Let's Chang

When the rankings came out, alarms rang, sirens abruptly went off, and a mixture of disappointment and fear for the future diffused throughout the United States. A country of so much power, innovation, and progress, was deemed average at best when compared to other countries. How did the beautiful country of America, such an economic power in the world, whose presence is all too noticeable, fail to produce the smartest and brightest students on the planet?

In 2010, the three yearly Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report compared the knowledge and skills of 15 year olds in seventy different countries and discovered that the US ranked 14^th out of 34 in reading, 17^th for science, and 25th (below average) for math.

These rankings caused a bit of panic and demonstrated to the world that we aren’t a superhero country after all – our education system needs reform. Speaking of our education system, the US was one out of the total 50 countries tested by the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU), which examined the various different education system.  It combines international test results and data such as literacy rates and graduation rates between 2006 and 2010. US’s education system ranked a lower 17^th out of 50. It’s not surprising that such call for reform has been heard multiple times.

It all stems back from culture. What the EIU found was that the countries with a higher ranked education system (those in Japan, Singapore, and the Scandinavian countries for example) regarded the teaching profession as something more prestigious than that of the United States, where teachers are actually on average students in the bottom third of their graduating class here.

These tests and ranking systems then, are more than just a function of scores and numbers, but something with deeper roots at the depth of the issue.

So when the United States is getting ranked so lowly in reading, math, and science, we must wonder what is at the root of the problem. Interestingly enough, this is where the issue of education equity kicks in. We cannot take the surface number rankings as what they are. According to the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Economic Policy Institute, the socioeconomic status of the students in the United States is skewing our international rankings. The authors and researchers of this study at Stanford found that the low score on the PISA is due in part because of the greater amount of US students who are from disadvantaged backgrounds or who do not speak English as a first language. With that part of the population taking the international exams, their performance weighs down the US ranking simply because the US has the most disadvantaged social class groups.

Carnoy and Rothstein, the researchers of this study, then calculated how the rankings would have changed is the social class composition was similar to that of the top-ranking nations. They found that the US would rise to sixth from 14^th in reading and from 13^th from 25^th in math.

So why do we have such a low ranking? Well some of it may be due to the lack of a good education culture where we don’t respect the profession of teaching as much, but there’s a good sizeable chunk that lowers our ranking because of the stratification of upper and lower class. The divide is so strong in the United States, more so than many other countries,  and it’s reflecting in our numbers and rankings.

How much weight should we be putting on international rankings and test scores that compare the United States to the other countries? Should a test score hold as much weight as it sometimes receives? Is it a good representative of where the United States stands in terms of educational progress and status?

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-17th-global-education-ranking-finland-south-korea-claim-top-spots-901538

https://ed.stanford.edu/news/poor-ranking-international-tests-misleading-about-us-performance-new-report-finds

It’s not difficult to see that America’s education system may need a little more work. There are those who complain about the graduation rates, our international rankings against other countries, and how there doesn’t seem to be much progress lately. In fact according to the Harvard University’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, countries like Germany, Hong Kong, and Brazil are doubling, even tripling our academic improvement (Zhao). And there’s the issue of education equity, where the rich are receiving all the resources that the poor only hope to get. So what are we trying to do to fix these problems? The government isn’t backing down. There are different initiatives the government has taken to address the issues infecting our education system.

When we think of education reform by the government, we most often think about the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. And the stigma attached to it isn’t so good. But why?

The NCLB Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002. Its main purpose was to provide incentive so that each and every student had proficient skill sets in reading, math, writing, and science. It hoped to boost the academic performance across the nation for all. Specifically, it expanded the federal role in education and took a particular aim at improving the education for disadvantaged students. Its method to measure our nation’s academic performance was standardized testing. The act states that states were required to begin testing for students in grades three to eight annually in subjects like reading and mathematics. By 2007 to 2008, they tacked on science testing in all tiers of secondary education. Through the scores on these tests, the nation could measure if a certain school was doing its job and performing at sufficient levels. Individual schools had to meet at “adequate yearly progress”. Whether a school achieved that was based on a formula detailed in the law; if a school failed to meet this mark two years in a row, the school would be provided technical assistance and its students could choose to go to another public school.

So what about NCLB caused such a whirlwind in education reform? It’s the issue that NCLB is a one size fit all education reform law. The problem with that is that we are not one size. Many state that its requirement to evaluate school progress through one test, one test that every students needs to take, including those who speak English as a second language and those who are in special education. Thus, those schools who have a higher population of this group of children are at a disadvantage, not because the school is bad, but because the students are being compared to other students who maybe have more resources or those students whose first language IS English. As Susan J. Hobart states in her article in “The Progressive”, “whether they have a cognitive disability, speak entry-level English, or have speech or language delays, everyone takes the same test and the results are posted. Special education students may have some accommodations, but they take the same test and are expected to perform at the same level as general education students. Students new to this country or with a native language other than English must also take the same test and are expected to perform at the same level as children whose native language is English. Picture yourself taking a five-day test in French after moving to Paris last year”. So many argue that NCLB doesn’t fix broken, less well-off schools with a poorer student body (mostly those in big cities), but penalizes them with removal of funding. And many argue that it removes the stimulating material that teachers are passionate about teaching. Instead, teachers are forced to teach testing skills and teach to those national tests. Where’s the magic in that?

