Posted on 12/08/2007 6:47:49 AM PST by Amelia
THE federal No Child Left Behind law of 2002 rates schools based on how students perform on state standardized tests, and if too many children score poorly, the school is judged as failing.
But how much is really the school’s fault?
A new study by the Educational Testing Service — which develops and administers more than 50 million standardized tests annually, including the SAT — concludes that an awful lot of those low scores can be explained by factors that have nothing to do with schools. The study, “The Family: America’s Smallest School,” suggests that a lot of the failure has to do with what takes place in the home, the level of poverty and government’s inadequate support for programs that could make a difference, like high-quality day care and paid maternity leave.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
More money?
Metmom, could you please ping the education list?
Wintertime, here's some evidence for your contention that "all successful students are home-schooled", but I'm not sure that it suggests the reverse.
It has their fingerprints all over it.
Which parts of the study do you think are inaccurate?
I did all right in school and in the service.IMHO
Better day cares and more social programs are a waste of money IMO. Schools need to do their job better and stop trying to be parents.
Poor or wealthy, family support or not, kids used to be able to read, write and do math.
It's no one's fault. These score differences existed when everyone was poor except the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers, and when no one had a TV.
We don't try to assess blame that some people are taller than others, or better athletes than others. But for some reason, it has to be someone's fault that some people are smarter than others.
The "factors" cited here are proxies for parent and child intelligence. And the ETS knows this. They know who reads to their children and who doesn't. Who lets their kids watch endless hours of TV and who doesn't. It's not random.
The study shows you how far everyone has to go in these PC times to dance around the truth.
It further suggests to me that abolishing the public schools is not necessarily the solution to the problem of educating these students, if their homelife is contributing to their failure already.
I am not sure that the government can fix these problems either, but it does appear that what we're doing now isn't helping...
The strongest indicator of student success is parental involvement - that has long been recognized.
It would appear that the article uses this idea to justify a need for more money, which is laughable.
Well, there you go...I bet they made sure you were in school every day, too. From the article:
the states that had the lowest test scores tended to be those that had the highest percentages of children from single-parent families, eighth graders watching lots of TV and eighth graders absent a lot, and the lowest percentages of young children being read to regularly, regardless of what was going on in their schools.
There is no doubt that some homes could not be improved. However, the government has taken responsibility away. If Jr. doesn’t get breakfast then we will just feed him. If we put him in an after school program then we will know he is being cared for.... We don’t need any more social programs. Teachers need to teach and parents need to parent. Both need to stop blaming the other.
All the gubment money in the world will not replace a father in the home and uninterested parents or put an end to the entitlement mentality.... talk about throwing good money after bad.
Poverty does not breed poor school performance..
Unengaged parents, a cultural attitude that schooling is not important, and an entitlement mentality do! It has nothing to do with how much money is in your bank account.
If poverty breeds poor schooling, please tell me why third world immigrants off the boat make sure their kids are in school and generally perform exceptionally well even though they can’t rub two nickles together to save their lives? THey are family units that recognize the importance of an education, instead of the entitlement class poor that gubment programs have created over the last 50 years that think the world owes them everything and studying in school is too white.
Amelia, in some ways it is a good article but the author lost me when more money needed for more programs was mentioned. I agree a supportive parent makes a better student but I also believe that kids will do what they are expected to do. We can’t make excuses for them. They are our future. They need discipline in learning. If all you can get is 6 or 8 hours a day then junk the junk and make them read and read and read. Books open so many doors. If they can read they can go as far as they want. IMOOC.
Not when mommy's lawyer gets involved.
Learning to read doesn’t take any money - all you need is a literate adult and a few books from the library.
This is an NEA agenda to get more money for schools and less accountability for teachers/school administrators.
Regardless of a child’s viewing of TV etc, the schools have 8 hours a day, 180 days a year, and 13 years to teach a kid the basics of reading.
And they’re failing that.
Schools - teachers and curriculum - are the sole problem.
Teaching basic reading skills does not require much if any money. Schools should be able to get it done by the end of 1st grade with any kid, good home life or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.