English+Portfolio

Informative

1593 words

 All Children Left Behind Nik Jameson Mrs. Gregorio Accelerated English 10 11-7-08

 As the world continues to become more advanced, the United States of America enters into an era in which our students are falling off-pace, and more importantly other countries are catching up to us. In this time of dire need we are turning to a single law and standardized testing to save us. But really, this law, The No Child Left Behind Act, along with the emphasis that is put on standardized testing is ruining the education of the present day United States of America.  The No Child Left Behind Act is a law that aims to improve primary and secondary education. The law was passed in 2001 by George W. Bush. Its main goal is to make sure that students' achievement is progressing each year, until the year 2014, when all students must be one-hundred percent efficient in mathematics and reading (Caillier). To achieve this goal, the Act requires that states institute a statewide accountability system to test all students. This system, by way of standardized testing, annually tests students on difficult mathematics and reading standards. The results of the tests have to be separated by poverty, race, disability, ethnicity, and limited English language proficiency to be sure that no child is left behind (“Archived Summary”). The Act also separates students into three categories: elementary- grades three through five; middle school-- grades six through nine; and high school-- grades ten through twelve (Caillier). Based on the tests, the students and schools who do not meet the Act's goals will be subject to improvement courses. These courses are used to get the certain failing schools and students back on target so that they can meet the Act's goals.  The No Child Left Behind Act also aims for increasing schools' accountability, and intends to give more choices to parents. This means that if a school does not attain its one-hundred percent proficiency goal, it must give all of its students the opportunity to get a better education at a different school (“Archived Summary”).  Although the philosophy of the No Child Left Behind Act is a good one-- because it creates a system of accountability that schools are sorely lacking- it is more damaging than beneficial. This is because it undermines the teachers and students of our public schools. English language learners have been hit the hardest by the No Child Left Behind Act. Even though they may come to the United States with no understanding or knowledge of the English language, they are still evaluated the same way everyone else is. In states such as Indiana, English language learners can be tested only a week after they arrive in American schools. Many other states test English learners after only one year of taking the language (Arce). Minorities and English learners being hurt by the Act leads to them having an easier curriculum (because they are put in remedial classes), in which case they will fall farther and farther behind their peers. White middle to upper class children, on the other hand, have a better chance to be placed in advanced and gifted classes, when they might not necessarily meet the requirements (“How Standardized Testing”).  Teachers, just like students, are being affected in a negative manner because of the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers are being forced to teach to the standardized tests, therefore losing their “right to teach.” Because of this many teachers are quitting their jobs-- even some potential teachers are electing not to enter the field of teaching-- and many more, along with regular citizens, are opposing the Act (Blanchard). Among the groups opposing are, Parents for Public Schools, and San Francisco's Teachers for Social Justice (Arce).  The problem with the No Child Left Behind Act isn't only that it is damaging to our schools. The act clearly is not working. Only two out of fifty states are on pace to meet their target proficiency levels, undoubtedly because it is impossible to make one-hundred percent of our nation's students proficient. Also, the federal government is not providing states with enough money to fund the No Child Left Behind Act. The federal government has to fund the addition of statewide testing mechanisms, the establishment of systems that grade schools, and make sure that every state has the resources to meet the the goal proficiency levels (which includes funding for failing schools). Because the government can't provide states with this money, the Act, on average, needs eight billion more dollars per year than it receives. Aside from not having enough money to fund the Act, proficiency changes from state-to-state, which means children are measured differently and unfairly based on their state of residence (Caillier).  One of, if not the most important facet to the No Child Left Behind Act is standardized testing, which in and of itself has a great number of problems. Standardized tests are multiple choice tests that are supposed to measure a student's ability to learn, think, and process information. But under the No Child Left Behind Act, the tests are the sole benchmark of students. Because it is the only way we grade our students, and because raising test scores is becoming the most important indicator of a school's improvement (when it really isn't), more and more teachers are teaching towards the test, and schools are beginning to narrow, or change their curriculum to fit the test. Due to this students only memorize useless facts and test-taking skills, and less time developing real learning skills.  Standardized tests are also unfair to our students. Using one test on which to base their entire learning experience is unrealistic and downright unfair. Multiple-choice tests don't measure a student's ability to think. Instead they test a student's ability to answer a superficial question. When students take a multiple-choice test, they don't have to write, do real math, or understand scientific methods. Another issue with standardized testing is that it does not give teachers a clear understanding of what to do with their students. Most of the time these tests don't show how a student learns or thinks, and they, without a doubt, do not measure the actual learning and thinking skills a student has when put in a real-life situation (“Whats Wrong”).  There are a great number of things that we, as a nation, can do to help the No Child Left Behind Act succeed, aside from ridding ourselves of it. Due to the fact that the Act has a good base to build on, we do not necessarily have to destroy it, even though that may be the best thing to do. Mark Blanchard, principal of Gettysburg Area High School says, “The No Child Left Behind Act has a good philosophy, because it creates a system of accountability that is sorely lacking, but it will never achieve its goal of one-hundred percent efficiency.” Basically we need to change the way we measure a school's and a student's success.  The United States is the only nation that solely uses the No Child Left Behind Act and standardized testing to evaluate its schools (we have other activities to assess students but only standardized testing is used to evaluate schools). Other nations use projects, essays, and activities (real work) to asses their students. Because of this, many of these other nations are performing better on real tests, and are catching up to and even surpassing the United States educationally. In addition, standardized tests do not help teachers understand their students, or show how a student learns. Better tests, such as the ones that many other nations are using, could present teachers with a better understanding of their students. These more sophisticated ways to evaluate students include, teacher assessment, documentation of student work, and performance-based assessment. Improving our means of evaluating our nation's students would provide teachers and parents with a more useful and a better overall understanding of the present-day youth (“Whats Wrong”). <span style="color: rgb(128, 128, 128);"> When president-elect Barack Obama takes office in January of 2009, one major issue that he will have to deal with is the No Child Left Behind Act. Along with the country, the No Child Left Behind Act is also in dire need of change. While Obama and the federal government will have the largest influence on the Act's reformation, we as a nation, and as a society, have to become involved. The Act must be stopped and/or changed. We have to find a superior way to make the advantaged (white middle to upper classes) as well as the disadvantaged (minorities and economically disadvantaged) have equal opportunities (instead of the difficulties that many have to face with the No Child Left Behind Act today). The United States needs to lessen the emphasis on standardized tests as well. There cannot, and must not, be one single measurement of students' abilities to think, learn and process information. We must find alternate ways to test students (Arce). <span style="color: rgb(128, 128, 128);"> In summary, it is fair to say that the premise of the No Child Left Behind Act is a good one, but there is much work that needs to be done to perfect the actual goals of the Act. The act has instilled a sense of urgency, but its goals are all but unattainable. It is unfair to our schools, students, and teachers, to force them to try to do the impossible in meeting the goals of the Act, because they should not be punished for not meeting unreachable marks.