But President Obama is presently attempting to reform NCLB in addition to placing new reforms to improve our education system. In March of 2010, the Obama Administration sent Congress a Blueprint for Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, addressing the issues created by No Child Left Behind while pursuing high standards and closing the achievement gap. The reforms include putting in place an accountability system that will “recognize and reward high-poverty schools and districts that are showing improvement in getting their students on the path to success, using measures of progress and growth” (White House). The blueprint for reform also mentions creating methods in order to effectively evaluate teachers to “enhance the profession”, which is vital in attracting bright teachers to teach the next generation of innovators.

The Obama Administration also is putting in place Race to the Top, which targets the vital piece of education, teaching effectiveness. This initiative offers bold incentives to states willing to spur systemic reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Because it’s difficult to attract good teachers, especially in those inner city schools where one teacher can spark the minds of many students.

It’s exciting to think of reform happening right now. The NCLB, although raised a controversy, did put much attention onto the issue of America’s education system. What results from the new initiatives put into place is yet to come.

Zhao, Emmeline. “Education Olympics: How Does America Rank Compared To Other Countries? (INFOGRAPHIC).” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 July 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2013.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/

http://www.progressive.org/mag/hobart0808.html

When the topics of reforming education and education equity surface, we hear the words “charter school” quite often. In fact, they have gained a reputation as the fix for America’s public education system. I was introduced to the concept of the charter school when I watched the documentary “Waiting for Superman”. They were the schools the children the documentary  followed wanted so badly to get into. Why? Because these charter schools were said to provide better educations to these students than the average normal public school available to these children. And because so many of these children wanted to attend these schools, the lottery system was put into place in order to fill up the limited amount of spots.

But why the desire to attend these charter schools? Are they really the fix to the American education system that so many are wanting to reform?

Well, what is a charter school? According to the National Education Association’s article “Charter Schools”, a charter school is a primary or secondary public school that essentially has much more flexibility than the tradition public schools. They receive public money as well as private donations and must follow the rules that are put into place for all other public schools, and they are free. Their flexibility stems from the charter schools creating their own charters, a “statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school’s mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success”. They run this show. One of the biggest characteristics of a charter school is that they are held accountable for their student achievement, and if they aren’t doing their job, they can be closed.

The idea of the charter school was developed by Professor Ray Budde of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. In 1988, individuals were already asking for a reformation of the education system. His solution? Establishing charter schools or “schools or choice”.  Thus, charter schools are essentially alternatives to the traditional public school; if that public school doesn’t fit your needs or just isn’t good enough, there would be more options of schools to pick from.

The biggest when pondering charter schools is whether they have been successful in being a good alternative to public schools – are they better and do they actually improve educational outcomes? There are mixed reviews. In 2009, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University found that about 17% of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools. 46% showed no difference from public schools and 37% were worse than their traditional public school counterparts. More charter schools were WORSE than their traditional public school counterparts. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education found in its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report in 2003 that charter schools were out-performed by the public schools; however, the reason for this is ambiguous. It could range from several minor things or simply be a random factor that cannot be anticipated or factored into this study. In March of 2009, the Center of Education Reform found that 657 out of more than 5250 charter schools were closed due to lack of achievement and lack of interest in enrollment.

An interesting observation is that charter schools, despite being out-performed by the public school counterparts, actually improve these public schools by creating competition within the same area. Their presence actually makes these public schools want to do better to attract more students.

However, charter schools aren’t simply an attempt to provide a choice. They have had some positive effect that cannot be ignored. The Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) is a string of charter schools in cities, such as Philly and the Bronx that provide students who are of a lower income bracket the chance for a better education than those that the public schools can provide. It has been found that these settings allow charter schools to flourish; in cities, those public schools are abysmal (and thus there is such a desire for charter school enrollment in these cities as seen in the “Waiting For Superman” documentary). It was found that at KIPP, the students perform much better as reflected in standardized testing. The children who attend this charter school stay in school from 7:30am to 5:00pm and have alternating Saturday activities as well as lessons in the summer. For more information, check out this article: http://www.kipp.org/news/philadelphia-inquirer-kipp-students-show-major-improvement-study-finds

It seems like charter school success may be a function of its location and thus has drawn criticism for racial segregation. In these cities, the lower income African Americans and Hispanic individuals are often found. What happened to diversity?

Regardless, the idea of a charter school has sustained since now, but the advantages and disadvantages are complex and there are many factors that just can’t be placed into a numerical equation to assess its success.

Did any of you attend a charter school? How was your experience there?