The No Child Left Behind Act allocates special monies to high poverty areas, like Jersey City. In 2007, the average money being spent per student in Jersey City was $16,000. In Glen Ridge, a very affluent, mostly white community, and the #5 ranked district according to New Jersey Magazine, the average spending per pupil was $12,000.Money seems to always be the problem and MORE money tens to fix everything...
Why isn't money the answer this time?
This blog was created by Jessica Szybowski
.jpg)
Posts
17 comments:
The NCLB law is filled with flaws that hurt schools instead of help them. I would like to first start off with the fact that the testing used under this mandate focuses more on large scale standardized testing and it doesn't assess student's individual strengths and weaknesses. Teachers, specifically from low-income districts, are then punished for not having their students perform well on these rigid tests and as a result these schools are seen as "failing" schools. Also under NCLB it gives parents the option to take their child out of these "failing" schools and put them in a school with higher test scores. So what is the end result? That "failing" school loses more money and that money for that child goes elsewhere and the failing school as a result loses more resources.
These tests are creating anxiety amongst students to perform well and when they don’t it is making them feel inadequate. Not only is it hurting their ego, but precious learning time is being wasted and the results yield inaccurate assessment of the child’s knowledge. Standardized tests are far from perfect and as a future psychologist I know it is imperative not to make erroneous decisions on the basis of one test.
So Jessica, money is not addressing or solving any problems, because the money is not being allocated to the specific resources needed to fix the problem. More money should be put toward individual assessment, interventions, early childhood education, and quality teachers.
Well, this money is supposed to go to all of the things that you mentioned, Desiree. But, it's still not enough to bridge the gap.
The point of standardized tests is to measure what is being learned. Therefore, theoretically, there shouldn't be a discrepancy between the test and the actual curriculum, thereby eliminating the phenomena of "teaching to the test." What's going on, I think, especially in high poverty school districts, is that students are falling so far behind in reading skills and no one is using early intervention methods.
But, should underperforming schools be permitted to continue in the same fashion without consequence?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EDUCATION_SECRETARY?SITE=ALOPE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT.
Associated Press: Obama plan for education.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/testing-no-child-left-behind/nclb-its-origin-impact-future/196/
I can across this article on PBS. It's from September 2008 and it has Sentor McCain's and Obama's position on NCLB, especially with regard to money.
There are other very interesting articles on the sight about this.
http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/newshour/gaming_the_system.html
This is VERY interesting. So THIS is how students are making it through each grade without having to learn to read...interesting.
Jessica, I feel the last article you posted dealing with the loopholes is indeed very interesting, but also very sad. NCLB is ineffective in helping school districts as well as the children, yet these loopholes help show the exact opposite. Schools which are continuing to "fail," are shown as being effective under the NCLB. That article is very disappointing to read because children are being cheated from the true education they deservve
As a current teacher in the Jersey City schools, my experience leads me to believe another reason money may not be fixing everything here is lack of parental involvement. In an area such as Glen Ridge parents typically tend to be highly involved with their child's education both inside and outside of school. For the past two years I have been a kindergarten teacher in Jersey City I can count on my two hands the number of parents I have had experience with that I have felt played a highly active role in their child's education. Of course there are always the exceptions and individual cases in each area, however, money does not always buy people out of larger problems.
It is indeed very sad. Children are being denied their rights to free and appropriate education, which is against the law.
Parental involvment is not there. And, in all honesty, I'm tired of schools taking the hit for everything. too much emphasis has been placed on bettering the school systems and I feel that this takes away the responsibility of the parents. But, I also know that in Glen Ridge parents ahve more omey to spend on supplimentals like tutoring, thereby not relying on the schools. So, that makes up a difference. Those monies are not being taken into account. just some food for thought
I certainly agree that all the blame should not be put on the school system. Parental guidance would definitely help these students. But sometimes parents can misguide their children; as I saw in my practicum experience. A student’s mother was brought in for a meeting with the school psychologist, learning consultant, social worker, guidance counselor and four teachers. The student had about 15 absences 20 tardiness and a multitude of incomplete assignments. The teachers were telling the mother that when he did in fact do his work it was great, but he was failing because he was not handing anything in. Anyway, the mother kept picking on the English teacher. The student had an English assignment that was 300 points of his grade out of the 535 for the class; the child failed to hand in anything and the teacher gave the students seven weeks to complete the assignment. The mother insisted that she give her son more time to finish his assignment since he has an IEP and should be allowed extra time to complete assignments. Clearly there is a difference between giving a child (well an adult in this case guy was 19 and a junior ) extra time and an unlimited amount of time. The mother was clearly enabling this type of behavior. Also the student had not had an assessment since he was in the eighth grade and it was suggested that he be reevaluated the mother said, ”This is something me and my son have to talk about alone.” It was so evident that both the mother and the son were using the IEP as a crutch. I know if my child was classified and he wasn’t evaluated in years I would demand a reevaluation. I actually feel sorry for that student because he is going to have such a rude awakening once he gets into the real world and mommy isn’t there anymore. Perhaps a little off topic of NCLB, but this case just made me disgusted.
