Brief Timeline for Abbott vs. Burke
• 1981 A lawsuit was filed by the Education Law Center. It claimed that NJ failed to meet it’s obligation of a fair education to students in poor, urban districts which was required in the 1975 Public School Education Act.
• 1985 (Abbott I) The first Abbott ruling occurred which stated that urban students must receive an education equal to students in the wealthiest districts.
• 1990 (Abbott II) After a new finance law, Quality Education Act, was introduced by Gov. Florio passed by , the State Supreme court ordered supplemental programs for urban districts and equalized funding between the richest and poorest districts.
• 1994 (Abbott III) The NJ Supreme Court rules the Quality Education Act is unconstitutional because it does not equalize funding. The Court stated that NJ must comply by 1997.
• 1997 (Abbott IV) The second school-funding law (Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act) was ruled unconstitutional and the court once again ordered equal funding for all districts.
• 1998 (Abbott V) Mandates were put into place for preschool, new school construction as well as rehabilitation of older facilities.
• 2000 (Abbott VI) NJ Supreme Court ruled that the state failed to implement the preschool education as directed.
• 2001 (Abbott VIII) NJ Supreme Court issued the first half of Abbott VIII, which directed timely state decisions of preschool plans and budget.
• 2002 Supreme Court issued the second half of the Abbott VIII, which further clarified the requirements for State implementation of the Abbott V preschool mandates.
• 2007 Gov. Corzine proposed to eliminate the Abbott schools and instead would provide resources for districts with high numbers of disadvantaged students.
• 2008 The School Funding Reform Act was signed into law. This law replaced the Abbott funding formula with a formula that spread the money to all districts with at-risk students no matter where they went to school.
• March, 2008 NJ Supreme Court rules that the Abbott mandate can be terminated. (As of 11/2008 hearings were up to Abbott XIX.)
• March, 2009 A Bergen County Assignment Judge stated that the new law addressed all at-risk students and not just students that lived in the Abbott districts.
• May, 2009 The NJ Supreme Court upheld Gov. Corzine’s new school funding formula and denied the request from the Abbott districts for supplemental funding. This new formula relaced the Abbott court ruling.
• June, 2010 Advocates for poor children are pressing NJ Supreme Court to enforce a new school funding law. This followed Governor Christie's proposed cuts in education aid.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Outsourcing
As a result of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), global competition has been on the rise for the past few years. An outcome of each country's striving to be the most technologically advanced in the areas of mathematics and the sciences has led to somewhat of a rather unlikely end result- outsourcing. Outsourcing is an arrangement in which one company provides services for another company, usually from overseas. The service usually could have been provided in the country of origin, but the overseas company was chosen to either lower cost, labor, or because the technology was so far advanced. Presently, many in-demand jobs are being given to people in other states or countries because there are simply not enough qualified applicants to fill those positions. Employers now have a global workforce to draw from, and competition for United States jobs now comes from around the entire world. This escalates a new fear to those living in the United States. Many are wondering just how good the teaching is in other lands, how serious those students are about their educations, and just how badly they want United States citizens' jobs. Foreign interests in education, combined with the upsurge of cheap global telecommunications and advancements, have created a job pool of well-educated workers who seek jobs specifically in the programming, accounting, and medical fields for only a small amount of what the going rate is over in the United States.
A few interesting facts that I came across:
*Sylvan Online tutoring service subcontracts with a company called Career Launcher, which is based out of India. The next time your child logs online for extra skills help, he or she may not be receiving the help of an American teacher.
*A loophole in NCLB allows for the use of taxpayer money to be spent for online tutoring services, many of which are based out of New Delhi and Calcutta. These tutors do not need to be certified teachers.
*The United States is paying India over $10 million to tutor our school children nationwide for NCLB. The average Indian tutor makes a dollar an hour for his or her services, and makes about $250 a month.
*Aside from customer satisfaction, there is no measure or accountability for these outsourced professionals.
While many states are currently feeling the "crunch" of teacher layoffs and school budgets getting voted down, it would be much more advantageous to use the federal money where we really need it- at home in the United States.
Sources:
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.php?id=1178
http://www.zazona.com/NewsArchive/2005-05-26%20Education%20Process%20Outsourcing%20(EPO).htm
A few interesting facts that I came across:
*Sylvan Online tutoring service subcontracts with a company called Career Launcher, which is based out of India. The next time your child logs online for extra skills help, he or she may not be receiving the help of an American teacher.
*A loophole in NCLB allows for the use of taxpayer money to be spent for online tutoring services, many of which are based out of New Delhi and Calcutta. These tutors do not need to be certified teachers.
*The United States is paying India over $10 million to tutor our school children nationwide for NCLB. The average Indian tutor makes a dollar an hour for his or her services, and makes about $250 a month.
