A Change to No Child Left Behind

The Obama Administration is planning a change in the No Child Left Behind law. There has been a lot of grumbling about the proposed changes and what they might look like for a few months now. First the administration announced the initiative "Race to the Top" which was their way of encouraging schools to make changes, including dismissing ineffective teachers. I believe that many states have applied for the program, but there were some that didn't qualify. The main difference is less emphasis on standardized test scores. Under the current law, every school would have been on the failing list because by 2014, each school had to have 100% of its students meeting goal on the state standardized test. This was impossible and if we reached 2014 with the current law intact, it would have been the tipping point. For now, the administration wants to make significant changes, including getting rid of the goal for 2014. Now there is a different goal: All students are college ready or career ready by 2020. These are admirable goals, but I feel that NCLB needs to have a significant parental component. There are parents that do not understand nor accept their responsibility in their child's education. It is frustrating when they think that the school can do it all. In order for there to be true education reform, parents have to play a part.

BBC

Teach for America

Recent article in the New York Times looks at a study that focused on the level of civic participation of those involved in Teach for America. Growing up, I remember the disdain that teachers had for Teach for America members. They felt as if they didn't really pay their dues and they weren't dedicated to being teachers. They felt as if the TforA members considered it to be domestic peace corps. They go in for 2 years, teach some underprivileged kids, then go back to their "real" lives. I guess this article shows that these people aren't any more civically engaged than the rest of us.

My gripe with Teach for America and other programs of their ilk is that it operates under the premise that anyone can be a teacher. Why is it that one of the most important professions in the world is treated as if it doesn't take any particular skill or talent to do it? This is a difficult profession and only those who are dedicated to the profession should join. If I want to be a doctor, lawyer, mechanic, appliance repairman, I have to go to some sort of specialized program. But apparently, if I want to be a teacher, I can just join an organization. And teach in some of the neediest areas of the country. How does this fit with NCLB and "highly qualified teachers"?

BBC

The Democratic Dilemma

So in this surreal moment in life when the Democratic candidate for President will either be a woman or a black man, I have to seriously think about who I'm supporting. While I was taught in school that it's better for school psychologists to be politically neutral (you don't want to piss people off), I do have some political leanings. I am a registered Democrat and I will support the person that comes out of this alive. Despite my commitment, I do have to think about who is ultimately the stronger candidate. While they differ on some issues, the issue that I have to look at professionally was education. Where does Obama stand on education? What does Clinton have to say about education?

I checked out their websites to see what each candidate has to say. For what it's worth I saw a previous critique of the layout of the Clinton and Obama websites, and I think the critiques are valid. Clinton's website, check it out here, is dense with information, maybe too dense. I saw the text I thought "ugh." I guess I've worked with too many ADHD kids. There were a lot of good points, but I thought it should have been bulleted more. That first paragraph hits you with a thud. Obama's website, check it out here, has headers and has a nice flow. I'm just not sure about what he is actually saying. He presents more ideas and promises than Clinton and it begs the question: How much of this is actually feasible?

Education has been the cornerstone of the American Dream. Everyone is guaranteed an education here. If you get an education, you'll get a job. If you get a job, you can be a productive member of society. That's the sales pitch that America's been giving since the 18th century. So what are the promises that the Democratic presidential candidates are making? Clinton's promises seem to be more focused and there are fewer of them. There seems to be a realistic tone to what she is saying. She also mentions meeting the funding requirements of IDEA and providing support for children with special needs. Obama's promises are idealistic and are full of hope; you wouldn't expect anything less from him at this point. He proposes a "Zero to Five" plan that will focus on kids from birth to preschool. He also mentions making math and science a national priority. You read his ideas and they give you hope. I just wonder how much of this could he actually accomplish.

I have made a decision, but in the end I'll support whoever wins the ticket. I hope that NCLB will be amended, at least funded, so that we can change the education system in this country for the better.

BBC