The federal has tried various ways to make education better, the main one being that centralized reforms taken by different administrations. Although the changes have been supported by many people as well as other opposing, many people are losing confidence in them, and they think that they are of no good to the education system. According to Diane Ravitch, (2007), the reforms were meant to end the bureaucracy, ensure that poor children are included, empowering the poor parents, and make the poor children escape the failing schools. They were also meant to close the achievement gap that had been recorded for a long time between the poor and the rich. She adds that this seems to make sense, but she had lost faith in it. The purpose of the essay is to s set of support centralized national standards for education at primary and secondary level using Ravitchs article.
The Ravitch worked with the federal government in the Department of the education, and lead on issues touching the curriculum and standard since she believed that it was a bipartisan issue. Although the federal government is barred by the law to impose any curriculum or standards on states or school districts, they used a mechanism of small allotment of discretionary funds to make the grant, which would make the educators develop a voluntary national standards. (Ravitch 306). The reforms were to be done in all the academic subject. The move to make the standards voluntary was not violating the legal prohibition against the imposition of the curriculum of state and district schools. She believed that the reforms would be paramount to the state schools as well as improving the education situation in the country.
One of the benefits is the issue of choice of the schools for the poor children. Under the reforms, the children were allowed to go to schools of their choice just as the other kids in the well-endowed private schools. The changes are critical because it will be necessary that society spends public dollars to promote school choice. Without the reforms, it will be hard to judge whether the students are learning or not because they are under different systems. The school choice would be substantial because it would let the state dollar follow the poor students to their schools of choice. The standards allow the students in the public schools that are not performing to take their federal funds to another public school, or at sometimes in private schools. They are critical because they give the poor students opportunity to learn at the in any place of choice. The national standards will give the poor children opportunity same as that of children of well affluent families. The wealthy families can take their children to the schools of by enrolling them in the neighboring schools of choice, and the same should be extended to the poor children via the national standards in education (Ravitch 306). As a result, they will reduce the gap achievement gap between the poor and the rich
Again the national standards would introduce different managerial and structural changes, which will be a choice, merit pay, and accountability in the public schools. The changes would make it possible to evaluate the performance of teacher against set standards (Ravitch 307). It is a fundamental principle in the business, and it would make the management of the school similar to that of business to increase the performance. As a result, schools that fail to perform will be closed in the same way corporations do. The reforms would align the public education with modern enterprise practices that are commonly used in the high-performance organizations. The improvements would make the education to change from the industrial to post-industrial age. The centralization of the public will improve the quality of the education. They will reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. However, the critics of the reforms argue that the changes will not be valid in the public schools, and it will be hard to implement.
They claim that the national standards of the public schools were not ideal as they had already started to percolate. The public schools became obsolete, as result of the control by the national schools. Thus they were burdened by the bureaucracy (Ravitch 310). The public schools claimed that the new reformers were not active because they encouraged monopoly in the schools. The reforms were directed to the adults and the workers in the public education system and not the learners who ought to be the primary beneficiaries of the changes. As a result, differences between the Democrats and the Republican relating to the public education arose. The opposition saw an opportunity to reinvent the government, and the Republicans started working to weaken the unions, which they believed was stumbling block toward their achievement in the reforms. Some of the improvements made by the democratic. Money of the recommendations given includes cutting jobs, privatizing, and implementing and performance agreements (Ravitch 310). These actions aimed at reducing the government control in the public schools.
The continue to argue that instead of the establishment of national standards by the federal government, the bipartisan appeal was that the schools should be managed by someone who is ready supply good schools free of government control. They claimed that the reform of avoiding the national reforms and come up free direct government would make the schools innovative as well as be ensuring they are only absorbing the best teachers (Ravitch 310). As a result, the system would get rid of the underperforming and incompetent teachers. However, the national standards would be substantial because it would add value to students who would be treated like customers. The performance would solely judge the performance of the teachers. It would increase in the private schools at the same closing the bad schools because of the forces of demand. The market forces in the function would unleash the innovation and efficiency in the schools. Finally, the reforms of the national standards in the education would let thousands of flower bloom.
In conclusion, although the federal standards changes on the public schools are necessary, it has a different some weaknesses. Direct control of the schools was ineffective in the schools because it would benefit the workers of the public schools and the school going children. It will cause more harm to the because it leads to the avoidance of the public school in the poor neighborhoods. Therefore, to improve our schools, it is important to focus on the essential of the education rather that creation of standard national reforms. Instead, we should concentrate on making the curriculum in schools strong, coherent, and explicit to provide the children with more opportunities to learn and engage in different activities making learning livelier.
Ravitch, Diane. What I Learned About School Reform. 2007. Print.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Research Methodology
- Effective Learning of the Severely Disabled Students
- Inequality in Education in the United States
- Why Abolishment of Examinations in Schools is Necessary
- How Writing Can Be Used to Deepen Understanding - Essay Example
- Motorcycle Man
- Personal Essay Example - Why I'm Not a Believer
- The Foreign Policies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush
- Personal Request of a Better Grade
- Research Paper on Academic Excellence of the African Americans Studying in the USA
- Reflect on the Interests, Experiences, and Pursuits
- Personal Essay: The Challenge of the Quarter System in College
- Application Letter for Nursing Course. Example
- Articles Review on the Importance of Work Experience
- Justification for Formation of Counseling Group to Assist Students Struggling with Alcoholism