Data Methods: INQUIRY PROJECT

In designing the research methodology for this investigation, it seemed that a two pronged approach would produce the most accurate results. This investigation was initially designed to look at the effects of high stakes testing through the evaluation of prevailing educational literature as well as being driven by data gathered through surveying current educators (teachers of all levels including collegiate teachers in the field of education, administrators, etc.) as to how they viewed the effects, if any, of high stakes standardized testing. However, what was learned from attempting such an approach was how highly volatile and politicized the subject was. There are strict procedures set in place to ensure the validity of such an investigation, and due to the importance of the subject at hand, it is with good cause. Quintessentially, our literature review led us to develop certain questions which, when asked to such educators, would provide an accurate, realistic, and somewhat less biased portrait of the situation.

Abstract: INQUIRY PROJECT

This paper investigates accountability issues of standardized tests and their affect on low-income and racial minority student’s ability to acquire cultural capital. While this shall embody a significant portion of this paper, other issues are examined such as systemic issues (validity, accuracy, etc) with educational legislation such as the “No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), as well as the delicacies of conducting research in a highly politicized and “high stakes” topic. The goal here is not to be propagandistic but to be objective and explore these issues in such a manner that it heightens awareness of the many issues relative to standardized testing. Lastly there is an examination of curriculums that are programmed, scripted and designed to improve test scores of urban students in low-income communities

Comparing Shultz Pedagogy to The Pedagogy of Poverty

In doing a comparison analyzes between the Pedagogy of Poverty and Shultz Pedagogy the first question that comes to mind is; “What is good teaching? The section of the Pedagogy of Poverty which gives a view of what good teaching is, expounds on several aspects of teaching that can be compared to Shultzs’ Pedogogy. As we all know from extensive research is that the Pedagogy of Poverty does not work.

Shultzs’ Pedagogy is exemplary of what good teaching should be. He has taken the time to explore the interest of his students. He is not the authoritarian dictating what the students should be learning. Take a look at the core functions of urban teaching; giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making assignments, monitoring seat work, reviewing assignments, giving tests, reviewing tests, assigning homework, reviewing homework, settling disputes, punishing non-compliance, marking papers, and giving grades. As stated in the Pedagogy of Poverty a teacher not performing these acts for most of the day would be regarded as defiant. With all of the aforementioned activities going on in urban schools not to even speak of the ancillary activities such as record keeping, parents teachers meetings, staff meetings, etc. The students continue to perform poorly and the proficiency levels are unexpectedly low. I use the adjective unexpectedly because I think the policy makers belief is that with all these functions at work, success is expected.

The Pedagogy of Poverty is using methodologies to force students into learning. It is the root cause of more failure. This ideology is simply dated and does not work. The contrast between the Pedagogy of Poverty and Shultzs’ pedagogy is astonishing. He has fifth grade urban students producing work well beyond there grade level. This is being done with very limited resources. The students have responded exceedingly well to the task.

The most important aspect of this comparison is that, Shultzs’ students have stepped out side of traditional conforming pedagogy and have demonstrated the intrinsic value associated with working on real life projects. Shultzs’ Pedagogy is a lesson that illustrates reform.

Shultz: Spectacular Things Happen Along the Way

First I have to commend Shultzs’ genuine interest in helping his students over come some major obstacles by introducing a pedagogy that was meaningful. He is interested in students developing effective dispositions to deal with the inequities of public education and life. It is he who is not a self-serving person who imposes his ideologies on others. Shultz has a mission and it is clear, that he wants his students to think independently as well as collectively.

Shultz is a teacher in a situation that appears to be hopeless. He is in a situation where not only the school is in need of major repairs, but the community has serious issues as well. However, he is steadfast and relentless about they way he teaches his students. He is tolerant and understands their plight.

The biggest challenge these students face are understanding the system and bureaucracy. They definitely understand the inadequacies of their school and what is needed to rectify the problem. The biggest obstacle for them is organizing and learning how to implement an effective strategy to voice their concerns.

This is a perfect example of an urban school with talented students. They are unmotivated by traditional pedagogy and are excited about working on a project that had practical implications. As one student clearly pointed out mathematically, the number signatures that could be solicited if they each spoke with a certain number of people. Some of the students were involved in putting together PowerPoint presentations.

There are talented students in urban schools and educators have to implement a pedagogy and environment that fosters discovery. Here we have urban students working on a project in which they are interested in. These are students who were not being challenged with the schools textbooks; however they were eager advocates for a new school.

McDonnell, Lorraine M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?

This article examines the interrelationships of various educational agencies at the federal, state and local levels. It identifies the intended roles of these organizations and recognizes their purpose and limitations from a historical perspective. There are comparisons made between both the Title1 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates. It also helps in understanding the political agenda of NCLB. After having read other documents such as, "No Child Left Behind" in Urban Education: Solving a Crisis or Creating One and “Cooking the Books” by S. Macrine, this article offered a perspective that broadened my understanding of the issues confronting these policies

As we well know there are major issues concerning the policies of NCLB. However it is our responsibility as educators to research information that supports our concerns. One issue that continuously comes to the forefront of these policies is accountability and the imperatives associated with it.

Have these educational policies shifted their intended focus to other areas or are they just subtle transformations? One could argue that nothing has significantly changed since the 1960’s. However it appears that during each change government administration has created a need to approach dilemmas in new ways.

The ideology that justified public education was beginning to shift its focus in the 1980’s. This article explains that it went from remedying the effects of past injustices to promoting broad-based access to tools necessary for economic self-sufficiency. During the 1990’s the educational reform issues moved toward core instruction. Over time research evidence suggested that standardized tests were one of the most powerful tools that politicians had at their disposal.

According to this article there has been more of an evolution than a revolution with educational policies and that there has not been in radical changes made in either of the aforementioned mandates.