In this New York Times newspaper article, the author stresses how much poverty can affect education on students who are less fortunate. No Child Left Behind, administered by President George W. Bush, is based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. But this Act only set unrealistically high expectations for all schools. However, President Obama decided that making schools more "efficient" through means like judging teachers by students' test scores instead of setting standards for every school in America. The article states that data from the National assessment of Educational Progress proves that more than 40 percent of the variation in average reading scores and 46 percent of the variation in average math scores. Among the fifteen year old students in America, students with lower economic statuses had far lower test scores that more advantaged counterparts within the United States and the rest of the world. Did you know that the mediocre overall performance of American students on international test is unrelated to the face that one fifth of American Children live in poverty?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?pagewanted=all
Simple Cycle of Poverty
Good post. Include links within the text.
ReplyDeleteI think it is true that students who live in house with low income usually have low grades. It is also true that those students tend to do bad things. It is not because they are bad kids. It is because they are too easy to be influenced by bad things. Even though parents want to live where their kids can get high level of education, if they cannot afford house money, then they have to move to different place. Also, places where kids can get high level of education tend to have expensive houses. Then, people have to live where they can afford everything (food, tax, house price, etc). And those places tend to have more crimes. Kids are totally exposed to crimes and that is why the cycle above is true.
ReplyDelete