Teaching Cross-Cultural Awareness to Children and their Families
In most U.S. public schools today, there is a wide variety of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds within the student population, teachers, faculty and staff. The number of immigrant students from other countries entering the school system continues to increase rapidly where it brings a great challenge of incorporating culture awareness within the school environment. According to Vanderbilt University professors Victoria J. Risko and Doris Walker-Dalhouse, “Students whose language, ethnicity, and race are not represented in the school’s dominant culture experience varying degree of success in reading achievement, resulting in persistent gaps in reading achievement and disproportionally higher dropout rates in U.S. high schools” (2007). Teachers and other school community personnel must be able to demonstrate a sense of cultural awareness and modeling amongst the students, school community, and their families. Teachers should be positive role models by respecting cultural differences and promoting social justice within their classrooms and school settings.
Before educators can promote cultural awareness and modeling in the school environment, they must reflect on their own cultural identity and dispositions about their own ethnic background by identifying themselves within that ethnic group. Also, educators must come to terms with their own prejudices and stereotypes they have of certain cultural groups because it can reflect how they approach and treat their students from different racial and ethnic barriers. Teachers must be accepting to the fact that they have biases against certain cultural groups so that they are able to come up with strategies that can overcome these prejudices (Gollnick & Chin 2009). Teachers and other educators should prepare themselves to enhance their essential knowledge, skills, and disposition of working with students of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds because these are the children who need to feel a sense of acceptance and belongingness in the classroom community for them to succeed academically. One way teachers and their school communities can get prepared to teach students from diverse background is by taking the initiative of getting to know the students and their families who attend their schools through on-going welcoming and cultural activities.
According to Darling-Hammond, Wise, and Klein, “If all children are to be effectively taught, teachers must be prepared to address the substantial diversity in experience students bring with them to school-the wide range of languages, cultures, home conditions, learning styles, exceptionalities, abilities, and intelligences (1995).” Also, to be effective in teaching culturally and linguistically diverse children, teachers and school administrators should offer professional development workshops that deal with learning to teach a multicultural atmosphere. These professional development workshops can help teachers learn to incorporate multicultural educational strategies into their classrooms curriculum such as cooperative learning strategies, classroom discussions, access to children‘s literature relating to various ethnic backgrounds on a personal account, and ways to promote school wide acceptance and awareness.
Schools are institutions that should promote social justice within its community and environment. Even though it is the teacher’s role to help encourage cultural awareness within the classroom, the school community must also actively participate in the acceptance of diversity within the school population. School counselors and administrations can develop staff training workshops which might focus on building democracy and social justice within the school community. The administration can set up school wide discussions or debates that deal with certain issues affecting their neighborhoods or local society. It can also address the cultural differences or conflicts that may be present within the school community that can be addressed. The school can also promote cultural celebrations through fairs, shows, concerts, and dances which can enhance self-awareness of various cultures within the school community.
Since many students come from culturally and linguistically diverse families, teachers can help in the promotion of parent involvement within the school setting. Some children come from families who are believe it is the teacher’s role to instruct their children and they shouldn’t be actively involved in their education. Compared to American families, many immigrant families don’t see parent involvement as a necessary or universal aspect of their child’s education (Copeland 2007). Many believe it is they should have limited involvement or access to their child’s academics. Other immigrant parents are quite concern about what views and perspectives their children are learning in schools based on cultures and how it can affect their own cultural aspects. For instance, American parents may encourage individual creativity and would love for their child’s teacher to express individuality in the classroom whereas parents from other cultures might find this disrespectful because it demonstrates a lesser authoritative role from the teacher and gives the child a chance to have freedom of thoughts and opinions (Copeland 2007).
Although some parents might feel involvement should be quite limited based on their culture, there are some parents who would like to participate in their child’s education and building a sense of cultural awareness in their school communities. Professor Mubina Hassanali Kirmani states, “Children and families from diverse backgrounds entering an unfamiliar school can feel isolated and may require special attention……if they are welcomed and acknowledged, they can be empowered to reach their full human potential and make positive contributions to the school community” (2007). To help promote a multicultural atmosphere in many schools particularly in elementary schools, there are several ways children and their families can get involved such as families and students can partake in hands-on activities which may be related to the student’s native language. The acceptance and promotion of various cultural languages can expose the students’ to cultural diversity and enriches language experience for all children. Another way to recognize each student and their families with their cultural background is by collaborating family cultural events through traditional games, photographs, music, dances and meanings of children’s name through display walls. Teachers can also have students and their families conduct classroom discussions which may enhance knowledge of another’s culture that bring a clear understanding to certain controversial topics.
Schools that create a nurturing, caring atmosphere for children and their families from diverse backgrounds are playing important roles to children’s learning and knowledge. To help continue building strong cultural awareness with students and their families, teachers must express to them how important learning about each other’s culture can build a positive, safe classroom environment. The teacher must also express to the students and their families how a negative disposition and bias against another culture can hinder the growth process of building a multicultural atmosphere. The teacher should continue to state the classroom goal of building self-awareness and acceptance of various cultures to help enhance one’s knowledge of cultural diversity.
Works Cited
Copeland, A. (2007). Welcoming International Parents to Your Classroom. Kappa Delta Pi, 66-70
Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A.E., & Klein, S.P. (1995) A license to teach: Building a profession for the 21st-century schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gollnick, D.M., Chinn, P.C. (2009). Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Kirmani, M. (2007, November) Empowering Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Families. Young Children 94-98
Risko, V., & Walker-Dalhouse, D. (2007, September) Tapping Students’ Cultural Funds of Knowledge to Address the Achievement Gap. The Reading Teacher, 61, 98-100
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Why is the US Falling Behind in Math & Science Compared to Asian Countries?
Why is the United States falling behind in math and science compared to Asian countries? Numerous cross national statistics and research studies such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study have indicated that Singapore, Korea, China, Japan and Taiwan are among the top scoring nations in the world. As these patterns emerge, many Americans fear for the country’s national economic growth. They suppose that there is a close relationship between education and economic development. Regardless of the degree of truth in this idea, the United States still needs to improve its schools. Understanding why these trends are occurring and determining how best to go about reforming math and science education is critical. Several of the believed contributing factors to America’s decline in these areas include: the nature of the classroom learning tasks, the set standards and curricula, the teacher preparation and continuing development, and the cultural attitudes and beliefs.
The nature of instructional tasks can ultimately make or break learning. Over the years, the United States has made a name for itself by utilizing a drill kill approach towards teaching mathematics. Students were and in many settings still are stuck on the procedures and facts of the subject. They are not being exposed to complex problems and proofs that can lead to greater conceptual understanding. In science, much of the same holds true. Students are memorizing the facts, but are failing to accurately apply the learned concepts into practical situations. Unlike the Unites States, many top scoring Asian societies focus more on promoting concepts of reasoning and critical thinking skills. Students there are exploring problems, observing teacher models, and reflecting on the content. It appears as though, “American students [are] participating skills while Asian students [are] thinking” (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, p.114). Reforming mathematics and science teaching practices in the United States must involve a change in the classroom learning tasks. Instruction should aim to encourage math or science talk, develop conceptual knowledge, apply content to the real-world, and connect sets of ideas logically.
