NCLB set forth a certain criteria to be met, but allowed the states to determine how they would accomplish it. Therefore, each state handles assessment and accountability differently. This makes it hard to show success or failure of the programs. Supporters and critics alike can cite research that supports their opinion. My opinion of NCLB is it is flawed, developmentally inappropriate, ill funded, ←and→ leaving more students, teachers, ←and→ schools behind than ever before because The tests have turned into the objective of classroom instruction rather than the measure of teaching ←and→ learning.
Despite the benefits teachers and schools obtain, standardized testing like the FCAT is not effective in evaluating student’s performance because not all students learn at the same level, they fall under pressure, and they are being taught just for the test which prevents from learning skills that are yet to be learned. Admittedly, the FCAT brings benefits to
We are all repeat offenders of these crimes during a boring class. We hear a lot about how American schools are in bad shape -- not enough funding, not enough teachers, and too many kids dropping out. But would placing a $5,000 dollar price tag on education help any of these areas? Would this keep kids from dropping out? Would it help to keep kids out of trouble?
This allows for a more focused eye on subjects that will be on standardized tests like math and reading. This actually causes a less well-rounded education since teachers have to start teaching to the test. Teaching to test does not cause smarter kids, but instead causes kids to memorize certain parts of a subject while leaving out other subjects like music and art which induce creativity and independence of oneself. So instead of standardized testing, schools should make sure students have a more rounded education which will actually make the kids smarter than when drilling them for standardized tests. (“States Seeks to Block ‘No Child Left Behind’”).
The problem in the school structure that Graff recognizes is lack of persuasion to get students to argue. This holds true in my personal experiences in academics. Despite the fact the educating administration is trying to avoid violent disputes because of arguments, they fail to see that properly structured arguments are the best way to avoid violence. Without the school system instilling the ideas and values of argument, students will lack an outlet for an argument consisting of words and are more likely to resort to violence for resolution. In a section of Gerald’s essay he advocates that educated conversation be shared with uneducated audiences as a basis for understanding any scholarly topic as well as a basis for a strong argument.
The editor says in a critical tone that “we buy our children an education based on what we can afford, and what we aspire for them to be.” By using the inclusive language “we”, it invites the parents to share the same opinion of the editor. It also creates a sense of guilt among her readers and makes the readers take pity on those who are not able to afford good education due it being “class-based”. By using the appeals of negative connotation, the word “buy” for education make the readers think that the current situation is ludicrous. Education should be provided for everyone no matter who rich or poor the family
Department of Education’s Assistant Secretary of Education, criticizes the Obama administration’s Race to the Top education policy agenda for following what she calls the “disaster” of Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy. Government control of education, she notes, has only led public schools to rely heavily on standardized test scores. Ravitch warns that, under the Obama administration, teachers are provided incentives and raises based on test performance, which results in class time being spent teaching test-taking skills or teaching to the test rather than on rich curriculum. Additionally, Ravitch criticizes the Obama administration’s reliance on charter schools as a way of reforming underperforming public schools, explaining that charters don’t answer the real challenges that face low-income or non-native speaking student populations. In the end, she warns that the outcome will produce students who are not able to comprehend complex knowledge and schools that limit history, science, the arts, civics, and many other components of the curriculum that provide college preparatory instruction.
As well did I when I first read Gatto's piece against school. But after reanalyzing this article I was able to pick it apart. By going to school you are able to learn and improve the skills you need for future commissions. But Gatto refuses to believe in the public school educational system. Gatto says that school diminishes creativity; if anything kids discover their hidden creativeness in class while at school.
Mathews asserts that recess is not necessary for education and that students benefit more from spending the time they would be spending on recess in the classroom instead. The author portrays recess as a harmful and dangerous waste of time for the students. Mathews argues his opinion by using the three main rhetoric appeals, ethos, logos, and pathos, to convince others to his point of view on recess. Mathews reasons his argument against recess using the appeal of logic, providing evidence with the use of surveys and educational reports. The author also uses quotes from trusted officials in education to increase his ethics.
V. Preview. Tell the audience, why the advocate proposal will not solve the issue of poverty, as a better solution is to fix our educational system, as well as the advantages of a better education for all student will not lead them to poverty. Body I. Rebuttal: Advocate stated that raising the minimum wages will reduce