Education: What does NCLB means?
Valarie Kemp
Trinity International University
Excel, Critical Thinking and Writing
Professor Terry Hudson
October 23, 2007
What is NCLB?
Introduction
What does the acronym NCLB stands for? It stands for No Child Left Behind. What does NCLB mean? This is an Act passed in 2001 to improve the quality of education for all kids in the US.
Past
In the past there was a reform call ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) that was past in 1965 by President Lyndon Johnson. What this act did was reform the public school system by introducing a better quality of education for all students. It also gave them federal funds to create programs to help our students in reading, writing, and math. It gave the schools guidelines to follow to improve their abilities to better assist our kids.
Present
Now it is called NCLB through the Bush administration. The new guidelines for this reform are based on these standards. Standards such as; increasing the quality of teaching personnel, better testing assessments for students, and letting the parents have a choice in their child’s education.
This legislative reform is enacted on the theories of standard based education. This was formerly known as outcome based education. According to the government the belief is that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students. But this act does not set the achievement standard for all students. The states to do this.
Objectives
One of the objectives is to have a higher quality of teaching staff in schools. There are certain standards that must be achieved by all personnel in order to teach our kids Teachers must be certified and licensed by the state. They must have at least 4 years of education with a bachelor’s degree. There is a test given called HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation). This test is administered to personnel to see if they are qualified in the subject areas that they acquired for that grade level.
New teachers to the profession must take the state test for elementary schools to demonstrate their knowledge of each subject area. Middle school teachers must also demonstrate their abilities of competency in a certain areas, by taking the rigorous state test or by successful completion of an undergraduate major. Each teacher must be evaluated every year to assure that they are fully qualified to teach.
Student Testing
Testing of students has become mandatory through this reform. Certain grades will be tested in math and reading every year. The class levels are third to eight grade. Science is a subject that will be tested in grades third through eleventh by the end of 2008. The high school grades will be tested at least once in math and reading.
Assessing children has become a necessity by the local and state governments. States get to choose their own form of testing the pupils. {1} According to NCLB “assessments may take any form so long as the same assessment system is used for all students in a state.” It also specifies that “assessments should normally be criterion-referenced tests, which focused on whether a student know the required content or can do the required skill as outlined in the state’s standards.”
Testing for LEP (limited English proficiency) students is not required the first year of their schooling but is required thereafter. Their test must be administered in a way that will be fairly assessed. Each state must provide the results of the testing in a reasonable manner to the parents of each student. The results must be provided in a format that each parent will be able to understand. The teachers should also get a copy of results to place in each child’s folder. The principals of each school should also receive a report of overall progress of that school.
School Improvement
NCLB requires that schools make adequate yearly progress. By assessing the children in their schools, they must perform at or above the bar that is set for their state standards. Even subgroups such as disabled children, LEP, and minorities must have a percentage of competency. Here are a few examples from the NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics): copy is on the last page.
This is just a sample of reading results for the all the schools in the country. As you can see in the United States there are many avenues that are affected by this assessment. The schools have to improve on these scores on a yearly basis. But if they don’t then they will receive funds to help implement programs that will improve their standards on the next assessment taken.
Funding for Schools
There is some funding available to the schools based on needs and students population. There is funding for a programs such as Title 1, IEP, reduced lunch, and LEP. These programs are mostly funded by the federal government. But the burden of keeping the schools going is primarily on the state and schools districts.
This causes a problem for most schools because the allocated funds are not enough to give our kids the proper education. In retrospect this causes the problem for schools to be able to rectify their situations without the proper funding. It is almost like a catch 22 situation.
There are pros and cons that come with this reform of 2001. In my researching this reform I discover that you as an individual will have to determine if this is right for you and your children. The parents will have to know the facts in order to make a choice of whether their children are getting a quality education by government standards
Pros
According to NAEP (National Assessment for Educational Progress) results showed improved reading and math scores. {2} NAEP states that “more progress was made by nine yrs old in reading in the last five years.” It also states that “Americans nine yrs old posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since1973) in their history of the report.” Supporters of the reform claim the legislation encourages accountability in public schools. It also offers parents greater educational options for their children.