Standards and curricula are meant to provide a framework of sequenced topics to be covered at a particular level and subject. They do not necessarily guarantee educational success though. In recent years, the United States standards based education movement has advocated that standards should guide teaching and learning in all schools districts around the country. However, in comparison to their Asian counterparts the quality of the United States curriculum is considered to be “a mile wide inch deep” (Schmidt, Wang, & McKnight, 2005, p. 555). In other words, too many topics are covered in each grade and not enough time is dedicated to explore subject matter in depth. In the high achieving Asian countries, students spend much more time on one specific topic. Additionally, the curriculum in these nations seems to flow smoothly. Where as in the United States, the curriculum is not as coherent; the same topics come and go in differing grades. This fragmentation and repetition in standards and curricular does not allow for high quality instruction. United States educators must alter the existing principles and perhaps nationalize them to ensure consistency and rigor.
Teacher preparation and continuing development also greatly impacts learning. Students ought to be taught by the best possible educators in all grade levels and subjects. United States elementary school teachers should not be expected to teach multiple content areas. Newton (2007) proposes that this is a generalist approach towards early education. These years actually lay the foundation for learning and the content should not be viewed as basic and easily understood. Therefore, the United States may benefit by adapting Chinese ways in hiring specialized teachers even in primary school. Further, providing all teachers with the adequate time and support to plan lessons, reflect on their teaching practices, and share their insights with their colleagues is a key ingredient in effective teaching. In many Asian countries teachers spend a much lower percent of their time actually teaching. Instead, they work in professional study groups to research and develop their skills. Modeling these implications in an American school setting and encouraging teachers not to work in isolation may be another solution to our education challenges.
Each culture has different beliefs, values, and attitudes that directly affect education. Comparing and contrasting the educational practices in the Unites States with those of top scoring Asian countries has presented many of these underlying principles. For instance, many of the children here have a different way of life. More students in America watch television, play sports, and hold jobs. Shen (2005) suggests that the position of schooling in their lives is much less central than that of students in societies like Japan or Korea. In addition, other factors such as the increasing diversity of the United States contribute to a greater number of students learning the content in a non-native language. In Asian countries this does not occur nearly as often. Thus, not all policies and practices can be successfully translated to other education systems.
In conclusion, there is no simple explanation as to why America is not performing as well as Asian nations in mathematics and science. Many of the reasons presented do shed light on some possibilities; however, others do exist. By learning from other countries and understanding that Asian schools are not perfect models, the United States can significantly improve its own educational practices. Being a global economic competitor might in fact rely on the quality of math and science education, but nonetheless America should be proud of its technological advancements thus far and should definitely strive to continue this success by making efforts to overcome these new challenges.
The nature of instructional tasks can ultimately make or break learning. Over the years, the United States has made a name for itself by utilizing a drill kill approach towards teaching mathematics. Students were and in many settings still are stuck on the procedures and facts of the subject. They are not being exposed to complex problems and proofs that can lead to greater conceptual understanding. In science, much of the same holds true. Students are memorizing the facts, but are failing to accurately apply the learned concepts into practical situations. Unlike the Unites States, many top scoring Asian societies focus more on promoting concepts of reasoning and critical thinking skills. Students there are exploring problems, observing teacher models, and reflecting on the content. It appears as though, “American students [are] participating skills while Asian students [are] thinking” (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005, p.114). Reforming mathematics and science teaching practices in the United States must involve a change in the classroom learning tasks. Instruction should aim to encourage math or science talk, develop conceptual knowledge, apply content to the real-world, and connect sets of ideas logically.
Standards and curricula are meant to provide a framework of sequenced topics to be covered at a particular level and subject. They do not necessarily guarantee educational success though. In recent years, the United States standards based education movement has advocated that standards should guide teaching and learning in all schools districts around the country. However, in comparison to their Asian counterparts the quality of the United States curriculum is considered to be “a mile wide inch deep” (Schmidt, Wang, & McKnight, 2005, p. 555). In other words, too many topics are covered in each grade and not enough time is dedicated to explore subject matter in depth. In the high achieving Asian countries, students spend much more time on one specific topic. Additionally, the curriculum in these nations seems to flow smoothly. Where as in the United States, the curriculum is not as coherent; the same topics come and go in differing grades. This fragmentation and repetition in standards and curricular does not allow for high quality instruction. United States educators must alter the existing principles and perhaps nationalize them to ensure consistency and rigor.
Teacher preparation and continuing development also greatly impacts learning. Students ought to be taught by the best possible educators in all grade levels and subjects. United States elementary school teachers should not be expected to teach multiple content areas. Newton (2007) proposes that this is a generalist approach towards early education. These years actually lay the foundation for learning and the content should not be viewed as basic and easily understood. Therefore, the United States may benefit by adapting Chinese ways in hiring specialized teachers even in primary school. Further, providing all teachers with the adequate time and support to plan lessons, reflect on their teaching practices, and share their insights with their colleagues is a key ingredient in effective teaching. In many Asian countries teachers spend a much lower percent of their time actually teaching. Instead, they work in professional study groups to research and develop their skills. Modeling these implications in an American school setting and encouraging teachers not to work in isolation may be another solution to our education challenges.
Each culture has different beliefs, values, and attitudes that directly affect education. Comparing and contrasting the educational practices in the Unites States with those of top scoring Asian countries has presented many of these underlying principles. For instance, many of the children here have a different way of life. More students in America watch television, play sports, and hold jobs. Shen (2005) suggests that the position of schooling in their lives is much less central than that of students in societies like Japan or Korea. In addition, other factors such as the increasing diversity of the United States contribute to a greater number of students learning the content in a non-native language. In Asian countries this does not occur nearly as often. Thus, not all policies and practices can be successfully translated to other education systems.
In conclusion, there is no simple explanation as to why America is not performing as well as Asian nations in mathematics and science. Many of the reasons presented do shed light on some possibilities; however, others do exist. By learning from other countries and understanding that Asian schools are not perfect models, the United States can significantly improve its own educational practices. Being a global economic competitor might in fact rely on the quality of math and science education, but nonetheless America should be proud of its technological advancements thus far and should definitely strive to continue this success by making efforts to overcome these new challenges.
References
Hutchison, K.B. (2006). Confronting America’s challenge in math and science education. International Educator, 15(4), 4-7. Retrieved October, 16, 2008, from Proquest.
Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian mathematics classrooms based on data from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 100-215. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from ERIC.
