Issue 9
Analysis Brief
Can Failing Schools Be turned Around?
Can Failing Schools Be Turned Around is an article that was written by two different writers both depicting their own ideas on whether schools can be turned around. The first article, Its being Done, and Heres How was written by Karin Chenoweth. The article explains how schools can be turned around and what needs to be done to be successful. The second article is The Turnaround Fallacy which is written by Andy Smarick. The Turnaround Fallacy explains how schools cannot be turned around. Both articles have there pros and cons to back up their opinions. Karin's article was focused allot more with the surroundings of the students and the organization of the faculty where as Andy's article was based on the facts and statistics of previous schools and money based schools. Karin's article proposed a plan with implementing a new principal. The principal came in and had the entire staff rehired so that the staff and student's where all on the same page. Karin's article focused on learning and creating structures that support learning. One of the main issues in Karin's article that she mentions is that most teachers believe that kids should already have experienced and an understanding of certain things. Teaching poverty students, does not begin with any assumptions of things they don't have to explain. Starting from the simple things to the most advance things, always have an explanation and do not assume the student knows anything. Karin's article had some main points that made me believe that change can definitely be made. All teachers meet on a weekly basis and discuss and help teachers achieve ways of understanding themselves as well as making the children understand. In low income and low poverty schools teachers may have to put in more time for the students.
Andy's article believes that schools cannot be turned around. Many of the beliefs that Andy explains comes from past statistics and facts. All of these statistics are well and good, but how accurately can they be when the writer has no idea on what changes were made and how well they were implemented and followed out. One of the things that stuck in my head reading this article was "no one has the answer, its like finding the cure to cancer". That right there said it all for me. That no one wants to put in the effort and dedication, imagine someone dieing and hearing another person say I give up. Never give up! That sentence helped me believe in the turnaround for schools.
The fact that teachers do not want to put in the work is definitely the problem with the entire system. There need to be a heavier focus on what the teachers are actually doing whether they are making a difference of not. If you have a plan to make a change and some of the teachers don't follow along it will defeat the entire purpose and not do the job. Another thing that goes along with that is that there is no way for the people who are writing about these failing schools to know if the "plan" that is being set up to fix the school is even effective let alone working at all. I believe that the turnaround method would work best because if it is really focused on it can work. We found this out in the supporting article because there are multiple schools around the country that are turning around for the better. But dedication and persistence is what it will take to make a positive change in a school. If you set a plan in motion with no plan to follow it do you think its really going to become effective.
ReplyDeleteGreat job, it seems like you really understood what each writer was trying to prove. I think you agree with the "pro" article and not so much with the "con" article. I noticed the cancer comment as well and agree that it sounds as though some people think turning around failing schools is impossible. What other methods do you think Karin uses when turning around schools, other than teachers working together and believing in students? Do you think those methods actually work? Or did they just happen to work for the schools she mentioned? I think she explained very important points but I don't think she had enough evidence to back it up; she only named a handful of schools. On the other hand, its unfair that the second article says schools that are failing need to be closed. Do you think there are some that should stay open? How long of an opportunity should they have to turn around their schools?
ReplyDelete- Interesting point "The principal came in and had the entire staff rehired so that the staff and student's where all on the same page" guess I missed that part in the reading. Both do have very different point of views and had great evidence to back up their story. I believe in failing schools can be turned around too, next time just add more of your opinion and why you agree. And remember to spell check before you hit summit :]
ReplyDelete