The NCLB seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance. It also increases the quality of education. It gives the schools districts the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency. And it increases flexibility to state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
Cons
The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, districts and states to manipulate test results. This is based on perceptions by schools in order to enhance their appearance of school performance. The incentives that NCLB gives may causes states to lower their official standards. Standardized testing encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance. Teachers are not focusing on all subject areas that the kids need an overall understanding of. In regard to testing the different states can make up they own type of assessment. Having the test easier for the students to pass may increase their scores but does not give good performance.
Conclusion
The NCLB reform has a lot of unanswered questions that may confuse a parent. I believe, however, that it has some good points and some bad points. I believe that you must do your own research to get the understanding of what is really saying about education. I know the most important matter is the education of our kids. I do believe that our officials are concerned with this issue.
As a parent we must contact our congressmen and let them know that we want to be part of the process. In determining our kids’ future in education we will have to let our voice be heard in our local and state governments. We must get the facts from the right sources. This means that we must be aware of what our governmental agencies are doing in behalf of all children in the educational arena.
This is only part of the story because it changes constantly. We will always have to pay attention to the news that surround us on education. We as parents will also have to dig deep in to the information bureaucracy in order to get the whole truth. Only then will be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel in hopes of getting a good education.
Works cited
1. (2001) No Child LeftBehind Act (http//en.Wikipedia.org/wiki)No Child Left Behind
Retrieved 10/22/07
2. (2006) No Child Left Behind Act is Working (http//www.ed.gov/nclb/overview)No Child Left Behind (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki) retrieved on 10/22/07
Websites
www.ncsa.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp
www.nea.org/esea/moreinfo.html
www.nea.org/esea/eseatimeline.html
www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinions
Women’s Role in Ministry
Timothy Griffin
Trinity International University, South Florida Campus
Excel, ENG 111E Critical Writing & Thinking CM-19
Professor Terry Hudson
October 22, 2007
Women’s Role in Ministry
Introduction
The paper will cover the issues on the Role of Women in Ministry with consideration of Webb’s formula on cultural analysis through redemptive movement. The paper uses his formula in light of scripture to show that Webb’s point of view on women’s role in ministry is egalitarian for women to carry out headship in ministry is not supported by scripture. The egalitarian move is not cultural but transcultural for women not to hold headship within ministry. Webb (2001) has a point to a certain degree in that women have progressed in ministry within Jewish and Christian history. Webb’s analysis in redemptive movement is against the onslaught of primogeniture, firstborn and perceptions based on gender. There are commentaries by renowned men of the Christian faith with distorted views of scripture towards women in ministry (Webb, p.257-268).
Here are some examples of those commentaries Webb had researched:
· Martin Luther: “Adam is approved as superior to Eve, because he had the right of primogeniture.”
· Epiphanius: “The female sex is easily mistaken, fallible, and poor in intelligence.”
· Augustine: “If the woman not made for the man to have children then what was she made for?”
· John Wesley: “First”-So that woman was originally the inferior [in rank or status]. She was inferior too in bodily strength”
Webb tries to run circles around their heads by his concept of cultural analysis through redemptive movement making their view invalid to exclude women from ministry.
One can imagine their view on black slavery. Their perception probably would have fallen in the same category whether or not a black man is a human being. Throughout the scriptures according to Webb’s redemptive movement of the role of women in ministry, they have been major contributors in Jewish and Christian history (Webb, p.32).
Webb wishes to carry his valid findings of the redemptive movement of women’s role in ministry to an egalitarian position of headship because he knows that it refutes the perspectives of such renowned theologians of the Christian faith. He would be right in doing so if the scriptures were in the contexts of the commentaries. We thank God they (the scriptures) are not.
This is where Webb has a valid point to a certain degree as far as those commentaries are concerned. Anyone can agree with Webb’s point of view through cultural analysis by redemptive movement at this point.
Though one finds success dealing with certain concepts as Webb does when it comes to his cultural analysis method. He falls into a mode that overlooks other scriptures concerning the subject at hand. He is so sure of his research that he believes revolutionizes the role of women in every aspect of ministry. As others make discoveries believe nothing else cannot be like their discovery until someone else discovers other pieces to the puzzle.
Webb (2001) reveals this in his book, “Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals” as it pertains to the egalitarian movement of the role of women to headship in ministry. He shows this concept about all scripture is cultural while other scriptures are transcultural not cultural (Webb, p.51). He does not address those scriptures, which are transcultural pertaining to headship within the church. Webb makes the crucial mistake of not addressing those scriptures when dealing with the role of women in ministry. He summarizes patriarchalists views overlook original creation texts. He then states that hidden far in the background of scripture is patriarchy (Webb 49).
