Education Inequality in the United States Background Will Durant, a businessman and the founder of General Motors, once said, “Education is the transmission of civilization.” Unfortunately, education is still one of the most deliberated and controversial issues in the United States. Thus far, the privilege or right to receive education has not attained the level of equality throughout the nation; poor districts obtain less educational funding while rich districts obtain more, creating an immense gap between the quality of schools in poor and rich areas. The government does not fully provide funding for each school district since public schools are funded through property taxes (“Public”, 1).
Therefore, the amount of money for education received by each district varies from one another; there is a minor probability of two school districts getting the exact amount of money. It is reported that districts with high numbers of low-income students receive fewer government dollars per pupil than districts with fewer low-income students (Brennan, 1).
However, the government is attempting to improve and resolve this matter by creating new laws or regulations, such as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.
This act was approved by Congress in 2001 and signed by President Bush in 2002 (Popham, 5).
... understanding, which really means that our education never ends, because we do not only receive education in school and university. We are being educated ... western, first world born child to receive a well rounded education, since the information and education one receives living under a dictator will always ...
The NCLB Act is now envisioned to be a solution to this ongoing argument; this act guarantees extra funding for schools in low-income areas and for all American children to receive equal education (“The No Child”, 1).
As expected, the government anticipates positive results and feedback’s from all public schools in the nation, before actually giving those schools more money as a reward. In this case, the government expects every school in this country to regulate a new standardized test for students (Popham, 14).
This new standardized test will be used by the government to rate schools, whether the school is ‘failing’ or not, based on their students’ performances on this test.
Despite the government’s noble intentions to reduce problems in the society by creating this act, more arguments arise among citizens on whether the NCLB Act will enrich or impair the equality of education in this nation. An Argument for NCLB Act Subverts Education Those who dissent the NCLB Act and believe that it will weaken education particularly base their argument on two main reasons- standardized tests and test scores are not the way to improve equality in education and also, NCLB concentrates more on giving the teachers education, not the students, on how to improve their students’ test scores. First, the government believes that evaluating American children with the same test will reflect their abilities; therefore, these test results also indicate the school rating and whether the school itself is adequate for teaching purposes or not. There are different factors which affect one’s test score. Someone may get nervous when taking a test, causing him or her to score a lower grade, while on the other hand, someone who feels confident about the test will most likely achieve a higher grade. Also, someone may be better at memorizing, resulting in him or her answering more questions than those who are not capable to memorize things and therefore, not knowing the answers.
Many educators find the purpose of the NCLB Act to be very confusing and disingenuous. According to Monty Neill, who works for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, an organization which evaluates tests and exams for their impartiality, “NCLB is a fundamentally punitive law that uses flawed standardized tests to label schools as failures and punish them with counterproductive sanctions” (Neill, 1).
The Review on Critique Of The Study By Sohn And Colleagues, “Simulation-based Smoking Cessation Intervention Education For Undergraduate Nursing Students”
... training provided to nursing students is inadequate for the daily reality of patient care. Many nursing schools provide education about health effects of ... of the study in an organized manner. “Paired t-test was used to explore the mean differences of self-efficacy ... may have affected the naturalness of the students’ behavior, altering how they would act or respond in an actual clinical setting ...
Teachers will be of no use to educate their students according to the curriculum, if the only focus that both the teachers and students have is only to pass the imperative standardized test, just so their school district can acquire more money for educational purposes. When it reaches to this point, citizens of the United States can already assume that this law has already failed and is enforcing lower standards, instead of high quality learning and equal opportunity in education for students in both poor and rich districts. George Pataki, the governor of New York, in contrast, thinks differently. He suggests that nothing, not even money, can diminish the inequality of educational opportunities in the United States.
According to Pataki, “No matter how much money we [school districts] get from government, it won’t change the test scores or children’s abilities or education” (Kowal, 1).
Certainly, this is only his personal bias; he previously had lost a Supreme Court case that was brought up against him and the state of New York due to the failure to provide a basic education for a minority student. He had undoubtedly shown his point of view in the Supreme Court, regarding his opposition of giving poor districts more money. Perhaps Neill is correct, but of course Pataki could be precise too. But the more important question is: will the No Child Left Behind Act weaken or strengthen the education system of this country and how will it affect the American children? An Argument NCLB Act Fortifies Education Those who agree that No Child Left Behind Act will, in fact, strengthen education in the United States also base their argument on two reasons. The NCLB Act creates higher standards for each student’s achievement and progress in his or her school career and NCLB will decrease the education gap in America by providing more money and educational opportunities to the poor school districts and students from low-income families.
... consequence of this, the student was suspended. To explain the reason of reaction of the school, the districts attorney claimed that the anti ... them up. Personally I consider the actions of the student ... the courts tried to advocate the student, saying: It's the government's duty to protect them [students] from attack, not to shut ...
The federal government requires all fifty states to create a system of their own which will help each state to improve the standards of public school education. These states are not obligated to have an identical system from one another, but there are three main factors that each state needs to include in its system. “These systems must be based on challenging state standards in reading and mathematics, annual testing for all students in grades 3-8, and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years” (“The No Child”, 2).
