Check out this series of letters from this Sunday's New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-improving-our-schools.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion
In your post, please consider the following questions:
1. What should the role of the government be in setting educational standards? Should it be done at the local, state, or national level? Should standards be the same in every state or vary based on the needs of individual communities?
2. What role, if any, should standardized tests such as AP, AIMS, SAT, or ACT play in the educational system?
Please be thoughtful and creative in your response! Be sure to fully explain your position.
Education is something which needs support and guidance from the national government all the way to the individual students and parents. There should be a set of very general national standards set by the government in order to avoid large gaps between regions. Tests such as the SAT and ACT are the best moniters at this point for judging these whether these standards are being met and whether these standards need to be changed. State governments should encourage districts to educate their students in as well-rounded and effective a manner possible. They should also compare schools, districts and even other states in order to do this. Tests such as the AIMS aid in this role. Most of the standards and other educational decisions should be made at a local level; either within the district or the school. This way impovershed communities could devote their resources to encouraging more academic involvement while others may need to devote extra energy to sports or a specific subject which is undervalued. Finally, AP tests are useful for allowing advanced students to enhance their own learning and move ahead.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you said, but how do you feel about the AIMS? I feel state assessments have their place, but do you feel that as they stand they are currently effective?
DeleteI believe that there certainly should be state assessments, but I also feel that the AIMS specifically is very ineffective. Instead of judging how well students are doing, it seems to strive to allow every student to pass no matter their level of intellect or how hard they strive. It's high stress yet nearly pointless. The ideal test would be exactly the opposite, but would still give students incentive to try their hardest.
DeleteI like your implication about how a balanced contribution from both the national level and the local level is vital to a good educational system. Perhaps national standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, as terrible as they could be, are necessary to assess school curriculum in order to have any future improvement. But only in a local level can they distinguish their individual problems and what has to be done to solve them.
DeleteBonni- Okay, I see what you mean :) I agree with you on that, although I'm not sure how to fix state assessments.
DeleteYou imply that schools in different communities should focus on different things: sports, specific subjects, etc. In a global economy and with the world so close (with technology and such) is that really a reasonable plan? It seems to me that if kids are trained to fill positions in their specific area, no one will move on to better things in other areas.
DeleteIn my opinon, I think the governmetn should have some control, however not total control, over setting educational standards. I think that it should be more in the state's power to control what happens educationally as opposed to all the states submitting under specific regulations created by the federal government. To go with the control given to the states, I believe that each state should then drop lower and find out exactly what each community needs to succeed on the educational level. Furthermore, the state needs to set different regulations regarding each county or community.
ReplyDeleteBesides regulations, I think that standardized tests are still important to the education system. Tests like the ACT and SAT are important in the fact that it is a way for the federal government to monitor each states progress throughout the years. Smaller test such as AP are really there for a challenge for excelling students that want to test their abilities. Finally, state test such as the AIMS test is there so that the state can figure out how to improve scores for the next year so that those students could eventually excel on larger scale tests that will make the state shine in the eyes of Washington authorities. I think standardized tests are imprtant and that they should be a large aspect in a students educational career.
I agree with the point that you made about each region needing individual regulations. I also agree with the fact the ACTs and SATs are a way to check-up on each state.
DeleteI agree with your point on letting each state having specific regulations, there may be different levels of education depending on what area the students are in and some time is needed for different regions to adjust to a national standard.
DeleteI have a hard time with how do you chose which places get the higher standards. I agree that the standards can help a region improve, but I think that if we were all on the same standards than you wouldn't need to improve. You would be equal as a whole.
DeleteThe problem with what you said about giving the power of standard-making to the states is one that we experience right here in Arizona; some states slack in the area of academic achievement and put very little money or regard into it. The effects of this are compounded by the states having the power to write their own standardized tests. The AIMS test, for example, is designed to be passable for all students so that it seems that Arizona's education situation isn't so bad. With a national standardized test, states can be held accountable for their education system, and with a set of national standards, each state can teach its students to be relevent in the world without wasting time trying to decieve the federal government.
DeleteI like how you pointed out that diifferent areas need to change their standards. Not every area has the same people and background education. I also think you did a great job explaining why tests ate important.
DeleteYes they are important but I don't believe it should be in the states power. It is a nice idea to think that it will tell each state how to improve. However in reality it has a large chance of doing the opposite. Look at the AIMS test that we have all taken. It is put at such a low standard that as Arizonians we excel, but in the country we are far less than other states. AIMS has become a very easy test to pass, and Arizona doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to education. By having federal standards the nation can all be on the same level when it comes to education.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the AIMS have become much easier, but that should not mean the country should be on the same level. Many excelling schools would need to 'dumb-down' and not so good schools would be forced to 'smarten-up' in-order to be at the same level. The reason there should be set standards for each community and state is to give help to the regions that need assistance and to give a challenge to the places that need a challenge.
DeleteI too believe that there should be some federal standards, but I would like some clarification as to what sort of standards you're thinking of and to what extent. Do you think there should be a national test that all students are required to pass or a set curriculum to teach? Perhaps you have some other idea?
DeleteI more believe that we should have the same standards across the nation. I think that the SAT is a test that works well to test a student with the nation. If the nation had the same curriculum I think that that would put all the states an equal playing field, and we can become a whole as a nation.
DeleteI do believe that the standards as community are meant to help that region, however I feel that everyone should be the same. What makes this region have higher standards than this region? I would like to know how that is determined.
To have each state the same is in my opinion near impossible. Each state needs to be different. You can't expect that every state will be able to meet standards. If you do really expect it then how could it be accomplished? The government has already funded lower-end schools with more money and it has failed to make any sort of difference.
DeleteThe government should set a broad standard of education for every school in America. This would include mathematics, social studies, literature and sciences. For each state and community any other classes should be based on the needs of the state. For academic testing, the SATs and ACTs should be for the nation to be sure each individual state has achieved the standards. For tests like the AIMS should be standardized for the states needs based off the classes for the state. Lastly, AP should be for the students that wish to challenge the students and test their knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI also think that there should be a national standard for curriculum. Such a curriculum would provide a basic, similar education for all students. But how would the government determine the needs for individual states?
Delete-Kaila Hammon
I agree that we should have a standard of education in America. With a general standard we can all be on the same educational level and be able to raise our standards more efficiently and effectively. Although, it may take some time before every region is brought up to the same standard at first.
