imagine

Final Inquiry Paper

2009-05-11T13:27:00.001-07:00

TOPIC: How much of what students are learning in school today applies to everyday life and are skills for future success?

ABSTRACT

Upon the river of knowledge, a student will drift upon their raft until they meet a teacher who can guide them towards the delta and then the sea. This sea of knowledge, a plethora of standardized tests and exams and curriculums that they must attain as their portfolio of known facts to continue on their journey is a worthwhile venture, but must be evoked in a proper manner. Urban education today in the Newark area is getting better every day, but is still far below state and national standards. The test scores and the strangling hold the curriculums have over teachers is more of a hindrance rather than help. These government instituted laws and programs made by mostly non-educators, could use some work. At the beginning and at the end of the day, there is a teacher and there is a student; and that student must learn, and that teacher must teach. That is what is most important. This paper investigated the value and importance of the current education system (mainly the curriculum and the role of standardized tests) to the most important players, namely, the administrators, the teachers and the students. We found that a greater majority of the participants / respondents believe that the curriculum and the standardized test is doing a disservice to the students and not adequately preparing them for the competitive world that they will face when they leave the doors of the school buildings.

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.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:

This research aims to investigate the curriculum being used in the Newark Public Schools system, particularly 4 schools in the Hawthorne Ave School area (SLT III) and assess the role of standardized test in preparing the nation’s youth for the 21st century. The researchers will suggest alternative ways by which assessment can be done without taking away from the ability to teach students life skills that will be important for future success.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The use of standardized tests by schools is commonly criticized. The tests do not necessarily test what students have learned. They do not reveal what the student has achieved. Critics have further suggested that alternatives to standardized tests should be developed and used for more effective student evaluation (Wildemuth, 1984). Herman and Golan (1991) investigated the effects of Standardized Testing on Teachers and Learning and found that all of the tests have not achieved the actual goals that the “standardizers” (designers/creators of the standardized tests) portrayed in their own outlooks of these tests. They felt as though these tests should have more bearing on what should happen in school systems and the budget plans, when in fact, these tests didn’t prove what they should have in the realms of student assessment.

Recent analysis of data has shown that in many states on every tangible measure, from qualified teachers to curriculum offering, that schools dominated by students of color had considerably less resources that schools dominated by white students (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Another study undertaken by Noulas and Ketkar (1998) measured the efficiency of public schools for the state of New Jersey using the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method; they examined the effect of certain socio-economic factors on efficiency and found that the average efficiency for all schools examined was 81%. Additionally, the wealthiest districts were found to have an efficiency score of 88% while for the neediest districts the efficiency was 63%. However, when socio-economic factors were taken into consideration, the difference between the two groups became smaller. Similarly, given the same educational resources studies have shown that students of color achieve at the same level of success as white students. As a result, some states have sought to equalize educational spending, enforce higher teaching standards, and reduced teacher shortages (Darling-Hammond, 1998) in an effort to decrease the gap in performance. The Strategic Support Team of the Council of the Newark City Schools’ instructional team was tasked with the responsibility of investigating possible ventures that could be undertaken in the view of raising student achievement in Newark Public Schools. Some of the recommendations they proposed to improve the academic achievement of students include: their basic general raising of the overall values of student goals and achievement in the Newark Public Schools (NPS) and the raising of the standardized tests as well. These scores can only be raised if the achievement gap can be reduced between the minorities and the Caucasians, proving to the government that these teacher shortages have a great overall affect on the achievement of students. These proposals were built around strategies that have proven to be effective in raising performance in other major urban school systems. According to the council, there is little else in the research or in practical experience to suggest that strategies beyond those described above are likely to have much, if any, effect on student achievement.

Americans students should leave high school with the know-how they need to make it in the real world; less than one half of our students have the knowledge or foundation required to find and hold a good job (Aguirre et. al., 2000). The curriculum being used and the overall act of curriculum development are partly to blame and needs to be adjusted to include learning-how-to-learn. Once students learn ultimately how they learn, then these skills can be applied to lifelong learning skills for success in the ever-advancing future (Cornfield, 2002). The most important thing in education is that every student deserves and opportunity at a good education. Until this happens we cannot blame the students for the gap in test scores (Darling-Hammond, 1998).

METHODOLOGY

Numerous strategies were employed in the collection of data for this inquiry project. We sought to speak to members of the Newark Public Schools (NPS) administration in person and via telephone. We made efforts to speak to current and former teachers and students of the NPS system. We also tried to get the general impression of the condition of the target schools by means of on site visits. Additionally, the research team also reviewed data collected by the testing department of the NPS as they pertained to our target area and reviewed journals which also investigated various aspects of our area of interest. A formal questionnaire was not utilized but the questions asked (which served more as a guide to discussion) and topics addressed in discussion with respondents are listed in Appendix A.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The following survey results show a great deal of information regarding the Newark Public School system, specifically two middle schools, the Hawthorne Ave School and Bragaw Ave School and two High Schools, the William H Brown Academy, and The Malcolm H Shabazz School. We did not attempt to compare against schools as this was not the objective of the exercise but rather to use their test scores and figures as performance indicators under current circumstances. These statistics show that the overall scoring of the students within these schools in regards to standardized testing in all areas was particularly low. These schools are not even close to comparable to the NJ state standard nor are they in the realm of meeting any district percentile averages benchmarks. These schools were chosen because of their close proximity to our target school the Hawthorne school and in this choice we discovered some majorly overlooked scores that are exceptionally and sensationally low in comparison to the state and country average. We utilized the test scores of the grade levels that were highest and appropriate for the NJ ASK (Grade 8 proficiency) or HSPA, two tests which had an actual effect on whether or not the students could make it to the next grade level passing or not.

