NCLB is a very sensitive and political subject. For every argument, there will always be pros and cons. It is also important to remember that we are all allowed to have an opinion and express it, something I think most politicians have forgotten. With that said, this is what I have to say about NCLB.
As our society continues to pull responsibility away from the children and the adolescents, they become less accountable for their learning and their behavior. So the question is—who becomes accountable for their education? Where should accountability fall? Should it be the teachers’ responsibility or the parents? Should students be held accountable for their test scores, or is it a reflection of the teacher’s success or failure in the classroom? Accountability and the effectiveness of testing are part of the great debates behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.
Christy Guilfoyle (2006) states that “If you asked a roomful of educators which word or phrase best sums up No Child Left Behind, some educators would say accountability,” (p.8). She also goes on to mention that “the focus on holding schools accountable for student achievement on standardized assessment sets NCLB apart from previous versions of the law,” (p.9). I believe there is a need for accountability. The question is where should it be placed? Accountability on high stakes tests is a sensitive topic. If internalized, the results essentially places blame on teachers and educators for the failure of students. However, there should be a way to hold teachers, administrators, parents and students accountable at the same time.
Accountability pushes teachers to become highly qualified. In Iris Rotberg’s (2006) she states that the United States is the only nation that holds its teachers accountable for student learning (p.58). One reason for NCLB was because we were academically low compare to other countries such as Japan. However, Rotburg is quick to point out, that Japan like many countries only tests the cream of the crop. These countries also fail to assess the quality of education for its low-income students, minority students and students with disabilities (Rotburg, 2006, p. 58). NCLB requires that teachers reflect and modify their lessons and interpret data. Interpreting the data allows educators to build a strong school improvement plan which in turn helps these sub groups succeed where they would likely fail.
Accountability does carry its consequences. Having a national accountability system does limit educators to using high stakes tests only. This pressures teachers to teach to the test. Schools that fail to bring their students to a proficient level of learning over an extended amount of time, risk losing funding and being taken over by state governments (Guilfoyle, 2006). NCLB does give funding to schools that are at risk; however, in order to keep their funding schools must show improvement. If the school was not held accountable for success, what would prevent them from not succeeding and just allowing the system to provide them with extra funding?
NCLB has improved curriculums across the nation. Heather Zavadsky (2006) points out in her article that NCLB has supported teachers by providing curriculum guides and pacing charts, aligned curriculum between grades and monitored curriculum implementation. She also states that “many states are continually improving their core subject curriculums in response to NCLB,” (p.69). The curriculums now have increased meaning and motivation for students and their learning. Requiring the school systems to be accountable for their curriculum is just as important if not more important that accountability on tests.
Guilfoyle and Zavasky’s articles state that there are aspects of NCLB that are working. They see NCLB as a move in the right direction. These two articles also show that NCLB has been great for at risk students in city schools who have neglected to make sure that all students have the basic skills. NCLB demands that the teachers and administration of these schools provide additional help to these students. All three articles show a need to apply the principles of accountability to education. However, Rotberg disagrees with Guilfoyle and Zavasky as to where to apply the accountability. Rotburg wants to eliminate the accountability to teachers, since no other country in the world holds their teachers accountable for student learning. However, other job markets hold their professionals accountable such as military officers, politicians, and engineers. No Child Left Behind provides the accountability that allows all players in the education process to nurture the expectation that all children can and need to succeed.
I choose to see NCLB for what it is. To me that means I see it as a goal for all of my students to be successful. Standards do not limit me and my instruction. They guide my instruction. They are the guidelines that help me to be my full potential when I am teaching as well as to help me achieve the goals set fort by NCLB.
Guilfoyle, Christy. 2006. NCLB Is there life beyond testing. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 8-13.
Rotburg, Iris. C. 2006. Assessment around the world. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 58-63.
Zavadsky, Heather. 2006. How NCLB drives success in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 69-73.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Chapters 3,4,and 5
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of Teaching for Understanding with Technology all have to deal with planning and execution.
Before you beginning planning, you want to make sure what you are going to teach is worth teaching for understanding. As I read through the chapter, teaching for understanding requires A LOT of time for planning. It is important that the topic and the lesson allows for students to make self to text connections as well as self to world connections.
“In each case, the topic was significant because it related to several important ideas in the subject matter was easily connected to students; experience and interests and could be approached in multiple ways through a range of curriculum materials and entry points” (p.27). Each topic also opened doors to explore other ideas and questions. Planning for understanding seems to really support planning across the subject areas.