DeleteNathan I like your point that it will take time to get each region on the same standards. I have been thinking that as I am reading posts.
DeleteEducation should be completely supported through and through down to the ant and up to the complete population of the Earth supporting it. Education is the one thing that can pull people out of prejudice, bias, and hatred towards things and people. Standards should also be high, according to the level of education in an area. New England would take harder tests than Arizona, but Arizona tests would be challenging to the people learning at that level anyway. The students should be encouraged to push to that level, and once that is achieved, go higher and more challenging. If anybody is familiar with Mrs. Mcdermott's teaching style, they know that she teaches much in the same way. And it works.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying Arizona should heighten its standards to match those of New England? Wouldn't it simply be easier to set a national standard that happens to be at the current New England level?
DeleteI understand your statements about increasing the difficulty level of the national curriculum and that students should be challenged more, however if every nation was to compare and strive for their education to match a specific country, then there might be a bit of chaos and ultimately countries would have to agree on a global standard of learning which is both economically and ethnically impossible.
Delete-Kaila Hammon
I agree that states should set their standards according to their own level of education and go higher from there. Every school, just like every student in a class, is at their own pace and therefore should not be forced into the same achievements as others. Standards do need to be high, but also in a way that is challenging yet attainable.
DeleteNo, it's not education to match a specific country or state. Let's just denote education by numbers for a second here. What I'm saying is if AZ has an education level of 3, then it should strive for a level 5 or 6. If Pennsylvania has a level 8 education it should strive for a level 10.
DeleteDraxton- So you're saying there should be overall improvement, not a specific standard nation- wide?
DeleteExactly
DeleteYour whole paragraph sort of contradicts itself. You say that everyone on Earth should come together to make new and higher standards but then you say that each area should have separate standards. If each area has different standards then why does the "population of the Earth" need to come together in the first place? Why not have Arizona decide for itself what the standards should be and the same with New England?
DeleteI believe that the national government should have control over the regulation of education, but only to an extent. America should set its own high standard for education in the country, but states should regulate education based on the needs of their own communities. Some communities may need to have a higher difficulty of tests, like New England, and other areas need more time to improve their education so they will have to take smaller steps to the national standard. Therefore, education should be regulated based on the needs of the community.
ReplyDeleteACT and SAT tests are important because they allow the federal government to monitor the educational progess of each state. AP tests are also important becasue they challenge the academic abilities of excelling students. AIMS and other standardized tests are used to help set state standards for the future.
I do agree that the Untied States's populations as a whole should have the biggest word in education and should be the ones setting the standards for education. Also, i say that students and schools that rank low should be funded to help those schools catch up with the nations standards.
DeleteI think the average populous right now is not educated enough to decided what students should and should not learn. I also am very weary of placing the final say in the hands of the federal government. Possibly a third party agency. That also is just an idea I have no plan about it for funding or anything its just an idea.
Deleteignorance is huge in America. i even make decisions without knowing all the facts and to have people blindly choose or choose the easiest path would not be the greatest idea however as jake said a third party agency to determine and set the nat
DeleteI do agree with you when you said some communities need to take higher difficulty tests because raising the bar is the only way to improve education.
DeleteIn my lifetime, I've gone to schools in 3 states: Rhode Island, New York, and Arizona. Because there was no sort of basic national curriculum, either a general outline of topics or a wide range (successful) test which teachers would want to exceed on, I ended up repeatedly learning some information and completely missing out on other information. Because I moved every three to four years, I took Pre-Algebra 3 times, never learned the capitals of my states, never learned to type, missed health and had to take it much later online, hopped around in different foreign languages (and the list goes on). This has largely to do with the inconsistencies among the states' views and rules on education. I propose that the national government have a bit more power in relation to education. Instead of trying to make schools teach all around the same level however, the system should be intended to intervene when a school or state does not meet the basic standards and allow room for the above average school to reach for bigger and better things. One possible solution would be to have a WIDE-RANGING national test covering questions on whatever science, math, English, social studies, etc. the students should learn at that specific grade level (which would have to be determined in a general national curriculum). Essentially, it would be a pass/ fail test. The states and districts that pass are fine, while there will need to be intervention in those that don't. This system still allows for overachievers to keep up accelerated education, as they should pass this test with ease.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I think state and local government should have the liberty to structure their curriculum in whatever way they want- so long as they meet the basics the national government has set up. (It's important to note that when I say basics, I hope for a higher set of standards than is currently being displayed by the average American student. If we are to have any hope of turning anything around in our country and maintaining a respectable place amongst the other countries in our world, education needs to be restructured.) If you want Socratic seminars all day in your school, fine. If you want to have nonstop testing, fine. That type of thing should be decided locally. As far as state power goes, I think it would be preferable to have states lay out a more detailed curriculum, based on the national curriculum, and perhaps to add any topics of education they deem extremely important (as ling as they can fund it). For instance, classes like Arizona state history would fall under this category.
In regards to standardized testing, I spent much of my academic career preparing for tests I hardly had to take (moving so much). Quite frankly, the AIMS is a joke. If you were to take the NY Regents tests (which are much like mini AP tests), it becomes apparent how different the methods for state assessment really are. The state assessments, if a state chooses to partake in creating them, really have to be held to a much higher standard. However, I think that pressure should not be put on students for the state assessments-it would simply be a way for the state to evaluate its own specific curriculum. The national test would really be the important one, yet shouldn't be the focus of teaching. As long as the states make a curriculum that coincides with the national curriculum, performance really shouldn't be much of an issue. It's just a method to make sure our education doesn't have major gaps, especially in comparison with the rest of the world.
I really have no problem with the AP,ACT, and SAT tests, other than it can be confusing to know which ones are beneficial to take for getting into college. That won't really change anytime soon though, and indeed maybe it shouldn't as they seem to be challenging and relatively indicative of a student's intellect.
This is a very interesting and thoughtful response. I agree with most of your points. However, this seems like an odd way of structuring things. State tests should be difficult but not stressful and teachers shouldn't worry about the national test in teaching, but it will be mandatory to pass? Wonderful in theory, but it probably wouldn't turn out too well with varying teachers and students. I suppose any structure would have the same win some/lose some scenario, though.
DeleteBonni- What I'm saying is that the state tests would simply be for advantages, with no negative consequences. In other words, they'd be administered by the state only, with no national interference, for the sole purpose of specifying areas of improvement and curriculum changes for the whole state, or even perhaps to award certain schools with extra funding (if the state were to choose that).
