The Major Sources of Inequality in Education, Thesis Paper Example

The question in this category involves the application of relevant theory and research to real life situations, considering social, cultural, and ethical issues as appropriate. Students are expected to compose responses that solve specific problems and also discuss implications of their ideas for application with a broad range of issues in the field.

Introduction

The major sources of inequality in education, defined by Lynch and Baker (2005) are extremely relevant to the current study’s topic, and it would be useful to examine their prevalence within the NCLB policies.  These are defined as:

1. educational institutions promoting social class inequality
2. the ideology of “ability” or grouping children based on attainment
3. bias within the education system towards linguistic capabilities
4. selective admission systems

The research will further examine how the No Child Left Behind Act incorporates provisions and systems to prevent bias, selection based on equality and social class, and linguistic capabilities.

Literature Review

St John (2007) created a model for assessing the impact of education policies on social justice, based on Rawl’s theory (2001) that analyzes social justice in education on a moral basis.  The three principles of finding balance among different competing interests in education are described as: basic rights of individuals, equal opportunity, and the use of taxation to develop and improve education.  The author (St John, 2007), based on the systematic research created concludes that “The current education and public finance policies encourage large numbers of children to drop out, a troublesome outcome for both conservatives and new liberals” (St John, 2007).  This is a concern that should be addressed through policies that focus on culturally and socially relevant teaching and schooling approaches.

Robicheau (2007) goes further than St John (2007) and claims that the No Child Left Behind Act simply lacks ethics.  Quoting Houston’s (2007) list of “seven sins” of NCLB, the author states that there are some fundamental problems with the policy, namely: assuming that schools are broken, the conflation of education and testing, harming the poor, building policies on fear and punishment, lacking clarity in wording and guidelines, not involving experts, and making the American education system less competitive on the international level (Robicheau, 2007, p. 4).

The author further lists some of the main shortcomings of NCLB, as unequal requirements, lack of public engagement, neglecting over-achieving students, while assuming that one standard would be suitable for measuring academic attainment of all children from different socio-economic and minority backgrounds.  Focusing on the “typical student”, with the typical learning approach and development disadvantages both groups well below or well above the cut-off line.

Finally, there are claims that Robicheau (2007) quotes that “NCLB is creating a generation of test takers and not future educational leaders” (p. 6).  The main problem, however, highlighted by the author is that the system is built on one measure (academic attainment), and does not have measures to assess fairness, social justice, and cultural relevance.  This means that educators would need to focus on getting students to pass tests, instead of their special educational, emotional, or cultural differences.  The author (Robicheau, 2007) claims that “to rely on the results of standardized tests, without regard to how students learn and not relying on authentic assessment, is to act unethical” (p. 8).

Overall, the above review of theoretical assessments and criticism of NCLB has revealed that the Act does not successfully address social justice, and fails to take into consideration cultural and social class differences, using a single measurement: test scores.

Sunderman et al. (2004) examined how the No Child Left Behind Act impacts day-to-day teaching in schools.  Focusing on teachers’ perceptions about the effectiveness and feasibility of the Act, the main finding of the study carried out in Fresno, California is that while teachers believe in the NCLB Act’s values and principles, they lack support, and seek collaboration with experienced teachers as administrators, who understand the challenges of implementing changes in classrooms to improve both the quality of teaching and academic achievements.  According to Sunderman et al. (2004, p. 6), “The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is largely built on assumptions about ways to change teachers’ behavior”.  This statement indicates that policy implementation cannot be carried out without a close collaboration between policymakers and educators.

Reeves (2003) states that smaller, rural schools are likely to be disadvantaged by the No Child Left Behind program, as the reporting requirements of the Act are designed for larger educational facilities.  The test scores can fluctuate from one year to another, and this would result in smaller schools being placed into the category: “in need for improvement”.

Discussion

Sanctions built in the NCLB Act can create an atmosphere of fear, and negative attitudes of teachers towards the implementation of changes.  Sunderman et al. (2004) states that one of the main problems with implementing the programs outlined by the No Child Left Behind Act for under-performing schools lies in the lack of support provided for leaders and educators (resources and teacher support systems).  Further, regarding the accountability element of the Act, the authors (Sunderman et al., 2004) recommends that “standardized testing should be only one part of assessing school performance and this assessment should measure not only existing achievement levels but also the contribution a school makes to improving student achievement” (p. 44).