Miller, D. C., Sen, A., Mally, L. B., & Owen, E. (2007). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G-8 countries [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Newton, X. (2007). Reflections on math reforms in the U.S.: A cross national perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 681-685. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from Proquest.
Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from ERIC.
Shen, C. (2005). How American middle schools differ from schools of five Asian countries: Based on cross national data from TIMSS 1999. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(2), 179-199. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from ERIC.
Viadero, D. (2008). Researchers gain insight into education’s impact on nation’s productivity: International comparisons help refine understanding. Education Week, 27(34), 17-19. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Proquest.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hutchison, K.B. (2006). Confronting America’s challenge in math and science education. International Educator, 15(4), 4-7. Retrieved October, 16, 2008, from Proquest.
Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian mathematics classrooms based on data from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 100-215. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from ERIC.
Miller, D. C., Sen, A., Mally, L. B., & Owen, E. (2007). Comparative indicators of education in the United States and other G-8 countries [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Newton, X. (2007). Reflections on math reforms in the U.S.: A cross national perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(9), 681-685. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from Proquest.
Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from ERIC.
Shen, C. (2005). How American middle schools differ from schools of five Asian countries: Based on cross national data from TIMSS 1999. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(2), 179-199. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from ERIC.
Viadero, D. (2008). Researchers gain insight into education’s impact on nation’s productivity: International comparisons help refine understanding. Education Week, 27(34), 17-19. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Proquest.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching and learning in America’s schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Do charter schools hinder multicultural education efforts?
by Irene Sarno
Multicultural education theories and charter school missions uphold basic constitutional principles. Multicultural education supports the ideal of equitable learning for all, where as charter schools support the freedom of school choice. However, this right to choose may in fact hinder the efforts of multiculturalism.
Multicultural education attempts to reduce intergroup conflict by supporting culture, diversity, equality, social justice, and democracy in the classroom. Teaching and learning incorporates the diversity of students through education equitably. Educators working with families and communities can create an environment that is supportive of multiculturalism. Thus, schools should become models for the expression of human rights and respect for cultural and group differences. (Gollnick & Chinn, 2008, pg.4)
As defined by The Center for Educational Reform (2007), charter schools are public schools that operate under a contract or "charter" which details the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The charter school movement believes giving individual schools greater freedom to make education more effective by addressing the needs of the community served. Charter schools operate on the three basic principles of choice, accountability and freedom. Primarily, charter schools afford families the opportunity to pick the school most suitable for their child’s education. Next, charter schools are judged on how well they meet the student achievement goals established by their charter contract. Lastly, although charter schools must adhere to the same major laws and regulations as all other public schools, they are free to establish curriculum and procedures to support the charter.
Charter schools are increasing in popularity; so much so, that is has become a hot topic in Election 2008 amongst the candidates for President. Their popularity can be attributed by the innovative, accountable education they provide and as with multicultural theories, focus on the needs of its students. Also aligned with multiculturalism, charter schools typically engage local businesses and other organizations to help provide resources and services to the school and its families. (Wyans, 2008) Thus, charter schools act as a catalyst to improve the public school system.
Although the popularity of charter schools is on the rise, there are still disadvantages associated with them. Due to the limited number of charter schools, the size of the student body for each school is also limited. Many charter schools cater to affluent and academically gifted students, as opposed to high-risk, high cost students. (Wyans, 2008) Hence, dependent upon acceptance procedures, fairness and equality may be compromised. Multicultural educators continually tout the benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in schools, yet findings show charter schools are largely more segregated than public schools (Gollnick & Chinn, 2008, p.77). Based on the study of ten California school districts by Amy Stuart Wells (1993) the issue of racial equity is one of concern.
Despite many parents' preferences for integrated schools and choice policies, many state charter laws are not explicitly supportive of racial diversity. Even where legislative requirements do exist, most charter schools were found to be non-compliant (Wells, 1993). Even when charter schools attempt to diversify the student body, the racial segregation of the local communities coupled with the lack of affordable transportation for “out of district’ students results in an impossible goal. Lastly, As Stuart Wells notes, wealthy communities, have more access to the types of resources that are necessary to create viable schools. Since there exists a parallel between segregation by race and poverty and educational inequality this segregation may result in serious problem for students left behind. With appropriate civil rights policies, integration is possible. Using the lesson of Brown v. Board of Education, this issue should be addressed and resolved. (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003) Thus, instead, the right to choose attending a charter school, in fact becomes a privilege due to the inequities that abound.
In conclusion, the charter school movement is a very promising reform of increasing educational standards in the United States. However, in order to create a system that allows students to attend Charter schools on an equitable basis, guiding principles should be strictly followed and monitored. Any publicly funded schools should enforce policy to ensure racial/ethnic/religious integration, thus abiding by the multicultural principle of meeting the diversified needs of all students. Charter schools should be a place where all students could be effectively educated.
REFERENCES:
Wyans, J. (2008, Sptember 25) The Pros and Cons of Charter School Systems, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1038682/the_pros_and_cons_of_charter_school.html?cat=4
Gollnick, D., and Chinn, P., (2008). Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society, Eighth Edition, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
The Center for Educational Reform. (2007) Just the FAQS: Charter Schools. http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=60
Amy Stuart Wells. (1998). Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten California School Districts. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/docs/charter.pdf
Frankenberg, E. and Lee, C. (2003, September 5). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity for integrated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(32). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n32.
Multicultural education theories and charter school missions uphold basic constitutional principles. Multicultural education supports the ideal of equitable learning for all, where as charter schools support the freedom of school choice. However, this right to choose may in fact hinder the efforts of multiculturalism.
Multicultural education attempts to reduce intergroup conflict by supporting culture, diversity, equality, social justice, and democracy in the classroom. Teaching and learning incorporates the diversity of students through education equitably. Educators working with families and communities can create an environment that is supportive of multiculturalism. Thus, schools should become models for the expression of human rights and respect for cultural and group differences. (Gollnick & Chinn, 2008, pg.4)
As defined by The Center for Educational Reform (2007), charter schools are public schools that operate under a contract or "charter" which details the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The charter school movement believes giving individual schools greater freedom to make education more effective by addressing the needs of the community served. Charter schools operate on the three basic principles of choice, accountability and freedom. Primarily, charter schools afford families the opportunity to pick the school most suitable for their child’s education. Next, charter schools are judged on how well they meet the student achievement goals established by their charter contract. Lastly, although charter schools must adhere to the same major laws and regulations as all other public schools, they are free to establish curriculum and procedures to support the charter.
Charter schools are increasing in popularity; so much so, that is has become a hot topic in Election 2008 amongst the candidates for President. Their popularity can be attributed by the innovative, accountable education they provide and as with multicultural theories, focus on the needs of its students. Also aligned with multiculturalism, charter schools typically engage local businesses and other organizations to help provide resources and services to the school and its families. (Wyans, 2008) Thus, charter schools act as a catalyst to improve the public school system.
