that United Federation of Teachers (UFT) hired these protesters through the ACORN group. For the remainder of the documentary, UFT is painted in a negative light and is pin-pointed as one of the many reasons some public schools are failing.
Although the focus on the UFT strayed away from the Shackler’s main point of the film, it is important to see what is one the underlying cause of the educational disparities in public schools. Moscowitz explains that the teacher’s union contract is “600 pages in length”, and prevents meaningful change from occurring in the classroom (Sackler 27:13). Sackler implicitly and explicitly places the blame on administration that is more concerned with their jobs than the future of the children. Joel Klein (NYC superintendent) adds to this point by explaining that shutting down ineffective public schools becomes controversial due to “adult politics” since school staff may not “be able to find jobs immediately…” (Sackler 48:00 ).
With statistics of the flawed public school system and evidence of the UFTs questionable tactics, the film seems to be one-sided since it primarily presents the views of charter school advocates. In a 2010 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Sackler explains, “On day one, of course, I was very interested in all sides. I was in no way affiliated” and she tried to speak to someone from the UFT (wsj.com). However, they refused and did not allow her to “film inside a traditional public school”. Due to their refusal to participate, the UFT’s voice was left out of the film and the charter school advocates’ opinions were placed at the forefront.
The documentary also fails to show all tenets of how charter schools like Harlem Success Academy function and does not delve into the school curriculum at all. At times, it seems as though Sackler attempts to capture too many issues in the one hour and thirty minute time frame. Besides a few scenes with the founder of Achievement First (another charter school model), the documentary does not include charter school leaders outside of Harlem. This can be viewed as a flaw since audience can be left with the impression that all charter schools are flourishing like Harlem Success Academy (which is not the case).
The narrative is significantly enhanced by Wolfgang Held’s simple cinematographic techniques. When filming the families, close-up shots and wide-angle shots are used to make the audience feel as though they are with them as they go through their day-to-day lives.
Joel Klein and Graduation Rate Statistics of poor-performing schools in NYC (Sackler 48:08)
Contrastingly, the charter school advocates, school administrators, union leaders etc. are captured from the chest-up with a black background. This makes the documentary seem like a dramatic, personal conversation with the audience. Additionally, the clear presentation of the statistics on the black backdrop allows them stand out as important facts for the audience to keep in mind.
Sackler successfully intertwines the stories of the 4 families throughout the entire film in the midst of the drama between the unions, city officials and Moscowitz. Whether it is in the scene that captures Ameenah relaying what her hearing-impaired mother is saying in sign language or when Gregory Jr.’s imprisoned father is crying as he explains why a good education is important for his son, the reality of the film is tangible and powerful. Sackler also includes the opinions of parents who were not advocates of charter schools in the public space hearing at P.S 194. However, it was evident that the parents that opposed the charter school were portrayed in a negative light. All of the scenes showed them emotionally yelling while the Success Academy advocates spoke calmly and rationally (Sackler 29:00). With these biased edits, the message of the film becomes muddled.
Parents at the Harlem Success Academy Lottery (Sackler 1:07:35)
At the end of the film on the day of the lottery, thousands of families from various backgrounds are shown wishfully looking at the screen together waiting for their children to be called. Sackler uses these scenes to serve as a reminder that parents trulycare and are invested in their children’s educational futures. In a Huffington Post blog post entitled “The Lottery: Looking Past Distractions to Solutions” , Sackler writes, “Despite this reality, it is the parents’ voices that seem to be left out of the conversation…Parents do not care if a school is unionized or not, or if the school is called charter or not. All they care about is that the school is educating their children at high levels.” (huffingtonpost.com).
Although The Lottery may appear to be a charter school advocacy documentary on the surface, it was intended to be a presentation of families who desperately want what is best for their children. Sackler could have limited the details about the UFT and focused more on her initial goal of giving the parents a voice. Nevertheless, the important thing to remember is that children should not have to be lucky to receive an excellent education. Sackler did a fairly good job of introducing some of the flaws of the public school system and the thousands of parents who partake in lotteries each year.
The film implicitly urges the community to fight for improvements in all public schools. As Sackler states in Thelma Adams’ “Charter Schools: Q&A With The Lottery Director Madeleine Sackler, “the most “critical element” of education is “the fact that the public education system is under-delivering in certain communities.” (huffingtonpost.com). The Lottery shows that high quality education is needed in all schools, and there are parents who are trying their best to give their children the opportunity to succeed in the midst of the bureaucratic public school system. Regardless of what side of the education reform debate anyone is on, it is important to remember that children should come always come first.
Works Cited:
The Lottery. Dir. Madeleine Sackler. Variance Films, 2010. Online Viewing.
Adams, Thelma.“Charter School Controversy: A Q&A With The Lottery Director Madeleine Sackler.” The Huffington Post. Web. 22 Feb. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thelma-adams/charter-school-controvers_b_610420.html?ir=New%20York>
Sackler, Madeleine. “The Lottery: Looking Past Distractions to Solutions (VIDEO).” Huffington Post 4 Nov. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/madeleine-sackler/post_1208_b_778627.html>
Weiss, Bari. “Storming the School Barricades.” The Wall Street Journal Online. N.p., n.d5 June 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635204575242123324855474.html>.