Dee and Jacob (2010) analyzed the impact of NCLB on teaching quality and approaches.  Reviewing education statistics regarding student attainment, the authors conclude that “the effects of NCLB on student achievement have been at best limited to certain groups” (Dee & Jacob, 2010, p. 156).

Two common claims stand out in the above reviewed publication: the lack of real improvement and progress, and that the measurements and accountability policies are not suitable for assessing school performance.

Management became one of the driving factors in reform.  (Au, 2009), a critic of the Reading First initiative was a prime example of NCLB’s idea of organizational management.  Teachers’ skills and knowledge were devalued; they were forced to provide scripted, directed instruction, and school districts were “encouraged” by the federal government’s definition of acceptable, “scientifically-based” instruction that came with a commercially packaged reading curriculum (Au, 2009).

Teachers in low-performing districts were required to use commercially packaged reading programs such as Open Court and Reading Mastery, which told them exactly when to be on which page, and scripted every word they were allowed to say as they taught (Gerstl-Pepin & Woodstock-Jiron, 2005; Land & Moustafa, 2005).  These were prime examples of how outside experts conceived of the “best” teaching methods, forced teachers to use them under threat of sanctions, and created an atmosphere that Coles (2003) called ending the “wiggle room”in reading instruction.  This scripted dialogue promoted cookie cutter teaching to produce cookie cutter learning.

Just as leaders in business and industry used research to improve their products and services, school leaders used research to inform their decisions about school programs. Decision makers valued research as a way to evaluate effectiveness.  They looked for evidence not only that a program had been successful, but that it had succeeded in schools like their own, with similar demographic characteristics such as socioeconomic status, race, locale, student achievement levels, school size, and teacher experience.  It was important to understand the circumstances in which a program or practice was most effective, even if it had a strong research base (Margolin & Buchler, 2004).

Due to NCLB regulations though, many vendors touted their products and services as evidence based.  One pitfall was the unwarranted reliance on inadequate research designs to substantiate claims.  For example, Darrell Morris and Robert Slavin (2003) claimed that there was likely to be confusion between programs that were based on scientific research and programs that had been rigorously tested.  The individual components of a program might be supported by research, but the way that a program organized and emphasized its components.

Kathleen Manzo (2004) cited the New York City school district as a case in point. School officials selected a reading program whose major components were amply supported by research.  But the program itself had not been rigorously tested, so by NCLB definition it was not scientifically based.  As a result, the school district had to change its reading program to qualify for federal funding (Manzo, 2004).

In addition to the influence of business, the whole school or instructional models proved to be useful and were eventually fed into the future of NCLB in meeting all students’ educational needs.  Among these programs the following are salient.

Success for All (SFA) was the largest single federal investment in schooling; it reached over 6 million children annually, primarily in the early elementary grades.  SFA focused on reading in the early grades as the cornerstone for academic success in all content areas; one in every five first graders participated in it.  Almost all SFA sites were high poverty, Title I schools with much-needed supplemental instruction in reading and mathematics.  Where the incidence of poverty was high, supplemental instruction had become school-wide Slavin and Madden (2001a).

Title I identified the essential components of a reading program –explicit and systemic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency (including oral reading), and reading comprehension strategies (Educational Research Services, 2003) –and disbursed funds to meet such needs from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Public Law 103-382.  In this way SFA, through Title I, provided almost $7 billion to school systems across the country to improve education for children at risk of school failure and living in low-income communities.

Robert Slavin and his associates developed SFA in 1986.  The program was instituted in the Baltimore Public Schools to ensure the success of every child in the (mostly urban) schools serving large numbers of disadvantaged students, including African American, Latino, and Asian students (Slavin & Madden, 2001b).  SFA schools were initially established in five Philadelphia schools with a concentration of limited-English proficient students, most of them Cambodians.

The program was organized around a reading curriculum and cooperative learning strategies for K-6.  Such a program was to be used school-wide as prevention and early intervention, with restructuring that ensured every student would succeed (Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish, 1987).  At every grade level, teachers began the reading time by reading children’s literature out loud and then engaged students in discussion.  This enhanced their understanding of the story itself, their listening and speaking vocabulary, and their awareness of story structure (Slavin & Madden, 2001a).