Although the popularity of charter schools is on the rise, there are still disadvantages associated with them. Due to the limited number of charter schools, the size of the student body for each school is also limited. Many charter schools cater to affluent and academically gifted students, as opposed to high-risk, high cost students. (Wyans, 2008) Hence, dependent upon acceptance procedures, fairness and equality may be compromised. Multicultural educators continually tout the benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in schools, yet findings show charter schools are largely more segregated than public schools (Gollnick & Chinn, 2008, p.77). Based on the study of ten California school districts by Amy Stuart Wells (1993) the issue of racial equity is one of concern.
Despite many parents' preferences for integrated schools and choice policies, many state charter laws are not explicitly supportive of racial diversity. Even where legislative requirements do exist, most charter schools were found to be non-compliant (Wells, 1993). Even when charter schools attempt to diversify the student body, the racial segregation of the local communities coupled with the lack of affordable transportation for “out of district’ students results in an impossible goal. Lastly, As Stuart Wells notes, wealthy communities, have more access to the types of resources that are necessary to create viable schools. Since there exists a parallel between segregation by race and poverty and educational inequality this segregation may result in serious problem for students left behind. With appropriate civil rights policies, integration is possible. Using the lesson of Brown v. Board of Education, this issue should be addressed and resolved. (Frankenberg & Lee, 2003) Thus, instead, the right to choose attending a charter school, in fact becomes a privilege due to the inequities that abound.
In conclusion, the charter school movement is a very promising reform of increasing educational standards in the United States. However, in order to create a system that allows students to attend Charter schools on an equitable basis, guiding principles should be strictly followed and monitored. Any publicly funded schools should enforce policy to ensure racial/ethnic/religious integration, thus abiding by the multicultural principle of meeting the diversified needs of all students. Charter schools should be a place where all students could be effectively educated.
REFERENCES:
Wyans, J. (2008, Sptember 25) The Pros and Cons of Charter School Systems, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1038682/the_pros_and_cons_of_charter_school.html?cat=4
Gollnick, D., and Chinn, P., (2008). Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society, Eighth Edition, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
The Center for Educational Reform. (2007) Just the FAQS: Charter Schools. http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=60
Amy Stuart Wells. (1998). Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten California School Districts. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/docs/charter.pdf
Frankenberg, E. and Lee, C. (2003, September 5). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity for integrated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(32). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n32.
Monday, October 20, 2008
School Funding Reform
The public’s perception of public schools across the United State is faltering. Many schools are not reaching the unofficial standards set by parents and community members or the formal standards set by the government in No Child Left Behind. Students attending urban schools are suffering the most, and many people blame this on the lack of funding that these schools must work with. School funding is usually linked to school success and causes much controversy since all parents want their children to get the best education possible. Most professionals argue that school funding reform is necessary for success of our public schools, but how to realize fair reforms is under much debate.
However, it is not all bad news for America’s public schools. Suzanne Weiss (1999) found that after the church, the public shows the most confidence in the public education system. Parents generally have good perceptions about their local schools, but show much less confidence in public schools as a whole. Overall, teachers show more confidence than the rest of the public in public schools. On the other hand, most people think that public schools are not as good as they used to be. Minorities have the lowest confidence in their schools. This is most likely due to high percentage of minorities in urban and inner-city schools that do not receive the same funding as suburban and rural schools. These urban schools must work with less materials and outdated technology to attempt to achieve the same results as other well funded schools. While the public shows interest in increasing the amount of money spent on urban schools, there is no consensus over how to allocate spending and increase performance in schools.
Several groups have examined school funding reform and they have found similar things. The need for funding reform is indisputable. Kevin Carey (2002) outlines the challenges that students in low income areas face. Low income students are behind their peers in almost every academic area and student achievement is linked to school funding levels. In other words, schools that receive adequate funding have students who perform better on standardized tests and other academic benchmarks. Some people argue that spending has been increased in recent years, but that there has not been a consistent increase in academic performance. However, Carey argues that much of the increased spending has gone towards special education programs, where positive results on national standards test are rarely seen.
Almost all the national committees who study school funding reform argue for a system that provides adequate school finance. “An adequate school finance system should provide for and ensure the use of sufficient funds necessary to develop and maintain the needed capacity to provide every student with a reasonable opportunity to accomplish expected education objectives that are clearly articulated and measurable” (National Conference of State Legislation, 1998, p.20). The National Conference of State Legislatures goes on to explain that we must create a knowledge base of educational objectives and funds to meet those objectives. Instead of simply giving schools more or less money, there should be a clear purpose of what the money is going towards and what those programs should accomplish. It proposes a systematic examination of the needs and successes of the educational programs that the state funds. If these programs are not successful or do not meet the agreed upon accountability measures, then they will not receive additional funding. NCSL believes that this will make the funds being used more effective and help increase students success.
The Committee for Economic Development (2004) also argues for funding policies that align with standards-based reform. They agree that the school funding system should be redesigned to coincide with higher performance. The Committee would like resources to be distributed more effectively, teacher pay to reflect the labor market, incentives for improved performance, and a link between funding and meeting educational standards. If these goals are meet, CED believes that schools will perform better. They would like budget committees to focus on the output of funding instead of the input. In other words, the outcome and results of the funds should be focused on instead of the amount of funds going to each school. If some schools need more money to succeed at the same level as other schools that would be considered fair. They believe that school budgets should be calculated based on individual students and their needs, not simply by the tax bracket that most of the population the school serves falls into. They also argue for the use of performance incentives, which may improve student outcomes.
These national committees have spent a lot of time and money conducting studies that tell us that schools need more funds, and that these funds should be based on the outcome of their use. However, none of these groups give concrete ways in which to reach these goals. In order to help all students and teachers continue to meet the high standards that society has set for public schools, funding does need to be examined. Especially in low income areas, the ways in which schools are funded may need to be changed dramatically. However, we cannot simply change the amount of money that goes to each school. The money must be allocated in a fair and effective way. The suggestions set forth by various national committees provide a good framework for basing funding on the success of the programs that it covers. When schools and programs are held accountable for what they claim to do, then parents, teachers, and students will see positive changes within their schools.
References
Carey, K., & Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2002, November 5). Education funding and low-income children: A review of current research. (ERIC) Retrieved October 18, 2008, from ERIC database.
Committee for Economic Development. (2004, January 1). Investing in learning: School funding policies to foster high performance. Executive Summary. (ERIC). Retrieved October 18, 2008 from ERIC database.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (1998, July 1). Educational adequacy: Building an adequate school finance system. (ERIC) Retrieved October 18, 2008 from ERIC database.
Weiss, S., & Education Commission of the States. (1999, January 1). Americans’ perceptions about public education. (ERIC) Retrieved October 18, 2008 from ERIC database.