Therefore, its significance is minimal at best (Webb, p.41). That is why he overlooks preeminence the most significant backdrop in scripture. The scriptures speak volumes of this as they pertain to headship in ministry.
Preeminence
We shall explore the questions, which surround such a word. What is preeminence? When and where did God give this preeminence? Who and why did God give preeminence? How did God give preeminence? These questions I addressed so that one can have a clear sense, by the Spirit of God, of the role of women in ministry and that the egalitarian move for them to a headship role is not reflective of the word of God. Through the Bible, we find understanding for his people, His will, and His plan. The most controversy is found over the verses in I Timothy 2: 11- 14, 3: 1- 5 concerning the role of headship within ministry (KJV).
Hereby the role of women in ministry as it pertains to headship defined by these verses which God himself shows within scripture. This approach does not restrict the operation of the gifts of the Spirit through women in ministry. Neither is it a matter of gender bias or past arrogant attitudes of superior, which become stereotypical paradigms. The word of God has always been a guide in the conduct of a believer. No matter what status or role a person may have, he will need its guidance within Jewish and Christian history.
What is Preeminence?
Preeminence from a biblical perspective is the means whereby God’s expressed of His order of sovereignty through accountability, dependability, and authority. Over and within his creation as He sees fit that will express himself as the glorious, supreme being throughout all eternity. The simplistic meaning such as superior, dominant, or greater are too vague for the context that preeminence has in scripture. The simplistic meaning derived here would have such a stereotypical perspective about gender or race. These scriptures (Gen. 1:26, 27, Psalms 8:4-6, Eph. 1:20-23, 4:15, 16, Phil. 2:9-11, Col. 1:15-19, 2:9, 10, Heb. 2:4-9) clearly show the meaning of preeminence as far more than the simplistic term used by commentaries about the role of women in ministry. The redemptive move of these texts does show the meaning of the word is indeed transcultural not cultural.
When and Where Did God Give Preeminence?
He gave man the preeminence during the time of the creation on the sixth day when he made man from the dust of the ground [Gen. 1:26, Psalm 8:4-6]. The point of time was clearly established when God gave man the preeminence. In the predetermined counsel of God, before he made anything God gave man the preeminence (Ro. 8:29, 11:33-35, Eph. 1:4, 5). The creation of man manifested in the physical reveals this decision of God in the Garden of Eden. It started in the spiritual realm, and brought forth into the physical. Some believed that the preeminence spoken by God in Genesis 1:26 was lost when Adam had initially sinned but redemptive movement of the text Genesis 3 and Genesis 9:1-7 show that man had not lost the preeminence. Again showing that preeminence is transcultural from the creation to after the flood the text has the same words spoken unto man.
Who and Why did God Give Preeminence?
When we conduct a study of the texts within Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:4-6 that God has given man preeminence over all created life and the earth itself. The redemptive movement extends throughout the cultural of the history of mankind. Christian commentators have overlooked the text of Genesis 1:26 within creation. Man and woman have equal preeminence over animals and the earth, meaning a woman has authority as it pertains to God’s creation of plant and animal life. Those who are pro-egalitarians would take the text to show women have the right to headship within ministry and that there is no headship in marriage but mutuality (Webb, p.100).
It is important to stay within context of scripture. God clearly states, “…. let them have dominion over what flies in the air, lives in the sea and every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1: 26). This pertains to the created life (animal kingdom) and the earth itself, not towards headship in ministry nor to mutual headship in the home.
The woman being from man shows how over the created order of life this preeminence is equal with man. The redemptive movement in scripture supports this truth as transcultural. I would say to those who would take the egalitarian position to consider this before using this verse of scripture supporting the role of headship for women in ministry. God has chosen it this way to reflect His sovereignty over all his created order as a glorious, supreme being throughout all eternity. Not only is preeminence established in this way, for man and woman, but also for the coming Messiah to have that ultimate role of preeminence (I Corinthians 11:3, 4, Hebrews 2:9-12).
Now we take the redemptive movement from creation to marriage. Here through the texts preeminence established through the relationship of a male’s role as husband and woman’s role as a wife. This relationship of marriage is reflective of the relationship of Jesus Christ is to the church (Eph. 5: 22-29). Genesis 3:16 is the point where God reaffirms his purpose where the preeminence lies within the marriage.