The model was composed of nine major components: 1) a reading curriculum that included at least 90 minutes of daily instruction, in classes regrouped across age lines according to reading performance; 2) continuous assessment of student progress (at least once every eight weeks); 3) one to one reading tutors; 4) an Early Learning Program for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten that emphasized language development and reading; 5) cooperative learning; 6) parent support and involvement based on family support teams; 7) local facilitators who provided mentoring, counseling, and support to the school; 8) staff support teams for teacher assistance during implementation; and 9) the Success for All staff who provided assistance and training on such topics as reading assessment, classroom management, and cooperative learning.

SFA was one of the researched based reading programs endorsed by NCLB. School districts modified their curriculum, programs, and methods of instruction to align with SFA and set annual achievement objectives for limited English proficient (LEP) students.  SFA’s reading programs, including Roots and Wings in mathematics and social studies, contributed to some of the “best practices” incorporated into NCLB. NCLB also mandated that administrators, teachers, and staff (including supervisors of instruction, librarians, library media specialists, teachers of subjects other than reading) also be responsible for fostering reading.

A decade after its introduction, SFA had continuous data from the six original schools in Baltimore and Philadelphia, and varying years of data from seven other school districts, amounting to a total of 23 schools and their matched, controlled schools (American Institutes for Research, 1999).  Evidence showed particularly high achievement for limited-English proficient students (in both bilingual and English as a second language programs) and for special education students.  SFA also reduced special education referrals.  Morris and Slavin (2003) claimed that allowing for some factors, such as the low achievement of disadvantaged children, an effective program such as SFA could be replicated.  In this respect, SFA was closely aligned with and met the requirements of NCLB, that all students become proficient by 2014.

Of the criticisms made of SFA, several stand out.  The American Institutes for Research showed that eight of the studies that found SFA effective were authored or co-authored by its developers at Johns Hopkins University, raising questions about objectivity and validity (American Institutes for Research, 1999).  Slavin and Madden (2000) disputed this criticism and claimed that experimental control comparisons were made at eight universities and research institutions other than Johns Hopkins, in the U.S. and five other countries; they also asserted that in all cases the reading testers (the people who administered the reading tests) were unaffiliated with the project.  The reading testers were trained to a high degree of inter-reliability, and observed on a sample basis to ensure they were administering the tests properly (Morris & Slavin, 2003).  Every attempt was made to keep testers unaware of whether a school was a Success for All control school (American Institutes for Research, 1999).

A final criticism of the SFA Reading Program was its expense.² While the SFA website did not list a specific cost, it stated that SFA was more expensive than other programs because it provided more training, materials, and continuing support.  Most SFA schools paid for the program with Title I and state compensatory education funding. Increasingly, SFA schools received grants through various sources, including the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration, the Reading Excellence Act, or other federal and state revenues.  Funds for special education, bilingual/ESL, professional development, early childhood, and other special purposes were combined with Title I to fully fund SFA in a school (Success for All Foundation, 2009).

Henry Levin, at Stanford University School of Education, developed the approach called Accelerated Schools (AS).  The AS project especially focused on schools with large numbers of at-risk students, who were relegated to remedial and special education programs.  The drill and practice approach to learning had extremely negative consequences as students fell further and further behind the educational mainstream the longer they were in school.  Thus was born a quest for a different kind of school, one that would accelerate rather than remediate.

Recommendations

The term “accelerated” was used because at-risk students had to learn at a faster pace than more privileged students, since a slower rate would put them farther and farther behind.  Only an enrichment strategy, not a remedial one, could reverse their plight (Levin & McCarthy, 1996).  Accelerated Schools (AS) was first implemented in two San Francisco Bay Area elementary schools in 1986.  Twelve years later, there were over 1,000 schools in 40 states.  AS’s goal was to bring all students into the educational mainstream by the end of elementary schooling.

Early implementation of the AS approach and its impact on student achievement was part of a study conducted by Howard Bloom, et al., (2001), who suggested that schools needed to reform school governance and culture in the first two years, before changing curriculum and instruction in the third or fourth year.  The findings indicated that the AS model improved standardized test scores in reading and mathematics once the schools in the study reached these goals.  The researchers recommended that the results be interpreted with caution due to the smaller number of schools in the study and the focus on a single grade.