However, it is not all bad news for America’s public schools. Suzanne Weiss (1999) found that after the church, the public shows the most confidence in the public education system. Parents generally have good perceptions about their local schools, but show much less confidence in public schools as a whole. Overall, teachers show more confidence than the rest of the public in public schools. On the other hand, most people think that public schools are not as good as they used to be. Minorities have the lowest confidence in their schools. This is most likely due to high percentage of minorities in urban and inner-city schools that do not receive the same funding as suburban and rural schools. These urban schools must work with less materials and outdated technology to attempt to achieve the same results as other well funded schools. While the public shows interest in increasing the amount of money spent on urban schools, there is no consensus over how to allocate spending and increase performance in schools.
Several groups have examined school funding reform and they have found similar things. The need for funding reform is indisputable. Kevin Carey (2002) outlines the challenges that students in low income areas face. Low income students are behind their peers in almost every academic area and student achievement is linked to school funding levels. In other words, schools that receive adequate funding have students who perform better on standardized tests and other academic benchmarks. Some people argue that spending has been increased in recent years, but that there has not been a consistent increase in academic performance. However, Carey argues that much of the increased spending has gone towards special education programs, where positive results on national standards test are rarely seen.
Almost all the national committees who study school funding reform argue for a system that provides adequate school finance. “An adequate school finance system should provide for and ensure the use of sufficient funds necessary to develop and maintain the needed capacity to provide every student with a reasonable opportunity to accomplish expected education objectives that are clearly articulated and measurable” (National Conference of State Legislation, 1998, p.20). The National Conference of State Legislatures goes on to explain that we must create a knowledge base of educational objectives and funds to meet those objectives. Instead of simply giving schools more or less money, there should be a clear purpose of what the money is going towards and what those programs should accomplish. It proposes a systematic examination of the needs and successes of the educational programs that the state funds. If these programs are not successful or do not meet the agreed upon accountability measures, then they will not receive additional funding. NCSL believes that this will make the funds being used more effective and help increase students success.
The Committee for Economic Development (2004) also argues for funding policies that align with standards-based reform. They agree that the school funding system should be redesigned to coincide with higher performance. The Committee would like resources to be distributed more effectively, teacher pay to reflect the labor market, incentives for improved performance, and a link between funding and meeting educational standards. If these goals are meet, CED believes that schools will perform better. They would like budget committees to focus on the output of funding instead of the input. In other words, the outcome and results of the funds should be focused on instead of the amount of funds going to each school. If some schools need more money to succeed at the same level as other schools that would be considered fair. They believe that school budgets should be calculated based on individual students and their needs, not simply by the tax bracket that most of the population the school serves falls into. They also argue for the use of performance incentives, which may improve student outcomes.
These national committees have spent a lot of time and money conducting studies that tell us that schools need more funds, and that these funds should be based on the outcome of their use. However, none of these groups give concrete ways in which to reach these goals. In order to help all students and teachers continue to meet the high standards that society has set for public schools, funding does need to be examined. Especially in low income areas, the ways in which schools are funded may need to be changed dramatically. However, we cannot simply change the amount of money that goes to each school. The money must be allocated in a fair and effective way. The suggestions set forth by various national committees provide a good framework for basing funding on the success of the programs that it covers. When schools and programs are held accountable for what they claim to do, then parents, teachers, and students will see positive changes within their schools.
References
Carey, K., & Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2002, November 5). Education funding and low-income children: A review of current research. (ERIC) Retrieved October 18, 2008, from ERIC database.
Committee for Economic Development. (2004, January 1). Investing in learning: School funding policies to foster high performance. Executive Summary. (ERIC). Retrieved October 18, 2008 from ERIC database.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (1998, July 1). Educational adequacy: Building an adequate school finance system. (ERIC) Retrieved October 18, 2008 from ERIC database.
Weiss, S., & Education Commission of the States. (1999, January 1). Americans’ perceptions about public education. (ERIC) Retrieved October 18, 2008 from ERIC database.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Influence of Religion in American Schools: Are the Two Truly Separate?
The topic of religion is one of the most controversial issues in public schools today. Many people, regardless of race or ethnicity, claim ties to a religious affiliation. For many citizens, religion also plays an important part in daily life. This is evident when religious groups pressure school administrations to change the curriculum to conform to a specific religion’s beliefs. Due to the vast religious diversity that exists amongst the American population, the federal law constitutes that there must be a separation of church and state in public affairs. However, many citizens argue that the influence of religion seems to permeate in curriculums of schools across the United States.
One of the most notorious debates regarding religion in public schools is the dispute over the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In classrooms across the country, students are mandated to recite the pledge daily. Some parents argue that requiring children to say this recitation forces them to believe in a monotheistic religion, or that it imposes the beliefs of one specific religion. The article Supreme Court Hears Pledge of Allegiance Case describes the origins of the pledge, stating Congress amended the original salute to include the phrase “under God” in response to religious groups petitioning during the Cold War (2004, pg.3). The fear of communism was palpable during this period in history, and the purpose for including this phrase was to instill a sense of unity in the American people. According to Charles Russo and Ralph Mawdsley’s article, The Supreme Court and the Pledge of Allegiance: a hollow victory, the decision made by the Supreme Court regarding the phrase “under God” within the pledge of allegiance “did not restrain anyone from worshiping God within the meaning of the First Amendment since they neither relate to nor exact anything in opposition to religion” (2004, pg. 262). Students have the choice to not participate in the pledge if they desire. Although the Supreme Court did not find the phrase to be unconstitutional, this ongoing debate continues to be rehashed in courtrooms across the country.
Another debate regarding religion in schools is the teaching of evolution versus creation. Different religions have various beliefs on how the world was created and how human life came to exist. As John Caiazza states in his article, The Evolution Versus Religion Controversy: How Two Mystiques Evolved Into Politics, both sides of the debates have differing views on the same issues, “such as the veracity of the Bible, whether ethics and religion should be explained reductively, and whether nature is a divine creation, of which man is the apex, or a material universe in which the existence of man is the merest accident” (2005, pg. 104). Currently in the United States, the states decide what is taught in schools. Each state may choose whether or not to teach evolution from a scientific perspective.
Although the federal law rules that church and state must be separated in public affairs, it is hard to divide the two when each religion is so truly unique in its beliefs. It seems that in a country that was founded by people who escaped religious persecution, there will always be some sort of controversy when it comes to one’s personal beliefs especially in a society as pluralistic and diverse as the United States.
Works Cited.
Caiazza, J. (2005, Spring2005). The Evolution Versus Religion Controversy: How Two Mystiques Devolved Into Politics. Modern Age, 47(2), 104-112. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.