I love the following sentence. It really seems it all up for me. “Students are more likely to become engaged in studying a topic if they are able to approach the material in a variety of ways that particularly pique their interests and suit their preferred ways of learning” (p.28). That is my educational philosophy in one sentence.
My question is—it would be nice it all lessons followed this design; however, it is necessary for all lessons to do that? I know my ultimate goal should resemble something about a day filled with teaching for understanding, but wouldn’t the students get tired of it after awhile? It’s also harder and harder for me to distinguish between inquiry based learning and project based learning. I also LOVE the iearn website! It has some great ideas that I can’t wait to try. I’m glad that I do not have to completely reinvent the wheel when it comes to my instruction. The site is http://www.iearn.org. Also, in the questions for reflection at the end of the chapter, I think that within the fourth grade curriculum there are four big topics that are important for students to understand, but hard for them to understand. These topics are physics (force), democracy, cause and effect, and manipulation of numbers such as multiplying digit numbers by three digit numbers.
Chapter 4 focuses on understanding goals and objectives. “Teachers may incorporate technology into lessons in ways that provide some catchy entertainment with little or no contribution to learning” (p.42). I admit, I’m guilty of doing that. Some days you just have to give into the entertainment value of things just to make it to the end of the day. There have been a few times that I have stuck a video in that has no connection to what the students are learning in class or allowed them to play a game. Sometimes we all just need those mental breaks. I also agree with the authors’ statement of “teachers rarely are encouraged to articulate these underlying goals, to link them directly with more specific learning objectives, or to share them publicly with students, parents, and administrators” (p.42). When I was student teaching, I was required to have weekly goals, but I was never required to reflect or apply them throughout the week. I also LOVE the website for web quests. It really helped me to understand how to focus the use of the internet for meaningful learning in the classroom. The url is: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/.
The one key point in chapter 5 that I found the most useful was understanding the key features of performances of understanding. There is a text box at the top of page 64 with three points related to understanding the key features of performances or projects. These are:
“They develop and demonstrate understanding of target goals”
“They required students to stretch their minds—to think beyond what they have been told, confront their usual ideas and attitudes with a more critical perspective and combine or contrast ideas in ways they have not done before.
“They build up understanding through a sequence of activities that gradually transfer autonomy and responsibility of learners.”
By the time I was done reading chapter 5, I was and still am completely overwhelmed! How does the teacher in the example manage to do it all, and do it successfully every time?! I’m sure it gets easier over time, but it is very daunting. I need a break before I start to wrap my mind around NCLB and it relates.
Wiske, Martha Stone, et. al. (2005). Technolongy for Understanding. Jossey-Bass. California: San Fransciso. (pp.27-82).
Before you beginning planning, you want to make sure what you are going to teach is worth teaching for understanding. As I read through the chapter, teaching for understanding requires A LOT of time for planning. It is important that the topic and the lesson allows for students to make self to text connections as well as self to world connections.
“In each case, the topic was significant because it related to several important ideas in the subject matter was easily connected to students; experience and interests and could be approached in multiple ways through a range of curriculum materials and entry points” (p.27). Each topic also opened doors to explore other ideas and questions. Planning for understanding seems to really support planning across the subject areas.
I love the following sentence. It really seems it all up for me. “Students are more likely to become engaged in studying a topic if they are able to approach the material in a variety of ways that particularly pique their interests and suit their preferred ways of learning” (p.28). That is my educational philosophy in one sentence.
My question is—it would be nice it all lessons followed this design; however, it is necessary for all lessons to do that? I know my ultimate goal should resemble something about a day filled with teaching for understanding, but wouldn’t the students get tired of it after awhile? It’s also harder and harder for me to distinguish between inquiry based learning and project based learning. I also LOVE the iearn website! It has some great ideas that I can’t wait to try. I’m glad that I do not have to completely reinvent the wheel when it comes to my instruction. The site is http://www.iearn.org. Also, in the questions for reflection at the end of the chapter, I think that within the fourth grade curriculum there are four big topics that are important for students to understand, but hard for them to understand. These topics are physics (force), democracy, cause and effect, and manipulation of numbers such as multiplying digit numbers by three digit numbers.
