Charter schools are described to be a solution for educational reform as they provide improved learning opportunities for low-income minority students. Policymakers in several states have now included the charter school law for racial classification provisions that will lead to imrpoved student sorting by ethnicity and race (Oluwole & Green; Rensulli, 2006).
After an examination of schools in New Jersey, the study demonstrates that racial segregation has increased and is more severe as more African Americans enroll in charter schools. The reason for this result is because of the tendency for charter schools to cluster in area just outside of African American communities. The student racial sorting depends on the surrounding learning environment as minorities could be over represented or under-represented.
References
Gulosino, C., Charisse, d’E. C. (2011).Circles of influence: An analysis of charter school location and racial patterns at varying geographic scales. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(8), 1-25.
Oluwole, J. & Green, P. (2008). Charter schools: Racial balancing provisions and parents involved. Arkansas Law Review, 61, 1-52.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Policy Improvement Recommendations for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Policy Improvement Recommendations by Leah Spencer Hopkins
This writing represents an evaluation plan to send to the state senator about the No child Left Behind act of 2001. An assessment of the act is presented followed by a framework evaluation including feasibility, propriety, accuracy, and usefulness of the act. Finally, recommendations offered are based on the assessment of the policy for improvement.
The federal policy NCLB has alarmed teachers all over the country as the requirements have negatively affected teachers and students. Teachers remain concerned that the responses to the incentives of the law have reduced the quality of the education provided for some children. The views of teachers are sensitive toward teachers where significant populations of disadvantaged students feel pressured from administrators to increase test scores without clear instruction on how to accomplish that goal (Murnane & Papy, 2010). Controversy exists with the NCLB in the amount of control the federal government will have in enforcing state standards. Questions rise considering whether the government will withdraw funds from states who do not adequately assess students or who show little to none in progress toward reducing student achievement gaps. Some states have chosen to opt out of federal funding while withdrawing from the federal testing. Proficiency levels are not increasing under NCLB although many schools are labeled failures (Bracey, 2007). The chairperson of the Assembly Education Committee says that the focus on testing in NCLB has led to narrowed curricula (Taylor, 2007).
An examination of the feasibility of the policy shows the act requires that 95-100 % of children achieve proficient scores or higher on state standardized test by 2014. Many questions exist regarding whether the goal proves achievable or feasible. The act does not specify what criterion represents proficient, as each state can choose their own tests, state standards and cut off scores for AYP. Think- tanks exist for ranking states for the rigor of their standards and tests (Chapman, 2004).
Considerations are given to matters related to propriety, because of NCLB: threats of privatization exist for public schools. Curricula requiring that only facts need to be mastered for the purpose of standardized test exist, as teachers teaching long hours for test preparation. Low-income students disproportionately placed in special education classes prove the reality of racism in America. The problem is that issues related to NCLB remain alive as corporate like accountability processes still exists. Weakening teacher’s unions and a strong mayoral control over school systems still exists.
Accuracy is necessary in an evaluation. If one will produce an accurate evaluation, the study of the context where implementation of the policy has taken place while becoming familiar with cultural and socioeconomic aspects of the environments must take place.” The NCLB requirements were largely based on Texas’ educational accountability practices as Texas’ successful practices were to serve as a model for the country (Haney, 2000; Reyes, 2008). The problem is that Texas’ system has been filled with problems and inconsistencies. Examples include excluding low performing students from school and the test, and the sudden increase of student population who entered special education programs, large numbers of retention for ninth grade students resulting in increased test scores for the next year 10th grade students. Large numbers of students entered GED programs while significant high dropout rates occurred and an increase in inequity for students (Haney, 2000, 2001; Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008).
Considerations were given regarding the usefulness of the act, and stakeholders are identified as relevant data sources as the data gathered will serve relevant to major purposes for this evaluation. A survey polling 925 school leaders and 1,006 district administrators showed mostly negative responses as educational professionals expressed hope and doubt about NCLB achieving the goal of the policy. The responders to the survey were positive about the policy’s focus on reading instruction (Archer, 2003). The Public Education Network (2006) had hearings that permitted teachers and students to express opinions about the policy while expressing dissatisfaction. The responses from the public about NCLB during the hearing showed negative public response toward the act (Galloway, 2007).
The recommendation to improve the NCLB is for educators, teachers, and school administrators to determine how they will assess the children in their individual schools but remain relevant for the racial and ethnic group and accountable while reporting the discoveries to the state. Site-based management requires the rethinking of accountability as the site managed schools must have the ability to maintain a distinguishing character while not complying to procedural requirements. The school curriculum, pedagogy, and climate must match the students the school serves (Hill & Bonan, 1991). Supporters of data-driven decisions advocate that using data enables the school systems to learn about their schools as the can pinpoint challenges, successes, and identify improvements, and evaluate effective programs and practices (Mason, 2002). Data-driven decision-making can also increase student learning (Alwin, 2002; Doyle, 2003).As schools learn how to interpret and analyze data as mandated under NCLB, informed decisions can occur about all areas of learning (Wohlstetter, et al., 2008). The recommendation suggests that the power of assessment should become the primary responsibility of the individual school.