Narrative

497 words

Nik Jameson Narrative 10-28-08

There Will Always Be Tomorrow I believe that there are many proverbs that can be used to highlight experiences that I have had throughout my fourteen years of living. Out of all of these proverbs, I think that, the African proverb, “Even when there is no cock, day dawns” from Zululand, South Africa, best describes many of these moments. The proverb is one that can be used to get many people through tough times or times of hardship. This proverb means that there will always be a tomorrow, no matter what. It means that even if you have a horrible day, the sun will rise, and you will get a entirely new beginning. When I was in seventh grade, I had never played on an organized basketball team, but because I loved to play, I decided I would try-out for the middle school's team. The week of tryouts was an up and down week for me. Though I played well, at many times I made costly mistakes, that would hurt the team. When the day that the coaches made the decision of who to keep and who to cut, I was thinking positive. There were around thirty kids trying out and about fifteen would make the final roster. At the end of the final day of tryouts, the same day that the coaches would make their final decisions, every player received an envelope with a letter inside. This letter would tell us the results of who would and who wouldn't make the team. When I opened my letter, I knew I was on the borderline of making the team, but when I found out that I was not going to make the team, I was distraught. I vividly remember shutting myself up in my room, isolated from all humanity. I cried for days. Eventually I got over the fact that I didn't make the basketball team, and I went on with my life. I knew that the sun would continue to rise every day. I knew that everyday was a new day, and I was determined not to let being cut from a lousy basketball team, hurt my schoolwork or any other factor of my life, including my love for basketball. I kept playing basketball by myself, working on things that I knew I needed to improve. When the time to tryout for the eighth grade basketball team finally came around, I knew that it was a new day. I knew that this was my tomorrow. I tried extremely hard in practices. I would not let my past failures get in the way of my new day. After a long, tiring, and exhausting week of tryouts, I made the team. I was happy to make the team, but I was even more happy about the fact that I knew that there would be a tomorrow, and I didn't let my bad yesterday effect my hopes for an even better tomorrow.

Persuasive

569 words

Nik Jameson Accelerated English 10 12-15-08 Persuasive Essay

__Schools Should Allow Students to Possess Bottled Water__ Water is a common molecule that appears in three different states—in liquid form (as water), gaseous form (as water vapor), and in solid form (as ice). It covers over seventy percent of the Earth's surface in the form of saltwater oceans, glaciers, polar ice caps, rivers, and ponds. Water is also vital for the survival of all known life forms. And yet, as all of this is true, Gettysburg Area High School does not allow students to carry bottled water with them throughout the duration of the school day. I do not believe that it is the school's place to prohibit students from drinking bottled water. Children should, for many reasons, have the opportunity to take bottles of water with them from class to class during school. One reason that bottled water should allowed in schools is that the majority of the human body is made up of water (the exact percent depends on the size of the human being). Because of this, humans need to consume water throughout the entire day, not just before and after school. Not consuming the right amount of water during the day can lead to many harmful consequences (such as dehydration). Not being able to drink water during the day can also greatly affect the performance of children in schools. The most dangerous factor with schools banning bottled water is that it forces students to use water fountains. Water fountains, or drinking fountains, are a known health hazard. Drinking fountains can be especially bad at schools, where one can never be exactly sure of what the previous person did while at the fountain. On any given day at Gettysburg High School, a student could find anything from a wad of gum to drugs in a water fountain. If a student is smart enough to avoid drinking fountains, the only way that he or she can drink water during the day is at lunch. The problem is that it is not east to obtain water during lunch. To get a water at lunch in the Gettysburg schools, a student must pay an extra sixty-five cents (the elementary schools don't even offer water). While it costs extra money to buy water, milk comes free with a meal. This must be changed, especially due to the fact that most students drink chocolate milk, not healthy milk. Paying the extra money discourages kids from buying water, which means that they must go the full day without consuming one drop of water. If schools will not allow bottled water to be carried around by students, they must at least find a suitable way to let water come free with a meal. All in all I believe that schools, and Gettysburg Area High School in particular, would greatly benefit from allowing students to carry bottled water with them throughout the school day. It is known that schools are making an attempt to allow bottled water (for example Gettysburg High School had a trial period in the fall semester of 2007). But making an attempt is not enough. It is entirely unfair to prohibit students from having bottled water just because a few bad kids get out of line. We have to continue to try and completely allow water in schools and eventually all of the effort will pay off.