To carry out the federal government’s requests, many states have decided to create reading and math tests that will be taken by students in third through eight grades every year, meaning that these states have fulfilled two out of the three provisions. Each student’s results on both tests will be included on his or her report card for parents to review. Afterward, all of the students’ test scores will be grouped together according to their schools, and will be evaluated by the government officials.
Once the process of evaluation is complete, the government officials will have the right to declare if a school meets the Adequate Yearly Process (AYP) or not. If a school fails to meet the state and federal government’s requirements, with the AYP as one of these requirements, then the school will “be subject to corrective action and restructuring measures aimed at getting them back on course to meet State standards” (“The No Child”, 2).
However, ‘corrective action’ does not only apply once if a school fails to make the AYP. If a ‘failing’s chool repeatedly neglects to make the AYP, the federal government can authorize more actions to be performed, until that school fulfills all the requirements necessary. For example, when a school fails to make the AYP for a second consecutive year, it will be identified as needing improvement and must develop improvement plans. The school district of the failing school will be required to “offer public school choice to all students in the failing school no later than the first day of the school year following identification [from the federal government that the school is not adequate] and must provide transportation to the new school” (Popham, 15).
... more academically oriented than public schools. Private education provides students with a broader education that accepts diversity. Public education, however, does not have as much ... for those who can not manage to afford private education for their children, but this should not be the grounds for prohibiting ...
Determining which schools are in need for improvements helps to reduce the education gap in this country because failing schools are constantly reminded by the federal government to fix the limitations and weaknesses, resulting in better quality public schools. Many also believe that the NCLB will help those who are in need for better education. Children in poor districts whose schools are consistently failing and also children who come from low income families often turn out to be the casualties of this controversial issue. Students living in poor districts tend to receive education of inferior quality because the lack of money these districts endure. For example, in 1968, a lawsuit against the San Antonio school district was filed by a parent, due to the district’s failure to provide the public schools in area enough textbooks (“Public”, 1).
This case became known as the San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez. Alas, low-income students also face the same obstacle; they do not receive the best education available in this country. The low income students usually have no connection to out of school resources such as computers, library books, informative videos, internet, etc. Nevertheless, the government has made another solution to close this educational gap.
The federal government demand districts with many disadvantaged students to provide them with “Title I funds, approximately $500 to $1, 000 per child, for low-achieving disadvantaged students in the school to obtain supplemental services” (Sugarman, 121).
These supplemental services include tutoring, after school programs, and also summer school programs. Naturally, the United States government will always play a large role in the nation’s domestic issues. For certain, both parents and students throughout the country will be observing on how the No Child Left Behind Act truly affects the nation’s education system. Works Cited Brennan, Jeanne. “The Funding Gap: Low Income and Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars.” Summit Education Initiative.
... as to reap the benefits of deploying ICTs in school education. Students from rural locations or impoverished communities often tend ... to shift from the traditional teacher-centered pedagogy to more learner-centered methods. Education leadership, management, and governance can ... the developing world have the potential to enhance the education experience for children who: ? ? ? ? ? live in rural and ...
August, 2002. Proquest Newspapers. Proquest. Wor-Wic Community College Media Center.
1 Apr. 2005. Bush, George W. “The No Child Left Behind Act Is Improving Education” Education.
Opposing Viewpoints Series. Greenhaven Press, 2005. George W. Bush, televised address, Washington D. C. , 10 Jun.
2003. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Group. Wor-Wic Community College Media Center.
23 Feb. 2005. Kowal, Jessica. “Judge Says Schools in New York City Cheated Out of State Money: Pataki Blames City for Lack of Funding.” Student Briefings. 12 Feb. 2001.
Pro Quest Newspapers. Pro Quest. Wor-Wic Community College Media Center. 21 Mar. 2005. Neill, Monty.
“Don’t Mourn, Organize!” October, 2003. Rethinking School Online. 25 Feb. 2005. Pro Quest Newspapers. Pro Quest.
Wor-Wic Community College Media Center. 21 Mar. 2005. Popham, W. James. America’s “Failing” Schools.
New York: Routledge Falmer, 2004: 1-20.” Public- School Funding.” Issues and Controversies. 31 Mar. 2002. Facts. com. Facts on File News Services.
Seneca Valley High School, Germantown, MD. 22 Feb. 2005. Sugarman, Stephen D.
and Frank R. Kemer er. School Choice and Social Controversy: Politics, Policy and Law. Washington D. C.
: The Brookings Institution, 1999: 111-137. William, Mary E. , ed. “The No Child Left Behind Act is Not Improving Education.” Education. Opposing Viewpoints Series.
Greenhaven Press, 2005. Monty Neill, “Low Expectations and Less Learning: The Problem With No Child Left Behind Act.” Social Education, vol. 67, September 2003, p. 281.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Group. Wor-Wic Community College Media Center. 23 Feb. 2005..