The map above shows the target area (Yellow Circle) in Newark where the investigation was done (SLT III). Courtesy http://www.ntuaft.com/newark_map_lg.jpg

Table showing data for BRAGAW AVE (#13) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08	32	50%	50%	0%
	District	2007-08	2974	43.6%	54%	2.5%
	DFG	2007-08	16370	42.8%	54.8%	2.4%
	State	2007-08	103900	18.6%	69.9%	11.5%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08	32	62.5%	31.3%	6.3%
	District	2007-08	2972	62.8%	29%	8.2%
	DFG	2007-08	16386	60.9%	30.9%	8.1%
	State	2007-08	104049	32.4%	42.8%	24.9%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** SCIENCE		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Science	School	2007-08	32	43.8%	53.1%	3.1%
	District	2007-08	2972	35%	53.2%	11.8%
	DFG	2007-08	16317	38.9%	52.2%	8.9%
	State	2007-08	103940	15.7%	51.9%	32.3%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

The above schools scores are way below the state’s average and their partial, proficient, and advanced levels are extremely LOW over all. If you look closely at the state proficient, you can sometimes see a small jump, but overall in all subjects they are usually low and way under average.

Table showing data for HAWTHORNE AVE (#40) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08	43	51.2%	48.8%	0%
	District	2007-08	2974	43.6%	54%	2.5%
	DFG	2007-08	16370	42.8%	54.8%	2.4%
	State	2007-08	103900	18.6%	69.9%	11.5%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08	43	76.7%	20.9%	2.3%
	District	2007-08	2972	62.8%	29%	8.2%
	DFG	2007-08	16386	60.9%	30.9%	8.1%
	State	2007-08	104049	32.4%	42.8%	24.9%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** SCIENCE		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Science	School	2007-08	43	55.8%	37.2%	7%
	District	2007-08	2972	35%	53.2%	11.8%
	DFG	2007-08	16317	38.9%	52.2%	8.9%
	State	2007-08	103940	15.7%	51.9%	32.3%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

The same can be said for the Hawthorne Ave school in general. Their scores are low and not near or at state averages.

Table showing data for WILLIAM H. BROWN ACADEMY (#81) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08	86	55.8%	43%	1.2%
	District	2007-08	2974	43.6%	54%	2.5%
	DFG	2007-08	16370	42.8%	54.8%	2.4%
	State	2007-08	103900	18.6%	69.9%	11.5%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08	85	85.9%	11.8%	2.4%
	District	2007-08	2972	62.8%	29%	8.2%
	DFG	2007-08	16386	60.9%	30.9%	8.1%
	State	2007-08	104049	32.4%	42.8%	24.9%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** SCIENCE		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Science	School	2007-08	82	51.2%	45.1%	3.7%
	District	2007-08	2972	35%	53.2%	11.8%
	DFG	2007-08	16317	38.9%	52.2%	8.9%
	State	2007-08	103940	15.7%	51.9%	32.3%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

These schools scores are in the same realm as the rest of the secondary schools in the area. Of course some scores do fluctuate, but overall they are low.

Table showing data for MALCOLM X SHABAZZ 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

Student Performance Indicators

ASSESSMENTS

High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08 2006-07	243 292	53.5% 54.5%	46.5% 45.5%	0% 0%
	District	2007-08 2006-07	2519 2503	48.7% 41.7%	48.9% 53.3%	2.3% 5%
	DFG	2007-08 2006-07	11661 12206	42.4% 37.6%	55.1% 57.3%	2.5% 5%
	State	2007-08 2006-07	96984 98466	16.6% 14.7%	71.1% 66%	12.3% 19.4%
*To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed.

High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08 2006-07	238 284	79.4% 85.9%	20.2% 13.7%	0.4% 0.4%
	District	2007-08 2006-07	2500 2489	59.6% 60.3%	35.8% 33.7%	4.6% 6%
	DFG	2007-08 2006-07	11621 12181	56.2% 58%	38.7% 36.3%	5.1% 5.7%
	State	2007-08 2006-07	96908 98353	24.6% 26.6%	51.8% 50.2%	23.6% 23.2%
*To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed.

In regards to Malcolm X Shabazz, it is a High School and we do move on to the HSPA’s which is a very different test indeed. But as it is plainly shown, the scores are extremely low as well and these figures reveal a great divide between the state and the school’s average performance on the said test.

