Group Intro

Introduction

 

“When will I ever use this in my life?” and “Why do I have to learn this?” are two very common questions that school aged children ask everyday.  These questions can easily be answered by telling them that they need to do well on their next test and if they do well in school that they will get into a good college. From a very early age students are encouraged to take their schooling seriously and obtain an education, for one’s future success is almost always inextricably linked to a sound formal education. History has taught us that the ideal situation for an individual involves obtaining a formal education, being successful at exams, graduating with honors and finding a stable job or building a prosperous career. However, some students, especially in urban areas like Newark, New Jersey are not getting the education needed to become competent and successful members of society. The matter of changing school and curriculum (educational reform) to compensate for the rapidly changing world in which these schools and it student’s exist has been an ongoing battle of both failure and success in particularly urban areas. For instance, most of the students in and around the Hawthorne Avenue area in Newark come from lower income, working class families that are just barely making ends meet. Many of the parent(s) in these families have low educational backgrounds and this lower education is correlated to the lower income status that they presently possess.

 

President George Bush, in an effort to raise failing schools (classified by students who are falling behind), in primarily urban areas, proposed No Child Left Behind (NCLB); a series of standardized tests and guidelines for meeting an Annual Yearly Percentage (AYP) for various subject areas or the school in concern receives less funding or ultimately is closed down. There are a number of perceived inherent problems of the NCLB act and its implementation which currently dictates and drives the focus of teaching at both public and private schools across the country. Numerous reports have emerged showing the achievement gaps which exist between different components of society, be it against racial, cultural, religious or social divides. However, the fundamental underlying common denominator remains what is taught in schools. What is the role of the curriculum in future success? The reality remains that the focus of those standardized tests as currently employed may very well serve as a contributing factor to performance gaps which exist.

 

Students are very different and each will take very different paths in their lives. Thus, each student will need very different tools for their lives.  At a young age students learn all sorts of different tools that will be useful.  They learn basic math skills, geography, reading and writing, how to paint and play music.  These are most certainly skills that will be useful in their later schooling.  They are building blocks that are necessary to their future learning.   The problem seems to arise in later grades when the focus is much more on Math and English.  In order to see what the students are learning we must take a look at the curriculum that is being taught.  It does not take long to see that curriculum in our schools are driven by standardized tests.  These standardized tests are what we use to measure the students, teachers, schools and school districts.  The focus of school is now on finding ways to raise test scores rather than the practicality of what the students are learning.  In fact, we believe this idea of standardizing curriculum and learning goes against nature; fundamentally, it defies our societal structure. There needs to be more than one solution to assessing schools and its students and this concept of more than one answer is a vital component educators should be instilling in students today. The current policies in place assume that teachers can be led to perform better if they are made much more accountable for test score gains. Standardized testing seems to be the “solve-all” solution and there is evidence to support its prosperity and its failure. Both prosperity and failure are limited to the view of test scores. Students are not being assessed in the many ways they learn limiting the validity in the assessment of the student’s learned knowledge. In addition, the curriculum and teaching styles of educators is changing due to high-stakes testing. Educators are now teaching to the test, which in turn invalidates their reliability and validity. A major issue that we want to take a look at is how the standardized tests in New Jersey change as students advance through school.  In elementary school students take the NJ Ask, where they are tested in seven different content areas.  Later when students prepare for the HSPA, which they take junior year of high school in order to graduate, they are only tested on two content areas.  Narrowing down our focus to two major areas, Math and English, has a great impact on their curriculum. As a result, students are being assessed on how much test content and information they can memorize in regard to passing the test instead of assessing the depth of understanding and reasoning, along with the critical thinking that goes into making the decisions.