DeleteI agree that perhaps the national test would try to cause some teachers to structure their teaching JUST around passing the test, but really, in my mind, the test would be rather simple (though not as simple as the AIMS). In other words, if you're teaching the basics of the national curriculum at all, you really should have no problem getting an overall passing score. It would merely be an attempt to bring the worst states' education up and probably wouldn't even affect those states where academic achievement is already high. In those states, they'd simply be striving for better overall education based o their own agenda.
I hope this clarifies things... I know there's still a few flaws but overall I think this sort of system would have a lot of potential.
I can completely relate with having to adjust to the educational standards of a new state after moving. If there had been a national standard when I moved from Ohio to Texas, I wouldn't of had to relearn several math units. Then when I moved from Texas to Arizona, I had to take my second year of Spanish all over again. A national standard would help students who have to move.
DeleteYes, that makes much more sense than what I was originally picturing. Wonderful ideas.
DeleteI also can relate to your switching from state to state education differences. Going from Michigan to Illinois I found myself in a much more accomadating environment than before, there were advanced learning programs that I had never before encountered and countless ways to get ahead. Illinois has one of the highest fundings for education in the country, there I was able to get ahead in all of my classes. Then in coming to Arizona I found that it was in a way a step backwards, there were no advanced science or social studies classes availible at my middle school, (K-8) and so I was held back in those areas. The language arts class I was placed in as a 7th grader was the 8th grade advanced class, the trouble came the following year when I had to take the very same 8th grade advanced language arts class again because there was no higher level one availible. I believe that a national curriculuum minimum or standard would help students like myself and many others that make cross country moves and find themselves in a different environment.
DeleteI agree with Stephen Krashen, our education system should be on a national level. This way, both the national government and individual states can pool their resources and funding together to provide a more efficient education system and schooling. A uniform education system can also close gaps between poor performing schools and excelling schools. Then all students can be educated the same material on the same level. Also, if students need to move or change schools the educational transition won't be as difficult. Arizona is the 4th state I've lived in and while changing schools I've noticed that I'm either behind or ahead in school depending on which school in which state. Testing should also be the same throughout every state. If everyone is being taught the same curriculum, then why would you need varied testing? Standardized testing should assess the national education system and evaluate the need for any improvements. It should also assess the success rate of students and if there should be any changes in the curriculum. A national education system, when created efficiently, can be beneficiary.
ReplyDelete-Kaila Hammon
Totally agree with the national leveling, especially as far as financial resources go. Instead of the government having to aid both exceeding and lacking education systems in all fifty states, it would be much easier to have a national standard to pool resources over, and ensure that all students in the US have the same opportunities as their peers.
DeleteI do agree that standards should be set at a national level but i also think that more specialized methods to providing education at smaller levels should be pushed. It is a good idea to give the national level more money so that more research can be carried out and more far more efficient and effective systems may emerge.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the government should not have too much control in education. As evidenced by past attempts to control the American educational system such as the No Child Left Behind Act, our government has proven itself well-intentioned but very obviously inept in such matter. In fact, these attempts to create a more well educated citizen out of our country's youth could not have fallen further from their goals. Instead, our system of education has changed the objective of our education into passing standardized tests instead of learning. Every community is faced with difference circumstances therefore it is unreasonable to give them the same expectation. As noted by Krashen from the article, the problem in education originates from poverty. Students cannot focus on learning when they are too busy worrying about not having enough food or their electricity being cut off. Giving these poverty stricken kids standardized tests--- which they would surely fail--- is unaffective and frankly, a waste of the government's money. To schools in better communities, on the other hand, national standards limit and impede students to achieve knowledge that they are actually capable of attaining. Schools is falsely encouraged to bring their students to the level the government expects from them and stop there. Few schools are willing to bring students to their full potentials under this system.
DeleteYou bring up an interesting point, as far as federal intervention in the past has gone awry, as with the No Child Left Behind Act. However, we cannot base future improvement on past subjective failures. While the act gave bare minimums for education and rarely encouraged pupils to exceed, it did help reading and math skills for elementary students, "For America's nine-year-olds in reading, more progress was made in five years than in the previous 28 combined."
Deletehttp://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/nclbworking.html
I believe that all students in the US should be subject to the same public educational experience as his or her counterparts around the country. Clearly some states are more than proficient with their education systems, while others are not, and it seems a shame that students may miss out on the same learning that is available to a pupil in the state over from them. This sort of thing strikes me as ironic, when states all have different standards and expectations from students, even at the high school level, when students are looking at higher education in the form of universities or trade schools which are oftentimes located out of state. Not only will this make for a less stressful, more uniform educational experience for the student (Especially those that move out of state), it will also give both the state and federal governments room to combine both experience and financial resources towards a common goal, improving education.
ReplyDeleteIt would be much more efficient to have standards set by the federal government. With this being said, I believe that AIMS and other state administered standardized tests should be abolished, and perhaps have the college board administer tests similar to these on a national level, gauging our performance with students from around the country. The AP, SAT, and ACT tests should remain as they also gauge performance and aptitude, with reward (college credit and admissions/scholarships, respectively), and it should be noted that these tests are also completely optional.
Totally agree Alex :) It's ridiculous that simply moving to a different state would completely alter the quality of someone's education drastically.
DeleteI completely agree with a test that would gauge our performance with students around the country. I believe that AIMS in sub par and doesn't effectively show the students' skills.
DeleteI can very well see your point in describing the irony in individual state standards. Do you think that the average student in a state is generally prepared and given the tools they need to be successful at an in state university, rather than pushed to exceed at any college abroad?
DeleteI agree with everything you said. Every child is entitled to a high standard education no matter where they are from. Like you said, it's ridiculous for students who have moved schools to have to repeat classes or completely miss out on part of a well rounded education.
DeleteState governments need to be responsible for their education systems. There are many reasons to do this, I believe, but one of the principle factors is that if a national government was set up, individual states needs would be lost. For example, on the west coast there are many ESL students. There have been many programs developed to help these students receive the education they need. I'm sure that out east there are situations that are particular to that region as well. If education was turned over to the national government, these students that need particular programs would have less of a chance of getting what they need and being left behind. States would turn their focus to reaching the new standard and not worrying about the students in their region as much. The national government would probably be able to blend some of the general circumstances into their standards but not every single one that regions face, therefore weakening students but not helping them.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem comes from money. The national government would not be able to spend as much money per state as much as the higher paying states may. Those states that put more money into their educational system would be losing out big time because they would have to cut back programs, once again hurting students. The standard that the national government develops would also be lower than the standard that the higher states already have. The national government couldn't just ask states to raise their standards to the highest state because there wouldn't be money for that and the lower states may not meet the standard, making the nation's education system not as good as it could be.