Discussions with past and current students yielded a variety of opinions as it pertains to the value of standardized tests. A majority of the students interviewed didn’t have a clear definition of what a standardized test was but was knowledgeable about the existence of such a test. Some students especially in the middle school, regarded school as something they had to do until they were 16 yrs old and had no control over that. As such, they did not have an opinion as to whether what they were learning in school was important to their future life or just a means to an end. While some students (about 25% of those interviewed) thought that the standardized tests were helpful in their efforts to get good grades and ultimately shape a career, the majority (about 75%) thought that standardized test only serve to limit the amount of knowledge they can acquire during their elementary and high school years. Most of the students contend that their teachers teach to the tests and find very little time to help students in developing social or life skills. This was in keeping with the notion put forward by Madus (1988) that tests are losing their legitimacy on evaluating students on their learned knowledge due to the “teaching of the test.” This corrupts the information that the students have learned and therefore know because instead of retrieving the information from long-term memory, they are memorizing test material and format. Additionally, some find that the lessons are usually scripted with very little room for impromptu modifications on the part of the teacher or students. School was also referred to as boring and useless by many of the students interviewed. The administrators spoken to were generally of the view that the standardized tests are not the quick fix to the numerous problems being encountered in the NPS system. One contends that the standardized test system is “what we have now and what we have to work with”. A discussion ensued about the need for alternatives to the much dreaded standardized test and some of those already being tried out in districts outside Newark. Some of those alternatives have included criterion-referenced tests, teacher-made tests, contract grading, interviews with students and their parents, and detailed documentation of a student's accomplishments (Wildemuth, 1984). Other administrators were a bit more blunt in their criticisms of the current situation and expressed that the current curriculum “focuses too much on subject content and leaves little time to engage in the overall development of the students”. The curriculum was seen as being “too tightly fit into the 180 teaching days which exists in the NPS System – resulting in some teachers being unable to complete the curriculum content”.

The teachers spoken to were equally as open as their students in condemning the current educational system and curriculum taught in schools. One recurring theme was the notion that the curriculum in use in schools in the Newark Public Schools does not include any aspect that deals with nurturing interpersonal skills or promoting other skills which should go hand in hand with education in the various subject areas. The curriculum was regarded as being one that does not teach or encourage students to think critically, be innovative or develop new ideas. Students who are able to think critically are able to solve problems effectively. Having knowledge is simply not enough in today’s world. To be effective in the work place and in personal lives, students must be able to solve problems and make effective decisions; they must be able to think critically (Synder and Snyder, 2008). There were suggestions to modify the current curriculum to address those deficiencies and aim to produce wholly developed individuals rather than book smart or content savvy individuals. The general impression from the respondents was that the current curriculum is failing the students and isn’t geared towards personal development. Students need to learn more about the world, think outside of the box, become smarter about new sources of information, develop good people skills and redefine how they learn. The curriculum needs to be adjusted to incorporate a balance between core knowledge and portable skills such as critical thinking, making connections between ideas and knowing how to learn (Wallis and Steptoe, 2006). Information technology was regarded as one of the areas that needed more attention and greater inclusion in the district’s curriculum.

CONCLUSION

This inquiry project gave us some insight into the Newark Public School system and the numerous challenges and difficulties faced by teachers, students and administrators. Some of the hurdles we encountered while undertaking this research included not getting access to “walk through” some of our target schools and as such had to observe the schools from the outside. Our efforts to meet with a few principals who have been in office for over 20 years proved futile and as such we were not able to get a cleared picture of the situation which existed prior to the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy and in what ways standardized tests may have changed over the years. We also found it difficult to have a detailed interview with some of the teachers since they were either in the process of completing the preparation of their students for the NJ ASK test or in the process of reviewing before the test - another testimony that the lives of the teachers and the students are “governed” by test taking and not necessarily learning life skills.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulties, we were able to deduce that there is an overwhelming attitude and mentality of despair hovering above and surrounding participants of the NPS system. There is a strong desire for the “powers that be” to realize that the current curriculum does not adequately prepare the New Jersey child for future success. Many of the respondents believed that the state can achieve a great deal by simply tweaking the current curriculum and test system to include areas such as etiquette, critical thinking, and data analysis. Criticisms were also levied against the decision to “focus” on two subjects, math and literacy, in that, students and teachers tend to neglect other subject areas in favor of those being tested. There was also a call for a more comprehensive evaluation of students which takes into account the inability of some students to do well on structured tests.

We believe that there is hope for the Newark Public School system but it will take some bold initiatives on the part of the administration to deviate from the norm and implement new strategies that will make Newark students stand out from amidst the rest of the nation. There needs to be a direct reversal in the trends of test scores in the four target schools identified but there is also need for modifications to be made in order to improve those tests and make them more meaningful and representative of a complete evaluation.

REFERENCES

Aguirre, E., Brock, W. E., Biggins, J. V., Black, J. P., Brockett P. L., Burdick, W. E., Burge, J. D., Carswell, B., Chapman, T. W., Cole, P. F., Conn, G. J., Cortina, G., Doyle, F. P., Foreman, J. H., Foster, B. G., Gregory, W. H., Herrera, Y., Martin, L., Jennings, M. P., Palko, S., Patterson, J., Parnell, D., Resnick, L. B., Rivera, R.E., Semerad, R. D., Sticht, T. G., Watts, G. D., Wetjen, S. M., Whitburn, G., Zimmerman, J. H. (2000). U.S. Department of Labor: What Work Requires Of Schools: A Scans Report for America 2000. The Secretary’s Commission On Achieving Necessary Skills, June 1991, i-36.

Cornfield, I. R. (2002). Learning-To-Learn Strategies As A Basis For Effective Lifelong Learning. International Journal Of Education, 21(4), 357-368.

Glaser, R., Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, Testing, and Instruction: Retrospect and Prospect. Review of Research in Education, 20, 393-419.

Madus, G. F. (1988). The Distortion of Teaching and Testing: High Stakes Testing and Instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29-46.

