NEWS: "No Child Left Behind" leaves inner city schools behind

POLITICS: "No Child Left Behind" leaves inner city schools behind

No Child Left Behind seems to regard poor, inner city schools as a disease to be cut out. No Child was, initially, meant to force schools to bring all students up to a higher level of basic reading and math skills. An admirable goal, but the method of doing so makes little sense.



First, schools are rated based on standardized tests, which are often culturally biased. And second, since funding is based on test scores, teachers and adminiatrators have been known to cheat the system by teaching answers instead of thought processes.



Now, the Bush administration is attempting to fix one of the problems within the system, while ignoring the fact that the system doesn't work.

States will now be allowed to give leniency to schools that have smaller numbers of students who are dragging down their test scores, while schools that have several groups (i.e. inner city and poor schools) are in much greater danger of closing.

This seems backwards. The schools that are in the most danger are populated by the groups of people least able to afford to have their students change schools. Bussing and after school programs are supposed to be free, but unless they are running buses after the after-school programs, the parents will have to leave work early to go pick up the children.



The idea of punishing the schools that need the most help is absurd. The idea of throwing more funding to schools that are already meeting standards is again, absurd. The idea of teaching test answers instead of thought processes is idiotic.



And the idea that fixing it by shifting the burden even more towards underfunded inner-city schools is the ultimate proof that this administration doesn't know anything about education.



Coyotemike has seen the results of No Child Left Behind, and is scared for the future.

Here's the quote I like:

When you send poor kids to poor schools the result is poor education. Throwing new standards at them was never the answer.

Good piece!

Nice! First Article! gets addicting, careful.

great piece!

And, here we go again. When the administration does something with predictable bad results, I get cynical. Could it be that that was the object of the exercise in the first place?

As in the jealousy of a C-student?

My kids have been studying for the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test) since before Christmas. I'm wondering how much actual education they are missing out on by concentrating so heavily on one test. The last 6 weeks has been nothing but FCAT prep. I understand you need to have some kind of way to measure standards, but putting so much emphasis on one test seems incredibly counter-productive.

It seems like each level of education expects the next level to fill in the blanks left by the previous level. By the time some students get to college, they are wholly unprepared for the experiance. I've had students come in, writing at a 4th grade level. I've had many that have never written anything longer than a paragraph. I've had many come in who find the newspaper difficult to read. Who knows where they are in math and science skills, but I wouldn't expect much.

This is the end result of the "teach to the test" style of education.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

and thanks for the congrats on my first real article

I doubt it; I don't think W actually cares about people he doesn't know. My suspicion is that this is (again) aimed at cementing American class structure. Knowledge-based economy? Well, yes. So, how best to ensure that the people at the top of the heap stay there? Hmmmm...

coyotemike said:
It seems like each level of education expects the next level to fill in the blanks left by the previous level. By the time some students get to college, they are wholly unprepared for the experiance. I've had students come in, writing at a 4th grade level. I've had many that have never written anything longer than a paragraph. I've had many come in who find the newspaper difficult to read. Who knows where they are in math and science skills, but I wouldn't expect much.

This is the end result of the "teach to the test" style of education.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

and thanks for the congrats on my first real article

Congratulations

I apologise for dragging your small but perfectly-formed thread off topic

I think you may be onto something there. This only applies to public schools, that recieve gov't funding. Private and parochial schools, since they are funded through tuitions, don't have to follow these rules and are able to, if done correctly, give a quality education. Which would then mean that only those people who can afford such schools are getting the best education out there.

That's exactly how education and health care work here. As I say: cementing a class structure.

New York Times on 3/20/2008 reported

Did you pay attention to the California graduation rates?

Did you take note of the proposed rate of improvement by California?

The pay-off if you have been observant....

emphasis mine.

I agree on the problem, but I have a solution that some might not agree with: School Vouchers. If parents are able to choose schools (with public funding following the child to the parent's school of choice), then schools would have to compete to get the most attendees, and in so doing improving their classes, the services they provide, etc. Now before you call me a crazy a-hole for suggesting such a thing, consider that this is basically what colleges and universities have to do to attract students, and look how well it's worked out for them.

Actually, school vouchers are a good idea, as far as I understand the program. I remember watching a news program of some sort that compared the U.S. system to the Belgian system of vouchers/school competitions. Over there, since money is based on how many students decide to go to a particular school, the schools do their best to excell in the quality of education offered. The 16 year old students they interviewed were doing math and science projects on the level of U.S. college graduates. I can't remember which program I was watching, but it did make sense at the time.

I guess I dont understand how school vouchers is a good idea for the poor inner city kids, because there wouldn't be a bus to take them to school or bring them home, so the single moms and other single parent families would have a harder time getting their kid to and from school. It makes the kids who can teach other kids in that classroom who are slightly better off leave instead of fixing the problem, which means the poorest and least well off kids would still be in that disaster of a school, right?

I'm not altogether sure how the bussing situation would work. That is where some of the problem lies, but you would think part of the voucher money for each student would include trasportation. I'm just not sure.

The difficulty here is that then there's an incentive for schools to select their intake covertly; or at least not explicitly. It sounds as if the Belgians are doing it better, though.

It would have to, for it to work. Make sure that provision isn't removed...

I work for RF and based on my job of data entry, analysis and collection (not necessarily in that order) - I'm not surprised. One of my co-workers said it best today "They designed a program to serve 10% of children and they expected it to work? They tied teachers hands and expected them to teach?" I cannot wait for this administration to be out so that change can occur, unfortunately, it will not be quick change - because what politician really wants to say "No, I'm against education." by voting against NCLB? *sigh*

There are several problems with school vouchers. To begin with, it is estimated that 95% of school vouchers go to religious schools. Source

That gives me a problem right off the bat. I don't care for my tax dollars to be spent teaching religion.

More fundamental is the problem of funding. The money has to come from somewhere. When students are diverted from public schools, the result has to be a reduction in funding for the public schools.

The private schools can pick and choose the students they will accept. This will leave the pupils who need help the most in schools with reduced funding.

The solution cannot be to take money away from schools that are already under-funded. That's the problem with NCLB, and the same problem comes from vouchers.

You get a +1 for me. We don't need to redistribute the cash in our education system, we need to increase it. We certainly shouldn't be cutting it, despite what a certain governor (who ran on a platform of repealing a really unobjectionable tax and now finds his budget rather small) thinks.

i usually vote for school levies. The problem is that the majority of the people in my city are older and have no children or grand children in the system. Therefore they shoot down the levy.

My specific city is on a decline in the population, much like all of northeast Ohio. People don't seem to understand that our school system is a draw for new people to move in. More people in the city means that it's more income from the city.

The problem is, i don't think more money is going to help in all cases, but i won't argue with the fact that our system is underfunded.

Colleges and universities are optional, and so by definition serve people who are at least motivated enough to select a school and apply. People move clear across the country (or sometimes to other countries entirely!) to attend them. K-12 education is mandatory (and rightly so), foundational, and therefore needs to serve communities that exist rather than forming them around themselves the way some colleges do. In short, they're not particularly analogous situations.

We just went through a huge rigamarole here about capping property taxes. As that's the source of most of our school funding, I'm not optimistic about our schools' future here.