Keeping up
I do not agree with Friedman, who believes that the United States is spending too much of their resources on world issues like fighting the Al Qaeda (Friedman, 2010). I believe that after 911 the United States has no choice but to spend their resources protecting their citizens from terrorism. I do think that funds spent in education should be spent directly in classrooms instead of being spent on assessments that compare apples to oranges.
The nation created the No Child Left Behind Act to improve education, but it requires students to show progress over the students who took the test the previous year rather than comparing their individual progress from year to year (Research Center: No Child Left Behind, 2004). This creates the national crisis that I see in education which is a shift from how well an individual student is learning to how well a student can do on the state assessments. This has forced schools to concentrate on only mathematics and reading, instead of being able to give their students a well rounded education which includes science and history. The elementary schools are reducing time spent on science and history to add more minutes to mathematics and reading. The money spent on writing, overseeing and grading these assessments would be more beneficial being spent directly in the schools to provide more for the students.
Friedman, T. (2010, January 17). What's our Sputnik? [Op-Ed]. The New York Times (Late edition (east Coast)), p. 8. Retrieved from the ProQuest Central database.
Research Center: No Child Left Behind. (2004, September 24). Education Week American Education News Site of Record. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I interpreted the article to mean that Friedman does not want us to stop fighting the war on terrorism all together but instead not let that completely define us and have that be the sole focus of our attention.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the whole standardized test system is about comparing apples to oranges. It is unfair to require a student who failed the test in one grade have to just move on without a mastery of the previous grade level material to then have to take an even harder test the next year. There is no way for students to show any growth with this system. I also cannot stand the fact that there is not a set cut score. There needs to be an obtainable bar set before students take the test. How it is now a certain percentage of students and schools will fail every year no matter how much they improve or how well they do.
Friedman, T. L. (2010, January 17). What’s our sputnik? [Op-Ed]. The New York Times [Late Edition (East Coast)], p. WK.8.
I, too, wish there was a much better way of assessing student learning than our current method. It's givng one small snapshot rather than a comprehensive assessment of students and teachers, and it fails to take into account student effort. I wish education in general was supported and valued by our society. I fear we are going to fall so much farther behind in science and forget our history for the reasons you mention. Ignoring the past and not learning from it is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Corie as well that it is unfair to set the same goal for all students on a yearly exam when it is not even an attainable goal by some of students. Isn't that one of the primary things we learn as educators - the importance of setting attainable goals that allow for real success? Some of our students give up before they even begin, and somehow we need to change that.
Corie and Andrea
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. It is so hard to encourage students to do their best when you know that their best may not be enough. I also think it is wrong to have the students with disabilities take a test at a higher reading level than they are even capable of reading at.