What then happens to the students who used to attend these schools? These students have to go to another school that has room for them within their district. The majority of schools that are failing are in underserved areas where children need the most amount of support (think Detroit, Chicago and New York City). Switching schools for a year does not seem like it will actually help any of these students - even if the students were actually doing well.
Now, what happens when the school that the students are transferred to closes the following year because it failed to meet the NCLB guidelines as well? Are students bouncing from school to school? This is a problem that Chicago Public School parents are protesting. According to an article in the NYTimes, parents are upset that the process of closing schools is not more transparent and there is not proof that the disruptions are actually helping their children.
Personally, I do not understand how this process helps the students. Not only is it disruptive to the students' education, but I do not see how schools can realistically revamp themselves in a year during the time they are closed. If it were that easy, why not just get rid of the low performing teachers and hire new ones and keep the schools open?
The whole thing seems contrary to what NCLB is trying to achieve. Especially since students in these closing schools are predominately African American or Latino. The disruption will most likely negatively effect their test scores if not increase their chances of dropping out. I would love to see the data on the students that have been effected by these school closures. If anyone knows of a research study doing so, please send me the information.
No comments:
Post a Comment