American Ways Book Review

Final Exam

When I was in Seattle Central Community College, I studied the book American Ways: An introduction to American Culture where I found out many interesting facts about the American society. This book gives thorough details about the values that are extremely appreciated by the American culture, which are freedom and self-reliance, equality of opportunity and competition, the American dream and hard work. These values have a strong impact on many fields, such as education. Generally, educators are divided between two educational reforms which are equity and free market. The first refers to fairness in measuring achievement, whereas the latter puts an emphasis on competition, testing, and accountability. Teacher evaluation, testing

and standards, and segregation and integration of race and class are viewed differently by equity and free market perspectives.
According to the Free Market perspective, teachers are evaluated based on their students’ test scores. To put it differently, if students get high scores in tests, that proves that their teachers are effective. If they get low scores, their teachers are not effective, therefore, they should be fired. In her book Reign of Error, Ravitch states that reformers think that people make excuses for ineffective teachers when they say family and economic issues are the major reasons behind students’ failure in tests. Additionally, Ravitch writes “ The reformers often repeat the claim that three “great” or “effective” teachers in a row would close the test score gap between black and white children, between rich and poor children, between Hispanic and white children” (P.101). Basically, reformers believe that miracles could easily happen if schools have only good teachers. In other words, they think that good teachers can guarantee their students’ success, regardless of their economic, racial, and social problems.
In contrast, Ravitch refutes reformers thoughts by stating that great teachers cannot be identified by their students’ test scores.

Furthermore, she insists that (educators) ignore the fact that children learning abilities are different as a reply to their saying “ every child can learn” (P.99). She goes on to maintain that test scores cannot be used to prove if students learn anything. According to Ravitch, social scientists report that families’ incomes affect students’ educational lives more than their teachers do. In her book, she supports her claim by mentioning that economists observe that 60% of the test score variation is responsible for family. On the other hand, 20-25% is accounted for school while 15% of test score variation is teachers’ responsibility. Moreover, Ravitch emphasizes the importance of evaluating teachers based on their way of instruction, not their students’ performance in tests. She finally concludes by wondering what reformers exactly mean by “great” teachers. She presents two types of teachers who can be described as “great”. The first one is teachers who motivate and inspire their students to learn and those can only be identified by students and supervisors. They cannot be recognized by test scores. The second type is teachers who are great, in the performers’ terms, for raising students’ test scores, but they are not relevant based on Ravitch’s information. According to her, no school has teachers in which everyone of them raises his or her

students scores in every single test they take.
My own of view is that evaluating teachers based on their students’ test scores is not a good idea. Though I concede that teacher evaluation is extremely necessary, I still maintain that different methods of evaluation should be applied. For example, if a principal wants to evaluate a certain teacher, he or she should attend his or her class and evaluate the way he or she instructs students. Although it might be objected that teachers could teach students differently if the principal is not in the classroom, I reply that principal should attend the class without telling the teacher first. If a supervisor or a principal suddenly attends a class, she will be able to see how the teacher usually teaches her students. Additionally, students should be asked to anonymously evaluate their teachers and write feedback to help make instruction better because they know better than anyone else if they truly learn from their teachers. Students’ evaluation of teachers are not beneficial for students in getting a better education. Teachers also will get to know their weaknesses so that they can fix them to be more effective in their teaching. If teachers still make the same mistakes based on students’ feedback, they should be required to stop teaching for a period of time and attend workshops to assist them to overcome their weaknesses. However, students’ evaluation of teachers could be difficult if students are children because it might be not easy for them to express what they like and they need from their teachers. In this case, it is better to hire only expert teachers for instructing children and their instruction can be evaluated based on principals and supervisors attendance to their classes. Particularly, teachers who have been teaching for 5 years or longer can teach children while anyone who is new to teaching should teach middle and high schools. This is because students in the upper grades are capable of evaluating teachers and verbalizing if the way they are instructed is beneficial. Briefly, instead of evaluating teachers based on students’ performance in tests, teachers should be evaluated by attending their lessons and taking a close look at students’ evaluation and feedbacks of their teachers.
In addition to teacher evaluation, testing and standards are controversial issues in the field of education in the U.S.