Packer, A. (2007). Meeting Standards Will Not Guarantee Success. Fairtest, The High School Assessments Forum: Oakland Mills Interfaith Center, 2003, October 21

Synder, L. G., Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking Skills and Problem Solving Skills. The Delta Epsilon Journal, L(2), 90-99.

Wallis, C., Steptoe, S., (2006, December 18). How To Bring Our Schools Out Of The 20^th Century. Time Magazine, 51-56.

Wildemuth, Barbara M. (1984). Alternatives to Standardized Tests. ERIC Digest. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests Measurement and Evaluation Princeton NJ.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED286938

APPENDIX A

Interview Questions: Note; Not all questions were asked to respondents.

Teachers (from)

1. Are you required to?

a. Show or submit lesson plans of your curriculum?

b. Prove by documentation the use of the NJCCS within your curriculum plans?

c. If yes, how is the proof documented; on the lesson plans themselves or written on the board during the lesson.

d. If no, why is there lack of connection between the teachers, state curriculum and the school? Do you think that this connection is beneficial to the students and the school?

2. Do you feel that through your curriculum you are teaching your students the necessary life skills they need for future success post schooling? i.e.- Critical thinking skills, collaborative skills, reasoning skills, lifelong learning skills?

3. Have the standardized tests changed anything specifically about your curriculum and/or teaching style? If so, what has changed?

4. How important are standardized testing to you? Do you think it is beneficial to the students learning?

5. Have content area class been cut as a result of standardized testing? If so, what classes? Do you feel that these classes are important to the student’s well-rounded development?

6. What skills besides literacy and mathematical competence do you feel your students will need after graduation?

Administration-Superintendent (from)

7. How has the budget been affected, if at all, by standardized testing?

8. Do you find yourself in Trenton trying to collect funding for your schools?

9. How important do you feel standardized testing is for the success of your schools and students?

10. Have you felt a true change in your schools, perhaps more pressure or stresses on yourself or the faculty due to standardized testing?

11. What steps are you taking to ensure that your schools meet their AYP?

Students (from)

12. What is a standardized test?

13. How important are the tests to you?

14. How do the tests make you feel? Do you like them? Do you think that they will help you for your future? If so, in what ways?

15. Have you had any other experiences with tests? If so, what type of tests? Do you like those tests better?

16. Do you think that standardized testing really tests your true abilities and strengths?

17. Do you feel any changes in your classes as you have moved up through the grades about what you are learning?

18. Do you think what you are learning is going to be useful in the real world after you graduate?

19. What skills do you think will be important for you after you graduate?

20. What do you want to be when you grow up?

21. Do you feel that after receiving your diploma, you will have all that you need for success in the future?

22. What are you plans after graduation? Will you pursue further education (where to) or join the work force (in what line of work)?

23. How would you change school if you could?

Inquiry paper

2009-05-11T04:47:00.000-07:00

INTRODUCTION

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Recent analysis of data has shown that in many states on every tangible measure, from qualified teachers to curriculum offering, that schools dominated by students of color had considerably less resources that schools dominated by white students (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Another study undertaken by Noulas and Ketkar (1998) measured the efficiency of public schools for the state of New Jersey using the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method; they examined the effect of certain socio-economic factors on efficiency and found that the average efficiency for all schools examined was 81%. Additionally, the wealthiest districts were found to have an efficiency score of 88% while for the neediest districts the efficiency was 63%. However, when socio-economic factors were taken into consideration, the difference between the two groups became smaller. Similarly, given the same educational resources studies have shown that students of color achieve at the same level of success as white students (………….). As a result, some states have sought to equalize educational spending, enforce higher teaching standards, and reduced teacher shortages (Darling-Hammond, 1998) in an effort to decrease the gap in performance. The Strategic Support Team of the Council of the Newark City Schools’ instructional team was tasked with the responsibility of investigating possible ventures that could be undertaken in the view of raising student achievement in Newark Public Schools. Some of the recommendations they proposed to improve the academic achievement of students include: their basic general raising of the overall values of student goals and achievement in the Newark Public Schools (NPS) and the raising of the standardized tests as well. These scores can only be raised if the achievement gap can be reduced between the minorities and the Caucasians, proving to the government that these teacher shortages have a great overall affect on the achievement of students. These proposals were built around strategies that have proven to be effective in raising performance in other major urban school systems. According to the council, there is little else in the research or in practical experience to suggest that strategies beyond those described above are likely to have much, if any, effect on student achievement.

Americans students should leave high school with the know-how they need to make it in the real world; less than one half of our students have the knowledge or foundation required to find and hold a good job (Aguirre et. al., 2000). The curriculum being used and the overall act of curriculum development is partly to blame and needs to be adjusted to include learning-how-to-learn. Once students learn ultimately how they learn, then these skills can be applied to lifelong learning skills for success in the ever-advancing future (Cornfield, 2002). The most important thing in education is that every student deserves and opportunity at a good education. Until this happens we cannot blame the students for the gap in test scores (Darling-Hammond, 1998).