*Aside from customer satisfaction, there is no measure or accountability for these outsourced professionals.
While many states are currently feeling the "crunch" of teacher layoffs and school budgets getting voted down, it would be much more advantageous to use the federal money where we really need it- at home in the United States.
Sources:
http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.php?id=1178
http://www.zazona.com/NewsArchive/2005-05-26%20Education%20Process%20Outsourcing%20(EPO).htm
A Nation At Risk
In 1983, Michael Jackson’s Thriller went to #1, M.A.S.H. was shown for the last time, at the Academy Awards, “Ghandi”, Ben Kingsley and Meryl Streep won, and President Reagan signed a $165 billion bail out for Social Security. Speaking of President Reagan, he had instructed Secretary of Education, Mr. Terrel Howard (T.H.) Bell to build the National Commission of Excellence on Education commission. The commission, led by Chairman David Gardner, had 18 months to interrogate, research, interview survey and uses any other valid means necessary to figure out what was not working with the American education system and how were we going to fix it. On April 26, 1983, President Reagan was presented A Nation at Risk, the public report to the nation and to the Secretary of Education of their concerns and findings.
The Commission’s focus was on five key areas: content, standards and expectations of students, teacher quality, time, and leadership/fiscal support. According to the Department of Education’s A Nation Accountable (April 2008)…
CONTENT - In 1983, a rigorous course of study was understood as a minimum of 4 years of English, 3 years of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies and ½ year of Computers.
In 1983, approx. 16-17% of high school students took this rigorous course of study. By 2005, that percentage increased to 65%. That still leaves almost 1/3 of all high school students not studying a rigorous course of study. Why? In my school district, the course of study is 4 years of English, H/PE, 3 years of Math, Science and Social Studies, and one year of a World Language, Technology, Fine Arts and 21 Century skills (practical arts).
My grade: C (I think we need 4 years of Math and Science if we want to catch up)
STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS - In 1983, the public was limited on what they knew about student performance. In 1989, George H.W. Bush got the ball rolling with implementing nationwide K-12 performance goals by 2000 (Goals 2000). Bill Clinton picked up where he left off by Congress passing Improving America’s School Act (1994) and George W. Bush and a bi-partisan agreement brought us No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, where by 2014, 100% of all students will be proficient in Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics. Today, all states are testing in grades 3-8, and once in high school.
My grade: B (Testing does show areas for curriculum evaluation and keeps parents, students and schools more aware of their strengths and weaknesses)
TIME -In 1983, American students spent fewer hours and days in school than many other industrialized countries. In 2010, this data not much different. A typical school year then and now is approximately 180 days, 6 hours a day. The amounts of effective academic instruction during those hours have been in question and remain in question today.
My grade: D- (In my opinion, longer hours and days are a must at this point. We have allowed other nations to move ahead of our children. I realize salaries and union contracts would be affected, but without more time English, Math and Science class, our children are going to continue to fall behind.
The Commission’s focus was on five key areas: content, standards and expectations of students, teacher quality, time, and leadership/fiscal support. According to the Department of Education’s A Nation Accountable (April 2008)…
CONTENT - In 1983, a rigorous course of study was understood as a minimum of 4 years of English, 3 years of Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies and ½ year of Computers.
In 1983, approx. 16-17% of high school students took this rigorous course of study. By 2005, that percentage increased to 65%. That still leaves almost 1/3 of all high school students not studying a rigorous course of study. Why? In my school district, the course of study is 4 years of English, H/PE, 3 years of Math, Science and Social Studies, and one year of a World Language, Technology, Fine Arts and 21 Century skills (practical arts).
My grade: C (I think we need 4 years of Math and Science if we want to catch up)
STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS - In 1983, the public was limited on what they knew about student performance. In 1989, George H.W. Bush got the ball rolling with implementing nationwide K-12 performance goals by 2000 (Goals 2000). Bill Clinton picked up where he left off by Congress passing Improving America’s School Act (1994) and George W. Bush and a bi-partisan agreement brought us No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, where by 2014, 100% of all students will be proficient in Language Arts Literacy and Mathematics. Today, all states are testing in grades 3-8, and once in high school.
My grade: B (Testing does show areas for curriculum evaluation and keeps parents, students and schools more aware of their strengths and weaknesses)
TIME -In 1983, American students spent fewer hours and days in school than many other industrialized countries. In 2010, this data not much different. A typical school year then and now is approximately 180 days, 6 hours a day. The amounts of effective academic instruction during those hours have been in question and remain in question today.
My grade: D- (In my opinion, longer hours and days are a must at this point. We have allowed other nations to move ahead of our children. I realize salaries and union contracts would be affected, but without more time English, Math and Science class, our children are going to continue to fall behind.