Obviously more money does not solve everything! It all depends whether the district knows how to use money that was given to them (think managing skills). Jersey City is clearly doing something wrong and no matter how much money they get from the state, the problem will likely be there.
More affluent and better ranked districts tend to know what they need to spend their money on so that money does not get wasted. Also, parents and everyone involved tend to be highly educated (they are able to make better decisions) so perhaps there is our answer...
I think it has been proven long before NCLB that throwing money at the problem is not the answer. Parochial schools have demonstrated that it is possible to educate students at a fraction of the cost of a public school education. What exactly are the schools spending the money on? Maybe the best use of federal funding should be used on increasing the quality of the teachers or maybe because of the lack of parental involvement, money could be used for mentoring programs in the poorer neighborhoods. At any rate, if states feel restricted by NCLB and feel money isn't the answer anyway, then maybe they shouldn't accept the funds, it isn't mandatory. And what happens to the schools who are not in compliance with NCLB and don't receive federal funding? Are there any? How are students performing in those schools?
I think it has been proven long before NCLB that throwing money at the problem is not the answer. Parochial schools have demonstrated that it is possible to educate students at a fraction of the cost of a public school education. What exactly are the schools spending the money on? Maybe the best use of federal funding should be used on increasing the quality of the teachers or maybe because of the lack of parental involvement, money could be used for mentoring programs in the poorer neighborhoods. At any rate, if states feel restricted by NCLB and feel money isn't the answer anyway, then maybe they shouldn't accept the funds, it isn't mandatory. And what happens to the schools who are not in compliance with NCLB and don't receive federal funding? Are there any? How are students performing in those schools?
As the parent of a nine year old, I have been there to help prepare my child year after year for these rigorous standardized tests. Kindergarten through second grade it was the TerraNova. Now third grade till seventh grade it will be the NJASK. And it won't stop there. My poor child will still have to deal with the HSPA in high school. Then the SAT to go to college and probably the GED for Grad school. It's exhausting! I'm exhausted just thinking about it. In the end what will these standardized tests have done to her? If she scores below average who's fault is it? Am I a bad parent for not helping her more? Or is it the teachers fault because they haven't "taught the test"? If a school is identified as a "failing school" then lets promote more after school tutoring programs. Sad to say that we cannot "make" parents be more involved in their child's education. Maybe this is just the boost we need in the scores of standardized tests. Let's get the parents involved!
In my town, students in grades 3 to 7 (my child included) have been part of an after school program where they get help in their weak subjects. This is in place to help them improve prior to the NJASK in May. (Obviously they know how to spend their money.) This is the type of assistance that can help us all in the future. Not just so the school won't receive a failing grade, but to help improve the education of our kids.
Oh, I think all disrticts "kbow" what they should be spending money on. However, doing that is a whole other story. Also, having taught in Jersey City, I did run after school tutoring programs. But, hardly any students came. It was sad, but either they weren't motivated enough to come, or they were too scared to have to walk through their neighborhoods once it started getting dark, whcih in the winter is on the early side.
I really appreciate of all your comments. It was great hearing from teachers in urban areas!
I personally feel like the problem of poverty is pervasive. It extends beyond money. It permeates family life.. it is more likely that their will be single parent homes. Parents are busy putting food on the table, many are struggling to meet basic needs and dealing with their own set of problems and stress as a result. Children are left home alone earlier in life, exposed to violent behavior, and drugs. I went to a Newark elementary school for observations and there were people dealing drugs right across the street!
I think it is going to take a lot more than $16,00 per child to get these kids (school systems)on track. I think it will take 10 years to see positive effects. These schools need renovations, new books, new computers, more dilligent early intervention, etc. These communities need to clean up, pick the garbage up, lower rates of drug dealers and gangs, etc.
It is a huge problem. :(
Okay...so we all agree that money isn't the answer. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what might be the answer?
Post a Comment