Because if they don’t… They'll miss out on government funding that could improve their school. I read an article on MSNBC.com about Obama asking for $1.35 billion to extend an education grant program for states. Of the $787 billion economic stimulus, $4.3 billion went to competitive education grants for states. Obama says the extra money would allow more states to win grants. According to the POTUS, "Offering our children an outstanding education is one of our most fundamental […] obligations as a country."
This all sounds good but it left me wondering why states have to compete for money for their schools. Why wouldn't the government just give it to them? Especially is educating our kids is "one of our most fundamental obligations." So… reading on I find that Obama feels that a grant system is a competitive way to encourage states and school districts to do better, rather than a "formula-driven" system in which states get money regardless of success in teaching. This system would use student test scores to judge teacher performance.
I see a couple problems with this. I went to an inner city high school and I know that school districts may not compete for such a grant because they don't think they can win it or because they don't care about the students in the district. I have heard people who work at the department of education here say that students from my school wouldn't know what to do with new books and computers. As far as test scores used to judge teacher performance… One year, as a school, we had to pass some statewide exam so that the school could get "off notice" for poor performance. So the teachers went into a frenzy for the few months leading up to the test, teaching us how to pass the exam. Once the test came and went, the learning stopped. Once they found out we passed, we had a pep rally and that was that. Our success on that test had NOTHING to do with the teachers teaching a curriculum well and it in no way reflected a general trend of good teaching.
I'm all about making schools and school districts prove that they're educating students. However, I think some schools need money more than others. Their success might not be immediately evident. For instance… I didn't do too well on the SAT because the SAT prep wasn't available to me because the numbers weren't there to justify the funding for the class. More than one case like mine makes my school's SAT statistics decline, but it’s not necessarily an accurate picture of what we could do if we had the money.
I'm happy Obama is asking for money for education. I'm just not sure I like that schools have to compete for the money. What do you think?
This all sounds good but it left me wondering why states have to compete for money for their schools. Why wouldn't the government just give it to them? Especially is educating our kids is "one of our most fundamental obligations." So… reading on I find that Obama feels that a grant system is a competitive way to encourage states and school districts to do better, rather than a "formula-driven" system in which states get money regardless of success in teaching. This system would use student test scores to judge teacher performance.
I see a couple problems with this. I went to an inner city high school and I know that school districts may not compete for such a grant because they don't think they can win it or because they don't care about the students in the district. I have heard people who work at the department of education here say that students from my school wouldn't know what to do with new books and computers. As far as test scores used to judge teacher performance… One year, as a school, we had to pass some statewide exam so that the school could get "off notice" for poor performance. So the teachers went into a frenzy for the few months leading up to the test, teaching us how to pass the exam. Once the test came and went, the learning stopped. Once they found out we passed, we had a pep rally and that was that. Our success on that test had NOTHING to do with the teachers teaching a curriculum well and it in no way reflected a general trend of good teaching.
I'm all about making schools and school districts prove that they're educating students. However, I think some schools need money more than others. Their success might not be immediately evident. For instance… I didn't do too well on the SAT because the SAT prep wasn't available to me because the numbers weren't there to justify the funding for the class. More than one case like mine makes my school's SAT statistics decline, but it’s not necessarily an accurate picture of what we could do if we had the money.
I'm happy Obama is asking for money for education. I'm just not sure I like that schools have to compete for the money. What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment