George Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" has helped some students but hurts many others. Students who are fortunate enough to attend schools with good teachers, have parents with money, and schools with plenty of resources benefit from this act. In order to keep government aid, schools need to have a certain percentage of passing students and if they dont, they lose their aid. So the schools that need the money the most - lose it. The education policies of George W. Bush are not working for every student and luckily he will be out of office soon.
However, Bush called on congress in his last state of the union address to "rereauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act. But the one concrete idea he proposed in the speech—$300 million for public and private school choice—won't generate much enthusiasm in Congress, particularly from Democrats." Why is that? Because americans have realized that taking money from the schools who obviously need MORE money is idiotic. Putting fire under someone to perform doesnt equal results when one is dealing with education. The tough love attitude is misplaced here because in many cases the children's ability is the result of poor circumstance.
As a part of the No Child Left Behind program, Bush wants to introduce "Pell Grants for kids" which would "provide grants on a competitive basis to states, school districts, cities, and non-profit organizations to create scholarship programs for low-income students in schools that have missed their achievement targets under the NCLB law, and in high schools in which graduation rates are lower than 60 percent. " This continuation relys heavily on competition, students should have a motivation but losing all funding shouldnt be part of it. And if these kids have already missed targets, it could be too late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think it's so obvious that government-run schools that are failing students automatically need more money. Some are underfunded while others are just poorly managed.
The Education Trust recently published a report on the so-called "funding gap" between districts with high & low concentrations of poor and minority students. Out of curiosity, I compared the average achievement gap on the NAEP in states that spend less $ on poor and minority students and those that spend more $. The results?
In the 23 states where there was a poverty funding gap, the average NAEP gap between poor and not poor students was 20.1 pts for 8th grade reading and 23.6 pts for 8th grade math. In the 26 states without a poverty funding gap, the average NAEP gap was 21.0 pts for 8th grade reading and 24.4 pts for 8th grade math. These results suggest that there is more to the achievement gap than simply unequal funding.
When I looked at the black-white gap, there was a slightly smaller gap in states without a funding gap. But it was only 1 pt in reading and 1.8 pts in math, which I'm not sure is a statistically significant difference.
Some of the states that have the largest achievement gap spend significantly more in high poverty and high minority schools according to the Ed Trust data: CT, MA, MN, & NJ. And some of the states with the smallest achievement gap have large funding gaps: NH, WY, & MT.
The attempt of my comment was to say that students are not benefiting from Bush's No Child Left Behind. I believe the dispersement of funds to be unfair and that the requirements to keep aid are ridiculus. Students who are doing poorly need better teachers and better resources - which is still directly related to funding. Teachers wont want to work at schools with old textbooks and computers; i feel like the current administration wants positive results and will use any means necessary to get them (like cutting off funding if too many students fail).
(Crimson wife, are you in our class? I dont see your name on the roster)
Whether a student does or doesn’t know that their test results effect funding, they will most likely feel extra pressured by the teachers. This is nerve wracking and may cause them to do worse on a test than they would do under normal circumstances. Also, when a teacher is so intent on shoving testing knowledge into their students brains, it keeps them from teaching effectively or being able to take enough time for students to learn vital topics. This is a lose-lose situation.
Though I am personally opposed to the No Child Left Behind act, I would like to dive into the possible positive effects of the act.
On the other hand, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has found that as of 2005, "Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math)", and "Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low." In addition to this, NCLB takes credit for improving schools that had been habitually failing.
I think the only positive aspect of the No Child Left Behind act instilled by the Bush Administration is the concept. NCLB is terribly underfunded; it is impossible for it to make the difference it intends. The parameters are quite broad to say the least, and they pose a huge responsiblity and pressure upon teachers to teach strictly toward tests because if students do not pass the tests, the schools lose their funding. I don't think this does any service to teacher or students. As for the vouchers that allow students to switch districts, they only facilitate the ability to make bad schools worse. I think NCLB needs to be radically redefined.
Post a Comment