|
EDUCATIONAL REFORM PROPOSALS Page 4
|
||||
| Home
Introduction Policy Policy Adv
& DisAdv of Policy Adv
& DisAdv of Policy
|
The contrasting methods that are now available for
instructing our children in our school systems should be democratically
presented before the American people. The voters are the ones who
should be provided a "clear understanding" of the issues
involved in educational reform, allowing them to vote their support
one way or the other. Perhaps the quickest and most efficient way this could be achieved would be through the campaign policies of a presidential candidate—who has the Department of Education within his or her Executive Branch as the launching platform. Since Vice-President Gore has been personally involved in every phase of President Clinton’s Improving America’s Schools Act and Goals 2000: Educate America Act (among others), he perhaps would be the best presidential candidate to present these policy proposals to the American voters. Advantages and Disadvantages of Policy Proposal 1 There are many advantages with Policy Proposal 1. Perhaps the greatest benefit will come because the divergent thinking students will finally be released to explore, discover, and create new levels of learning which have been categorically denied and suppressed in traditional classrooms. In the last seven-years, the U.S. charter-school movement has produced about 1100 schools in 29 states, enrolling over 120,000 students (Hadderman, p. 1). Most of these charter schools use some type of constructivism (when defined in broad terms) as their primary method of instruction. The table at the bottom of this page displays a variety of instructional methods being used in random charter schools that adopt a constructivist theme or format (CSRM). It is interesting to note that most charter schools
exhibit mark improvements in attendance, behavior, class participation,
and homework completion. In addition, a majority of these
non-conventional new schools display an increase in student’s grades and
test scores, as well as reductions in referrals, suspensions, and
drop-outs. Both teachers and students express very favorable
attitudes about the positive changes that have been made in their school (CSRM). Montesorri schools, which have practiced a constructivist format since 1907 in the U.S., typically rank in the upper one-third of the schools in their district on achievement test scores. Their parental involvement is unequaled by any school system. Montessori schools also maintain above average ratings on basic skills, following directions, turning in assignments on time, listening attentively, asking provocative questions, adapting to new situations, being responsible, showing enthusiasm for class topics, being individualistic, and exhibiting multicultural awareness (CSRM, pp. 83-85). Because of their nonsectarian and democratic approach to education, charter schools are growing in their popularity. They are noted by their autonomy and accountability. They are freed of many restrictive rules and regulations. But in return, theses schools are expected to achieve positive educational outcomes within a certain period—usually three to five years—or have their charters revoked by their sponsors (Hadderman). There are also many disadvantages to adopting Policy Proposal 1. There is nothing simple about setting up a charter school. Some person(s) has to take the tremendous amount of time and energy to propose the primary goal and main features desired for the charter school, hire and contract the teachers, train them in the constructivist method, and set up curriculum guidelines. A facility with classrooms has to be secured. And most importantly, funding for the charter school has to be approved by either the local School Board, school district, state department of education, or obtained by donations from private organizations. |
Continued from left column Because of the great diversity in learning provided by constructivism, standardized testing for students will have to be adjusted in the higher-grade levels after the "basic" learning skills are accomplished. Rather than being in the traditional objective form which grades and analyzes according to externally determined "correct" answers, the reformatted tests will need to be more subjective, disclosing the students’ capacity to learn, ability to solve problems, and competency for critical thinking. Likely support for Policy Proposal 1 will come from parents (especially those with children having special needs). In fact, the success of charter schools will be directly determined by parents taking responsible action and being accountable for educational reform in the lives of their children. And as already stated, leadership support for this proposal should also come from the next elected President—provided he or she continues the educational reforms already set in motion by President Clinton. Likely opposition to Policy Proposal 1 will come from the local School Boards, school districts, and state departments of education. Not only will they have to share the funding for those students who choose to attend charter schools, they will also lose control of how that money is spent. And they will have to adjust their budget which has certain fixed expenses, as well as downsize their number of teachers. Added to this is the competition which faces them from the newly formed charter schools, something they have never had to deal with before. Furthermore, all of this comes at a time when the local schools need more money to upgrade their classrooms and teachers with newer technology, i.e. computers, maintenance, upgrades, and software. There is a very favorable probability for
implementation of Policy Proposal 1. For the charter schools already
in existence, their state and national test scores have exceeded all
expectations (Charter Schools, 1998, p. 2). The popularity of these
immediately successful schools usually have long waiting lists for
students desiring admission. For charter school founders, starting
brand-new schools is an exhausting, yet exhilarating experience that
"stirs the creative and adaptive juices of everyone involved" (Hadderman,
p. 1). Regarding approximate costs of Policy Proposal 1, ongoing costs range from about the same for any other established school to 10% more (CSRM). But in reality, charter schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools (Hadderman, p. 2). Startup costs can range from $23,000-60,000 or more depending upon the number of students and teachers. This figure could be much higher depending upon the number of computers, Internet access, and educational software planned for the charter school (CSRM). Many associations specializing in a form of constructivism are available to provide initial and ongoing training for teachers and staff. These fees range from a few thousand dollars to $65,000 the first year, usually reduced on a sliding scale thereafter. Additionally, these associations require either a full-time coach present on the school campus or a specified number of on-site visits from a specialist-per-year. These salaries/fees range from a few thousand to $40,000 a year. Reimbursed federal funding is available on a competitive basis under the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (Dahlkemper, p. 1). Grants of $50,000 minimum, renewable for two years, are possible under this federal program, contingent upon a comprehensive proposal and application approval. It should noted, though, that 80% of the monies available under this program are earmarked for Title I schools. What are the likely impacts of Policy Proposal 1? First, it shouldn’t overthrow the larger governance system in the schools, like the school-choice movement involving vouchers and privatization would achieve. Charter schools might even provide successful alternatives that may force existing schools to compete with reforms of their own. On the other hand, they could reduce district reform by drawing off reform-minded teachers and parents, isolating them from the larger system (Lashway, 1999, p. 2). |
||