METHODOLOGY

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The map above shows the target area (Yellow Circle) in Newark where the investigation was done (SLT III). Courtesy http://www.ntuaft.com/newark_map_lg.jpg

Table showing data for BRAGAW AVE (#13) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08	32	50%	50%	0%
	District	2007-08	2974	43.6%	54%	2.5%
	DFG	2007-08	16370	42.8%	54.8%	2.4%
	State	2007-08	103900	18.6%	69.9%	11.5%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08	32	62.5%	31.3%	6.3%
	District	2007-08	2972	62.8%	29%	8.2%
	DFG	2007-08	16386	60.9%	30.9%	8.1%
	State	2007-08	104049	32.4%	42.8%	24.9%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** SCIENCE		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Science	School	2007-08	32	43.8%	53.1%	3.1%
	District	2007-08	2972	35%	53.2%	11.8%
	DFG	2007-08	16317	38.9%	52.2%	8.9%
	State	2007-08	103940	15.7%	51.9%	32.3%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

Table showing data for HAWTHORNE AVE (#40) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08	43	51.2%	48.8%	0%
	District	2007-08	2974	43.6%	54%	2.5%
	DFG	2007-08	16370	42.8%	54.8%	2.4%
	State	2007-08	103900	18.6%	69.9%	11.5%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08	43	76.7%	20.9%	2.3%
	District	2007-08	2972	62.8%	29%	8.2%
	DFG	2007-08	16386	60.9%	30.9%	8.1%
	State	2007-08	104049	32.4%	42.8%	24.9%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** SCIENCE		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Science	School	2007-08	43	55.8%	37.2%	7%
	District	2007-08	2972	35%	53.2%	11.8%
	DFG	2007-08	16317	38.9%	52.2%	8.9%
	State	2007-08	103940	15.7%	51.9%	32.3%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

The same can be said for the Hawthorne Ave school in general. Their scores are low and not near or at state averages.

Table showing data for WILLIAM H. BROWN ACADEMY (#81) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08	86	55.8%	43%	1.2%
	District	2007-08	2974	43.6%	54%	2.5%
	DFG	2007-08	16370	42.8%	54.8%	2.4%
	State	2007-08	103900	18.6%	69.9%	11.5%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08	85	85.9%	11.8%	2.4%
	District	2007-08	2972	62.8%	29%	8.2%
	DFG	2007-08	16386	60.9%	30.9%	8.1%
	State	2007-08	104049	32.4%	42.8%	24.9%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** SCIENCE		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Science	School	2007-08	82	51.2%	45.1%	3.7%
	District	2007-08	2972	35%	53.2%	11.8%
	DFG	2007-08	16317	38.9%	52.2%	8.9%
	State	2007-08	103940	15.7%	51.9%	32.3%
To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. *New test administered in spring 2008.

These schools scores are in the same realm as the rest of the secondary schools in the area. Of course some scores do fluctuate, but overall they are low.

Table showing data for MALCOLM X SHABAZZ 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

Student Performance Indicators

ASSESSMENTS

High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) LANGUAGE ARTS LITERACY		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Language Arts Literacy	School	2007-08 2006-07	243 292	53.5% 54.5%	46.5% 45.5%	0% 0%
	District	2007-08 2006-07	2519 2503	48.7% 41.7%	48.9% 53.3%	2.3% 5%
	DFG	2007-08 2006-07	11661 12206	42.4% 37.6%	55.1% 57.3%	2.5% 5%
	State	2007-08 2006-07	96984 98466	16.6% 14.7%	71.1% 66%	12.3% 19.4%
*To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed.

High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Proficiency Percentages
High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) MATHEMATICS		Year	Number Tested	Partial	Proficient	Advanced
All Students »details for subgroups for Mathematics	School	2007-08 2006-07	238 284	79.4% 85.9%	20.2% 13.7%	0.4% 0.4%
	District	2007-08 2006-07	2500 2489	59.6% 60.3%	35.8% 33.7%	4.6% 6%
	DFG	2007-08 2006-07	11621 12181	56.2% 58%	38.7% 36.3%	5.1% 5.7%
	State	2007-08 2006-07	96908 98353	24.6% 26.6%	51.8% 50.2%	23.6% 23.2%
*To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed.

Discussions with past and current students yielded a variety of opinions as it pertains to the value of standardized tests. A majority of the students interviewed didn’t have a clear definition of what a standardized test was but was knowledgeable about the existence of such a test. Some students especially in the middle school, regarded school as something they had to do until they were 16 yrs old and had no control over that. As such, they did not have an opinion as to whether what they were learning in school was important to their future life or just a means to an end. While some students (about 25% of those interviewed) thought that the standardized test were helpful in their efforts to get good grades and ultimately shape a career, the majority (about 75%) thought that standardized test only serve to limit the amount of knowledge they can acquire during their elementary and high school years. Most of the students contend that their teachers teach to the tests and find very little time to help students in developing social or life skills. This was in keeping with the notion put forward by Madus (1988) that tests are losing their legitimacy on evaluating students on their learned knowledge due to the “teaching of the test.” This corrupts the information that the students have learned and therefore know because instead of retrieving the information from long-term memory, they are memorizing test material and format. Additionally, some find that the lessons are usually scripted with very little room for impromptu modifications on the part of the teacher or students. School was also referred to as boring and useless by many of the students interviewed. The administrators spoken to were generally of the view that the standardized tests are not the quick fix to the numerous problems being encountered in the NPS system. One contends that the standardized test system is “what we have now and what we have to work with”. A discussion ensued about the need for alternatives to the much dreaded standardized test and some of those already being tried out in districts outside Newark. Some of those alternatives have included criterion-referenced tests, teacher-made tests, contract grading, interviews with students and their parents, and detailed documentation of a student's accomplishments (Wildemuth, 1984). Other administrators were a bit more blunt in their criticisms of the current situation and expressed that the current curriculum “focuses too much on subject content and leaves little time to engage in the overall development of the students”. The curriculum was seen as being “too tightly fit into the 180 teaching days which exists in the NPS System – resulting in some teachers being unable to complete the curriculum content”.

