Are Children Being Left Behind?
I have a mom who is a teacher. There is much that is either misunderstood or just myths about what a teacher does, can do, and their effect on students.
One thing that falls in a similar catagory is "No Child Left Behind." Just as the school year is starting, schools are having to release a watch list, a list in which each school has failed in at least one catagory of testing.
Not even talking about how much lack of control a teacher has over a student's success, the school has to continually improve in these scores year after year.
The trouble starts when these schools can't meet those standards, no matter how high they get. Going off the Washington State's Office of Superintendant of Public Instruction's press release on which schools got on the watch list, here is the following penalties:
Step 1: Schools must inform parents that their school has made this list and give the opprotunity to transfer students to a school not on the watch list; transportation must be provided.
Step 2: In addition to the penalties in Step 1, a school must give low income students the opprotunity free tutoring services.
Step 3: A school district must take direct action to improve the school's education. This can include such things as ciriculum and instruction changes.
Step 4: A school district must plan for "alternative governance"
Now, Steps 3 and 4 can go about hiring and firing teachers or other staff, something in which teacher unions obviously don't like. It also isn't that good of a thing, since there is a teacher shortage, often due to the low income a teacher gets.
But it is Steps 1 and 2 that has me worried. Both include thing in which add to financial problems that most schools already face. Tutors, while would be a good thing to have, are often very expensive. Transportation also can easily be an expensive endevor, especially with today's gas prices. This is all alongside possible losing all Title 1 funding if a school fails.
But it is Step 1 that is the crux of NCLB. Supply-side economists try to come up with free market formulas in non-market circles. This is one of them. The idea is simple, have parents choose which school they go to, have the tests inform them which are doing the best, and cut out schools that fail those tests too much.
The problem with this idea are many fold. First, funding is something schools already lack, especially at the elementary level. Forcing schools to fund tutors or transportation will take money away from other things that would directly help teachers teach and students learn (well, at least all students).
But by also giving parents not only information on which school is doing the best and forcing all students into the school uncaring of space, we hit a class size problem. People always want smaller class sizes, but if one or two schools are doing much better off then all the others, class sizes will be at unmanagable purportions.
I already had to go through just one year of a over-crowded school. I would not like to go through that again.
This isn't even mentioning (until now) that the funding in which Bush promised isn't there, although he doesn't legally have to meet it.
No Child Left Behind has too many problems in which the average parent just doesn't see, and often doesn't even care to look at. They see it for what the title says, but don't realize it's effects are dramatic enough to cause irrepairable harm.
One thing that falls in a similar catagory is "No Child Left Behind." Just as the school year is starting, schools are having to release a watch list, a list in which each school has failed in at least one catagory of testing.
Not even talking about how much lack of control a teacher has over a student's success, the school has to continually improve in these scores year after year.
The trouble starts when these schools can't meet those standards, no matter how high they get. Going off the Washington State's Office of Superintendant of Public Instruction's press release on which schools got on the watch list, here is the following penalties:
Step 1: Schools must inform parents that their school has made this list and give the opprotunity to transfer students to a school not on the watch list; transportation must be provided.
Step 2: In addition to the penalties in Step 1, a school must give low income students the opprotunity free tutoring services.
Step 3: A school district must take direct action to improve the school's education. This can include such things as ciriculum and instruction changes.
Step 4: A school district must plan for "alternative governance"
Now, Steps 3 and 4 can go about hiring and firing teachers or other staff, something in which teacher unions obviously don't like. It also isn't that good of a thing, since there is a teacher shortage, often due to the low income a teacher gets.
But it is Steps 1 and 2 that has me worried. Both include thing in which add to financial problems that most schools already face. Tutors, while would be a good thing to have, are often very expensive. Transportation also can easily be an expensive endevor, especially with today's gas prices. This is all alongside possible losing all Title 1 funding if a school fails.
But it is Step 1 that is the crux of NCLB. Supply-side economists try to come up with free market formulas in non-market circles. This is one of them. The idea is simple, have parents choose which school they go to, have the tests inform them which are doing the best, and cut out schools that fail those tests too much.
The problem with this idea are many fold. First, funding is something schools already lack, especially at the elementary level. Forcing schools to fund tutors or transportation will take money away from other things that would directly help teachers teach and students learn (well, at least all students).
But by also giving parents not only information on which school is doing the best and forcing all students into the school uncaring of space, we hit a class size problem. People always want smaller class sizes, but if one or two schools are doing much better off then all the others, class sizes will be at unmanagable purportions.
I already had to go through just one year of a over-crowded school. I would not like to go through that again.
This isn't even mentioning (until now) that the funding in which Bush promised isn't there, although he doesn't legally have to meet it.
No Child Left Behind has too many problems in which the average parent just doesn't see, and often doesn't even care to look at. They see it for what the title says, but don't realize it's effects are dramatic enough to cause irrepairable harm.
posted by SeanM at 8:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home