State governments should continue to develop state wide standard tests. However, the tests should be more difficult than they are now. AIMS may not be the truest measure of Arizona students' abilities because it is designed for people to pass. By increasing the difficulty, it would become a true assessment. Students should also receive incentives because many do not take it seriously. They shouldn't be able to take it as many times as they want until they pass. Some students have the attitude that because they can take it until the graduate, it's not imperative to pass it the first time. Other standardized tests, like the SAT, are good measuring sticks for how a student is doing individually, not how a state is doing as a whole. It's important for students to see where they rank and not just where their state ranks.
Educational standards i believe should be set at all levels and not just one. I believe that at more local levels educational standards must be specific to the students in the area but overall there should be a national standard to what should be learned by a certain time. Much more research should be carried out on how to successfully teach students efficiently so that the system of education can improve instead of just arguing what is best. Since the government is in charge of providing education i believe that they should step it up and learn how to effectively and efficiently provide for it and should focus on educational standards better. If the government fails to do so then education will not advance quickly enough and the United States will fall slowly behind. Finally, i believe that test are good but many strategies provided before taking a test like study guides, are bad because they only prepare a student to take the test. After many people take a test, they just assume it is okay to forget and they can just remember the concept on the test later, but in reality when it comes to remembering what was on a test, things can be hard to remember.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good idea, Neil. Education should be a system knit together by all areas of government. Local government would know theirn students best and what they need. State government would know the type of system that works best in that region. However, I don't believe the national government is ready to develop standards. Like you said, there's research that needs to be done by them until they can set the goals and teaching systems that would be efficent for the nation as a whole. They may never even find something that works for everyone since Amerizca is so diverse. But if they were able to do that, education would be stronger since every child in America would be recieving similiar teaching styles.
DeleteOur country is falling behind on education and something needs to be done about it. I thong that the federal government should make a standard for all the states. This standard must be fairly high. If schools achieve this standard then I think that teachers and and other members of the school should be payed an extra bonus. This is just an idea but it could make teachers try harder and do better jobs.
ReplyDeleteAt the state level the best schools in each state could get endorsements. I also think that teacher seniority should not be as big of an issue. Just because you have been a teacher at a school for 10 years doesn't mean you are the best teacher.
The last thing that I want to mention is the mentality of American kids compared to kids from other countries. Americans don't value school on the same way as foreign people do. We don't understand how lucky we are to get to go to school.
I am assuming you meant think not thong so if not this might not make much sense haha; anyway I believe reaching the standard is not deserving of a bonus, reaching should be a requirement and nothing special. The drive should be to go above and beyond with possible awards for programs that clearly EXCEED standards. I don't believe average should be rewarded. We as an American people should not drive to be average.
DeleteYa, I didn't mean to put "thong" on there... I agree that we should want to exceed and be the best we can. That is just an idea. We need to do something to better our education. We need to get people to believe in the American Dream again. Too many people take the fact that they live in America for granted.
DeleteAs several of my peers pointed out above, it is impractical to have separate state curriculums that don't coincide with one another. Students moving from state to state would have to relearn or miss whole year long classes making the system inefficient for mobile students. What would work best is a broad nation wide curriculum standard (of mediocre difficulty) that all states must teach with a specific state or local standard that is modified within these limits. In my opinion and statistically compared to the education of other countries, the education of the United States is not as challenging as it should be. For instance, state standards tests like the AIMS really holds no substance anymore. Even the instate colleges realize that the standards it measures don't amount to much as shown by the decrease of the AIMS scholarship. If a nationwide curriculum is utilized, it should be measured by a method resembling AP tests (but obviously easier) where most kids don't easily excel. The actual AP tests as far as I'm concerned are great for obtaining college credit (since the AP class is just as hard as the college class) and comparing the individual with his or her peers around the country. The same goes for the SAT and ACT. They're not too easy and are good comparisons for students around the country.
ReplyDeleteI share your point of view in the creation of a nation wide curriculum standard and only partially with your opinion towards AIMS, AP, ACT, and SAT tests. Since it is almost no question that AIMS testing has the lowest level of difficulty compared to other national tests, do you think its lack of a challenging element holds a purpose in that sense? Do you think that in creating all difficult assesments required on a larger scale would effect student's motivation?
DeleteWith the education system adapting to where most students will continue on to college the need has become greater for a nation wide education standard. With modern technology and communication more students choose to move away for college, or they move for educational reasons, looking for the best possible education in their desired field. With the current state standards method many of these students' applications are hurt when their home state appears on it due to their state's standards being below average on the national level. Test such as the AP tests, the SAT, the ACT, and those alike are all great ways for students to prove themselves, and with these being a national level test it shows the level of all students on an equal playing field. However with state standards tests, such as AIMS, the state is limiting itself in their students, by not truly showing the skills of highly qualified students. If the states would develop their own test they would administer SECONDARY to a national standards tests, it would allow the state to focus on its students developments while still showing their skills on the national level.
ReplyDeletethe secondary is a great idea i would also want the states standards to be secondary to the national standards.
DeleteI do agree with you that the states should provide an assessment that is secondary to the Nations standards tests. I believe their should be a minimum level in which a state should be at. The state's standards should not even be allowed below the nation's level. Our goal in the US is to improve as a whole, each state should be similar in their education standards.
DeleteYou're secondary idea is great in my opinion. It's fair but also allows for more growth and development on a particular focus. Also, I don't think students should have a disadvantage based on what state they have been educated it because they could honestly be a fabulous hard working student.
DeleteOf course the state would still need to do its own tests, but if a lot less was set at stake with the AIMS test, you're proposition is a good idea. Assessments are necessary at all levels to see where deficiencies lie, but your proposal would be better if you clarified how important national exams were versus state level tests.