A Nation At Risk, Pt. 2
TEACHER QUALITY - In 1983, nearly half of all Math, Science, and English teachers were not qualified to teach those subjects. Teachers at 12 years of experience made only $17,000 per year. In 2001, NCLB added a highly-qualified provision, improving this flaw over that span. In 2010, teachers have professional development hours they must attain and starting salaries are approximately $50,000 per year in the state of New Jersey. The struggles to find highly-qualified Math and Science teachers remain. Another key component is tenure. Tenure allows for job security in education unlike many other unions in the working world. Today many parents and politicians many want to remove tenure enabling administration to get rid of the poor teachers and rewarding the good teachers for the job they do, young or old.
My grade: A (I believe with professional development and solid salaries, teachers are much more qualified and well-prepared for their classroom)
LEADERSHIP/FISCAL SUPPORT - Today’s leaders are multi-tasking like never before. They must bring the school, parent, and community together as one. They must collaborate within their schools to ensure a safe and productive environment for each student. To do this successfully, schools need MONEY. In 1983, total spending on public education in the U.S. was $118.4 billion dollars. In 2005, that figure grew to $499 billion, despite the fact that if spending grew at the rate of inflation, it should have totaled $246 billion that year. The average amount spent per pupil was also a major concern. In 1983, there was a per pupil average cost of $5,691, compared to $9,266 in 2005. As we saw in The Cartel, many classrooms (when you combine teacher salary, per pupil spending, health care, supplies and materials) cost a district over $300,000 per classroom!
My grade: C - In closing, I definitely think A Nation at Risk was imperative and eye-opening. For the past 25 years, I think some areas have improved within our country. But overall, I have major concerns about where our students will be in the next 25 years.
My grade: A (I believe with professional development and solid salaries, teachers are much more qualified and well-prepared for their classroom)
LEADERSHIP/FISCAL SUPPORT - Today’s leaders are multi-tasking like never before. They must bring the school, parent, and community together as one. They must collaborate within their schools to ensure a safe and productive environment for each student. To do this successfully, schools need MONEY. In 1983, total spending on public education in the U.S. was $118.4 billion dollars. In 2005, that figure grew to $499 billion, despite the fact that if spending grew at the rate of inflation, it should have totaled $246 billion that year. The average amount spent per pupil was also a major concern. In 1983, there was a per pupil average cost of $5,691, compared to $9,266 in 2005. As we saw in The Cartel, many classrooms (when you combine teacher salary, per pupil spending, health care, supplies and materials) cost a district over $300,000 per classroom!
My grade: C - In closing, I definitely think A Nation at Risk was imperative and eye-opening. For the past 25 years, I think some areas have improved within our country. But overall, I have major concerns about where our students will be in the next 25 years.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Modifications to No Child Left Behind in the Obama Era
Responding to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the significant gap in student achievement among social classes and race, Lyndon B. Johnson spearheaded the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, with bipartisan support. This Bill was passed in 87 days and enacted by Congress on April 11, 1965. Johnson’s War on Poverty was the driving force behind the ESEA as Johnson was all too familiar with inequality in education as a former teacher. The ESEA has been reformed several times through the years with its final reform titled the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, NCLB. NCLB is “an Act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.” (United States Congress - 107th Congress, 2002)
NCLB has been the current law in education at the federal level for the past decade. However, President Obama is currently proposing a Blueprint for Reform which will again reauthorize the ESEA and thus make changes to NCLB. From its inception, NCLB has promised to close the achievement gap and increase accountability for school districts. NCLB has created a performance based system where standardized tests measure progress. Districts that do not meet the standard of proficient on state tests are labeled failing districts and require state intervention. Districts that do not comply with these regulations do not receive federal funding. While there is no national curriculum or national standard, under NCLB each state is required to set the bar and determine what is proficient.
Obama’s Blueprint for Reform proposed March 13, 2010 challenges this method of requiring all students scoring proficient by 2014 as it has “created incentives for states to lower their standards; emphasized punishing failure over rewarding success; focused on absolute scores, rather than recognizing growth and progress; and prescribed a pass-fail, one-size-fits-all series of interventions for schools that miss their goals.” (Abrevaya, 2010)
With one-third of the nation’s schools currently labeled as failing, a plan is needed to help these students, parents, teachers and administrators. Obama’s plan is simple, however, controversial. In his Blueprint for Reform, Obama outlines accountability as measured by individual student growth rather than standard scores of proficient. A student’s yearly progress will soon be an indicator of his or her success. This eliminates all students being proficient by 2014. Ultimately, all students by 2020 will be college and career ready. The blueprint defines this readiness as not needing “remediation classes upon entering college.” (National School Boards Association, 2010) At the state level, k-12 schools will need to align their curriculum to meet the needs of the state universities. This alignment will assure students preparedness for college and career.
