Materiał Partnera
Po zatwierdzeniu ustawy No Child Left Behind Act powszechne stało się obarczaniem winą szkoły. Po wejściu w życie Race to the Top wina zaczęła spadać na nauczycieli. Odruchowym rozwiązaniem problemu „podupadających szkół” stało się zwalnianie pedagogów i zamykanie placówek oświatowych.
Stany zaczęły więc przekazywać administrowanie „podupadającymi szkołami” prywatnym korporacjom szkół czarterowych lub umieszczać je pod zarządem burmistrza. Żadne rozwiązanie nie okazało się sukcesem.
Przez ponad 20 lat słabo funkcjonujące dystrykty szkolne w stanie New Jersey znajdowały się pod kontrolą stanu i mimo tego nie osiągnęły wysokiego poziomu. Prywatnym szkołom czarterowym nie wiedzie się wcale lepiej niż publicznym, chyba że ze statystyk wykluczą wyniki testów najsłabszych uczniów. Burmistrzowska kontrola nad szkołami w Cleveland, Detroit i Chicago również nie przyniosła pożądanych rezultatów.
Dzisiaj każda szkoła legitymująca się niskimi wynikami testów określana jest mianem „podupadającej placówki” bez szukania przyczyn niskiego poziomu nauczania.
Władze szkolne powinny dążyć do poprawy wyników nauczania zamiast myśleć o zamykaniu szkoły czy jej prywatyzacji kosztem podatników. Przeważnie „podupadające szkoły” to placówki, gdzie brakuje personelu i środków, by spełniać potrzeby uczniów. Zanim szkoła uzyska stygmat „podupadającej” kuratoria powinny ustalić, jaki procent uczniów stanowią nowi imigranci potrzebujący pomocy w nauce języka angielskiego, ilu uczniów rozpoczyna naukę na poziomie niższym niż rówieśnicy, ilu jest niepełnosprawnych i potrzebuje więcej czasu na naukę i wreszcie, jakimi środkami szkoła dysponuje?
Dogłębna analiza sytuacji „podupadających szkół” zwykle ujawnia, że nie ma takich placóek, są jedynie szkoły potrzebujące dodatkowej pomocy, pozalekcyjnych zajęć, mniej liczebnych klas, pracowników opieki społecznej, doradców pedagogicznych, psychologów i większego personelu.
Czas zaprzestać zrzucania winy na ludzi pracujących w słabych szkołach, a zacząć im pomagać, dostarczając potrzebnych narzędzi i rzeczywiście popierając uczniów w potrzebie.
Steve H. Tokarski, wydawca
***
The Failing School Concept
The term “failing school” has become popular usage only since the late 1990’s. The accountability movement created the idea of a “failing school.” Accountability has taken to mean that if students have low standardized test scores, some one must be blamed.
With passage of No Child Left Behind Act, it became conventional wisdom to blame the school. Then with Race to the Top, the blame shifted to the teachers. The typical knee jerk solution to “failing school” has been to fire the educational staff and to close the school.
So what has occurred is for the state to take over administration of the “failing school” give it over to a private charter school corporation, or place the school under mayoral control. The fact remains that none of these options have been successful.
Low-performing school districts in the State of New Jersey have been under state control for over twenty years without turning them into high-performing districts. Private charter schools typically have done no better than public schools, except when they statistically exclude low-scoring students. Mayoral control in Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago have also been unsuccessful.
Today any school with low test sco- res is labeled a “failing school” without any inquiry into the circumstances, for that school’s low test scores.
Responsible officials should act to improve the school instead of closing the school or privatizing it at additional expense to the taxpayers. Most of the time what is called a “failing school” is a school that lacks the personnel and resources to meet the needs of its students. In order to judge a “failing school” officials need to determine what proportion of the students are new immigrants that need help learning English; what proportion enter the school behind their grade level; what proportion have disabilities and need more time to learn, and what resources are available to the school?
An in-depth analysis of these “failing schools’ usually reveal that they are not a failing school, but are schools that enroll a high proportion of students who need extra help, extra tutoring, smaller classes, social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists, and a variety of other interventions.
It is time to stop blaming the people who work in troubled schools and start helping them by providing the necessary tools and support their students need.
With passage of No Child Left Behind Act, it became conventional wisdom to blame the school. Then with Race to the Top, the blame shifted to the teachers. The typical knee jerk solution to “failing school” has been to fire the educational staff and to close the school.
So what has occurred is for the state to take over administration of the “failing school” give it over to a private charter school corporation, or place the school under mayoral control. The fact remains that none of these options have been successful.
Low-performing school districts in the State of New Jersey have been under state control for over twenty years without turning them into high-performing districts. Private charter schools typically have done no better than public schools, except when they statistically exclude low-scoring students. Mayoral control in Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago have also been unsuccessful.
Today any school with low test sco- res is labeled a “failing school” without any inquiry into the circumstances, for that school’s low test scores.
Responsible officials should act to improve the school instead of closing the school or privatizing it at additional expense to the taxpayers. Most of the time what is called a “failing school” is a school that lacks the personnel and resources to meet the needs of its students. In order to judge a “failing school” officials need to determine what proportion of the students are new immigrants that need help learning English; what proportion enter the school behind their grade level; what proportion have disabilities and need more time to learn, and what resources are available to the school?
An in-depth analysis of these “failing schools’ usually reveal that they are not a failing school, but are schools that enroll a high proportion of students who need extra help, extra tutoring, smaller classes, social workers, guidance counselors, psychologists, and a variety of other interventions.
It is time to stop blaming the people who work in troubled schools and start helping them by providing the necessary tools and support their students need.
Steve H. Tokarski, Publisher