Chapter 4 focuses on understanding goals and objectives. “Teachers may incorporate technology into lessons in ways that provide some catchy entertainment with little or no contribution to learning” (p.42). I admit, I’m guilty of doing that. Some days you just have to give into the entertainment value of things just to make it to the end of the day. There have been a few times that I have stuck a video in that has no connection to what the students are learning in class or allowed them to play a game. Sometimes we all just need those mental breaks. I also agree with the authors’ statement of “teachers rarely are encouraged to articulate these underlying goals, to link them directly with more specific learning objectives, or to share them publicly with students, parents, and administrators” (p.42). When I was student teaching, I was required to have weekly goals, but I was never required to reflect or apply them throughout the week. I also LOVE the website for web quests. It really helped me to understand how to focus the use of the internet for meaningful learning in the classroom. The url is: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/.
The one key point in chapter 5 that I found the most useful was understanding the key features of performances of understanding. There is a text box at the top of page 64 with three points related to understanding the key features of performances or projects. These are:
“They develop and demonstrate understanding of target goals”
“They required students to stretch their minds—to think beyond what they have been told, confront their usual ideas and attitudes with a more critical perspective and combine or contrast ideas in ways they have not done before.
“They build up understanding through a sequence of activities that gradually transfer autonomy and responsibility of learners.”
By the time I was done reading chapter 5, I was and still am completely overwhelmed! How does the teacher in the example manage to do it all, and do it successfully every time?! I’m sure it gets easier over time, but it is very daunting. I need a break before I start to wrap my mind around NCLB and it relates.
Wiske, Martha Stone, et. al. (2005). Technolongy for Understanding. Jossey-Bass. California: San Fransciso. (pp.27-82).
Friday, February 16, 2007
Chapter 10-- Technology Use (ethics)
Chapter 10 Summery—Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics
How do we teach our students to use technology in a responsible and appropriate way? This is the running theme throughout the article. Before even supplementing instruction with technology, it is important to educate them in regards to values and appropriate uses of technology.
The first value that needs to be taught is the value of respect of ownership. The servility of plagiarism is very hard to get across to the younger students. I had two fourth graders copy vocabulary sentences from the text book. They did not see the harm it their behavior at all until I gave them zeros for the assignment and did not allow for them to redo their work. Temptation to copy, cheat or plagiarize is all around us, and we need to understand that the students live in this pressure as well. “Today’s technology allows students access to mountains of information, and this access can make it tempting and easy to appropriate information and then pass it off as original work” (p.128). de Lyon Friel explains that it is important for teachers to model and teach how to cite all forms of information from e-mail to blogs. I must admit, I have not given any of my students’ citation information for e-mails, blogs, listservs and other web media. It did not occur to me that my students, being fourth graders, could plagiarize from these sources because I don’t think of them as using these sources. I think a lot of teachers show students how to cite and give credit concerning sources that they think the students will use such as books, magazines, newspapers or websites. Temptation to copy or plagiarize is heightened when asked to regurgitate facts. “Fact finding encourages students to copy and paste material from electronic sources—a new form of plagiarism.” (p.129). Therefore, de Lyon Friel states that “if students are taught to synthesize information and construct their own answers and meanings, the temptation to appropriate others’ ideas as their own is minimized” (p.129). I agree. Once you teach them how to construct their own meaning from information, then you can model for them how to cite all electronic sources. As technology evolves and information takes on new forms, we as teachers should not be naive to think that students would not use or access those new sources and should teach them how to give credit where and when credit is do.
Students should be taught how to respect the technology. de Lyon Friel states that “a well developed AUP (acceptable use policy) should cover Internet and intranet use, outline the appropriate and ethical behaviors that are expected from users of the network, and provide consequences for policy violations” (p.133). I know in Fairfax County that all students are required to fill out, sign and have their parents sign two acceptable use forms. Both forms outline the County’s policies on proper use of the computers and the equipment as well as what is appropriate behavior when using the internet. The forms also address consequences.
Teaching students to respect their privacy and others is also valuable. It is important to teach the students to be safe and responsible while surfing the net. While my husband is deployed, the battalion commander has told us not to post any personal information including photos. I think this is great advice regardless if my husband is deployed or not. Sites such as myspace and facebook offer a unique venue for expressing one’s creativity, however it is also important to be aware the dangers that accompany them. One way we can keep the students safe is to monitor their activities on the internet and show them where the appropriate sites are. I encourage my students to use yahoo kids for an appropriate search engine. The website is . We as educators need to incorporate discussions of these important values as children and young adults use technology at home and at school.
