I loved reading Carnavale because he touched on topics that I have previously (beginning of undergrad) misjudged. I was one of those know-it-all, speak-my-mind kids about standards and NCLB when I really didn't know much about either. Luckily, I had a fewe teachers who were nice enough to respect my opinions and share their insights. They were not always in favor of all standards or NCLS, but they could understand the reasoning behind them. it is from them that I try and stay open-minded. I don't agree 100% with the direction of NCLB, but who agrees 100% with any program? There are pros and cons, but more importantly we are doing something. Through the years I am sure that objectives will be reshaped, standards adjusted, and that holes will be patched. We all use Microsoft don't we? Its never perfect off the shelf, but we trust that Microsoft will work out the bugs in due time.
Enough of that. The initial comparison of standard-based reform to a 3 Act play is interesting, but there was a flaw. They mention that Act I is finished and we are now focusing on Act II (Alignment). The also mention the curtain is partially risen for Act III (Accountability). Can two Acts occur at once outside of a Monty Python-type production? How can anyone be held accountable while there is confusion among issues of alignment? When all is said and done, how much accountability will be on teachers and administrators? How much will be on the student? My personal belief is that the most should be on the student. Perhaps the biggest reason that I want to end up teaching in a university is so that I do not feel forced to walk students through my courses. when I was student teaching in SE Idaho I witnessed situations in which students had no right passing classes, but teachers passed them anyways. For example, can a student really miss half of the semester (literally half) and still get a B? The law in Idaho was that during Spud Harvest students could work the fields and miss school. They could not be penalized for the days they missed and were supposed to make up all their work. Some students did just that. Others not so much. The fear of accountability (and job security) on the heads of the teachers pushed them to just pass the kids that didn't do their work. It made me sick. Again I ask, who is truly responsible for educational success?
Questions
The article says those not equipped with necessary knowledge and skills to keep good jobs are denied social inclusion and tend to dropout of the mainstreram culture. What is a "good job" and what is meant here by "mainstream culture"? I could come up with various explanation of each, but I am more interested in what Carnavale thinks in this situation.
The article talks about how in times of recession people with higher educational attainment will bump out those with a lower level of formal education. Is this only in certain markets? It would seem to me that in a recession businesses might like to hire cheaper. I could see a school highering a novice as opposed to a more seasoned and educated professional in an attempt to save money. I guess its a matter of being willing to accept what you can get in those times.
Okay, no more questions ... for now. "The only decision more expensieve than going to college is not going to college". Very true. My buddy and I started school at the same time in 2000. We each left the country for 2 years, but came back and resumed out education. I am a year away from my M.Ed and he still has one semester left for his B.S. His thought was that he would get jobs during his time in school that didn't require a degree. He was, and still is convinced that he doesn't need a degree to succeed in the business world. He is still working for peanuts and I will shortly become a full-time teacher ... making peanuts. I will, however, be more marketable with the skills I have acquired in school and I'll make more peanuts than he will. I guess thats a good thing.
It was very interesting and enlightening to read about "The Changing Structure of Employment and thr Role of Education". If we were to look back just a few short decades ago, my degree in Spanish would be nice but not necessarily sought after by many. Globalization has given me the opportunity to focus on my interest and be in a position where my skills are in demand around the country. I don't forsee a time in the future when foreign language will not be needed, so I feel stable in my position. The concept of changing economies and schools opened my eyes, however, to the struggles that many have with current changes and trends. Steel workers who were trained specially for their jobs now have a hard time finding meaningful employment elsewhere since their factories are shutting down. In the future, what currently thriving occupations will be outsourced or outdated? How are circumstances like that prevented? Education.
The remaining topics in Carnavale's piece are of importance, but I don't care much to discuss them. Discussions of financial status are pretty much boring. If I felt strongly about my financial status and how to get in the top tiers of income I wouldn't be in Education. I guess I should tie this back into standards, since originally that's what the article was about. We become educated in order to meet the demands of an ever-changing, dynamic economy. We create standards to make sure we are properly educated for the economy. We are currently in a stage in which we test our standard-making abilities and realign areas that are lacking direction and stability. I believe alignment is important, but I am not sure how much I feel alignment should focus on specifics. Is is crucial that every kid in America can define riboflavin, or is it crucual that every kid is exposed to certain aspects of biology? Is anyone checking to make sure out alignment goals are in alignment with our educational goals?
We'll call this entry Scene I.