Also, schools will no longer be labeled failing or in need of improvement in the Blueprint for Reform. The top performing schools will be labeled “Reward” schools and will receive more flexibility, rewards and funding. The lowest performing schools will be labeled “Challenge” schools and will be required to implement changes which at the lowest 5% include mandatory turnaround models for success. While the negative term of failing will be removed from the lowest performing schools, Obama promises more support and greater funding at this level so that success will be more attainable.
The method of rewarding money to schools will fall on competitive grants rather than the formulas that schools currently rely on for funding. The Blueprint for Reform outlines that these grants will be based on school performance and priority will be given to schools that develop programs for success such as comprehensive college preparedness programs and STEM programs, (science, technology, engineering and math). Schools will further be required to develop a performance scale to evaluate teachers and administrators. This information will be collected and reported at the district and state level.
While rewarding schools for their performance is a positive change to NCLB, other changes are questionable. Competitive grants fall away from the known and dependable formula which allots funding to all schools. Creating a competitive edge may create resentment and disharmony among districts. While networking among local districts to create a larger, more universal goal of educating students to be more prepared for college is good, districts may lean toward a more independent, cutthroat approach in order to achieve more funding. Additionally, the goal of educating students to be college and career ready is much too global. This goal is necessary; however, it may be loosely interpreted.
Measuring teacher performance through student success may be challenged by the local and state unions. This will likely be challenged once the performance indicators are determined. Each state and district will be required to establish their own performance indicators. Depending on how these standards are created and who is writing the standards will ultimately determine their effectiveness.
Change is needed for our country to be more competitive; however, educators should be more involved in making the change and determining the standards for achievement. While educators are the first target for blame when failure occurs, they rarely are the first targets for help when change needs to take place.
A Blueprint for Reform - The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
President Discusses Proposal for ESEA
References
Abrevaya, S. (2010, March 15). PRESS RELEASES Obama Administration's Education Reform Plan Emphasizes Flexibility, Resources and Accountability for Results. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2010/03/03152010.html
Barack Obama. (2010, March 13). Weekly Address: Education for a More Competitive America & Better Future. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from The White House President Barack Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/12/weekly-address-education-a-more-competitive-america-better-future
Brown-Nagin, T. (2004, January). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400080.html
Dillon, S. (2010, March 13). Obama Calls for Major Change in Education Law. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1277838102-7Ygwj7EeyklSfUOexdBzWg
National School Boards Association. (2010, March). A Blueprint for Reform: ESEA Reauthorization. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from National School Boards Association: http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/Advocacy/FederalLaws/NCLB/Blueprint-Summary.aspx
United States Congress - 107th Congress. (2002, January 8). PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. 1425. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
US Department of Education. (2010, March). A Blueprint for Reform. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
US Department of Education. (2001, January). OVERVIEW Archived Information Summary. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
NCLB has been the current law in education at the federal level for the past decade. However, President Obama is currently proposing a Blueprint for Reform which will again reauthorize the ESEA and thus make changes to NCLB. From its inception, NCLB has promised to close the achievement gap and increase accountability for school districts. NCLB has created a performance based system where standardized tests measure progress. Districts that do not meet the standard of proficient on state tests are labeled failing districts and require state intervention. Districts that do not comply with these regulations do not receive federal funding. While there is no national curriculum or national standard, under NCLB each state is required to set the bar and determine what is proficient.
Obama’s Blueprint for Reform proposed March 13, 2010 challenges this method of requiring all students scoring proficient by 2014 as it has “created incentives for states to lower their standards; emphasized punishing failure over rewarding success; focused on absolute scores, rather than recognizing growth and progress; and prescribed a pass-fail, one-size-fits-all series of interventions for schools that miss their goals.” (Abrevaya, 2010)
With one-third of the nation’s schools currently labeled as failing, a plan is needed to help these students, parents, teachers and administrators. Obama’s plan is simple, however, controversial. In his Blueprint for Reform, Obama outlines accountability as measured by individual student growth rather than standard scores of proficient. A student’s yearly progress will soon be an indicator of his or her success. This eliminates all students being proficient by 2014. Ultimately, all students by 2020 will be college and career ready. The blueprint defines this readiness as not needing “remediation classes upon entering college.” (National School Boards Association, 2010) At the state level, k-12 schools will need to align their curriculum to meet the needs of the state universities. This alignment will assure students preparedness for college and career.
Also, schools will no longer be labeled failing or in need of improvement in the Blueprint for Reform. The top performing schools will be labeled “Reward” schools and will receive more flexibility, rewards and funding. The lowest performing schools will be labeled “Challenge” schools and will be required to implement changes which at the lowest 5% include mandatory turnaround models for success. While the negative term of failing will be removed from the lowest performing schools, Obama promises more support and greater funding at this level so that success will be more attainable.
