posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:32 PM
Ok I am stunned into knumbness by this! Its OUTRAGOUS! I mean seriously this is showing that this TEST is a test of ecconomic class, and NOT
education..................stock up more stupid points for Mr. Bush on this one......
See the article below:
NO CHILD'S BEHIND LEFT: THE TEST
By Greg Palast
New York -- Today and tomorrow every 8-year-old in the state of New York
will take a test. It's part of George Bush's No Child Left Behind program.
The losers will be left behind to repeat the third grade.
Try it yourself. This is from the state's actual practice test. Ready,
"The year 1999 was a big one for the Williams sisters. In February, Serena
won her first pro singles championship. In March, the sisters met for the
first time in a tournament final. Venus won. And at doubles tennis, the
Williams girls could not seem to lose that year."
And here's one of the four questions:
"The story says that in 1999, the sisters could not seem to lose at doubles
tennis. This probably means when they played
"A two matches in one day
"B against each other
"C with two balls at once
"D as partners"
OK, class, do you know the answer? (By the way, I didn't cheat: there's
nothing else about "doubles" in the text.)
My kids go to a New York City school in which more than half the students
live below the poverty line. There is no tennis court.
There are no tennis courts in the elementary schools of Bed-Stuy or East
Harlem. But out in the Hamptons, every school has a tennis court. In Forest
Hills, Westchester and Long Island's North Shore, the schools have nearly as
many tennis courts as the school kids have live-in maids.
Now, you tell me, class, which kids are best prepared to answer the question
about "doubles tennis"? The 8-year-olds in Harlem who've never played a set
of doubles or the kids whose mommies disappear for two hours every Wednesday
with Enrique the tennis pro?
Is this test a measure of "reading comprehension" -- or a measure of wealth
If you have any doubts about what the test is measuring, look at the next
question, based on another part of the text, which reads (and I could not
make this up):
"Most young tennis stars learn the game from coaches at private clubs. In
this sentence, a club is probably a
"F baseball bat
"G tennis racquet
"H tennis court
"J country club"
Helpfully, for the kids in our 'hood, it explains that a "country club" is
a, "place where people meet." Yes, but WHICH people?
President Bush told us, "By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, we are
regularly testing every child and making sure they have better options when
schools are not performing."
But there are no "better options." In the delicious double-speak of class
war, when the tests have winnowed out the chaff and kids stamped failed, No
Child Left results in that child being left behind in the same grade to
repeat the failure another year.
I can't say that Mr. Bush doesn't offer better options to the kids
stamped failed. Under No Child Left, if enough kids flunk the tests,
their school is marked a failure and its students win the right, under the
law, to transfer to any successful school in their district. You can't
provide more opportunity than that. But they don't provide it, the law
promises it, without a single penny to make it happen. In New York in 2004,
a third of a million students earned the right to transfer to better schools
-- in which there were only 8,000 places open.
New York is typical. Nationwide, only one out of two-hundred students
eligible to transfer manage to do it. Well, there's always the Army.
(That option did not go unnoticed: No Child has a special provision
requiring schools to open their doors to military recruiters.)
Hint: When de-coding politicians' babble, to get to the real agenda, don't
read their lips, read their budgets. And in his last budget, our President
couldn't spare one thin dime for education, not ten cents. Mr. Big Spender
provided for a derisory 8.4 cents on the dollar of the cost of primary and
secondary schools. Congress appropriated a half penny of the nation's income
-- just one-half of one-percent of America's twelve trillion dollar GDP --
for primary and secondary education.
President Bush actually requested less. While Congress succeeded in prying
out an itty-bitty increase in voted funding, that doesn't mean the extra
cash actually gets to the students. Fifteen states have sued the federal
government on the grounds that the cost of new testing imposed on schools,
$3.9 billion, eats up the entire new funding budgeted for No Child Left.
There are no "better options" for failing children, but there are better
uses for them. The President ordered testing and more testing to hunt down,
identify and target millions of children too expensive, too heavy a burden,
No Child Left offers no options for those with the test-score mark of Cain
-- no opportunities, no hope, no plan, no funding. Rather, it is the new
social Darwinism, educational eugenics: identify the nation's loser-class
early on. Trap them then train them cheap.
Someone has to care for the privileged. No society can have winners without
lots and lots of losers. And so we have No Child Left Behind -- to produce
the new worker drones that will clean the toilets at the Yale Alumni Club,
punch the cash registers color-coded for illiterates, and pamper the
winner-class on the higher floors of the new economic order.
Class war dismissed.
See a clip of the actual practice test at www.GregPalast.com
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy. Read his investigative reports at
[edit on 13-1-2006 by theRiverGoddess]