The teachers spoken to were equally critical as their students in condemning the current educational system and curriculum taught in schools. One recurring theme was the notion that the curriculum in use in schools in the Newark Public Schools does not include any aspect that deals with nurturing interpersonal skills or promoting other skills which should go hand in hand with education in the various subject areas. The curriculum was regarded as being one that does not teach or encourage students to think critically, be innovative or develop new ideas. Students who are able to think critically are able to solve problems effectively. Having knowledge is simply not enough in today’s world. To be effective in the work place and in personal lives, students must be able to solve problems and make effective decisions; they must be able to think critically (Synder and Snyder, 2008). There were suggestions to modify the current curriculum to address those deficiencies and aim to produce wholly developed individuals rather than book smart or content savvy individuals. The general impression from the respondents was that the current curriculum is failing the students and isn’t geared towards personal development. Students need to learn more about the world, think outside of the box, become smarter about new sources of information, develop good people skills and redefine how they learn. The curriculum needs to be adjusted to incorporate a balance between core knowledge and portable skills such as critical thinking, making connections between ideas and knowing how to learn (Wallis and Steptoe, 2006). Information technology was regarded as one of the areas that needed more attention and greater inclusion in the district’s curriculum.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulties, we were able to deduce that there is an overwhelming attitude and mentality of despair hovering above and surrounding participants of the NPS system. There is a strong desire for the “powers that be” to realize that the current curriculum does not adequately prepare the New Jersey child for future success. Many of the respondents believed that the state can achieve a great deal by simply tweaking the current curriculum and test system to include areas such as etiquette, critical thinking, data analysis. Criticisms were also levied against the decision to “focus” on two subjects, math and literacy, in that, students and teachers tend to neglect other subject areas in favor of those being tested. There was also a call for a more comprehensive evaluation of students which takes into account the inability of some students to do well on structured tests.

REFERENCES

Cornfield, I. R. (2002). Learning-To-Learn Strategies As A Basis For Effective Lifelong Learning. International Journal Of Education, 21(4), 357-368.

Glaser, R., Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, Testing, and Instruction: Retrospect and Prospect. Review of Research in Education, 20, 393-419.

Madus, G. F. (1988). The Distortion of Teaching and Testing: High Stakes Testing and Instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29-46.

Packer, A. (2007). Meeting Standards Will Not Guarantee Success. Fairtest, The High School Assessments Forum: Oakland Mills Interfaith Center, 2003, October 21

Synder, L. G., Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking Skills and Problem Solving Skills. The Delta Epsilon Journal, L(2), 90-99.

Wallis, C., Steptoe, S., (2006, December 18). How To Bring Our Schools Out Of The 20^th Century. Time Magazine, 51-56.

Wildemuth, Barbara M. (1984). Alternatives to Standardized Tests. ERIC Digest. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests Measurement and Evaluation Princeton NJ.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED286938

APPENDIX A

Interview Questions: Note; Not all questions were asked to respondents.

Teachers (from)

1. Are you required to?

a. Show or submit lesson plans of your curriculum?

b. Prove by documentation the use of the NJCCS within your curriculum plans?

c. If yes, how is the proof documented; on the lesson plans themselves or written on the board during the lesson.

d. If no, why is there lack of connection between the teachers, state curriculum and the school? Do you think that this connection is beneficial to the students and the school?

2. Do you feel that through your curriculum you are teaching your students the necessary life skills they need for future success post schooling? ie- Critical thinking skills, collaborative skills, reasoning skills, lifelong learning skills?

3. Have the standardized tests changed anything specifically about your curriculum and/or teaching style? If so, what has changed?

4. How important are standardized testing to you? Do you think it is beneficial to the students learning?

5. Have content area class been cut as a result of standardized testing? If so, what classes? Do you feel that these classes are important to the student’s well-rounded development?

6. What skills besides literacy and mathematical competence do you feel your students will need after graduation?

Administration-Superintendent (from)

7. How has the budget been affected, if at all, by standardized testing?

8. Do you find yourself in Trenton trying to collect funding for your schools?

9. How important do you feel standardized testing is for the success of your schools and students?

10. Have you felt a true change in your schools, perhaps more pressure or stresses on yourself or the faculty due to standardized testing?

11. What steps are you taking to ensure that your schools meet their AYP?

Students (from)

12. What is a standardized test?

13. How important are the tests to you?

14. How do the tests make you feel? Do you like them? Do you think that they will help you for your future? If so, in what ways?

15. Have you had any other experiences with tests? If so, what type of tests? Do you like those tests better?

16. Do you think that standardized testing really tests your true abilities and strengths?

17. Do you feel any changes in your classes as you have moved up through the grades about what you are learning?

18. Do you think what you are learning is going to be useful in the real world after you graduate?

19. What skills do you think will be important for you after you graduate?

20. What do you want to be when you grow up?

21. Do you feel that after receiving your diploma, you will have all that you need for success in the future?

22. What are you plans after graduation? Will you pursue further education (where to) or join the work force (in what line of work)?

