Standardized Testing: A Principal's Perspective

In the wake of No Child Left Behind, the Common Core, and Race to the Top, standardized testing has been a plague on schools, and education reform is needed now more than ever before. An article in the Washington Post shows that the effects of federal government's overreach into the education system has severely stunted the states from creating challenging standards for education and has taken the opportunity of quality education from students across America. Because of the bribery from No Child Left Behind and Obama's Race to the Top initiative, schools are forced to conform to the federal government's standards of education, which in my mind are blindly constructed. As I have said in my previous posts, the federal government is too far from direct contact with the students, and their implementing of standards for students is completely absurd. 

 Principal Carol Burris oh South Side High School in New York has seen the effects of the government's overreach into school first-hand. There, test-based requirements for graduation are having the opposite effect on students; instead of pushing them to succeed, they are falling behind. The "graduation rate gap" there has expanded and the percentage of graduating ELL students is a measly 31 percent. These special education students are drilled to pass a test rather than given an education in which they are immersed in the knowledge and attention that they need. Standardized testing has deprived these students of reaching their full potential.

Education is not a platform for politicians to win elections. Education is a basic need and right to every child in America. If the federal government keeps stretching their boundaries into our schools, then we better stock up on wood-barrel #2 pencils.

Free College?

Although "FREE COLLEGE" sounds like a very good idea, it is mostly likely not going to happen any time soon, especially with a Republican Congress...However, Obama is still going to push this idea in his State of the Union Address. He proposed a plan to work with states to make community college education free for two years of study. As a large supporter of the value of education, I think it's a pretty good idea!

How are we going to pay for this initiative you ask? No need to think very hard on this, it's the obvious answer - TAXES. Obama offered a tax proposal to cover the cost of this program.
According to Obama, the tax increases would only affect the wealthiest 1% of Americans, which sounds fine to me. It's time for big corporations to start giving back!

What would be the effects of this initiative? Results are questionable. According to statistics, people with associate's degrees, on average, still make lower in weekly earnings than the median wage. This brings up the question, "what's the point?" According to statistics, you need at least a bachelor's degree to make more than the median wage. This is true, however, with this initiative, more opportunities are available and make four year's worth of higher education much more affordable and accessible. 

All in all, I'd support this kind of education reform. With all this exposure that this initiative is getting from the media, it would be a great platform for a future Democratic candidate for president to run on. Hopefully, this will be the first step in lowering the tuition costs of all higher learning institutions

.

The Sad Truth about Higher Education

While the cost of higher education has risen exponentially in the past few decades, some parents and students are asking themselves an important question - is college worth the cost? In a recent episode of CNN's This Hour, Prof. Richard Arum of New York University and Prof. Kathy Davidson of the City University of New York weighed in with their thoughts. Both agreed that having a college degree is essential in creating an intelligent society and a promising future; they also  agreed that the system of education is completely flawed. Students are paying hefty college tuitions and are graduating with an average of $30,000 or more.The horrible truth is that students are just not getting the type of education that is tantamount to the money that they are paying to get a degree, and if we keep going down this road, people are just going to stop going to college. What will happen then?

The fact of the matter is the education that should be equivalent to the tuition cost of many colleges is not as rigorous or demanding as it should be. Local and state governments need to start taking a look at what is happening in terms of academic experience and student growth, see that there is a problem, and do something about it. Meanwhile, the cost of higher education has risen 1000% over the last century, and that is just not acceptable. Prof. Davidson stated that 80% of the students that graduate from CUNY have no student debt, and attests this to the fact the New York invests 51% of their operating costs into colleges. "Either we pay collectively as a society," she said, "or our students pay, and then we pay in the future by not having a future..." Davidson reported that other states invest as low as 8% and that's why college tuition has skyrocketed.  Without education, there would be no leaders, no industry, no America. In my opinion, having a future in which we all help to make education affordable and available is MUCH better than not having a future at all.