This paper was meant to assess the No Child Left behind act and to evaluate the act using the special designed framework. Considerations offered provided structure for the community and finally, offered is a recommendation to improve the NCLB act. Empowering the schools again will enable schools to provide the instruction needed to help each student develop with the use of data instruction stays better informed (Alwin, 2002).
This writing represents an evaluation plan to send to the state senator about the No child Left Behind act of 2001. An assessment of the act is presented followed by a framework evaluation including feasibility, propriety, accuracy, and usefulness of the act. Finally, recommendations offered are based on the assessment of the policy for improvement.
The federal policy NCLB has alarmed teachers all over the country as the requirements have negatively affected teachers and students. Teachers remain concerned that the responses to the incentives of the law have reduced the quality of the education provided for some children. The views of teachers are sensitive toward teachers where significant populations of disadvantaged students feel pressured from administrators to increase test scores without clear instruction on how to accomplish that goal (Murnane & Papy, 2010). Controversy exists with the NCLB in the amount of control the federal government will have in enforcing state standards. Questions rise considering whether the government will withdraw funds from states who do not adequately assess students or who show little to none in progress toward reducing student achievement gaps. Some states have chosen to opt out of federal funding while withdrawing from the federal testing. Proficiency levels are not increasing under NCLB although many schools are labeled failures (Bracey, 2007). The chairperson of the Assembly Education Committee says that the focus on testing in NCLB has led to narrowed curricula (Taylor, 2007).
An examination of the feasibility of the policy shows the act requires that 95-100 % of children achieve proficient scores or higher on state standardized test by 2014. Many questions exist regarding whether the goal proves achievable or feasible. The act does not specify what criterion represents proficient, as each state can choose their own tests, state standards and cut off scores for AYP. Think- tanks exist for ranking states for the rigor of their standards and tests (Chapman, 2004).
Considerations are given to matters related to propriety, because of NCLB: threats of privatization exist for public schools. Curricula requiring that only facts need to be mastered for the purpose of standardized test exist, as teachers teaching long hours for test preparation. Low-income students disproportionately placed in special education classes prove the reality of racism in America. The problem is that issues related to NCLB remain alive as corporate like accountability processes still exists. Weakening teacher’s unions and a strong mayoral control over school systems still exists.
Accuracy is necessary in an evaluation. If one will produce an accurate evaluation, the study of the context where implementation of the policy has taken place while becoming familiar with cultural and socioeconomic aspects of the environments must take place.” The NCLB requirements were largely based on Texas’ educational accountability practices as Texas’ successful practices were to serve as a model for the country (Haney, 2000; Reyes, 2008). The problem is that Texas’ system has been filled with problems and inconsistencies. Examples include excluding low performing students from school and the test, and the sudden increase of student population who entered special education programs, large numbers of retention for ninth grade students resulting in increased test scores for the next year 10th grade students. Large numbers of students entered GED programs while significant high dropout rates occurred and an increase in inequity for students (Haney, 2000, 2001; Heilig & Darling-Hammond, 2008).
Considerations were given regarding the usefulness of the act, and stakeholders are identified as relevant data sources as the data gathered will serve relevant to major purposes for this evaluation. A survey polling 925 school leaders and 1,006 district administrators showed mostly negative responses as educational professionals expressed hope and doubt about NCLB achieving the goal of the policy. The responders to the survey were positive about the policy’s focus on reading instruction (Archer, 2003). The Public Education Network (2006) had hearings that permitted teachers and students to express opinions about the policy while expressing dissatisfaction. The responses from the public about NCLB during the hearing showed negative public response toward the act (Galloway, 2007).
The recommendation to improve the NCLB is for educators, teachers, and school administrators to determine how they will assess the children in their individual schools but remain relevant for the racial and ethnic group and accountable while reporting the discoveries to the state. Site-based management requires the rethinking of accountability as the site managed schools must have the ability to maintain a distinguishing character while not complying to procedural requirements. The school curriculum, pedagogy, and climate must match the students the school serves (Hill & Bonan, 1991). Supporters of data-driven decisions advocate that using data enables the school systems to learn about their schools as the can pinpoint challenges, successes, and identify improvements, and evaluate effective programs and practices (Mason, 2002). Data-driven decision-making can also increase student learning (Alwin, 2002; Doyle, 2003).As schools learn how to interpret and analyze data as mandated under NCLB, informed decisions can occur about all areas of learning (Wohlstetter, et al., 2008). The recommendation suggests that the power of assessment should become the primary responsibility of the individual school.
This paper was meant to assess the No Child Left behind act and to evaluate the act using the special designed framework. Considerations offered provided structure for the community and finally, offered is a recommendation to improve the NCLB act. Empowering the schools again will enable schools to provide the instruction needed to help each student develop with the use of data instruction stays better informed (Alwin, 2002).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)