The method of rewarding money to schools will fall on competitive grants rather than the formulas that schools currently rely on for funding. The Blueprint for Reform outlines that these grants will be based on school performance and priority will be given to schools that develop programs for success such as comprehensive college preparedness programs and STEM programs, (science, technology, engineering and math). Schools will further be required to develop a performance scale to evaluate teachers and administrators. This information will be collected and reported at the district and state level.
While rewarding schools for their performance is a positive change to NCLB, other changes are questionable. Competitive grants fall away from the known and dependable formula which allots funding to all schools. Creating a competitive edge may create resentment and disharmony among districts. While networking among local districts to create a larger, more universal goal of educating students to be more prepared for college is good, districts may lean toward a more independent, cutthroat approach in order to achieve more funding. Additionally, the goal of educating students to be college and career ready is much too global. This goal is necessary; however, it may be loosely interpreted.
Measuring teacher performance through student success may be challenged by the local and state unions. This will likely be challenged once the performance indicators are determined. Each state and district will be required to establish their own performance indicators. Depending on how these standards are created and who is writing the standards will ultimately determine their effectiveness.
Change is needed for our country to be more competitive; however, educators should be more involved in making the change and determining the standards for achievement. While educators are the first target for blame when failure occurs, they rarely are the first targets for help when change needs to take place.
A Blueprint for Reform - The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
President Discusses Proposal for ESEA
References
Abrevaya, S. (2010, March 15). PRESS RELEASES Obama Administration's Education Reform Plan Emphasizes Flexibility, Resources and Accountability for Results. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2010/03/03152010.html
Barack Obama. (2010, March 13). Weekly Address: Education for a More Competitive America & Better Future. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from The White House President Barack Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/12/weekly-address-education-a-more-competitive-america-better-future
Brown-Nagin, T. (2004, January). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400080.html
Dillon, S. (2010, March 13). Obama Calls for Major Change in Education Law. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1277838102-7Ygwj7EeyklSfUOexdBzWg
National School Boards Association. (2010, March). A Blueprint for Reform: ESEA Reauthorization. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from National School Boards Association: http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/Advocacy/FederalLaws/NCLB/Blueprint-Summary.aspx
United States Congress - 107th Congress. (2002, January 8). PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. 1425. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
US Department of Education. (2010, March). A Blueprint for Reform. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
US Department of Education. (2001, January). OVERVIEW Archived Information Summary. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
State Control over Education--10th Amendment
State Control over Education--Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It gives control over all aspects not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution to the States. It allows implementation of national programs to be placed in the hand of local officials, and it provides limitations to the growth of national bureaucracy. “Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism” (Wikipedia).
Nevertheless, several events in our history have shown an intermingling of state and federal power in education. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, for example, granted first land and later money to the states for colleges emphasizing agriculture and the mechanical arts. The 1917 Smith-Hughes Act supported vocational education. In 1944, the first G.I. Bill authorized direct payments to veterans for educational purposes.
Two federal statutes that are particularly notable are the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (Twight, 1994). NDEA authorized federal involvement by providing scholarships and loans to undergraduate and graduate students, in addition to funding state efforts to strengthen math, science, and foreign language courses in public schools. This act was a reaction to the Soviet Union’s successful launching of Sputnik I (the first earth-orbiting satellite) on October 4, 1957.
ESEA was represented as being part of President Johnson’s war on poverty. Johnson recommended “a major program of assistance to public elementary and secondary schools serving children of low-income families.” The bill itself authorized federal financial assistance to local educational agencies “for the education of children of low-income families.” However, much debate exists regarding the true motive for this act, and many feel that it was actually created to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, not the poor (Twight, 1994).
In 1979, Jimmy Carter created the United States Department of Education (US DOE). Many believe that this department was created as a “political payoff” to the teachers’ union, which supported the Carter campaign. Some believe that it was created to shift control of education to the federal level, and others simply believe that it was created as a support to the states. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, he tried to shut down the department and return the power completely to the states, but he was unsuccessful. Since that time, George W. Bush expanded the US DOE and gave them more control through "No Child Left Behind".
In order to accept federal funding, schools must perform in compliance with federal programs or mandates. One such example is the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In order to accept federal funding, special education programs must adhere to the regulations established by IDEA (Wikipedia). More recent examples of this include NCLB, as well as the very recent and controversial “Race to the Top” (RTTT). In order to receive RTTT funds, states must comply with numerous federal mandates, such as adopting national standards and administering national testing. Many believe that RTTT is accomplishing more of the same federal control as did NCLB, while avoiding the tedious and messy process of reauthorization of NCLB (Effrem, 2/7/10).
