The "Real" Secretary of Education--Plans that will hurt more than help

Yesterday, Jim Horn posted an excellent entry onto "Schools Matter", a blog that, on the most part, discusses many of the prominent political issues surrounding the current educational reform strategies. In the post, properly titled, "Gates, Duncan, Friedman: Connecting the Dopes", Horn discusses many of Bill Gates' (who Horn titles the "real" Secretary of Education) proposed revisions.  Horn quotes Gates as saying, "Schools [will] save money by increasing class size. U.S. student-teacher ratios dropped to 15-to-1 today from 26-to-1 in 1960, without improving student results. Schools would save more than $10,000 per classroom by increasing class size by four pupils". This is an exemplary example of why individuals who have had no true, authentic experiences within schools in the United States should have absolutely no say in regards to the actions that should be carried out to reform the system--in my opinion, as a future special educator, increased class sizes are exactly what we don't need. Gates, as an internationally respected public figure, wishes to play a role in the changing of the current education system in his country, and that is fine. But, consider this--we have discussed all semester that, once we step into each of our respective classrooms, we will not be teaching a "class". Rather, we will all have a group of individual students, each of whom will have a different, unique set of learning needs that will need to be attended to. Saving money is all fine and well, but when it comes at the expense of the well-being of our students, in my mind, that is not a risk that we should be willing to take.

In addition, as a means of placing more pressure on classroom teachers, Gates has proposed that instructors' annual pay and job security be dependent upon the cumulative scores of their students on their state's standardized exams. Essentially, he believes that, if the salaries of teachers around the country seemingly rely upon the test scores of students, teachers will be forced to "perform to their highest ability" to ensure that students will be successful. If students achieve success, the teacher's job is safe, the school receives funding and resources, benefiting all involved. That is, except for the students themselves--if instructors are (implicitly) forced to teach only certain units and disciplines in order to prepare students for tests that determine their job statuses, valuable, authentic, and meaningful learning experiences are thrown to the wayside, thus negatively impacting students in their intellectual progression.

I would be lying if I were to say that I fully understand all of the parameters surrounding the education system reform, but I certainly agree with an excerpt posted in August on "Seattle Education 2010" . In the excerpt titled, "The Fallacy of 'Merit' and 'Performance Pay'--they don't serve ANYONE well", the author states, " High-stakes testing for our kids and teachers, and a superintendent who is accountable to no one, is a poisonous and unacceptable proposal". 

Punishing teachers and forcing them to base their instructional decisions on an annual, intimidating, standardized exam cannot be part of the proposed reform--by doing this, the students will be the ones who ultimately suffer the consequences.

 

"Transactional Disability"; The Effect of "Situation" on Disability

I was extremely intrigued by Ira's post regarding this notion of "transactional" or "situational" disability. Considering the literal confines of a student's environment, and the ways in which this contained situation ultimately "defines" or "mandates" a given student's disabled/non-disabled status, is an important concept for each one of us to consider as future special educators. Ira contends that, if the physical characteristics or requirements of a classroom's context were to change, there is a high probability that a student's "disability status" could become altered as well. Take, for example, my older brother and his reading abilities--my brother was diagnosed with both Autism and mild cognitive impairments at a young age, and the physical act of "reading" is something that he still significantly struggles with. Now, it is not that his struggles lie in the comprehension of a given text, but rather, it is the actual, literal act of reading, deciphering, and decoding written output that he struggles with (more specifically, literacy aspects such as phonological and phonemic awareness, one-to-one word correspondence, rhyming, etc.). When text is provided to him orally (say, if I were to read to him, or if he were to listen to an audio-recorded text on our home computer), he would be able to comprehend much of the story's content. I would never contend or suggest that my brother is not Autistic, but, considering his ability to comprehend text when simple modifications were made, should his ability to decode and decipher individual words and phrases written or typed on a piece of paper been a component of his educational plan for all these years? If the "transactional" element of my brother's reading process was changed, I believe that the "characteristics" of his disability (in lack of a better term) would change as well. We then, as educators, must carefully consider the needs of each of our students, and be willing and able to modify the literal context of our classrooms to meet each student's specific academic and social needs.

Fitzhugh's "The Concord Review"-- Connecting Classroom Content

Will Fitzhugh's "Concord Review" is by far one of my favorite blogs to read--he has provided me this semester with many alternative viewpoints and perspectives on aspects of education that I once felt that I possessed a strong understanding of. Last Friday, he published a rather insightful post. Fitzhugh discusses an article written in 1990 by William Shanker for 'The New York Times". In the excerpt, Shanker likens the current educational system in the United States to a partitioned factory. He states, "Factory workers who never [see] the completed product and work only on small part of it soon become bored and demoralized. But when they were allowed to see the whole process—or better yet become involved in it—productivity and morale improved. Students are no different. When we chop up the work they do into little bits—history facts and vocabulary and grammar rules to be learned—it’s no wonder that they are bored and disengaged". This is an aspect of effective classroom instruction that we are currently discussing and debating in several of my education courses--we, as educators, must find a way to not only connect classroom content to the lives of our students outside of the classroom, but also find ways to connect and identify patterns across multiple disciplines and subject areas through which students can become engaged in the school environment. In my senior level education course, we often discuss one, simple question when developing and designing lesson plans--"Why should students care?" We must ask ourselves this question as effective educators for each and every lesson that we plan to teach, and find ways in which we can take a seemingly irrelevant subject or topic and make students truly want to learn.