Russo, C., & Mawdsley, R. (2004, December). The Supreme Court and the pledge of allegiance: a hollow victory. Education & the Law, 16(4), 261-267. Retrieved October 18, 2008, doi:10.1080/0953996042000311062.
Supreme Court Hears Pledge Of Allegiance Case. (2004, April). Education USA (Aspen Publishers Inc.), Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.
One of the most notorious debates regarding religion in public schools is the dispute over the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In classrooms across the country, students are mandated to recite the pledge daily. Some parents argue that requiring children to say this recitation forces them to believe in a monotheistic religion, or that it imposes the beliefs of one specific religion. The article Supreme Court Hears Pledge of Allegiance Case describes the origins of the pledge, stating Congress amended the original salute to include the phrase “under God” in response to religious groups petitioning during the Cold War (2004, pg.3). The fear of communism was palpable during this period in history, and the purpose for including this phrase was to instill a sense of unity in the American people. According to Charles Russo and Ralph Mawdsley’s article, The Supreme Court and the Pledge of Allegiance: a hollow victory, the decision made by the Supreme Court regarding the phrase “under God” within the pledge of allegiance “did not restrain anyone from worshiping God within the meaning of the First Amendment since they neither relate to nor exact anything in opposition to religion” (2004, pg. 262). Students have the choice to not participate in the pledge if they desire. Although the Supreme Court did not find the phrase to be unconstitutional, this ongoing debate continues to be rehashed in courtrooms across the country.
Another debate regarding religion in schools is the teaching of evolution versus creation. Different religions have various beliefs on how the world was created and how human life came to exist. As John Caiazza states in his article, The Evolution Versus Religion Controversy: How Two Mystiques Evolved Into Politics, both sides of the debates have differing views on the same issues, “such as the veracity of the Bible, whether ethics and religion should be explained reductively, and whether nature is a divine creation, of which man is the apex, or a material universe in which the existence of man is the merest accident” (2005, pg. 104). Currently in the United States, the states decide what is taught in schools. Each state may choose whether or not to teach evolution from a scientific perspective.
Although the federal law rules that church and state must be separated in public affairs, it is hard to divide the two when each religion is so truly unique in its beliefs. It seems that in a country that was founded by people who escaped religious persecution, there will always be some sort of controversy when it comes to one’s personal beliefs especially in a society as pluralistic and diverse as the United States.
Works Cited.
Caiazza, J. (2005, Spring2005). The Evolution Versus Religion Controversy: How Two Mystiques Devolved Into Politics. Modern Age, 47(2), 104-112. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.
Russo, C., & Mawdsley, R. (2004, December). The Supreme Court and the pledge of allegiance: a hollow victory. Education & the Law, 16(4), 261-267. Retrieved October 18, 2008, doi:10.1080/0953996042000311062.
Supreme Court Hears Pledge Of Allegiance Case. (2004, April). Education USA (Aspen Publishers Inc.), Retrieved October 18, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Religion in the Classroom (Criticle project 2)
Religion in the Classroom
New York City classrooms are exceptionally diverse. They are made up of different cultures, races and religions. The students come in all sorts of sizes, shapes and colors. Students’ hair colors may vary as well as their eye colors. Some students may even have disabilities of some sort. There disabilities may vary from severe to moderate, physical to emotional. How ever our students come to us it is our job as educators to except them and teach them to the best of our abilities’.
Curriculum in New York City public schools consists of art, social studies, mathematics, science, English language arts, fitness and health studies (http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/default.htm). Besides these there are a few more, although religious studies is not one of them. My question is should it be? In the United Kingdom religious education is mandatory (http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/). Why is it mandatory there but not here? I feel that religious education should be mandatory across the globe.
If we as educators were to make religious education mandatory across the globe, would our future citizens become more accepting of others religions? I feel that this would definitely be the case. It would stop many prejudices with in society and around the globe as people will no longer be ignorant. As I have been reading in the Gollnick and Chin book, I need to know my students and their cultures in order to better serve them. I feel this works vice versa, students need to know their peers cultures in order to be able to get along all types of people in life.
In order to be able to teach such a delicate subject teachers must be sensitive when it comes to this matter. Teachers must take in to consideration each individual child’s feelings before they say something about the child’s culture or religion. “Thoughtful planning and skillful observations of classroom social interactions can affect students’ social and cognitive development (Sheets, 2005, p.71). Teachers need to be aware of both their interactions as well as the other student’s interactions with in the classroom as this can make or break a child’s learning. As an educator I am sometimes scared to teach the subject of religion in case I do not know the correct information, regarding a certain religion, but one of my peers told me something that stuck with me, she said that I can always come back and correct myself, and that is very true (discussion board session 6). “
Throughout both my master degrees I have been told time and time again that classroom setup is vital. So when preparing my classroom to teach something such as religion or incorporating multiculturalism, I would make sure I have all the correct materials. I would have pictures and maps of different cultures and places, multi ethnic dolls, multicultural art materials, and last but not least variety of books. When choosing books we as educators must be careful to make sure that the books we are choosing are authentic. It is very hard to teach a subject if the information we are reading is incorrect (Norton, 2005, p.9).
There are many ways in which teachers can incorporate religion into the classroom. Religion can be taught through art, music, reading, writing and many more. When using art students may create cards in regards to a certain holiday. Music can be used by teaching songs of certain religions. Another great way to incorporate religion into the classroom can be by discussing similarities between certain holidays (Jones, 2002, p.9). For example a teacher may ask the students the similarities between Yom Kippur and Ramadan.
Although religion may be a difficult subject to teach it can be done. I feel that it is a vital part of a student’s education. If students are taught from a young age to be more accepting of others, then the world may turn out to be a more peaceful place in the future.
Reference
Gollnick, D.M., & Chinn, P.C. (2008). Multicultural
education in a pluralistic society (8th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Pearson.
Jones, T.S. (2002). Intervention in school and clinic.
Incorporate diversity into the classroom. Pro-Ed, Inc. Austin, Texas.
New York City Department of Education.
New York City Curriculum. Retrieved October 15th, 2008 From New York City Department of Education website: http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/default.htm
Norton, E.D. (2005). Multicultural children’s literature
(2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Pearson.
Sheets, R.H. (2005). Diversity pedagogy examining the role
of culture in the teaching-learning process. Pearson
Education, Inc. Boston, MA.
New York City classrooms are exceptionally diverse. They are made up of different cultures, races and religions. The students come in all sorts of sizes, shapes and colors. Students’ hair colors may vary as well as their eye colors. Some students may even have disabilities of some sort. There disabilities may vary from severe to moderate, physical to emotional. How ever our students come to us it is our job as educators to except them and teach them to the best of our abilities’.
Curriculum in New York City public schools consists of art, social studies, mathematics, science, English language arts, fitness and health studies (http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/default.htm). Besides these there are a few more, although religious studies is not one of them. My question is should it be? In the United Kingdom religious education is mandatory (http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/). Why is it mandatory there but not here? I feel that religious education should be mandatory across the globe.