According to Karen R. Effrem, MD, EdWatch Director of Government Relations:
Sadly, despite the many problems with RTTT, far too many otherwise constitutionally minded and levelheaded governors, state legislators, and members of Congress have blindly signed on to support this dangerous program. This support is apparently due to the severe fiscal problems that most states are facing due to the recession…Hopefully, with the public becoming increasingly and actively disenchanted with out of control government spending, regulation, and intrusion, officials from all points on the political spectrum will wake up and reject the statist education proposals in RTTT. States need to assume the rightful place of control and authority over education policy and spending (Effrem, 6/2/10).
The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It gives control over all aspects not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution to the States. It allows implementation of national programs to be placed in the hand of local officials, and it provides limitations to the growth of national bureaucracy. “Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism” (Wikipedia).
Nevertheless, several events in our history have shown an intermingling of state and federal power in education. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, for example, granted first land and later money to the states for colleges emphasizing agriculture and the mechanical arts. The 1917 Smith-Hughes Act supported vocational education. In 1944, the first G.I. Bill authorized direct payments to veterans for educational purposes.
Two federal statutes that are particularly notable are the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (Twight, 1994). NDEA authorized federal involvement by providing scholarships and loans to undergraduate and graduate students, in addition to funding state efforts to strengthen math, science, and foreign language courses in public schools. This act was a reaction to the Soviet Union’s successful launching of Sputnik I (the first earth-orbiting satellite) on October 4, 1957.
ESEA was represented as being part of President Johnson’s war on poverty. Johnson recommended “a major program of assistance to public elementary and secondary schools serving children of low-income families.” The bill itself authorized federal financial assistance to local educational agencies “for the education of children of low-income families.” However, much debate exists regarding the true motive for this act, and many feel that it was actually created to disproportionately benefit the wealthy, not the poor (Twight, 1994).
In 1979, Jimmy Carter created the United States Department of Education (US DOE). Many believe that this department was created as a “political payoff” to the teachers’ union, which supported the Carter campaign. Some believe that it was created to shift control of education to the federal level, and others simply believe that it was created as a support to the states. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, he tried to shut down the department and return the power completely to the states, but he was unsuccessful. Since that time, George W. Bush expanded the US DOE and gave them more control through "No Child Left Behind".
In order to accept federal funding, schools must perform in compliance with federal programs or mandates. One such example is the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). In order to accept federal funding, special education programs must adhere to the regulations established by IDEA (Wikipedia). More recent examples of this include NCLB, as well as the very recent and controversial “Race to the Top” (RTTT). In order to receive RTTT funds, states must comply with numerous federal mandates, such as adopting national standards and administering national testing. Many believe that RTTT is accomplishing more of the same federal control as did NCLB, while avoiding the tedious and messy process of reauthorization of NCLB (Effrem, 2/7/10).
According to Karen R. Effrem, MD, EdWatch Director of Government Relations:
Sadly, despite the many problems with RTTT, far too many otherwise constitutionally minded and levelheaded governors, state legislators, and members of Congress have blindly signed on to support this dangerous program. This support is apparently due to the severe fiscal problems that most states are facing due to the recession…Hopefully, with the public becoming increasingly and actively disenchanted with out of control government spending, regulation, and intrusion, officials from all points on the political spectrum will wake up and reject the statist education proposals in RTTT. States need to assume the rightful place of control and authority over education policy and spending (Effrem, 6/2/10).
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
How to Post Your Blog
Here is a brief tutorial on the very straight-forward process of posting a blog:
1) If you are not signed in, click Sign In on the top right-hand corner of the page.
2) Click on the link New Post on the top right-hand of the page
3) Create a title for your blog
4) If you are copying text from a Word document, Select All the text and copy it (keyboard shortcuts Control+A to select, Control+C to copy
5) Paste the text into the text box (Control+V to paste). If for some reason the text is not pasting, make sure you click once inside the actual text box.
6) When you have finished, click the Publish Post link located underneath the text box.
Enjoy!
The Top Ten Hardest Jobs To Fill
Source: Monster.com
White Collar
Engineers
Technicians
Sales Representatives
Accountants
IT Staff
Bue Collar
Machinists/Machine Operators
Skilled Tradespeople
Mechanics
Laborers
Production operators.
Source: Independent Street
Engineers
Machinists/Machine Operators
Skilled Manual Trades
Technicians
Sales Representatives
Accounting & Finance Staff
Mechanics
Laborers
IT Staff
Production Operators
Source: Forbes
Engineer
Nurse
Skilled Trades
Teacher
Sales Representative
Technician
(Truck) Driver
IT Staff
Laborer
Machinist/Machine Operator
White Collar
Engineers
Technicians
Sales Representatives
Accountants
IT Staff
Bue Collar
Machinists/Machine Operators
Skilled Tradespeople
Mechanics
Laborers
Production operators.