In her book Reign of Error, Ravitch offers detailed information about how academic performance is measured in the United States. According to her, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAPE) is a representative of the U.S. Department of Education and its major goal is designing tests that measure how students do in core subjects, like reading and mathematics. Teachers, administrators, state legislatures, governors, business people, and members of general public participate in this governing board. It is independently governed by the National Assessment Governing Board. Additionally, there are two different methods NAPE uses when it is time to report its assessments’ results. The first method is measuring students’ academic performance by scale scores, which shows students’ knowledge and abilities. The second one is achievement levels, which tell students whether they are doing properly or poorly in their academic performance. Its levels varied between advanced which is the highest level, proficient, basic, and below basic which is the lowest

level.
On one hand, reformers believe that public education is not doing well in the U.S. because students’ test scores are low. Particularly, the film Waiting for “Superman” assert that 70% of students in 8th grade do not know how to read (at the grade level). Moreover, Michelle Rhee creates an organization that is called StudentsFirst which supports charter schools and vouchers and opposes teachers’ unions. As a part of promoting her organization, she claims that only one in 3 of 4th grade students has the ability to read at a grade level. Also, reformers mention that “ students achievement has been flat for the past twenty years” (P.49).
On the other hand, Ravitch contends reformers’ thoughts and claims by presenting ample evidence. In fact, she was a member of NAPE when Clinton was the president, so she knows a lot about NAPE based on her experience there for 7 years. First, she emphasizes that students’ test scores are actually higher than they were in the past. As Ravitch puts it, “ In 1992, 29% of students were proficient or above; in 2011, it was 34%”. Clearly, she writes this as a proof of how eight graders improved their reading test scores. Additionally, the film Waiting for “Superman”’s point that 70% of students in 8th grade cannot read is also refuted by Ravitch. According to her, Guggenheim, who is the film director and narrator, got confused regarding the ways NAPE measures students. He thought that any student who is not proficient on the NAPE is below grade level, but this is wrong. Based on NAPE measures, basic level or above is actually 76%, while 24% is below basic level. However,Guggenheim assumed that it was 70% who are below basic. Similarly, Michelle Rhee who complains that 1\3 of 4th graders can read did the same mistake as Guggenheim. Ravitch maintains that proficiency and grade levels also create confusion for Rhee (P.48). In fact, A was earned by only 1/3 of the class, but she assumed that 1/3 of students can read. To refutes this, Ravitch mentions that in 2011, two third of students in 4th grade have the ability to read at or above basic, whereas one third read at below basic. Moreover, Ravitch observers that reformers’ complain about the students flat achievement for two decades is merely a justification for what they truly need. Actually, NAPE data emphasizes that test scores in reading and math increase significantly. However, the increase is more shown in math Than in reading.
In my opinion, Ravitch's assertion that students’ performance in tests is much higher than it was in the past is more convincing than reformers’ claims, and this is for two reasons. First, Ravitch was a member of NAPE and she knows more than anyone else how students’ academic performance is graded and what each grade actually represents. In other words, it is logical to believe her words since she knew what she is writing about. Furthermore, reformers’ allegations were inaccurate because they misinterpreted NAPE grades, so this made me wonder if they ever make efforts to confirm their information before talking or they just want to label public education as bad in front of people! Also, Ravitch's thoughts were more persuasive because she presents adequate facts whenever she contradicts reformers’ opinions. Moreover, Ravitch is surely right when she writes “ Of course, test scores are not the way to measure education, but to the extent that they matter, they are improving” (P.53). There are several methods other than testing that could be used to determine how much knowledge and abilities students have. It is better to exploit students’ skills in measuring their knowledge. For instance, some students might be extremely talented in acting, so if a history teacher wants to examine his/her students’ knowledge about a certain event in the past, the teacher should give them the opportunity to make a play for that event. Then, they act it out for their teacher and classmates. This will make students have exciting and memorable moments and they will also be more confident to pass the subject with high grades. Moreover, if students have outstanding skills in drawing, it is better to let them draw pictures instead of forcing themselves to write essays in their writing class. It is not fair for students who are not good at writing to make them go through the same test as those whose writing skills are exceptional. In short, every student should be capable of being tested in accordance to his/her skills.