Two variables, though not the only ones, were offered by Levin (2001) to explain the schools’ progress: the amount of time devoted to AS; and the quality of leadership. Another study by Christine Finnan and James Meza (2003) examined the interplay between organizational cultures, leadership, and school reform.  Considerable positive change occurred in the first cohorts of this AS study, where schools embraced the AS philosophy because it was aligned with their existing school culture.

The model was built on three central principles: 1) unity of purpose, which meant that parents, teachers, students, and administrators strived toward common goals; 2) an empowered school-site, achieved by decision making joined with responsibility for results; and 3) an instructional approach that built on the strengths instead of weaknesses of students, teachers, administrators, staff, and parents (American Institutes for Research, 1999).

Conclusion

Putting all three principles into practice was crucial.  No single feature made an accelerated program.  Instead, a comprehensive integration of curricular, instructional, and organizational practices consistent with the school’s unique vision made an Accelerated School (Levin, 1988).

The program’s developer expected each school to make its own decisions about curriculum, instructional strategies, and resource allocations (American Institutes for Research, 1999).  These choices were guided by the AS philosophy.  For example, AS literature emphasized educational philosopher John Dewey’s belief that children learned best through collaborative inquiry, working with others to solve shared problems. Schools were expected to implement a curriculum that provided all students with opportunities to use hands-on approaches to solve problems.  Levin and McCarthy (1996) encouraged schools to make curricular and pedagogical choices that emphasized student strengths, language development across subjects, problem solving, and higher-ordered thinking skills.  Additionally, its developers expected Accelerated Schools’ decisions to be guided by common objectives for all students, and hoped that schools provided opportunities for students to understand what they were learning by grounding that learning within students’ own communities and cultures (American Institutes for Research, 1999).

References

American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educator’s guide to school wide reform. Washington, DC: Author.

Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Dee, T. S., Jacob, B. A., HOXBY, C. M., & LADD, H. F. (2010). The impact of No Child Left Behind on students, teachers, and schools [with Comments and Discussion]. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 149-207.

Gebhard, M., & Harman, R. (2011). Reconsidering genre theory in K-12 schools: A response to school reforms in the United States. Journal of second language writing, 20(1), 45-55. Equity and Excellence in Education, 38(3), 232-241.

Gerstl-Pepin, C. & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions between the “science”of reading and a “love of learning”: One high-poverty school’s struggle with NCLB.

Gorlewski, J. A., Gorlewski, D. A., & Ramming, T. M. (2012). Connecting Theory to Practice. In Theory into Practice (pp. 1-14). SensePublishers.

Levin, H. & McCarthy, J. (1996). Full inclusion in accelerated schools: Equal access to powerful learning. In C. Finnan, E. St. John, J. McCarthy, and S, Slovacek (Eds.), Accelerated schools in action: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lynch, K., & Baker, J. (2005). Equality in education An equality of condition perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 3(2), 131-164.

Manna, P., & Ryan, L. L. (2011). Competitive grants and educational federalism: President Obama’s race to the top program in theory and practice.Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(3), 522-546.

Manzo, K. (2004). Reading programs bear similarities across states. Education Week, 23, 1-5. Luizzi, B. (2006). Accountability and the principalship: The influence of no child left behind on the middle school principals in Connecticut. Dissertation: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Margolin, J. & Buchler, B. (2004). Critical issue: Using scientifically based research to guide educational decisions. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Learning Points Associates.

Reeves, C. (2003). Implementing the No Child Left Behind act: Implications for rural schools and districts. Educational Policy Publications. Retrieved April, 2, 2004.

Robicheau, J. (2007, June). The Absence of Ethics in No Child Left Behind. In Forum on Public Policy: A Journal of the Oxford Round Table. Forum on Public Policy

Slavin R., & Madden, N. (Eds.). (2001b).  Success for all: Research and reform in elementary education. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum

St John, E. P. (2007). Finding social justice in education policy: Rethinking theory and approaches in policy research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007(133), 67-80.

Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433-54.

Sunderman, G., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press.

Wun, C. (2014). The Anti-Black Order of No Child Left Behind: Using Lacanian psychoanalysis and critical race theory to examine NCLB. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(5), 462-474.

Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualizing culturally relevant pedagogy: How viable is the theory in classroom practice?. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 248-260.