Source: Independent Street
Engineers
Machinists/Machine Operators
Skilled Manual Trades
Technicians
Sales Representatives
Accounting & Finance Staff
Mechanics
Laborers
IT Staff
Production Operators
Source: Forbes
Engineer
Nurse
Skilled Trades
Teacher
Sales Representative
Technician
(Truck) Driver
IT Staff
Laborer
Machinist/Machine Operator
Course Description
Course Description:
This course will focus on 15 main curriculum evaluation subtopics:
1. The underlying reasons that the No Child Left Behind law was enacted
2. Ongoing modifications to the No Child Left Behind law in the Obama era
3. The impact that the No Child Left Behind law has on the evaluation of students
4. Problems and solutions for curriculum evaluation under the No Child Left Behind law
5. Curriculum Auditing
6. Understanding the process and function of Curriculum Management
7. Creating a Scattergram.
8. Using Core Curriculum Content Standards to analyze data
9. Developing a Scope and Sequence Chart
10. Curriculum Mapping
11. Developing a 4 Year Curriculum Revision Cycle
12. Curriculum Monitoring
13. Item Analysis
14. Creating a Curriculum Evaluation Tool
15. Conducting a Curriculum Evaluation
Students will apply theory to practice while sequentially working through the 14 main curriculum evaluation topics listed above..
Course Design: This course requires the active involvement of the students. While networking amongst one another is not mandatory, it is a strongly recommended strategy for successful day-to-day lesson preparation. Emphasis and time will be devoted to the 14 main curriculum evaluation subtopics listed in the Course Description above. Two texts will be used as springboards; one for evaluating students and the other for evaluating curriculum. Topics will be explored as they are applied in real world experiences: in other words, we will explore how curriculum theory is being applied in practice. Students will submit and present three papers on issues that impact the 14 subtopics. A curriculum evaluation tool will be designed and used to evaluate curriculum guides that are currently in use in school districts. The professor will facilitate discussions, ask questions relevant to the topics, and provide additional insights from field experiences.
Textbooks:
Beverly Nichols, Sue Shidakker, Gene Johnson, and Kevin Singer (2006). Managing Curriculum and Assessment: A Practitioners Guide. Linworth Books.
W. James Popham ((2005). America’s “Failing” Schools. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Materials Needed:
One district curriculum guide that is currently in use
Course Objectives:
As a result of active engagement in this course, the students will be able to:
1 understand the necessity for the No Child Left Behind law.
2 understand the impact of the global economy, political forces, diversity, and technology on the No Child Left Behind Law and, ultimately, the evaluation of students and the curriculum.
3 understand the reasoning behind the shift from norm-referenced to criterion-referenced testing in public schools.
4 understand the concepts of adequate yearly progress and sanctions.
5 understand the causes of disparities between state and national tests.
6 understand problems and realistic solutions inherent with high stakes assessments.
7 learn and apply the three processes and eleven functions of curriculum evaluation (management).
8 create a curriculum evaluation tool.
9 conduct a curriculum evaluation.
10 work in cooperative learning groups to explore, discuss, build consensus and summarize topics relevant to curriculum evaluation.
11 make use of the college library and/or Internet resources for independent research on a variety of curriculum evaluation issues.
12 report orally and in writing on issues that impact issues of curriculum evaluation.
13 analyze and critique existing curriculum in terms of design, implementation, and evaluation, especially in light of ever changing technology and mandates.
14 work with key documents such as the NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards and a variety of curriculum samples.
Major Course Activities and Assignments:
1 Classroom Discussions
2 Classroom Group Activities
3 Three randomly assigned topical papers pertaining to curriculum evaluation
4 Creating a Curriculum Evaluation Tool
5 Conducting a Curriculum Evaluation
Grading:
1 In Class Group and Discussion Participation 10% of final grade
2 Topical Blog Reports (3) 30% of final grade
3 Oral Reports (3) 30% of final grade
4 Curriculum Evaluation Tool Design 10% of final grade
5 Curriculum Evaluation 20% of final grade
Topical Blog Reports and Oral Reports will be graded in five equal components on the ability to address the following questions:
1 Has the main topic been thoroughly explained so that it is understandable to the reader?
2 Is there evidence of sufficient research for the writer’s presentation of views on this topic?
3 Has the writer made his/her personal insights and/or conclusions clear, following up the research on the topic?
4 Does this topic have relevance towards curriculum evaluation?
5 Has the writer successfully presented his/her findings in a brief oral report?
Students are expected to use thorough library and/or Internet research for their topics. Evidence of research should be apparent in the two page position paper (formal citations are not required), along with the students’ personal insights/conclusions drawn from their researched findings. In some cases, the relevance of their topic towards curriculum evaluation may be a factor in the successful completion of this report. Lastly, the students will summarize their reports with a brief oral presentation to the class.
