So, I have finally decided on a topic for this blog and that is No Child Left Behind. I know this is a popular topic, but since I don’t know much about it and will be greatly affecting my teaching career I figured I should try to learn some more. In the Chicago Tribune they ran an article by Stepanie Banchero about the new policies (consequences) that are to be enforced. Perhaps the one that caught my eye the most was a promise of free tutors for schools that fail two years in a row. I wonder how they inted to make this happen? Where are they going to find all these tutors? Will they require teachers to provide this service, and if so what will that do to the morale of teachers and their already hefty work load?
…The plan already is coming under fire from some Democrats, who object to vouchers, and from teachers union officials, who are opposed to a plan that would allow districts to subvert collective bargaining agreements and move teachers to underperforming schools.
As mentioned in the above quote their was a proposal to extend $4,000 vouchers to underperforming students in underperforming schools. What is left of the public school system if this is allowed to happen and who is going to pay for it?
“Once again he [Bush] proposes siphoning crucial resources from our public schools–already reeling from increased requirements and budget cuts”–Sen. Edward Kennedy
It was also mentioned that most students don’t transfer because there are a lack of well-performing schools in their area. This issue goes to the heart of poverty and socieal disrecpencies in America and I don’t think one law about education will make it all better. It just has me wondering whether this law can be salvaged at all, or if we should search for a completley new way of addressing educational issues in this country. I am not in favor of requiring all students to comply with these rigorous test standards, it produces a lot of pressure for students and does not seem to be accomplishing what it was meant to. Are we asking too much of students too soon? I tend to think that we are, and that we’ve lost sight of the fact that we are dealing with children. Maybe its time to look at students more as individuals and try to comply with their different learning styles, rather than forcing them all into a singular mold.
Hi Hannah,
I tend to agree with you on the issue of No Child Left Behind. I am also taking on the particular subject because I feel that in its earlier stages that this act has good intentions but it not necessarily the answer to educational issues our country has. Especially when referring to this idea of “proficiency” by 2014. I do not feel that students should spend most of their high school careers preparing for this one test that determines the fate of their school district. I talked about students as individuals in one of my posts as well. It seems that this administration kind of “belittles” (for lack of a better word) students by acting as if they do not have the capacity to become thought-processing people. Instead, we must test them to make sure that schools are doing their jobs and students are learning what they should. Like I said this act has good intentions but not necessarily the way to go about them. I also agree with you on the fact that students do have different learning styles and having one test to teach toward is not practical in a classroom environment. I know that when I was in school preparing for the MEAP seemed to be difficult for my teachers because there were some that had more difficulties those others. Not to say that they could not handle taking the test, they just needed maybe a different way of measuring their capabilities. Just something to think about.
Hilary
[...] comment on Hannah’s [...]