Final Draft

Education Policy

In recent years, the United States has come across many changes in the education policy. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was enacted in 2001 and Race To The Top (RTT) is its current successor. NCLB was put into law by a Republican administration and RTT was ratified by a Democratic administration. This has an obvious effect on the different policies. Race to the Top has an advantage over No Child Left Behind; it was established eight years later and has numerous improvements over its predecessor. However, Race to the Top has areas where it is lacking such as actually materializing its goals. There are many problems with the education system in today’s society, but the most crucial problem is the ineffectiveness of teachers and their failure to successfully engage students.

In the No Child Left Behind Act, four main points were established; to have academic standards, make annual progress towards having every student achieve the standards and closing gaps between all students and certain subgroups of students, test students to see if they are learning, and collect data on how they are doing. On the other hand, Race to the Top improved the education system by enhancing standards and assessments, improving collection and use of data, increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in teacher distribution, and turning around low-achieving schools. Diane Ravitch states, “The federal government was wrong to make scores on standardized tests the measure of all things. It was a colossal error. We didn’t need NCLB to tell us that poor and minority kids were not getting the same test scores as their advantaged peers.” Critics such as Ravitch believe that the NCLB act was unnecessary and the problems it faced should have been solved from the root causes such as poverty, segregation, and schools with limited resources. Like Ravitch, the author of the article "Criticism of No Child Left Behind,”  believes that NCLB allows the government to change the traditional ways of teaching, creates financial problems from the federal government to state and local governments, and places too much emphasis on standardized testing while putting strict qualifications on the teachers. Ravitch also found cons in the Race to the Top education plan which included more frequent punishments to the students and there was more blame put on the teachers due to low exam scores. There have been many instances in which critics disagreed with both policies. Critics such as Joy Resmovits believe that Race to the Top caused states going through recession to compete for hundreds of millions of dollars each, forcing the states to promise to do things such as initiate higher academic standards, allow more charter schools, and evaluate teachers in accordance with students' standardized test scores. “States jumped at the opportunity to get more money, and some dramatically changed the way they deliver education,” (Resmovits 1). In this economy, having enough money to get by is a huge challenge. When it comes to education, schools need enough money to provide resources such as computers and books, while having enough money to provide beneficial classes for the students and a sufficient staff.

Ever since the late 18^th century, there has been major conflict between creationism and evolution theories. Over time, many states started denying the rights to teach evolution in schools, such as the Butler Act in Tennessee. Up until this day, many teachers are under pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to reduce or eliminate the teaching of evolution. For example, one teacher in a Cape Town school stated, “One kid told me that his dad had already told him that he was to ignore everything that I said about evolution because it was a load of nonsense. The parents are preparing them to reject it.” By reducing or eliminating the teaching of evolution, students will lack information of modern science and the necessary knowledge required for making informed, evidence-based decisions about their own lives or how to judge the world based around them. “Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education” (NAS 1). In today’s technologically advanced society, it is crucial to know as much as you can about science or else you won’t succeed. A recent case of controversy occurred in Columbus, Ohio when Freshwater, a science teacher, constantly pushed his religious beliefs on his students to the point where he got fired. It started off with reading from the bible, to handing out religious pamphlets while preaching creationism in his evolution lessons, and finally, “Freshwater had used a high-frequency generator, which other teachers have used to demonstrate electrical current, to burn a cross onto a student's arm. The cross lasted a few weeks” (Schehl 1). Some teachers go too far when it comes to teaching creationism in the classroom. Randy Moore states, “Biology teachers who teach creationism…present the relationship between modern evolutionary biology and their faith as one of self-evident conflict, assuming (and teaching) that their version of creationism is the only true alternative.” Teaching creationism has no scientific or educational value as science (Moore 1).