We continue with the redemptive movement to Esther 1:20-22 where the nation of Israel is within another culture and an event took place bringing about preeminence established throughout an empire. One woman who with stood that order of preeminence brought about another woman to fulfill the will of God. A woman who acted without taking headship brings about deliverance for her people. Thus, this regressiveness continues throughout Jewish history onto Christian history, making the redemptive movement more and more transcultural than cultural for the man as a husband who has the preeminence within the relationship. God as a husband refers to Israel as his wife and Jesus refers to the church as a wife in the same sense. Scriptures like Ezekiel 24:15-27, Hosea 2:2, 7, 16, I Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:23, 24, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, I Peter 3:1 show through different time periods of culture that redemptive movement has been transcultural. Preeminence given unto man as a husband continues, as the relationship between God and Israel, Christ and the church is reflective of the same. The redemptive movement of Jesus Christ establishing preeminence totally in Him will be a regressive approach.
Stepping into the texts from a redemptive movement is the transcultural act of God about his Son having the preeminence over all things whether in heaven or in earth (Col. 3: 18). Jesus follows along in these texts, which show his preeminence over all things. In the beginning of creation, God affirms Christ’s preeminence in Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image...etc” (KJV). He again states it in Genesis 3:35 about Satan having his head bruised by the seed of the woman. The transcultural goes on for the promised seed of Abraham, the Prophet of prophets with Moses; inherit to the throne of David, the vision of Isaiah of the child born of a virgin, Daniel’s vision of the ancient of days. Jesus, himself declares his preeminence over all things after his resurrection from the grave (Genesis 15:4, 17:6, 7, Deuteronomy 18:18, 19, Isaiah 9:6, Daniel 7:22, Matthew 28:18). Jesus Christ’s preeminence is over man, the church and the spirit realm shown through the text being transcultural throughout eternity (I Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 1:20-22, 4:15, 5:23, 24, Philippians 2:9, 10, Colossians 1:17-19, 2:9, 10).
Through the text as a cultural analysis is applied the words head and preeminence is used often. They use them interchangeably within the context of scripture. Thus, accountability, dependability, authority are intrinsic in the meaning of the words head and preeminence within the text of scripture. Since preeminence given unto Jesus like Adam, it was by man, the male that sin is upon all. Therefore, must man restore life unto all or eradicate sin for all (Romans 5:10-21). That is the reason why God had given Christ preeminence for he could only be the one divine enough to answer the sacrificial call.
Why Did God Give Man The Preeminence?
Looking at the deductions of the previous questions, we conclude that God’s purpose clearly define how He will express his order of sovereignty over and within His own creation. He sees fit how He will express himself as the only Supreme Being throughout all eternity. He shows this first in creation that not only the man but the woman also has preeminence over His creation. She can manager her way in any aspect to subdue the earth.
The Proverbs 31 woman is the woman in her prime showing the preeminence that God had given her. She does it so well that her reputation makes her husband’s reputation even more renowned. In all that, she never goes into a place of headship over her husband. For Verse 30 indicates her relationship with God is all the power she will ever need. How much the more, has he already given to show his glory through that act? She has contributed to the glory of God and the well-being of her fellowman.
Within the Jewish and Christian faiths, she has filled roles without trying to take the headship. How could such repressiveness towards women occur within Jewish and Christian history? However, the Spirit of God within those women used them in spite of the repression. However, others attribute Deborah taking headship, but not according to scripture. If she had, she would have never needed Barak in the first place. She could have called the tribes together just on her reputation alone. If one would just look at the scripture again. First how it mentions her role of prophetess, then her headship Lapidoth and her location between Ramah and Bethel under a palm tree (these two places are the sacred places of worship, she was not in a synagogue). Whenever God sent a judge, they delivered the people from their oppressors. This is true throughout the redemptive movement of the book of Judges. If she was the judge, the people were still bound for twenty years. When she judged the people she used the gift of the Spirit as a prophetess, which was discernment of the will of God as she demonstrates by going to a man, she never met or knew. She knew the Spirit within her gave her the insight about what God had already spoken too Barak. For when she came to him, she said as a question not a directive, “Had not God commanded you to go…etc?” (Judges 4: 6).