If we as educators were to make religious education mandatory across the globe, would our future citizens become more accepting of others religions? I feel that this would definitely be the case. It would stop many prejudices with in society and around the globe as people will no longer be ignorant. As I have been reading in the Gollnick and Chin book, I need to know my students and their cultures in order to better serve them. I feel this works vice versa, students need to know their peers cultures in order to be able to get along all types of people in life.
In order to be able to teach such a delicate subject teachers must be sensitive when it comes to this matter. Teachers must take in to consideration each individual child’s feelings before they say something about the child’s culture or religion. “Thoughtful planning and skillful observations of classroom social interactions can affect students’ social and cognitive development (Sheets, 2005, p.71). Teachers need to be aware of both their interactions as well as the other student’s interactions with in the classroom as this can make or break a child’s learning. As an educator I am sometimes scared to teach the subject of religion in case I do not know the correct information, regarding a certain religion, but one of my peers told me something that stuck with me, she said that I can always come back and correct myself, and that is very true (discussion board session 6). “
Throughout both my master degrees I have been told time and time again that classroom setup is vital. So when preparing my classroom to teach something such as religion or incorporating multiculturalism, I would make sure I have all the correct materials. I would have pictures and maps of different cultures and places, multi ethnic dolls, multicultural art materials, and last but not least variety of books. When choosing books we as educators must be careful to make sure that the books we are choosing are authentic. It is very hard to teach a subject if the information we are reading is incorrect (Norton, 2005, p.9).
There are many ways in which teachers can incorporate religion into the classroom. Religion can be taught through art, music, reading, writing and many more. When using art students may create cards in regards to a certain holiday. Music can be used by teaching songs of certain religions. Another great way to incorporate religion into the classroom can be by discussing similarities between certain holidays (Jones, 2002, p.9). For example a teacher may ask the students the similarities between Yom Kippur and Ramadan.
Although religion may be a difficult subject to teach it can be done. I feel that it is a vital part of a student’s education. If students are taught from a young age to be more accepting of others, then the world may turn out to be a more peaceful place in the future.
Reference
Gollnick, D.M., & Chinn, P.C. (2008). Multicultural
education in a pluralistic society (8th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Pearson.
Jones, T.S. (2002). Intervention in school and clinic.
Incorporate diversity into the classroom. Pro-Ed, Inc. Austin, Texas.
New York City Department of Education.
New York City Curriculum. Retrieved October 15th, 2008 From New York City Department of Education website: http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/default.htm
Norton, E.D. (2005). Multicultural children’s literature
(2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Pearson.
Sheets, R.H. (2005). Diversity pedagogy examining the role
of culture in the teaching-learning process. Pearson
Education, Inc. Boston, MA.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) dropouts
Dianne Sandiford
Edge 6101
Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 196-203.
Introduction
In the article, Predictors of Categorical At-Risk High School Dropouts, the authors, Suh, Suh, and Houston, conducted a study to find out why students were choosing to drop out of high school instead of graduating. The purpose of the study was to “identify and compare” the different factors responsible for this particular behavior among each of three specific at-risk groups: students of low-socioeconomic status (SES), poor academic achievers, and students frequently suspended from school.
This research and others like it are important because “dropping out” is like an epidemic in the high school population. According to Suh, Suh, & Houston (2007), previous researchers have mulled over the reasoning behind students’ actions and, in so doing, some have focused on academics, behavioral, and attitudinal problems (as cited in Janosz, Blanc, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 2000). However, the authors of this study have viewed the problem through different lenses; they have studied “dropping out” from a different angle. They are going at it from the students’ background and environment. This particular study will fit into previous, present and future researches because it will add new insight to what is already there and put forth reasoning from another perspective for those who have greater vision.
Summary of Method
In their research, the authors used three approaches. First, they looked at the grade point average (GPA) of the suspended and the low-SES students. Second, they looked at different and common factors between the at-risk and not-at risk students. Lastly, they compared the different triggers that culminated in the behavior or mindset of students within each of the three groups. The authors examined about twenty variables to determine which one (s) were responsible. In addition, the authors were cognizant that the period surrounding age 15/grade 8 posed challenges and kept that in mind as they conducted their study. The variables chosen were representative of experiences within the family, in school, with self, and behavioral, and were independently measured. Results were consistent with the findings of other studies done.
Results
Results indicated that one, variables, when measured independently, showed that students at an early age or early in their educational development had entertained the notion of dropping out as an alternative for their lack of coping skills; two, variables were inter-related; and three, that a combination of any of these variables were responsible for student dropouts from any of the three at-risk groups. The foremost conclusion was the need for “multi-faceted” intervention. Findings were consistent with previous researches mentioned earlier in the article. Issues surrounding family, school, and self were major players in students’ decisions to drop out of school. As cited in Chavez, Belkin, Hornback, & Adams, 1991, “Variables that influence school dropout appear to come from various domains, such as, individual, family, and school” Suh, Suh, Houston 2007 (p. 196).
Conclusion
From all that was presented in the study, the findings seemed to justify what was previously presumed. More concentrated thought or vision by the authors towards the problem has urged them to suggest more in-depth interventions that would address the other variables plaguing low-SES at-risk students. For instance, low GPA, a variable of interest, was not the sole independent variable that caused the student’s educational downfall. Factors, such as lateness, absenteeism, threats, fights, behavioral and emotional problems, movement from school to school, optimism about the future, suspension, mother’s permissiveness, low SES and not having money to buy school supplies, level of educational attainment of mother or other family members, peers and their outlook on the need/lack of interest for education, and becoming sexually active too early, all could have contributed to the low grade point average (GPA). Sex was another predictor that the authors singled out. It was a by-product of other factors like behavioral and emotional problems, not being able to communicate with family and, thus, sharing personal problems and seeking advice from inexperienced school friends, lack of optimism about the future, and mother’s permissiveness. Extra reading on the topic brought me upon a couple other studies with similar results which I will briefly describe below. The first is a study in which students shared their thoughts, and the second, another study that was done from yet another but similar perspective.
Contributions
These other researches confirm similar findings. The article, Why Students Drop Out, by Amy M. Azzam, was a study by Civic Enterprises for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This was a study in which the dropouts shared their thoughts and feelings to the questions of why they chose to drop out of school. Azzam (2007) in her abstract stated the top five reasons given by the dropouts. They dropped out because they were bored, unable to catch up due to missed days, influenced by others who were not interested in school, felt rejected because no one cared enough to set rules to their lives, and failed academically.