23. How would you change school if you could?

Blog 15 Self-Assessment

2009-05-08T12:53:00.001-07:00

It is true that as one ages, they learn more about themselves, their likes and dislikes, habits, and pleasures. Culture defines who we are and influences our personality, who we are human beings. Before this class, I had never given much thought about my culture or how it has shaped how I view the world and my beliefs.

Exploring my culture was much more difficult than I had anticipated. When viewing myself, it was hard to see why certain aspects of my life affected my being and who I have become today. As the pieces came together on my collage, I began to see how my experiences have really influenced my culture. The divorce, for me, was a driving force that has significantly influenced how I treat others and how I view relationships. Learning about myself has given me a truer and more complete sense of self that will give me the confidence to be myself in the classroom. Reading my classmate’s blogs regarding their culture was an eye opener as well. We all have had such different experiences and come from all aspects of life yet we all have the same vision, to educate. The more I know about others and their culture the more I will understand the diverse students that I will one day teach. I have learned that it is very important, even vital, to get to know the community it which you are serving. This will give the best insight into the student’s lives outside of school and help foster a sense of family and community in the classroom.

I have changed the way in which I look at urban areas, schools, and people. I never realized that this country’s idea of the self-sufficiency wage is so low. I have adjusted my stereotypes and now understand that some of the families are really struggling for a better life and just can’t seem to get there. The schools are failing not because of the kids, but due to the corrupt bureaucracies that are run by money and fraud.

Reading Unequal Childhoods was very interesting and broadened my horizons about the different family make-ups and lives. Through this literature, I have also discovered the major differences in class structure and how child rearing is heavily affected by the parent’s income. Not only that, but class influences how parents communicate and interact in their child’s school and extracurricular activities. Class is a concept that I never gave much thought to and it really shapes a child’s life.

As for being a future educator anywhere, I am willing to take risks like the teacher from Spectacular Things and drive the curriculum based on democracy and student interest. There is no doubt that those children remember their experiences in Room 405 and have used what they have learned there to become better learners in the following grades. My concern was, that once in the sixth grade, if the new teacher teaches in a traditional way, will that inhibit or change the way the student’s look at school because they no longer have a say in what they are learning? Although the student’s didn’t get what they set out for, when it comes down to it, what they have gained from the process was just as rewarding not only to them, but to Mr. Shultz because they were able to see the little successes along the way. Not knowing the outcome of the curriculum or where it could potentially take you could be frightening for an educator; for that matter not knowing all of the answers. I embrace the idea of learning together. That is what education is all about.

Art is my passion. I want to share this with my students one day. Art is a process, a science, its creative and there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to expressing yourself. However, when it comes to safety issues, there is no discussion to be had. Especially with inks and acids in printmaking or using the blowtorch or kiln. I know that I will let my students have an active role in their learning and I will be there to foster a creative, comfortable, classroom community while sharing inspiration and passion to the learning and appreciation of art. I will be sure to learn about the community in which I am serving and take an active role in learning about my student’s culture’s to understand just where they are coming from and where they can grow to.

Our Website

2009-05-06T17:31:00.000-07:00

http://sites.google.com/a/mail.montclair.edu/think-education-think-life/Home/?pageDeleted=%2FHome%2Fgreatness

Project Findings of Newark Area

2009-04-18T18:59:00.000-07:00

Our group has been working on setting up appointments to speak to some of the teachers, administration and students in the Hawthorne area schools. Due to their spring break last week, our trip to investigate the area and speak with the needed representatives has been pushed back to this coming Friday. This trip is the final link between all of our group member's concentrations on this inquiry project and will come together as a cohesive final piece.

Inquiry: What am I learning and SUMMARY

2009-04-18T18:41:00.000-07:00

In researching my concentration of our inquiry question, How much of what students are learning in school today applies to everyday life skills for future success?, I have found endless literature voicing opinions both pro and con toward the subject of standardized testing. In recent years, there has been great emphasis on assessment and accountability put on by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and “teaching to the test”. This has affected schools, administrators, parents, and especially educators, their curriculum and teaching styles and the students.

I have been exploring how the education that students receive, especially in low performing schools in urban areas is being affected by standardized testing. The most difficult part of this research so far, has been sorting through the endless literature that has been written on this subject and finding the “legitimate” and also the view that compliments our group’s vision of standardized testing as not being the only means of assessment for successful real life application. From my research, I have found assessment to be both an attempt at a valuable solution, yet still part of a growing problem. Student’s culture, race, and socio-economic class have much influence over a student’s performance, learning abilities/styles, and level of knowledge and these differences are not accounted for in standardized testing. Standardized tests are creating a standard of only one correct answer, therefore transforming the information being tested into a rote memorization task rather than a measure of true or deep understanding. In addition, the idea of only one right answer is not beneficial to students as they gain entrance into the real world. In most cases, there are more than one correct answer to a certain problem and the ability that these students today are being robbed of is the creative thinking “thinking outside of the box” that allows for creation of other valuable alternatives to whatever the situation at hand is. Real life application of what is being taught in school and how to use that knowledge needs to be clearer in assessment. These tests do not leave room for the critical thinking and reasoning behind the answer chosen and that process is line between knowing if the student truly understands the content being asked or presented.