DeleteIn my opinion, there should be a national standard for education and the government should have a solid role in the setting of it. If it were up to the states, I believe that the standard of education would drop. Curriculums and tests would become easier so that students would look like they're excelling, but the bar would be set very low. The differences in state standards vary greatly, and this results in a different level of preparedness for not only national tests, but college as well. I think that a major question is, how should education be funded? I believe that the amount spent on education should be equal across the states. If you look at the various regions of our country, you'll see that areas along the gulf coast, such as Lousiana, Mississippi, etc. spend less on education than regions in the North East, and end up with sub par scores in comparison. Arizona has been cutting back on spending on education as well, and is ranked close to the bottom academically.
ReplyDeleteI have gone to schools in various parts of the nation - Ohio, Texas, and Arizona. In Ohio, my brothers and I were exposed to extensive educational opportunities. When I moved to Texas, things changed and I ended up having to relearn many units, especially in math. When I lived in Texas, also, I took their state test, known as the TAKS test. This test was designed for the students who weren't academically talented to pass. My school made a big deal of the test, and held tutoring sessions multiple times a week and made incentives, such as exemptions from finals, for students who excelled. It's all good and well that the administration wanted those test scores to look fantastic, but when it came to national tests such as the SAT, ACT, and AP exams, many students' scores were mediocre at best. I believe that the bar needs to be set higher in order for students to truly succeed, but that bar can't be set by the states alone.
I like how you pointed out that so much importance is put into state tests, while it is not the case with national tests. When individual states are put in charge of education they put a huge emphasis on their statewide tests, but don't do a lot to prepare students for national tests like the SAT. This in itself shows that there needs to be a national standard for education set by the government so that students can be better prepared for all kinds of tests, not just ones delivered in the state they live in.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe national government should set the standards for allstates not letting the people decide due to ignorance and lack of people voting. however having a thir party decide such as an agency to decide the standards the national school system should be held at. There are tates filled with ignorance due to the the lack of a higher educational system. Many student have lost opportunities due to their own states educational sytem. if the states do have opposiion to the government making the standards then they can use a secondary system that uses the national governments standards as a foundation to build upon. in doing so the secondary system nd a third party system can decrease ignorance and increase the IQ of the country as a whole. The SAT and ACT do help across the nation however student are taught differently in every state due to the standards given. so one state my strive on these tests but other states may struggle and fail.
ReplyDeleteThe government should have a primary role in education and it is important that the standards are set locally. This will increase the emphasis on the standardized test because they will be necessary to compare students in different states. Although this can open students up to pressure that could skew their results and ruin the purpose of the test, in a education system set as locally ad possible more educators can help individuals and not use a one size fits all program.
ReplyDeleteTo the question of why the government at all should handle education is fairness. If there were only private schools that set the standards they could give people diplomas for very little work if they paid enough and there would be no way to distinguish between graduates. The government couldn't force the SAT so if you didn't take it you could literally do nothing and just pay for your diploma. That is why it is important for the local governments to have standards so that if an employer saw you graduated from an Maricopa school he could see the standards and trust that the student met them.
It is interesting to me that you think that control of education should be at a local level. You say the reason is that it would be more fit to the community instead of expecting all people to rise to a certain level. The problems that I see with that approach are that if one student were to move from one school district to another, they could potentially be put at a huge disadvantage. The other thing is that if that were the case, certain places would fall very far behind. Say there is a retirement community that has very few families and children, the voters in that district will likely not put forward much funding for education, leaving those who seek education severely disadvantaged. I do like your point about private schools though, that would present a problem.
DeleteThose are all valid points but I believe that students who give and effort and are intelligent will succeed despite the funding. The transfer problem could be solved with a test like I had when I went to a charter school that allowed you to prove what you know.
DeleteThe role of the government in setting educational standards should be at the national level. Every student should have access to a high quality education regardless of what state they live in. The standards should be the same in every state, but they should not be too low. It’s important to have high standards to work towards so that students can excel.
ReplyDeleteAIMS has become much easier over time, but there are still students who fail it multiple times. These students bring down the score average and paint an unrealistic picture of Arizona’s results. The SAT is a better indicator of how well students are doing, and it is used nationwide. A lot rides on a student’s SAT score and while this is stressful, colleges need a way to weed out students who aren’t willing to work hard.
I like how you mentioned everyone should have a high quality education regardless of the state they live in. I also agree with you when you mentioned that the AIMS test paints an unrealistic image of Arizona's results because most kids don't try at all.
DeleteEducation is one of the most tricky areas of management to approach when it comes to reform, especially when it comes to standardized testing. Currently, there are several sorts of standardized testings ranging from state-level to national-level. What can be seen here is an obvious imbalance in scoring, seen specifically within the AIMS. The state scores high on a state exam so we can acquire funding for our schools, but when we compete nationally, we just don't match up. So, the government should remove state-level standardized tests. Why are we competing internally when we are supposed to be competing internationally? To follow this, the government should create a national standardized test that is based off of North East testing models, where most of the high-scoring students come from. The curriculum for schools should be based off of this, aiming to push the students as far as they can go, rather than simply striving to pass. The standards would be high, and all communities would adhere to this rigorous curriculum.
ReplyDeleteAP and SAT tests belong to test whether or not the student is capable of college-level work or beyond. They serve as an entrance exam, and if a student cannot pass the tests with sufficient points, they do not deserve to be in such a scholarly environment until they have succeeded in developing those critical thinking skills. AIMS testing (a state level test), on the other hand, is a complete joke. This test is designed only to give the state funding and is pretty much a hoax. While progress should be measured, it should not be measured at a half-way mark, as rate of progression varies from child to child. Instead, the end result should be measured, and thus determines whether or not the adolescent is prepared.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAP and SAT tests show whether or not the student is capable of college-level work or beyond.*
DeleteSorry for the utter lack of grammar.
I do agree with you on some points, what what should happen to those students who just don't test well? Should they not be admitted to a school simply because their test score shows they are incompetent, when in reality, they know just as much as the next student who might have excelled on that test?
DeleteBrett- I totally agree that state assessments seem pretty random and oftentimes way below what we should be aiming for, but do you believe they have any sort of advantage to education (if they were revamped)?
DeleteThe idea of a nationalized test seems reasonable enough to me. I don't think the national government should make each state follow a particular curriculum so I like the idea that the states can still follow their own curriculum, with the goal being to score well on the nationalized tests. Taylor brings up a valid point as well. What would happen to the students who don't do well?
Delete'
Is internal competition a bad thing? Competition breeds improvement, no? Yes, different state tests are very imbalanced, and that could be fixed, but not to be utterly banished.