De Lyon Friel, Linda. (2001). Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics. In Lebaron, John F. & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey-Bass, California: San-Franciso. 125-137.
How do we teach our students to use technology in a responsible and appropriate way? This is the running theme throughout the article. Before even supplementing instruction with technology, it is important to educate them in regards to values and appropriate uses of technology.
The first value that needs to be taught is the value of respect of ownership. The servility of plagiarism is very hard to get across to the younger students. I had two fourth graders copy vocabulary sentences from the text book. They did not see the harm it their behavior at all until I gave them zeros for the assignment and did not allow for them to redo their work. Temptation to copy, cheat or plagiarize is all around us, and we need to understand that the students live in this pressure as well. “Today’s technology allows students access to mountains of information, and this access can make it tempting and easy to appropriate information and then pass it off as original work” (p.128). de Lyon Friel explains that it is important for teachers to model and teach how to cite all forms of information from e-mail to blogs. I must admit, I have not given any of my students’ citation information for e-mails, blogs, listservs and other web media. It did not occur to me that my students, being fourth graders, could plagiarize from these sources because I don’t think of them as using these sources. I think a lot of teachers show students how to cite and give credit concerning sources that they think the students will use such as books, magazines, newspapers or websites. Temptation to copy or plagiarize is heightened when asked to regurgitate facts. “Fact finding encourages students to copy and paste material from electronic sources—a new form of plagiarism.” (p.129). Therefore, de Lyon Friel states that “if students are taught to synthesize information and construct their own answers and meanings, the temptation to appropriate others’ ideas as their own is minimized” (p.129). I agree. Once you teach them how to construct their own meaning from information, then you can model for them how to cite all electronic sources. As technology evolves and information takes on new forms, we as teachers should not be naive to think that students would not use or access those new sources and should teach them how to give credit where and when credit is do.
Students should be taught how to respect the technology. de Lyon Friel states that “a well developed AUP (acceptable use policy) should cover Internet and intranet use, outline the appropriate and ethical behaviors that are expected from users of the network, and provide consequences for policy violations” (p.133). I know in Fairfax County that all students are required to fill out, sign and have their parents sign two acceptable use forms. Both forms outline the County’s policies on proper use of the computers and the equipment as well as what is appropriate behavior when using the internet. The forms also address consequences.
Teaching students to respect their privacy and others is also valuable. It is important to teach the students to be safe and responsible while surfing the net. While my husband is deployed, the battalion commander has told us not to post any personal information including photos. I think this is great advice regardless if my husband is deployed or not. Sites such as myspace and facebook offer a unique venue for expressing one’s creativity, however it is also important to be aware the dangers that accompany them. One way we can keep the students safe is to monitor their activities on the internet and show them where the appropriate sites are. I encourage my students to use yahoo kids for an appropriate search engine. The website is . We as educators need to incorporate discussions of these important values as children and young adults use technology at home and at school.
De Lyon Friel, Linda. (2001). Using Technology Appropriately: Policy, Leadership and Ethics. In Lebaron, John F. & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey-Bass, California: San-Franciso. 125-137.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
FIve Key Points on "The Computers are Here!" By Perry and Areglado and on "Building Public" Support by Zimmerman
Once the computers arrive at the school, they are not ready for immediate use. Plugging them in does not mean that the school has now integrated technology effectively. I think George Perry and Ronald Areglado hit it right on the nose in their article entitled The Computers are Here! Now what Does the Principal Do? On page 87, they state, “the fact is that investments in equipment have not always been accompanied by changes in teaching. Each school’s experience with technology is different.” How true this is!! Just in our class discussions, we know that we each have had different experiences with technology and classroom instruction. Some experiences have been positives, while others have been frustrating. My experience in Prince William County Schools is completely different than my experience with technology in Fairfax County Schools. When I needed an alpha smart for one of my students it was unavailable to me in Prince William, where in Fairfax County I had my own class set.
Just having the computers in the school is not enough. The authors claim “principals should have three sources of instructional leadership available to their schools: (1) Importing leadership by selecting and deploying external experts; (2) leading institution by training and planning with teachers, and observing instruction regularly; and (3) organizing staff to provide leadership for one another” (p.91). I think that my experience at Triangle Elementary mirrors this goal. There was once a month planning sessions with the Principal and the Assistant Principal. Every two weeks, both principals would do what the called “walk throughs” and they would come in and observe the classroom and the instruction informally. Twice a year they would do a formal observation. Collaboration was expected not only among grade level teachers, but also with other grades and specialists. I felt that I had a lot of support from my peers, as well as from the administration.