Common Core for Colleges?

Well that's what it looks like with President Obama's new set of initiatives for the 2015-2016 school year. Obama's education department recently released an outline of how they plan to rate two-year and four-year colleges/universities based on accessibility, affordability, and student success/outcome. President Obama wants to tie the $150 billion in federal funding that goes to colleges every year to this rating system in order to help make higher education more affordable and accessible to more students. President Obama said himself, "Colleges that keep their tuition go down and provide a quality education are going to see their funding go up...It is time to stop subsidizing schools that are not providing good results." Now this sounds awfully like the Common Core that has been criticized many times by high school students, parents, and teachers, and I'm sure this system will not be any less criticized.

CBS news reports, "The education department is still working on the best ways to determine what constitutes 'low-performing' or 'high-performing' as well as ways to recognize improved performance over time. In the mean time, they will use the percentage of students in college receiving Pell grants and with parents who have not attended college to measure accessibility, and net cost and family income quintiles to measure affordability. As for success, the education department will evaluate completion rates, transfer rates, and labor market success.

Yes, it's true, colleges are becoming more and more expensive as the years go by, and yes, this is a problem. However, with this system, I'm sure there will still be much opposition.It's just like the Common Core that many people today are opposed to; it has the same sense of collectivism and arrogance. Government officials are not the ones in schools, how do they know how to accurately rate schools? In essence, most colleges are business and will do anything to get the moolah. That may mean admitting more low-income students to boost accessibility or even allow more students to graduate to boost completion rates. When money is on the table, I'm sure many schools will sacrifice quality education for the dough. Obama's intentions are in the right place, but this approach is not far off from the already socially-disapproved Common Core.

Everything's Bigger Down South

When we think of the South, some things that come to mind are big hats and big boots, but we almost never think about the massive education funding gaps. In Durant, Mississippi, the last time the state provided full funding for education was in 2008. Now the funding gap has grown to $1.5 billion, and Mississippi could fall $260 million short in the 2016 year. Currently, Mississippi ranks last in state ratings of student achievement, but this isn't a result of student incompetency. Instead, the lack of resources available and the overall quality of education are to blame.

In Durant, textbooks are not up-to-date and do not meet the Common Core standards. In other words, the most basic of resources in schools are unavailable in a school district of only 588 students. However, the sad truth, according to former superintendent Glenn Carlisle, is that "if [they] buy new textbooks, [they're] not going to have the teachers." Though when they do hire new teachers, the Durant School District hires people right out of college with less experience because they're cheaper. THAT'S ABSURD! Students deserve much more than random lessons from the Internet and amateur teachers, there's not much that Durant can do.

The vast majority of Mississippi's school districts have raised property taxes to help close the gap, but their efforts have not been very successful. Other school districts in the state sued to make the state pay for what is owed to the school district (the Durant School District is actually in violation of a law that requires that students have textbooks or electronic devices in every subject to take home). Education advocacy groups have taken a more reasonable approach to try to amend the state's constitution to guarantee sufficient education funding.

The fact that the Durant School District has broken a state law and the state hasn't assisted in any way to amend the violation puts forth an air of hypocrisy on the state legislature. The state's failure and/or inability to enforce its own law is both sad and outrageous. Government needs to start putting education in the forefront of its priorities. Without quality education, the future of America will be the America's biggest failure.

Do Me A Solid and Pay My Student Debt

With the average cost of college higher than ever, it's almost impossible to pay it all off without taking out student loans. A recent episode of Huckabee on Fox News reported that 70% of all students graduate with student loan debt, and that approximately 42% of all households under the age of 35 still owe student loans. This statistic reflects the majority of recent college graduates that are currently unemployed.