DeleteAfter reading through a lot of these comments I've noticed most of you think the federal government should be setting standards and be in control. I disagree with this. The federal government has no business dealing with education. The government has already shown it has done a poor job trying to boost education by making programs such as No Child Left Behind. Even the Board of Education itself is a failure. Proof:
ReplyDeletehttp://coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/200909_blog_coulson1.jpg
http://wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net/800873/blog/wp-content/uploads/Fed-Spend-Ach-Pct-Chg-Cato-Andrew-Coulson.jpg
Education should be in the control of the state or local government. Why? Well because then YOU can actually have a say in what goes on in your educational system. When it is in the control of the federal government, all you have are a bunch of people that you didn't even vote for deciding for your community what should and shouldn't be taught. As far as funding for the schools, public schools should be funded by your state taxes, not federal. There is no point at all in having your money sent to the federal government on the other side of the country only to be sent back here to the schools.
I agree. Each community is different, with different needs. How is the national government to know what these needs are?
DeleteExactky. Also just realized I completely left out the second part of this blog. In regards to standardized testing, like SAT's and ACT's, those tests should be controlled by colleges. By doing this you will actually be tested on relevant information instead of what the federal government may think is relevant or irrelevant.
DeleteJames- I think almost everyone can agree that No Child Left Behind has done a lot more harm than good, but you don't seem to be offering a solution to an education problem that is clearly here. What would you propose that we do differently to turn our country's education around?
DeleteI believe that the setting of educational standards should be done with a combination of state and national government as opposed to one or the other. If standards were to be set locally, I believe the diverse differences from county to county would cause too much chaos and disunion in the school system across America. However, I do believe that state standards should vary according to demographic and the funding that that state received for that year. I believe that funding should have a direct correlation with standards. More funding = higher standards. If a state receives federal grants for education and there is no significant improvement in their education system, then funding is clearly not the solution and should be cut. On the other hand when a state exceeds the national standard by a significant amount, they should be rewarded. Similarly, if an individual high school exceeds the state standard, they should be rewarded with funds from the government grand proportionally to the degree at which they exceeded the standard. All this being said, the weight that standardized tests have in every aspect of America’s educational system just feels wrong to me. Human beings are in no way standard and trying to make them conform to a system of standardization is downright dehumanizing.
ReplyDeleteBen what you said about educational funding makes a lot of sense to me. However, I didn't really understand how you would set standards with a combination of the state and national governments. It is true that state and national governments each have their faults when dealing with education but I'm not sure how one would combine the two in dealing with the situation. Also I feel like the standardized tests are not over-emphasized in our educational system. Passing or even exceeding them are goals to be reached and how well one does shows how prepared he or she is for the next step in the educational system. AIMS definitely isn't overemphasized at the moment (its really more of a joke), AP tests are optional and very beneficial, and ACT/SAT tests are only one of many aspects colleges look into when admitting new students.
DeleteIt is very difficult to say that there is a clear path when it comes to setting education standards, simply because there are so many variables. Students all across the country live in different conditions, and have different resources available to them, which makes it challenging to set one all-encompassing standard for people to follow. However, I believe it is necessary for our education to be standardized at a national level to ensure that we perform at our highest potential and don’t lag behind in a rapidly advancing world. The reason I think there needs to be a national standard is that we need to encourage each state to excel rather than allowing them to set their own standards. The state that we live in is an example where education funding is not high on the agenda due to the large population of elderly persons. With a national standard we could make sure that kids all across the country were getting an equal opportunity to compete for acceptance to colleges and jobs in the real world.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the debate over standardized testing, I believe standardized tests are important for evaluation. Some say that the standardized tests are inadequate and that they put too much stress on the kids. While my belief is that standardized tests are necessary for evaluation, I do not think that they should be so so stressed or emphasized. How a student performs given their environment is much more indicative of the type of student they are than how they score on a test in comparison to others that may have had more opportunity than them. So to sum up my opinion, those types of standardized tests are great, but they should not be the sole basis for evaluation.
I completely agree with your point of view. Many variables make finding a solution to education very difficult but a national standard is a positive start. Rather than having states set their own goals that they know they can overcome, the national government could set a universal goal that challenge the states.
DeleteI agree with you Henry. Though conditions will always be different for every individual, a national standard is indeed a push in the right direction.
DeleteI think the government should focus less on setting educational standards and more on aiding poverty stricken Americans. Home is where the life journey of an American student begins and if the value of education is not a priority in the family than that student is by default going to suffer not reaching the standards set. Yes, the government should regulate what is appropriate and adequate for a student to learn but it should be done at the local level. There is not a one size fits all plan that will have every student preforming at the same level. Different types of living conditions effect a student's education as a whole. Where values on education run low it is more necessary to take action in implementing educational reform, however where values are very high on education it is less likely in need of any change whatsoever. Standardized tests play an enormous part of student education today. AIMS for state level education requirements. AP for specific subject tests for advanced students. SAT and ACT to send to colleges. They all have their role in the education system as tools for measuring students and should stay that way. In the future I think standardized tests should be less emphasized when measuring students until they cover a wider variety of topics, subjects, and skills.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the education system needs to be more regulated by the government because it is simply impractical for each state to have its own particular curriculum, standards and testing. As mentioned by several of our peers, students who have moved would not need to go through the hassle of missing out on certain education or repeating it. Furthermore, financial resources could be pooled together for those school districts that are lacking. States need to have similar HIGH standards and proficiency in those by the students can be measured by a national exam. This exam would be low-stakes and merely to identify the school districts that are failing to meet the standard (and how) in order to help improve education in those areas. State tests need to be completely eliminated for they are a waste of money and energy. Schools need to have high attainable goals in place but the point of education should not be to excel on a standardized test. This makes learning a chore instead of a passion. Also, many students aren’t good test takers and tests aren’t an appropriate instrument in determining students’ abilities and skills. On a different topic, poverty is the main source of a lacking education and steps need to be taken to help foster an active role in learning in poverty stricken children for it is one of the only ways they can escape their poor lives.
ReplyDeleteI really like how the standardized tests are to judge the schools and not the students because that way there is not as much pressure. That being said, what would happen if someone didn't try and brought the average down.
