Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Kozol fasts to protest NCLB




My post was not racist. The reference to "black babies" and "inspiring a love of literature" was in the original post by Kozol. I was simply responding to the comments. I found the original comment just as racist as you did - which is why I pointed it out. You must not have read the entire original post - which was lenghty.

Bob at PC

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of John Clement
Sent: Wed 9/12/2007 7:35 PM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Kozol fasts to protest NCLB

This last post is very insulting and racist. The fact is that NCLB has not
achieved much, and that high stakes testing has distorted the educational
system. Many on this list have looked at the state tests, and found that
they were extremely poor. This is one of the criticisms of the original
post. There was a study at Rice University which showed that a particular
inner city school was improving their science teaching. But when the threat
of high stakes testing hit, they resorted to dull uninspired didactic
teaching. The whole science program went down hill.

As far as inspiration goes, this is usually equated with brilliant lectures,
but the study at AZ state showed that all lecturers, including the award
winning inspiring lecturer, achieved the same low gain in getting students
to understand physics. Another study at AZ state showed that students who
did not attend chemistry lectures got higher grades than the ones who did.
There is no evidence to show that "brilliant" teaching works better. For
years it has been accepted in the science community that brilliant
demonstrations helped students learn concepts, but the AZ study put the lie
to that. Further the research by Catherine Crouch at Harvard showed that
brilliant demos do not work. But one thing does help. The students have to
all individually predict the results before they see them. There are
techniques that help tremendously, but teachers are never really taught
them.

There have been studies in JRST that showed that teachers who are given the
correct materials do better than teachers who are given relatively short
term training. So the key to achieving better results is not whipping the
teachers who do not know how to do better. A better approach would be to
fund mandates that give the teachers training in programs that actually
improve results. I would also give the trained teachers the necessary
equipment to implement the programs, but I would not give it to the schools.
That way the teachers could take the equipment with them, rather than
leaving it to languish with the next teacher.

As far as hiding behind NCLB goes, the UK tried the same approach and it
failed. So why should NCLB and its unfunded mandates succeed? The UK
exerts much greater control over the curriculum than the US central
government, yet they could not improve results. The study by Shayer and
Adey showed that when you compare the input scores and output scores of
schools in England that they are closely correlated. Indeed the graph shows
that they all fall on the same line. But by giving the teachers training,
and a curriculum supplement (Thinking Science) they achieved good
improvements in science, math, and English. TS moved schools above the
usual line.

NCLB is actually an extension of the types of programs promoted in states
like TX. TX has one of the highest dropout rates in the nation. But most
individual schools do not have a very high official dropout rate. After all
students just transfer to other schools you know. The dropout rates are
cooked, and schools cheat on the exams. If you don't know how to teach to
improve results you really have not much recourse other than cheating or
drilling to the test. And many principals mandate drilling to the test in
all classes. So the decision is taken out of the hands of the individual
teachers. Many of the best teachers are leaving the schools as a result.

I would propose the following question. How do you know that you are doing
a better job than average? Can you prove objectively that you are doing a
better job? Can you show objectively that both the low and the high
students gain significantly? Anecdotal evidence is not valid, and is not
accepted in medical studies.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Total nonsense! If a teacher decides to simply drill students all day
long, that is a individual decision based on doing the least work
possible to get through the day. If a teacher cannot inspire their
"black babies" to appreciate literature, it is because of the teacher's
personal inadequacy - not because of NCLB. There are lots of hacks out
there who are finding NCLB a nice cover to hide behind.



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l