Because of his response to God’s call for him to take the preeminence, she went along as an observer and proclaimed that a woman by the name of Jael would have the glory. Deborah as the scripture shows she was not the judge, but it was Barak. The text that attributes to Christ in Ephesians 4: 8 is parallel to the scripture unto Barak, “Arise, Barak, and lead captivity, captive, you son of Abinoam” (Judges 5: 12). The name Abinoam means deliverer within the text. Ephesians 4:8 is in context with attributing both Jesus and Barak to deliver their people from oppression. There preeminence has a play once again in the lives of believers. Deborah could recognize where her role extends and ends. Many others have followed the same example of conduct throughout Jewish and Christian history (Judges 4: 1-9, 17-22, 5: 12-13, Eph. 4:8). It was that same Spirit that operates within each and everyone who is a born again believer. Revealed to them this important concept as they functioned in those roles they had in Jewish and Christian history. They did not take headship because it would not reflect God’s relationship with Israel or Jesus with the church. God gave preeminence to reflect his glory. He gives man the woman to reflect man’s glory.
Conclusion
There is much more too be said concern this issue about the role of women in ministry given in our ever changing culture. However, the cultural analysis of this paper does not place women under such misconceptions because of poor interpretive tools used when researching scripture but gives more clarity concerning women throughout Jewish and Christian history. They have a role within all the aspects of God’s creation where God has said within scripture. They have a role in marriage as they yield to the headship of their husbands that reflects the relationship as God has with Israel and Christ with the Church. Ultimately, she would not submit to this unless she submits unto God herself. The relationship Jesus has with all things should reflect the same as He is with the church.
I have used Webb’s cultural analysis redemptive movement concerning the issue of women’s role in ministry. If not then it would be acceptable to have an egalitarian movement of women in headship roles in ministry. Using the scripture Galatians 3:28 to support the reason for women to have headship is out of context when Galatians 3:28 refers to who can receive salvation as fellow believers in Christ. There is no difference between using that scripture and those using I Corinthians 14:34 to support their theoretical conclusion not to permitted women speaking in the church. Neither theoretical concept finds support contextually or scripturally.
We can look at a well-known sect of Jehovah Witnesses since they use Acts 15:20 convincing people too not have blood transfusions. Many love ones have died because of this belief. Jehovah Witnesses are taking that text out of context. A cultural analysis of the dietary laws in the book of Leviticus pertains to the way they cook their food. In addition, through farther study in other texts they were not to follow the godless practice of the other nations. These heathen nations practiced drinking the blood of their victims; they believed would gain them their spirit or power. The Jehovah Witness uses that one verse with their stipulations or conjectures to support their position. One should take a serious look at how they are applying a text to living out their faith. See that texts not used out of context as the Jehovah Witnesses do.
When you have one text with no other text to support it, find other texts that are contextually sound to support the interpretation. Observe the results in their life from following such concepts. For example, Jehovah Witnesses say they are following the text but their results in real life are totally opposite from what they claim too be true. Only in their organization do people have a problem that requires them to give blood to save a love one’s life.
Now there is this text “Add not to His word, least He reprove you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The verse of scripture gives validation to the saying, “God will not be mocked” (Galatians 6:7). Find out if their idea or method has results like this would it not, be the wiser to change one’s method and take much more care with the word God? There are texts, which call us, even demand that all of us take a very careful approach in the Hermeneutics of His word. Such texts are transcultural like Proverbs 30:6, St. John 10: 35, Romans 3:4, II Timothy 3:16.
The understanding of the role of women in ministry is vitally important. The book of I Timothy 2:12 -14 is there for a woman’s protection that she follow not the examples of other women who did the very thing that Paul spoke of, usurping their authority. It is clear she should not usurp (forcefully, without permission, antagonistically) authority due to the order of Preeminence and God’s plan for that order to be reflected within marriage and the church, like the relationship of God unto Israel and Jesus unto the church. Even with this in mind, the purpose of Paul’s address in I Corinthian 11: 1-16 unto the church. Paul speaks on the issue concerning the relationship between God, man and woman. That no woman wherever she is in ministry falls prey to stereotypical views or apostates like Jezebel (Idolatry run amuck), Athaliah (grandma seeks to kill rightful inherit to gain the preeminence), Self-Proclaim woman at the church of Thyatira (spiritually corrupts through damnable heresies, denunciation of one’s faith).
Works Cited
The holy Bible: The annotated King James study Bibl. (1989). Nashville, TN: Zondervan
Publishers.
Webb, W. J. (2001). Slaves, women & homosexuals: Exploring the hermeneutics of cultural
analysis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Publishers.