DeleteIn any way that our country could approach educational standards, it would pan out to be robotizing. Personally, the question of educational standards has always been one that comes along with mixed perspectives. Standards that are set by the national government seemingly come along with several benefits including an equally distributed source of knowledge and a better chance at equal opportunity. Although I think children should have an endless source of knowledge instead of limited criteria, the next best option would give students a chance to grow just as much as the next student in their country by having the federal government set minimum standards. However, state and local governments should also be given the ability to elaborate on these minimum standards, but not in the sense that they would be given more resources to fund additional programs (this way of systeming would give certain regions unfair advantages, although unfair advantages are always inevitable.)
ReplyDeleteThere will never be a creation of ideal standards on any local, state, or federal level. But creating the standards nationally makes the required knowledge less susceptible to being deteriorated by a bias. For instance, this past year I recall hearing about an educational reform meeting on the local level in a town in Texas. The board in the county proceeded to create standards based on a comment made by a woman who stated that a specific standard should not be included because she had not known of this particular piece of knowledge, when in retrospect this is the sole reason why it should be included in the standards. This occurrence was able to happen because of the idea of standards in this local government was not taken as seriously as it should’ve been. Yet, even so, it is still extremely difficult to place significant decision making like educational standards in any one individual’s or group’s sole power. The idea of standardized national testing appears to be a great idea; however is often potentially harming to the individual. Any sort of broad or national assessment will encourage favoritism and overall be debasing.
I feel that education standards need to be held constant throughout the nation. It is not fair to expect different things from students depending on where they live. When this happens, it is as if the government is saying that students from a certain region are more intelligent or more capable than students from another region. Because of this, standards should be set at a national level as opposed to at the state level. Standardized tests play an important role in seeing how effective the current education standards are as well distinguishing elite students from the rest of the pack. If students are consistently doing very poor or very well on the tests, then the standards can be adjusted accordingly.
ReplyDeleteHas any body else seen those commercials that show America as the 24th (or something like that) nation in the world in mathematics? Perhaps higher national standards and even a consistent curriculum could be the first step towards getting higher on that list.
While I do see where you are coming from, I disagree with what you said about standardized testing separating the elite from the rest of the pack. There are many students who are very knowledgeable on a subject, that simply don't test well. Mean while, other students who are seen as "elite" or more knowledgeable, are just good guessers. What then?
DeleteI see your point Taylor, however I did not mean that standardized tests are the only way to distinguish intelligence and ability. I believe that a combination of both testing and GPA will be suitable in doing so.
DeleteI completely agree. I believe that the federal government should set minimum standards of education throughout the country. However, state and local governments should also be given the ability to expand on these minimum standards. With that in mind it makes it easier on kids, especially if they move. When they move, they'll be able to start school again close to where they left off. Of course, it won't be exact everywhere
DeleteWhile standardized tests have a purpose, I feel as though far too much is put on the line with them. There are many students, brilliant students even, who just don't test well. There are others who don't know as much, but are just really good guessers. There has to be another way to show the academic success of individual students. Valuable class time is taken up in preparation for these tests, that could be spent furthering their knowledge. As for the standards, I believe that at a national level, or even a state level, there is no way to know where students in a city or community are capable of being education wise. The needs of every community are different. Some may be less funded, struggling with the bare minimum, while others might have everything a student dreams of to help them succeed. I do think, however, that without some set standards, there wouldn't be that continuos push to better our education systems. We as a nation, need to find a balance, that lets standards be set locally, while still having something to strive towards.
ReplyDeleteI agree that tests like AIMS don't reflect an accurate view of how individual students are doing. However, I think that other tests like the SAT are important and should be given more attention. You make the point that there is no way to tell how much certain communities can accomplish academically. That may be true now, because there are different educational standards everywhere so some schools may have "everything a student dreams of" while some are "struggling with the bare minimum." I think that if standards were set at a national level this would change, so all schools would be able to offer the very best to their students.
DeleteI think that the national government should have more power in regulating the educational standards of our country than it currently holds. Our states are so widely spaced on the educational scale and the reason for this shouldn't not be because of poverty. If students in Arizona can not compete with the students receiving education in Vermont simply because funding is going towards standardized testing versus math, science and language programs, how can we expect the scores on these tests to match up when the 23 percent of the students in this country can not even afford the books to be able to learn the material they are being tested on. The standards in our states are very different regarding everything from scheduling (block schedules, and more time to work on curriculum) to special programs offered. As much as standardized testing is heavy on our education budget, to cut these completely would be harmful to students who could receive scholarships based on their scores. I do not think cutting the funding of standardized testing is the simple solution to our problem, however prioritizing funding towards books, supplies and resources to less fortunate schools to give them an equal upper hand in taking these tests instead of simply averaging out our national scores.
ReplyDeleteI think that school standards should be set at the national level and should be the same in every state because we operate in a global economy. To train students to be workers relevent to only one community is counterproductive. With different standards in each state, there is no way to ensure that students turn out to be relevent in the global economy or that the country will be able to compete on a global scale. Further failure to implement a set of national standards only serves to widen the gap in our own country between states that have a lousy track record for educational achievement and states that have high achievement and continue surging forward. America was founded on the premise that all people have equal access to success. Deficiency to employ national standards fails to deliver on the essential promise of America.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, standardized tests do have a place in education, but they too should be determined on the national level. As Henry Seton says in his letter to the editor in "The New York Times," the tests help determine what supports are needed for students, be they tutoring, literacy interventions, etc. However, allowing each state to write its own test results in states with poor educational records writing tests that are not up to snuff in order to make it look as though their educational systems are not that bad. For instance, I think the AIMS test should be dissolved. However, the national tests, such as AP, SAT, and ACT, give reliable, realistic information about the placements of students, and they must be well-written as they are so widely in use.
I completely agree with you that state tests such as AIMS, STAR (California) and TAKS (Texas), should no longer be funded. National tests such as the ACT or SAT should be put in their place. Instead of being offered on the weekends, and costing upwards of $100, they should be mandatory and taken in school in replace of the State tests.
DeleteAgreed, National tests seem like a far better idea than the State tests implemented today.
DeleteI absolutely agree on your take on standardized testing. The idea of standardized testing is to remove subjective factors from assessment. As a result, standardized tests provide several advantages to admissions committees and others who need to evaluate and compare the people who take these tests. The standardization of these tests ensures that test-takers are being measured objectively on the same material.
DeleteThe national government should be far more invested into our education. The enormous discrepancies between states such as Connecticut and Arizona in terms of education of it's youth is so disparate that if placed against each other for jobs, college scholarships/entrance, or other such things, that the student from Arizona is going to be placed far under the student from Connecticut in terms of usefulness or even intelligence. If the government were to step into the role of educators and take this power away from individual states, there would be a far more equal field among students across the country, providing more job opportunities and better education for the students of what were prior underprivileged states.
ReplyDeleteStandardized tests should also be instituted on national levels instead of state levels. If tests were only implemented on state levels such as the AIMS, we would only see averages and scores among the states students.
I like that you brought up the discrepancies between Arizona and Connecticut as an example. I think that many people would relate to this since all the people i know are worrying about scholarships and future career opportunities. It is unfair that we the people from AZ are faced with less opportunities because of our state's standards. There should be a national education standard to uphold and follow. But i do believe the state's should have a say in their educational standards-- only if they build upon the nation's standards and not fall behind them.
DeleteI like what you say, Tammy, about creating the standards at a national level, but still allowing the states to have some say in the matter. Perhaps the national government decides what needs to be learned, but the states can decide how to go about teaching the information.
DeleteThe part about standardized tests makes a lot of sense to be implemented into how our country does education. Students on a national scale should all be tested on the same standards so that there is more accurate data from state to state on how students perform. That way students from state to sate are not being taught anything more or less than their peers in other states.
DeleteIn response to the second portion of the prompt, those standardized tests ought to play a huge roll in only one are, college entrance. Those tests are necessary to provide a level field for all students vying for scholarships and college acceptance. They ought not, however, be necessary for high school graduation, as the AIMS is now. If a student can pass all their required classes, however poorly, they deserve a high school diploma. The AIMS test doesn't drive students to learn after all, it drives them to memorize the answers. It doesn't teach them to think critically, or logically.
ReplyDeleteA nationally accepted curriculum would be a benefit to student learning, especially for children constantly moving around the country. However, there shouldn't be required testing levels or other such standards, for nothing can account for demographic differences. For Connecticut contains a lot fewer immigrants whose primary language is something other than English. Scores in Arizona may always be lower because of this language barrier. Also, most funding for education is done through state level taxes, which fall through in elections year after year in Arizona, will keep AZ behind Connecticut. Funding is unequal depending on the desire of the local (state) residents to pay taxes for that education. And true to the American spirit of government by the people, this is how it ought to stay. The standard curriculum developed for the nation ought to be done by a board of educational specialists, gathered by the national government, paid by the national government, but not mandated by law, unless explicitly voted on by the entire USA. Or you are forcing upon the states and the cities therein a new financial burden unrequested by the people. Until it is voted on by the entire national body, it ought not be more than a strong recommendation. But, a national curriculum ought to be developed.
There should be a general set of education standards that the national government should uphold which includes the dreaded SAT and ACT tests. Every state in the US will be able to share similarities in their standards, making it easier for the students of America to improve their education. This provides a great foundation for states to build upon these standards to better their own students' academic skills. I think that the current 4 year intervals of state assessment (AIMS) should be moved up to every 2 years. By testing every 2 years instead of 4, we are able to keep up with the speed in which these students are improving every year. The more current tests scores can also enable teachers to use them as resources in which to help their students reach their full academic potential. Now that we have established that each state will have similar educational standards to follow, this brings up another question: What about the local communities in each state? Do they have a say? I believe that since some parts of each state are sometimes at a disadvantage and these situations are inevitable, the communities/regions should work towards their own goals but stick with the education guild lines that the country and state has provided for them. A poor community will not be able to reach the same level as more privileged communities in the area because of their lack of materials such as up-to-date computers and books. By allowing them to set their own goals, they won't feel discouraged when not reaching someone else's (more higher) goal. Slowly and steadily, our nation's education will improve.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in my answer above, standardized tests like the SAT, ACT, and AIMS are a great way to judge one's academic skills. As for the AP tests, its great that they are optional for students to take. These tests and their accompanying classes are good in improving student's academic skills--- albeit if they're up to the challenge. With that a being said, AP tests shouldn't have a greater role in the education system than the AIMS and SAT/ACT. Our goal is to improve our education as a whole and the main focus will be on getting everybody on their same wave length. Not everyone is cut out for the AP world, but everybody will be able to reach these education standards.
My experiences and personal beliefs lead me to believe that the following should be the role of the government in setting educational standards:
ReplyDeletesetting standards for our students, funding education programs, making sure schools are held accountable for providing a quality education, and researching the best practices in education. I believe that the federal government should set minimum standards of education throughout the country. However, state and local governments should also be given the ability to expand on these minimum standards. With that in mind it makes it easier on kids, especially if they move. When they move, they'll be able to start school again close to where they left off. Of course, it won't be exact everywhere, but you get the concept. But in the end, standards should be same throughout all the states.
I believe standardized tests are important. The idea of standardized testing is to remove subjective factors from assessment. As a result, standardized tests provide several advantages to admissions committees and others who need to evaluate and compare the people who take these tests. The standardization of these tests ensures that test-takers are being measured objectively on the same material. The grading is standardized, so test scores are the same no matter who or what is scoring them. This removes any bias that might stem from the scorer. On the other hand, tests that use subjective grading might yield scores that vary widely depending on who is scoring them.
Like AP tests, depending on who is scoring your test basically determines the outcome despite grading on a tight rubric. An essay score can vary from scorer to scorer. Sometimes you could end up with a score that doesn't reflect your strengths.
DeleteThe role of the government in setting educational standards should be set at not only a national level, but a state level as well. I believe that the bar for education in some states (such as Arizona) is set far too low. I believe the federal government should raise the standards of education throughout the country by increasing funding programs and doing everything in their power to make sure children are receiving the top notch education they deserve. It's clear that certain states aren't going to blossom overnight and reach these high standards right away, but with proper federal government funding and the state and local governments focusing on the needs of community and what is key in prospering in the field of education, I believe it is possible. From personal experience, I know that with proper funding you truly do receive a better education. In the third grade I was enrolled into a very prestigious private school. The transition from public to private school was incredible and the school I now attended was on a much higher level than I was and it was because they're funds were far greater than that of my previous public school. The funds allowed me to receive a high quality education.
ReplyDeleteI believe standardized tests such as the AIMS, SAT, and ACT test are important because they help to show where certain students are academically. I believe that the scores of these tests can also help us see which areas of the country need help the most. By targeting troubled areas the government can open doors to on how to not only prepare for these tests, but increase educational standards. AP tests help broaden excelling children's educational horizons and enhance their learning.
Computer was freezing and not sending the response through so it sent through 6 minutes late.
Delete