What is an effective teacher? Many believe that an effective teacher is one who is able to help you build an education and future for yourself whether you are very intelligent already, or if you’re hardly passing a class, someone who will do anything in their power to help you. “There is little argument that in several of Philadelphia-area schools the students that perform the lowest need the most "effective" teachers. Unfortunately, the lowest performing schools statistically tend to have the less qualified and newest teachers” (Examiner 1). With the help of the Race to the Top plan, low-achieving schools like the ones in Philadelphia will receive a better education because teacher effectiveness will increase. They are starting to hire teachers that are actually passionate about the subject they’re teaching and will be supplied with the resources that are necessary in today’s society to teach the students. Doing so will also increase assessment scores and get the statistics at a better rate. If it wasn’t for Race to the Top, dropout rates would increase because they wouldn’t have had an effective teacher to give them an education that they could be proud of. Tenure is the practice of guaranteeing a teacher their job, and this plays a big role with ineffective teachers. There have been many cases where a teacher has disrespected, harassed, and even abused students and they weren’t fired, instead, it was ignored or they paid to keep it a secret. “Once they have tenure, there’s no getting rid of them. Between 1995 and 2005, only 112 Los Angeles tenured teachers faced termination — eleven per year — out of 43,000. And that’s in a school district where the graduation rate in 2003 was just 51 percent” (Protecting Bad Teachers 1). This fact goes to show that a majority of teachers have protection over their job, even if they aren’t effective. According to the pro-education reform documentary “Waiting for Superman,” 1 out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine and 1 out of 97 lawyers lose their license to practice law. Each year, it becomes more apparent that teachers don’t take their job seriously and will just pass a student because they don’t want to deal with being harassed about having a bad grade in the class. If teachers came to the classroom, willing to teach their students how to think critically, then there would be a drastic change in student behavior and graduation rates.

After years of preparation, some argue that young adults aren’t ready to enter the workforce after they graduate from high school or college. To be successful in life, you must acquire many qualifications which include verbal and written communication skills, the capacity to solve problems/critical thinking skills, the ability to cooperate with others and work in teams. Do the schools throughout the United States teach students all of these skills? In the article, AdvancED, the author states, “students are learning to memorize and only what is on the test, rather than gaining a broader knowledge of the subjects they are studying and being able to apply that knowledge.” If students are only being taught facts and how to memorize the answers, they won’t know how to evaluate the question and give it a thorough, intelligent response. In this day and age, young people have become dependent on technology and they are quickly forgetting the skills of verbal communication. If you can not hold a conversation or participate in one because you’re too busy on your phone, then you won’t have a chance of making it in the workplace. Many question if schools throughout the United States have rules strict enough to teach students a lesson and how hard teachers try to challenge them when participating in classroom activities. Another question that arises when asking if students are ready to work is if they’re even ready for college. “Only 31 percent of students demonstrated the level of science expertise needed to succeed in entry-level college courses, and more than half were not prepared for college math courses,” (Sheehy). High school students have failed to demonstrate that they have enough skill to continue onto college level courses after graduating. It’s not only important for students to have the skills to enter the workforce and become successful, it is also important to the economy because it is becoming more challenging for companies to find employees that meet their expectations and have a degree along with a useful set of skills.

