Everything academic revolves around the year-end state testing to the point that other subjects are usually neglected. Reading, math and writing are the main thrusts of schools, and are obviously important. However, critics state that children are not receiving well-rounded educations because of the emphasis on these subjects
Many children with disabilities usually need more structured and clearly amorphous surroundings, also behaviorally, than a general education classroom can offer. ADHD’s basic signs for children with an ADHD are lack of concentration, hyperactivity, and impulsivity causes child children to cope with day to day school challenges (Zentall, 1993). Children with ADHD have trouble sustaining attention to stay on task; this causes them to miss important details on their assignments, distraction during class activities and difficulty organizing assignments. According to doctor (Russell Barkley), he said that “children with ADD/ADHD have the tendency to fall behind about 30 percent, when it comes to their developmental performance.” In fact, the NIH
There are some major problems with using them. Students with high I.Q’s are expected to do better than the rest of their class, and on the flip side students with low I.Q.’s are expected to do worse. That is not always fair because students with low I.Q.’s might not get the attention needed simply because their teachers do not expect much from them. In the end there is no fairness to some. This leads to an ethical question of, is giving an intelligence test ethical?
More so, it is being done internally by teachers (Falk, 616). The stakes are so high they manipulate test results by keeping certain students out of the testing environment. It has been reported that kids were purposely held back so that their performance will not bring down the test scores that the more intelligent students submit. I agree with that Lindsay Jillson argues about how standardized testing has jeopardized a student’s future because of the sanctions that are given to them for being less intelligent. I just do not understand why the main focus of our education has to be all about test.
The ethical issues that regard the high stakes testing is that it could be unfair to some students. Students with disabilities, students who speak English as a second language, students who have testing anxiety, etc. could all do badly on the tests. If they cannot pass the tests, they wont be able to graduate. The testing should be equal for all students and their varying
How do they do it? Most of the time they don't really understand the material in the class, but somehow manage to pass with good grades. There are many downsides to what Bruno describes as being “cheated in the long run." He mentioned that although the students have remembered all the facts they don't really achieve any additional intelligence. He brought up a good point that a lot of people wouldn't have thought of in terms of a student’s education.
Students around the country are entirely different, along with the education systems in which they obtain their knowledge from. One test, combined in the mixing bowl, with the other negative ingredients, results in disadvantage for students with insufficient educators and lack of resources. Along with just one test, the skills measured are unevenly distributed, therefore ranking the lacking students at the bottom, leaving them out of monetary rewards and even college educations. The test makers for the ACT wanted to measure skills and intellectual levels, leaving out almost every factor that plays a part in education, which is just not possible. The steps that lead to knowledge are the ones that make the biggest impacts, which are the most different throughout the country, yet the tests are graded the exact same.
One of the arguments of co-education is the idea that it provides too many distractions for students. Several scholars have argued that these distractions have led to less attention on school work and class participation, due to girls and boys trying to impress each other. Furthermore, it has also been argued that students who are intimidated by the opposite sex may also be affected by low performance and low grades. Many educators believe that single-sex education does not enforce any type of gender-based stereotypes or adolescent subculture. Due to this, single-sex schools have been established to combat these issues.
Your conclusion is that small class size indeed causes better grades. Wrong, because there is a fundamental problem with this conclusion; you did not account for 'intervening variables'! Could there be an intervening variable that is effecting this relationship between class size and student performance? Actually there can be many factors which are influencing this relationship. How about the influence of the teacher?
Moreover, the author claims that although children usually use abbreviations, they seldom use it in their exams. The reason is children do not want to get low marks because of these abbreviations. Dite claims that texting is harm to English literacy. He believes that texting makes children use abbreviation in homework and exams as a habit. As a result, children could fail their exam or could not find a job in the future.