Skills such as reasoning and critical thinking are necessary skills towards lifelong learning and are considered life skills. In fact, the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) has put forth and renewed in the year 2000, standards associated on what “Work Requires of Schools” ; the skills necessary to succeed in the work place, further education and as a successful member of society. They are skills that are important in nearly every facet of life. There is a three-part foundation and a set of five competencies that include skills such as: reading, writing, mathematical reasoning, listening, speaking, creative thinking, problem solving, organizing, knowing how to learn, reasoning, responsibility, collaboration, technology, self-esteem, sociability, self management and honesty.

Due to the pressure of NCLB, many educators in schools labeled low performing, based on standardized test scores only, by not meeting their Annual Yearly Percentage (AYP) are changing their curriculum and teaching style to cater to the raising of test scores. Sadly, the students are the one’s who are caught in the middle, not getting the education they could be, from the educator’s who are truly passionate about their subject matter and make an effort to reach all of their student’s different needs; in many cases the educators are going against their very nature by “teaching to the test”, The test then loses it’s legitimacy. It no longer becomes an attempt to assess what the student’s know, but how good their test taking skills are, by knowing the test format, using process of elimination and pure memorization. An assessment is a measure of what has been learned and this idea of “teaching to the test” contradicts that.

Standardized tests aren’t all around negative. But used as the only means of assessment on the state level, they are bias and not a true measure of knowledge. Some districts are incorporating other means of assessment into their processes. Assessments such as performance assessment and portfolio assessment used in conjunction with standardized tests allow for student’s who don’t perform well to shine in the way that they learn best. This idea of more than one standard for the vastly different areas and student’s being assessed, makes more sense and adds the application of life skills into the mix; a happy medium, for now.

Assessment and accountability have been discussed since the late 1960’s in America. The fact is, the world and its population are constantly changing and to accommodate that change there has to be leeway within our schools as to how assessment is achieved. Students will be faced with dilemma’s we cannot predict at this time and it is our responsibility as educators to prepare them for the ever changing, rapidly growing world.

Revised Online Assignment

2009-04-18T13:48:00.001-07:00

2. The cost of living in New Jersey is incredibly high; from rent, to taxes, food, health care, transportation expenses, childcare, and etc. The families in Unequal Childhoods, especially the working-class/poor families would all experience a tremendously lower standard of living if they moved to/lived in New Jersey. It would be especially hard on the Taylor, McAllister, Driver, and Brindle families because 3 out of the four households are run by a single female parent and all have very limited funds coming in. Tyrec Taylor’s mother works as a secretary and only earns $20,000 a year, which according to the Self Sufficiency Standard for Essex County, would barely accommodate one adult ($20,732), nevermind a family consisting of one adult, a ten year old, a thirteen year old, and an eighteen year old. The “providers” of the two other families, the McAllisters and the Brindles, are both unemployed and receive food stamps and cash stipends, along with public assistance. The rent alone for the Brindle family is hard to sustain at $650 and compared to the rent costs in New Jersey, which are the highest in the nation, they would not be able to afford livable housing conditions for that amount of money. Their living conditions now are subjected to leaky ceilings, roaches, and broken washers and dryers. The McAllister family doesn’t have enough food to go around especially with all of the extra people that live there; the eleven members of extended family that sleep and eat in the McAllister home on a weekly basis. The children have to ask permission before eating food. When there is food, there is often not enough for second helpings. The cost of food in Essex County for one adult, an infant, a preschooler, and a schoolage child is $639. Ms. McAllister certainly would not be able to feed eleven family members in Essex County New Jersey on food stamps at this cost. The Driver family, although run by Ms. Driver and her boyfriend, Mr.Fallon earn only between $15,000-$25,000 a year. In order to live in Essex County, they would need to bring in near $50,716 to live according to the efficiency standards.

3. According to the Legal Services of New Jersey, both the McAllister and Brindle families would be categorized within the poverty level of New Jersey. Both are single parents and the LSNJ states that the poverty rates are higher for single parent mothers.

Although both families receive financial assistance, the quality of life, the struggle to make ends met would be far greater in New Jersey. Ms. Brindle doesn’t work because of the expense incurred on providing childcare for Melmel. Essentially, if she did work, nearly all of the funds earned would go to the cost of childcare, which is extremely expensive. In Cresskill, New Jersey, for a 9am to 3pm program, early childcare costs around $1100 per month. Ms. McAllister, with schoolaged children and being a minority, has a larger disadvantage due to her race as the LSNJ states that poverty is much higher for minorities. In the McAllister home the financial burden of providing for the extended family as well would make food even scarcer and much harder to provide for the necessities such as food and clean clothing in New Jersey.

4. I feel that learning about the different the families, how they function, survive, their influences, beliefs and struggles has been an eye opener for me. Before reading Unequal Childhoods, I had never made a genuine connection to life outside of school and school. What each family (student) faces outside of school truly influences everything they do in school. I think as an educator, I should know about the community and the families who live there to better understand my students. Although this information has been very interesting and at times disturbing, I don’t feel that my overall teaching objectives will change. However, I will be more aware of my community and how my students live, which will provide me with an open-mind to adjust my teaching style to my students’ needs. It is hard to come from a different way of life, or mind set, without bringing the stereotypes that are ingrained in us, to a place that has true hardship and poverty to say that you understand what a student or the students may be living through. I think my hardest challenge is going to be able to relate to my students on that level, but I know I will try my best…that is all I can do.