A common question brought up among teachers, parents, and even students is if standardized testing is actually necessary in school. There are many pros and cons when it comes to standardized testing. The main point of them is to see where a student belongs in the curriculum and how well they’re doing, but are tests always effective? Standardized testing only tests certain categories and can make students feel like they are not intelligent enough or that the testing is unfair cause it’s typically testing math skills, english, and science. While one student may exceed in those subjects, another could be average but be incredible in a different subject which isn’t being tested. Professor Daniel Koretz from Harvard states that, “What you get credit for under No Child Left Behind is raising test scores, period. It doesn’t matter how you do it. It doesn’t matter what else you do or don’t do” (Koretz). He goes on to explain that standardized testing is a huge part of the NCLB policy and that teachers typically change their teaching methods in order to raise test scores rather than thoroughly teach the curriculum while engaging the students more, helping them understand the subject. In the article “How Standardized Testing Damages Education,” it explains how Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind both put pressure on the use of standardized testing and how they effect students and the school. There are many negative consequences that come along with testing such as narrowing the curriculum, teaching strictly what is going to be on the test, pushing students out of school, causing teachers to quit, and the absence of student engagement. Low income families and minority-group students are most often effected because of testing. They aren’t able to afford the proper tools which are necessary to get the full education experience which eventually causes them to get further behind and placed into “dumbed-down” classes due to the standardized testing. Students shouldn’t be punished for their lack of intelligence when often times it’s the teachers fault for not taking their job seriously, and really focusing on their students’ education and futures. There are other options for examining a students intelligence such as careful observation and documentation of their work. It’s also important to evaluate the teacher to see if they’re challenging their students enough while keeping them engaged. Rather than assessing knowledge based on a multiple-choice test, it would be more useful and accurate to assess the performance of the teacher and students. Although there are numerous negatives that come with standardized testing, there are also some positive aspects such as providing a lot of useful information at a low cost, consuming little class time, a more reliable way of scoring tests rather than a teacher-graded assessment, focusing on the subject, and most parents approve of the testing.

What’s the difference between public schools and charter schools? Many ask this question and wonder if one is more effective than the other. A charter school is a publicly funded independent school established by teachers, parents, or community groups under the terms of a charter with a local or national authority. While charter schools have their own school board and take money from public schools, public schools are made up of their own government or union. “More and more charter school students are doing better because they're getting anywhere from three to 10 extra weeks of instruction compared to their public school counterparts,” (Sanchez 1).  Charter school students are benefitting from the additional days they have to attend school due to the increase of instruction. Unlike Claudio Sanchez, Suzi Parker believes that a great school is a great school regardless of its classification. “There are effective charters and ineffective charters, and there are effective district schools and ineffective district schools,” (Parker 1). In other words, charter schools have a diminutive success rate in learning over public schools, which solely bases the effectiveness of the school on the teachers and staff. Many are concerned that charter schools are separating the district, creating problems in the levels of schooling which make it less accessible, and weakening the power of the teachers union. This could be a major problem for many teachers in the United States because a majority of teachers rely on their union to protect their job and with a union, they are able to discuss district concerns and policies. “Nationally, charter school teachers are, on average, less experienced, less unionized and less likely to hold state certification than teachers in traditional public schools,” (Karp 1). Due to the fact that charter schools aren’t unionized, the chances that a teacher will quit or be fired are 130 percent higher than those in public schools. 

The national average spending pupil is $11,184 in the United States. “Because of the state’s underfunding of public schools, Connecticut’s cities and towns, especially its poorer communities, are forced to deprive their own schools of needed resources” (Lecker 1). The result due to the underfunding of schools is that children and teachers must endure large classes, limited textbooks, computers and other learning tools, unfriendly learning environments, cutbacks of teachers, and the elimination of courses and extracurricular activities. Parents and teachers in the Baltimore County school district were interviewed and many agreed that struggling, insufficiently funded schools deserve lower class sizes so that the students could get the education they deserve. Having fewer students in the classroom would allow the teacher to help more students opposed to having a class with 30 or more students and not being able to get around to each one. As stated in the Race to the Top education plan, stepping up teacher effectiveness will turn around low achieving schools. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York and Bill Gates have proposed to increase class sizes for the best teachers and use the resulting budgetary savings to pay these best teachers more and to help train educators who need improvement. By doing so, this would give students the chance of getting a more effective teacher while improving the teaching techniques of the whole staff. Not only does insufficient funding lead to ineffective teachers, but it also leads to high school drop outs. According to a recent study done by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), “Low-income students fail to graduate at five times the rate of middle-income families and six times that of higher-income youth” (Sikhan 1).  No Child Left Behind failed to bring up low achieving schools, test scores didn’t improve enough to get noticed, and the average grades for low income schools remained low.  During No Child Left Behind, class sizes actually increased and test scores went down because many students weren’t able to get the help they needed.  One of the main points of NCLB was to “make annual progress towards having every student achieve the standards and closing gaps,” but they failed to do so.

Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind Act deal with many of the same issues and have many of the same goals, but their approaches are quite different. One provides incentives for schools to change while the other mandates it. Race to the Top is a competitive grant program that seeks to give states financial incentives to improve their education systems in certain ways. No Child Left Behind mandated various changes in state and local education systems to pay for education programs for disadvantaged children. While Race to the Top grants that go to states and local school districts receive additional federal funding, No Child Left Behind requires each state to make reforms to continue receiving federal funds. Both the RTT and NCLB acts deal with standards and assessments, data and accountability, effective teachers and staff members, and ways of improving low-performing schools. While both acts were proposed to improve the overall quality of the education system throughout the country, there are many flaws in both. Some of these flaws include the main focus in schools are exams, and your intelligence is based off of them, schools and teachers are forced to teach the exact same curriculum, which allows no creativity, an unbalanced subject focus, and many teachers pass students that shouldn’t have actually been passed. Race to the Top lacks the ability to materialize its goals, but a majority of parents, students, and school staff members can agree that Race To The Top has thrived more than No Child Left Behind, while successfully improving the education system.

Bibliography

Ravitch, Diane. "Los Angeles Times: A Wise Editorial about NCLB and Race to Top." Web log post. Diane Ravitch's Blog. N.p., 21 July 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

"Evolution ResourcesFrom the National Academies." Evolution Resources from the National Academies. National Academy of Sciences, n.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

Schehl, Pam. "Ohio Court Spars on Science Teacher's Creationist Lessons." News Article. CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 27 Feb. 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

"The Effective Teacher versus the Ineffective Teacher?" Examiner.com. Examiner, 19 Sept. 2010. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

Lecker, Wendy, Jonathan Pelto, and Valerie Strauss. "How Grossly Underfunded Are Public Schools?" Washington Post. N.p., 25 Nov. 2012. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

"Protecting Bad Teachers." Keeping Bad Teachers in Front of Students. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.

Bowie, Liz. "Class Size Grows in High Schools after Cuts to Teaching Positions." Baltimore Sun. N.p., 11 May 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.

Mosle, Sara. "Does Class Size Count?" Opinionator Does Class Size Count Comments. The New York Times, 4 May 2013. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.

"Science Teacher, Who Teaches Evolution, Forced to Quit Because of School's Preference of Creationism." God Discussion. N.p., 11 Mar. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.

Sikhan, Khara. "World Socialist Web Site." Low-income Students Six times More Likely to Drop out of High School -. N.p., 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.

Resmovits, Joy. "Race To The Top Competition Deemed 'Impossible' In New Report." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.

"Criticism of No Child Left Behind." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2014.

Sanchez, Claudio. "The Charter School Vs. Public School Debate Continues." NPR. NPR, 16 July 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.

Karp, Stan. "Charter Schools and the Future of Public Education." NJEA.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.

Parker, Suzi. "Charter Schools vs. Public: Is One Better Than the Other?" TakePart. N.p., 25 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.

Moore, Randy, and Sehoya Cotner. "Evolution and Creationism in America's Biology Classrooms." BioLogos.org. N.p., 22 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.

"Preparing Students for Success in the Work Place." AdvancED |. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.

Sheehy, Kelsey. "High School Students Not Prepared for College, Career." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.

Koretz, Daniel. "Usable Knowledge: Measure for Measures: What Do Standardized Tests Really Tell Us about Students and Schools?" Usable Knowledge: Measure for Measures: What Do Standardized Tests Really Tell Us about Students and Schools? Harvard, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

"How Standardized Testing Damages Education." The National Center for Fair & Open Testing. N.p., 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.

"Standardized Tests - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.