The other study in the article, Differential Developmental Pathways of High School Dropouts and Graduates, by Hickman, Bartholomew, and Mathwig posed two research questions. They wanted to know if students who dropped out were wired differently to those who did not drop out, and if they did, at what developmental stage did it happen and how did it show itself. Like others studies they looked at GPA, absenteeism, family and demographics. Except for the second study’s extra findings, both studies paralleled themselves with that of the findings for the study by Suh, Suh, & Houston. From my own experience in teaching I have encountered situations where, because of low-SES, students are affected by variables that interfere with their academic performance and which, if not addressed in its early stages, would have resulted in their dropping out of school.
Summary
To an adult educator, these researches/studies are important because they provide information that could assist in understanding the mindset of the individuals they might encounter; and two, knowing how to construct a curriculum to meet their needs. Overall, the study was relevant to my particular field of study. The strength of the study was the manner in which it was carried out. The procedures were presented in a clear logical manner that could easily be followed. The weakness was in the presentation of the statistical data. It required someone versed in such matters to interpret and understand the data listed. Other than that, the research and findings seemed valid and the authors’ suggestions for delivering comprehensive interventions are worth heeding in order to put a halt to this alternative plan of students.
References
Azzam, A. M. (2007). Why students drop out. Educational Leadership, 64 (7), 91-93.
Retrieved September 29, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Hickman, G. P., Bartholomew, M., & Mathwig, J. (2008). Differential developmental pathways
of high school dropouts and graduates. The Journal of Educational Research 102 (1), 3-13.
Retrieved September 21, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 196-203. Retrieved September 21, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Edge 6101
Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 196-203.
Introduction
In the article, Predictors of Categorical At-Risk High School Dropouts, the authors, Suh, Suh, and Houston, conducted a study to find out why students were choosing to drop out of high school instead of graduating. The purpose of the study was to “identify and compare” the different factors responsible for this particular behavior among each of three specific at-risk groups: students of low-socioeconomic status (SES), poor academic achievers, and students frequently suspended from school.
This research and others like it are important because “dropping out” is like an epidemic in the high school population. According to Suh, Suh, & Houston (2007), previous researchers have mulled over the reasoning behind students’ actions and, in so doing, some have focused on academics, behavioral, and attitudinal problems (as cited in Janosz, Blanc, Boulerice, & Tremblay, 2000). However, the authors of this study have viewed the problem through different lenses; they have studied “dropping out” from a different angle. They are going at it from the students’ background and environment. This particular study will fit into previous, present and future researches because it will add new insight to what is already there and put forth reasoning from another perspective for those who have greater vision.
Summary of Method
In their research, the authors used three approaches. First, they looked at the grade point average (GPA) of the suspended and the low-SES students. Second, they looked at different and common factors between the at-risk and not-at risk students. Lastly, they compared the different triggers that culminated in the behavior or mindset of students within each of the three groups. The authors examined about twenty variables to determine which one (s) were responsible. In addition, the authors were cognizant that the period surrounding age 15/grade 8 posed challenges and kept that in mind as they conducted their study. The variables chosen were representative of experiences within the family, in school, with self, and behavioral, and were independently measured. Results were consistent with the findings of other studies done.
Results
Results indicated that one, variables, when measured independently, showed that students at an early age or early in their educational development had entertained the notion of dropping out as an alternative for their lack of coping skills; two, variables were inter-related; and three, that a combination of any of these variables were responsible for student dropouts from any of the three at-risk groups. The foremost conclusion was the need for “multi-faceted” intervention. Findings were consistent with previous researches mentioned earlier in the article. Issues surrounding family, school, and self were major players in students’ decisions to drop out of school. As cited in Chavez, Belkin, Hornback, & Adams, 1991, “Variables that influence school dropout appear to come from various domains, such as, individual, family, and school” Suh, Suh, Houston 2007 (p. 196).
Conclusion
From all that was presented in the study, the findings seemed to justify what was previously presumed. More concentrated thought or vision by the authors towards the problem has urged them to suggest more in-depth interventions that would address the other variables plaguing low-SES at-risk students. For instance, low GPA, a variable of interest, was not the sole independent variable that caused the student’s educational downfall. Factors, such as lateness, absenteeism, threats, fights, behavioral and emotional problems, movement from school to school, optimism about the future, suspension, mother’s permissiveness, low SES and not having money to buy school supplies, level of educational attainment of mother or other family members, peers and their outlook on the need/lack of interest for education, and becoming sexually active too early, all could have contributed to the low grade point average (GPA). Sex was another predictor that the authors singled out. It was a by-product of other factors like behavioral and emotional problems, not being able to communicate with family and, thus, sharing personal problems and seeking advice from inexperienced school friends, lack of optimism about the future, and mother’s permissiveness. Extra reading on the topic brought me upon a couple other studies with similar results which I will briefly describe below. The first is a study in which students shared their thoughts, and the second, another study that was done from yet another but similar perspective.
Contributions
These other researches confirm similar findings. The article, Why Students Drop Out, by Amy M. Azzam, was a study by Civic Enterprises for Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This was a study in which the dropouts shared their thoughts and feelings to the questions of why they chose to drop out of school. Azzam (2007) in her abstract stated the top five reasons given by the dropouts. They dropped out because they were bored, unable to catch up due to missed days, influenced by others who were not interested in school, felt rejected because no one cared enough to set rules to their lives, and failed academically.
The other study in the article, Differential Developmental Pathways of High School Dropouts and Graduates, by Hickman, Bartholomew, and Mathwig posed two research questions. They wanted to know if students who dropped out were wired differently to those who did not drop out, and if they did, at what developmental stage did it happen and how did it show itself. Like others studies they looked at GPA, absenteeism, family and demographics. Except for the second study’s extra findings, both studies paralleled themselves with that of the findings for the study by Suh, Suh, & Houston. From my own experience in teaching I have encountered situations where, because of low-SES, students are affected by variables that interfere with their academic performance and which, if not addressed in its early stages, would have resulted in their dropping out of school.
Summary
To an adult educator, these researches/studies are important because they provide information that could assist in understanding the mindset of the individuals they might encounter; and two, knowing how to construct a curriculum to meet their needs. Overall, the study was relevant to my particular field of study. The strength of the study was the manner in which it was carried out. The procedures were presented in a clear logical manner that could easily be followed. The weakness was in the presentation of the statistical data. It required someone versed in such matters to interpret and understand the data listed. Other than that, the research and findings seemed valid and the authors’ suggestions for delivering comprehensive interventions are worth heeding in order to put a halt to this alternative plan of students.
References
Azzam, A. M. (2007). Why students drop out. Educational Leadership, 64 (7), 91-93.
Retrieved September 29, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Hickman, G. P., Bartholomew, M., & Mathwig, J. (2008). Differential developmental pathways
of high school dropouts and graduates. The Journal of Educational Research 102 (1), 3-13.
Retrieved September 21, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high school dropouts.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 85, 196-203. Retrieved September 21, 2008 from
http://web.ebscohost.com.avoserv.library.fordham.edu/ehost/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