The difficulty of this project will lie in its complex brevity.
This course will focus on 15 main curriculum evaluation subtopics:
1. The underlying reasons that the No Child Left Behind law was enacted
2. Ongoing modifications to the No Child Left Behind law in the Obama era
3. The impact that the No Child Left Behind law has on the evaluation of students
4. Problems and solutions for curriculum evaluation under the No Child Left Behind law
5. Curriculum Auditing
6. Understanding the process and function of Curriculum Management
7. Creating a Scattergram.
8. Using Core Curriculum Content Standards to analyze data
9. Developing a Scope and Sequence Chart
10. Curriculum Mapping
11. Developing a 4 Year Curriculum Revision Cycle
12. Curriculum Monitoring
13. Item Analysis
14. Creating a Curriculum Evaluation Tool
15. Conducting a Curriculum Evaluation
Students will apply theory to practice while sequentially working through the 14 main curriculum evaluation topics listed above..
Course Design: This course requires the active involvement of the students. While networking amongst one another is not mandatory, it is a strongly recommended strategy for successful day-to-day lesson preparation. Emphasis and time will be devoted to the 14 main curriculum evaluation subtopics listed in the Course Description above. Two texts will be used as springboards; one for evaluating students and the other for evaluating curriculum. Topics will be explored as they are applied in real world experiences: in other words, we will explore how curriculum theory is being applied in practice. Students will submit and present three papers on issues that impact the 14 subtopics. A curriculum evaluation tool will be designed and used to evaluate curriculum guides that are currently in use in school districts. The professor will facilitate discussions, ask questions relevant to the topics, and provide additional insights from field experiences.
Textbooks:
Beverly Nichols, Sue Shidakker, Gene Johnson, and Kevin Singer (2006). Managing Curriculum and Assessment: A Practitioners Guide. Linworth Books.
W. James Popham ((2005). America’s “Failing” Schools. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Materials Needed:
One district curriculum guide that is currently in use
Course Objectives:
As a result of active engagement in this course, the students will be able to:
1 understand the necessity for the No Child Left Behind law.
2 understand the impact of the global economy, political forces, diversity, and technology on the No Child Left Behind Law and, ultimately, the evaluation of students and the curriculum.
3 understand the reasoning behind the shift from norm-referenced to criterion-referenced testing in public schools.
4 understand the concepts of adequate yearly progress and sanctions.
5 understand the causes of disparities between state and national tests.
6 understand problems and realistic solutions inherent with high stakes assessments.
7 learn and apply the three processes and eleven functions of curriculum evaluation (management).
8 create a curriculum evaluation tool.
9 conduct a curriculum evaluation.
10 work in cooperative learning groups to explore, discuss, build consensus and summarize topics relevant to curriculum evaluation.
11 make use of the college library and/or Internet resources for independent research on a variety of curriculum evaluation issues.
12 report orally and in writing on issues that impact issues of curriculum evaluation.
13 analyze and critique existing curriculum in terms of design, implementation, and evaluation, especially in light of ever changing technology and mandates.
14 work with key documents such as the NJ Core Curriculum Content Standards and a variety of curriculum samples.
Major Course Activities and Assignments:
1 Classroom Discussions
2 Classroom Group Activities
3 Three randomly assigned topical papers pertaining to curriculum evaluation
4 Creating a Curriculum Evaluation Tool
5 Conducting a Curriculum Evaluation
Grading:
1 In Class Group and Discussion Participation 10% of final grade
2 Topical Blog Reports (3) 30% of final grade
3 Oral Reports (3) 30% of final grade
4 Curriculum Evaluation Tool Design 10% of final grade
5 Curriculum Evaluation 20% of final grade
Topical Blog Reports and Oral Reports will be graded in five equal components on the ability to address the following questions:
1 Has the main topic been thoroughly explained so that it is understandable to the reader?
2 Is there evidence of sufficient research for the writer’s presentation of views on this topic?
3 Has the writer made his/her personal insights and/or conclusions clear, following up the research on the topic?
4 Does this topic have relevance towards curriculum evaluation?
5 Has the writer successfully presented his/her findings in a brief oral report?
Students are expected to use thorough library and/or Internet research for their topics. Evidence of research should be apparent in the two page position paper (formal citations are not required), along with the students’ personal insights/conclusions drawn from their researched findings. In some cases, the relevance of their topic towards curriculum evaluation may be a factor in the successful completion of this report. Lastly, the students will summarize their reports with a brief oral presentation to the class.
The difficulty of this project will lie in its complex brevity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)