Leaving No Child behind Yet Allowing None Too Far Ahead: Ensuring (In)Equity in Mathematics Education through the Science of Measurement and Instruction
Tóm tắt
For the past century, mathematics education in the United States has been effective at producing outcomes mirroring society's historical inequities. The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 was intended to address these differential educational outcomes. Given the scope of this legislation's impact on the way in which states, districts, and schools evaluate mathematics learning and conceptualize reforms in the teaching of mathematics, it is critical to examine the possible effects this may have on how mathematical proficiency is determined and distributed.
This inquiry raises questions about the manner in which the No Child Left Behind Act aims to improve mathematics education through an increased reliance on “objective” science. Specifically, the argument put forth here is that the policies of the No Child Left Behind Act leverage and intensify the “dividing practices” instituted in the early 20th century as a means of justifying the differential stratification of students in schools, thereby making equitable educational outcomes less likely than not. The questions guiding this inquiry are: How did these dividing practices first develop? What are the taken-for-granted assumptions under which they operate? How might technologies related to these practices, given renewed status due to the requirements of the NCLB Act, impact mathematics education?
This inquiry takes the format of an analytic essay, drawing on both a historical perspective of efforts to improve education in the United States through a reliance on scientific methods, and an examination of recent evidence as to how the No Child Left Behind legislation's policies are bring implemented in relation to the assessment and teaching of mathematics.
Although the intent of the No Child Left Behind legislation is to identify schools in which students are not being educated well and to compel improvement, its approach to doing so is built on a model from which long-standing disparities were constructed in the first place. The use of high-stakes standardized testing and direct instruction (DI) methods of teaching—both likely effects of the policies of the NCLB Act—reify the idea that mathematics is something to be put into students’ heads, apart from their lived experiences and daily lives. This approach to mathematics education provides a rationale for students’ (continued) stratification within an “objective” system of standardized testing and instruction. When considering reforms that aim to reduce inequities in educational outcomes, particularly in mathematics, forms of assessment and instruction must be developed and promoted that get away from the divisiveness of the traditional truth games and move toward a focus on students making sense of mathematics in ways that are meaningful, flexible, and connected to their sense of self.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
American Institutes for Research. (1999). An educator's guide to schoolwide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Services. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from http://www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/district_organization/Reform/Approach/direct.htm
Baltimore City Public School System. (2003, March 21). An evaluation of the Direct Instruction program. Retrieved October 23, 2003, from http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/Student_Performance/Program_Evaluation/direct_instruction.asp
Black P., 2002, Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom
Boaler J., 1997, Experiencing school mathematics: Teaching styles, sex and setting
Brigham C. C., 1923, A study of American intelligence
California Department of Education. (2004). Key elements of testing. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/keyelements0504.pdf
California Department of Education. (2005). Explaining 2004–2005 summary results. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://star.cde.ca.gov/mediabriefing0405.pdf
Carnegie Commission on Science Technology Government. (1991). In the national interest: The federal government in the reform of K–12 math and science education. New York: Author.
Carson J., 2004, States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, 181
Code L., 1995, Rethinking objectivity, 179
Colorado Department of Education. (2006). Colorado student assessment program achievement levels. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/csap/PLD/Ach_Lvl_Ovw_Logo.doc
Corwin T., 2003, The No Child Left Behind Act: Where are we now? Where are we going?
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2006). State profiles for 50 states: Mathematics assessments 2003–2006. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/PDFs/2003%2D2006AssessmentsM.pdf
Darling-Hammond L., 2006, Standards, assessments, and educational policy: In pursuit of genuine accountability
deVise D., 2006, The Washington Post
Diaz A., 2005, Focusing on student performance through accountability
Dillon S., 2005, The New York Times
Dolan DNA Learning Center, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. (2003). Image archive on the American eugenics movement. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.eugenic-sarchive.org/eugenics/list3.pl
Ellis M. W., 2005, The Mathematics Educator, 15, 7
Engelmann S., 1991, Theory of instruction: Principles and applications
Finn C., 2006, The Wall Street Journal
Foucault M., 1972, The archaeology of knowledge
Foucault M., 1977, Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison
Foucault M., 1988, The final Foucault, 1
Galton F., 1925, Hereditary genius
Gould S. J., 1981, The mismeasure of man
Gray P., 1999, Time, 84
Hake R. R. (2005, March). Will the No Child Left Behind Act promote direct instruction of science? Paper presented at the American Physics Society Meeting, Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved July 11, 2006, from http://www.physics.indiana.edu/∼hake/WillNCLBPromoteDSI-3.pdf
Haney W., 2000, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8
Haraway D., 1991, Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature
Hiebert J., 2003, A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics, 5
Illinois State Board of Education, ISAT mathematics performance definitions
Knapp M. S., 1995, Teaching for meaning in high poverty schools
Knapp M. S., 1990, Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 753
Louisiana Department of Education. (2003). Louisiana Educational Assessment Program 21 annual report. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.louisianaschools.net/lde/uploads/1703.pdf
Madaus G., 2003, A History of School Mathematics, 2, 1311
Moses R. P., 2001, Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights
National Assessment Governing Board. (2004). Mathematics framework for the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it's too late. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
New York State Education Department. (2006). Understanding your school/district report card. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/repcrd2005/information/elementary/guide.shtml
Nichols S., 2005, The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Noddings N., 1998, Philosophy of education
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2005). Mathematics achievement levels for End-of-Grade tests at grade 6. Retrieved July 7, 2006, from http://www.ncpublic-schools.org/docs/accountability/testing/eog/eogmathgr6_8ald_04_05.pdf
Oakes J., 1985, Keeping track: How schools structure inequality
Oklahoma State Department of Education, Grade 5 mathematics performance level descriptors
Orfield G., 2004, Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis
Paige R. (Speaker). (2002, June 10). Remarks of the Honorable Roderick Paige at the Harvard Conference on Education and Accountability, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved July 27, 2006, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2002/06/061002.html
Porter T., 1995, Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life
Spellings M. (Speaker). (2005, April 7). Raising achievement: A new path for No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 28, 2006, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2005/04/04072005.html
Stigler J. W., 1997, Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 14
Stigler S. M., 1986, The history of statistics: The measurement of uncertainty before 1900
Stodolsky S., 1988, The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies
Tate W. F., 1994, Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 477
Tate W. F., 2000, Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on African Americans, 201
Terman L. M., 1922, Intelligence tests and school reorganization
Thorndike E. L., 1923, The psychology of algebra
Tucker W. H., 1994, The science and politics of racial research
United States Department of Education. (2003). Proven methods: The facts about. math achievement. Retrieved on October 7, 2003, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/math/math.pdf
Weiss I. R., Pasley J. D., Smith P. S., Banilower E. R., and Heck D. C. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A Study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from http://www.horizon-research.com/insidetheclassroom/reports/looking/
Whitehurst G. J. (Speaker). (2002, March 13). Statement before the House Subcommittee on Labor/Heath and Human Services/Education Appropriations. Retrieved October 12, 2003, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: http://www.ed.gov/print/news/speeches/2003/03/03132003a.html
Whitehurst G. J., 2003, What we know from educational research: A summary
Wooster M. M., 2001, The American Enterprise, 12, 40
Zhang G. (2003, March). The implications of No Child Left Behind for North Carolina classrooms. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the North Carolina Association for Research in Education, Holly Springs, NC.
Zucker S., 2004, Using augmented norm-referenced assessments for NCLB compliance