I also agree with the point that Perry and Arglado make about having a common goal. Effective collaboration and technology integration starts before the computers arrive and lasts well after they have been plugged it. It is important for the school to have a common goal about technology and its use in and out of the classroom.
How interesting it was to read Zimmerman’s article, Building Public Support: The Politics of Technology Transformation. Right from the beginning of the article she says “ you need different strategies for different folks.” This really hit home to me. I differentiate my instruction and I accommodate for modifications all of the time. It only makes sense that we take what we know works in the classroom and transfer it to how teachers learn and differentiate the support they need to integrate technology effectively in their instruction. I am a visual and auditory learner. I do better when I can it and hear it being done. I struggled with the written directions on how to use a smart board. However, when I went to the training offered by the principal, then I understood how to use it and how to set it up for use in the classroom. I used the written directions as a reference. I think it is important to realize that not all teachers learn the same why and require different methods of support.
She takes collaboration further and challenges schools to collaborate with businesses, the community and the state government. This collaboration will provide the funding needed for technology integration in the schools. “Education school communities is essential to ensure a steady revenue stream for technology in the appropriate budget, in addition to whatever grants and gifts the schools receive” (p. 100). This echoes what is taking place currently with Virginia and the state budget to cut funding for technology. She claims that simple grassroots efforts are effective such as “keeping a list of the senators and representatives handy, with their email addresses and telephone numbers so they can be easily advised” (p.102). Dr. Coffman had us do contact our representative within the last week. Zimmerman’s article is very relevant to current issues. The timing for reading this article could not have been any better.
Perry, George S., Jr & Areglado, Ronald J. (2001) Computers are here! Now what does the Principal do? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Zimmer, Isa Kaftal. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology transformation. ? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Just having the computers in the school is not enough. The authors claim “principals should have three sources of instructional leadership available to their schools: (1) Importing leadership by selecting and deploying external experts; (2) leading institution by training and planning with teachers, and observing instruction regularly; and (3) organizing staff to provide leadership for one another” (p.91). I think that my experience at Triangle Elementary mirrors this goal. There was once a month planning sessions with the Principal and the Assistant Principal. Every two weeks, both principals would do what the called “walk throughs” and they would come in and observe the classroom and the instruction informally. Twice a year they would do a formal observation. Collaboration was expected not only among grade level teachers, but also with other grades and specialists. I felt that I had a lot of support from my peers, as well as from the administration.
I also agree with the point that Perry and Arglado make about having a common goal. Effective collaboration and technology integration starts before the computers arrive and lasts well after they have been plugged it. It is important for the school to have a common goal about technology and its use in and out of the classroom.
How interesting it was to read Zimmerman’s article, Building Public Support: The Politics of Technology Transformation. Right from the beginning of the article she says “ you need different strategies for different folks.” This really hit home to me. I differentiate my instruction and I accommodate for modifications all of the time. It only makes sense that we take what we know works in the classroom and transfer it to how teachers learn and differentiate the support they need to integrate technology effectively in their instruction. I am a visual and auditory learner. I do better when I can it and hear it being done. I struggled with the written directions on how to use a smart board. However, when I went to the training offered by the principal, then I understood how to use it and how to set it up for use in the classroom. I used the written directions as a reference. I think it is important to realize that not all teachers learn the same why and require different methods of support.
She takes collaboration further and challenges schools to collaborate with businesses, the community and the state government. This collaboration will provide the funding needed for technology integration in the schools. “Education school communities is essential to ensure a steady revenue stream for technology in the appropriate budget, in addition to whatever grants and gifts the schools receive” (p. 100). This echoes what is taking place currently with Virginia and the state budget to cut funding for technology. She claims that simple grassroots efforts are effective such as “keeping a list of the senators and representatives handy, with their email addresses and telephone numbers so they can be easily advised” (p.102). Dr. Coffman had us do contact our representative within the last week. Zimmerman’s article is very relevant to current issues. The timing for reading this article could not have been any better.
Perry, George S., Jr & Areglado, Ronald J. (2001) Computers are here! Now what does the Principal do? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Zimmer, Isa Kaftal. (2001). Building public support: The politics of technology transformation. ? In John F. LeBaron & Catherine Collier, eds. Technology in its place. Jossey Bass. California: San Fransico. 87-98.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)