In today's economy, it can be very difficult to get a job, in any field. Regardless of degree, only 20% of all millennials are getting jobs out of the first two years of college, which means only 1 in 5 people of that generation have the ability to pay off their debt. What do the other 80% do, you ask? Well, 24% of them think that their debt should be completely forgiven, that the federal government should come in and pay off their debt for them. Now this may sound completely absurd, but good arguments were made on both sides.

"We bailed out banks, and then we gave pay increases to CEOs who sent our economy spiraling down. The least we can do is help a generation that has been overcharged for education." I completely agree that colleges are currently overpriced when, in the past, a semester only cost $600 per semester. Some people just do not have the money to attend renowned schools, and according to Huckabee's panel, "those who are going to higher undergraduate, unfortunately, private institutions are the ones getting the jobs"; those who are attending public, community, or online colleges simply are not getting jobs. However, is it the responsibility of the taxpayers to pay off student loan debt?

Gov. Huckabee (R) doesn't think so. "If a student decides to go to the most expensive school in America, why is it my responsibility as a taxpayer to...have to pay for somebody else's decision?/I'd say go to the school you can afford." I do agree that it would put a lot of responsibility on the taxpayer, and I believe that just erasing one's student debt would set a mindset of "oh, I can go to all the student loans I want and America will just do me a solid and pay it off for me." Another panel member brought up the fact that many students do not pursue the "hundreds of thousands" of blue collar jobs waiting to be filled. I also agree with this statement, but does that mean one has to sacrifice a life of happiness doing something they're passionate about in order to make a salary?
My solution would simply be to make higher education more accessible to the masses. Whether that means colleges lowering their tuition or the federal government providing more aid to pursue education, it doesn't matter. More opportunities would be available for students to get jobs and give back to the community if we allow higher education to be easier pursued. If we want to be able to boost the economy, close the unemployment gap, and advance our nation, we need to start with our education system, for "education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world."

Thoughts on Ferguson

I know this post isn't about education, but due to recent times, I thought it would be a good idea to post about my thoughts on the Michael Brown case and the discrimination of the black community as a whole.


A recent episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews showed coverage of the aftermath of the grand jury decision in Ferguson, MO. It reported that the riots and protests were smaller and less violent, compared to when the decision had just come out. It also reported that the protesters were utilizing the daytime to peacefully protest, as well as the nighttime. In my opinion, these less violent and more strategic protests are much more effective in getting national support and attention. Perry Bacon, NBC News' Senior Political Reporter, and Marq Claxton of the Black Law Enforcement Alliance also believe these organized protests do more for the cause than the violence that has been prevalent in the previous protests in Ferguson.

The major part of the episode was dedicated to the differing accounts, by Officer Wilson and witness Dorian Johnson, of what happened in Michael Brown's shooting. Wilson claimed that there was "no way" that Brown held his hands up and that Brown started to run at him, while Johnson claimed that Brown held his hands up the whole time and "never plunged at [Wilson] in any type of manner." These discrepancies in the accounts call for some change in policy, and Perry Bacon talked about implementing the use of body cameras for police officers.  In a control group, it was found that there was a 60% drop in officer use of force, and a whopping 88% drop in citizen complaints. The use of body cameras would have indeed resolved some of the controversy over this case and should definitely start to be used, but I do not believe that this would solve the true problem.

There is an obvious sense of racial bias in today's society and legal system, and the implementing the use of body cameras would not change this one bit. Marq Claxton touched on the rationale behind the "fear for one's life" defense, and said that the legal standard should be a reasonable fear for one's life. Personally, if Michael Brown had been white, I do not think that Officer Wilson would have felt so afraid that he would resort to deadly physical force. This also goes for all the police officers that I see in videos all over the web that wrongfully treat and arrest black citizens for no other reason except for the color of their skin. The black community seems to not have the equal protection guaranteed them under the constitution, and these acts of racial profiling need to stop.

I'll end this post with a quote by Georgetown Professor, Michael Eric Dyson:
"“Black people who kill black people go to jail; white people who are policemen who kill black people do not go to jail."