Argumentative Essay:NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS:Will they restrict local schools’flexibility? [2]
论文作者:留学生论文论文属性:议论文 Argument Essay登出时间:2011-01-20编辑:anterran点击率:5946
论文字数:3124论文编号:org201101200921169476语种:英语 English地区:美国价格:免费论文
附件:20110120092116962.pdf
关键词:Argumentative EssayNATIONAL EDUCATIONSTANDARDSWill they restrictlocal schools’flexibility?
to keep itmurky.”Tate agrees that ensuring qualityeducation is largely the duty of par-ents,not national standards or tests.“Parents must ensure that homeworkgets done,and that teachers havebeen rigorously tested before theybecome teachers.”Tate also argues that the kind ofcross-district comparative informationClinton says a national test wouldprovide is readily available from realestate agents.“If you’ve ever gonehouse-hunting,you know which arethe good schools,which are safe,which excel,”he says.Goldberg says that perhaps the bestway to get“national”standards is ex-actly what has happened—state con-sensus-building and benchmarkingamong the states.“Over time,a con-sensus will emerge about what repre-sents quality standards,”he says.“Ifthose end up being so-called‘national’standards,so be it.But they will be‘interstate,’not‘federal’standards.”Are education standards andtests fair to minorities and theeducationally disadvantaged?Many experts say that determiningwhether a test is“fair”goes far be-yond what is on the test.“It’s not aquestion of whether the tests are fairbut of how they are administered,”says Cross.“If you give kids plentyof lead time,and provide extra helpor time for students who need it,then they are fair.”Goldberg agrees.“The standardsare neutral,”he says.“What’s unfair iswhat we are doing or not doing tohelp youngsters achieve the stan-dards.”The solution is not to changeor lower the standards for some kids,he says.“The answer is differentiatingthe treatment,instruction and re-sources for those kids.You find outwhat works.And if it takes moremoney,spend more money.”“There’s one set of folks who say,just put the standards in place andeverything else will fall into line,”saysQ on the Web:www.cq.comMay 14,1999 413reading,math and science.Before 1994 those students wereput into remedial classes,where they were held to loweracademic standards than the rest of the student body.But when ESEA was overhauled in 1994,it mandatedthat any schools receiving Title I funds adopt rigorousacademic standards for all children,including thedisadvantaged.They were given until the 2000-2001academic year to write the new standards and developappropriate tests to determine whether students werelearning the new curriculum.The CGCS survey found that about 90 percent ofresponding school districts had adopted reading and mathstandards in at least some grades,and had spent theirTitle I money on teacher training and reducing class size,new technology,after-school and summer school programsand family literacy.The report also found that parentalinvolvement had increased,which numerous studies showboosts student achievement.The 1994 law had also requiredschools to use Title l funds to spur parental participationthrough greater outreach.The CGCS report concluded that Title I reforms in thenation’s poorest schools“are paying off in better studentperformance,”even though implementation“may not beas fast as everyone desires and quality may not yet be ashigh as everyone may wish.”The second study,by the Department of Education,says the same thing,based on a comparison of 1994 and1998 NAEP reading scores.2The largest gains were in Title I schools.Ten out of 13of the nation’s largest urban school districts showedimprovements over the last three years in the number ofstudents meeting state standards in reading.Scores in thepoorest schools went up in both reading and math in fourstates—Connecticut,Maryland,North Carolina and Texas.“States that have taken the le
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。