Jonathan Kozol, a teacher and educational activist, wrote the excerpt Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid. In this excerpt, he depicts the effects of socioeconomic inequality in the educational system. Kozol analysis suggests that students from a higher socioeconomic class are more likely to receive a better education. Whereas, student, from low-income families, will be denied this opportunity and will potentially be predetermined to fail in the education system. This is harmful because it means that low-income students will continue to be suppressed by the unfair socioeconomic standards of the educational system.
Kozol suggests that since toddler years, low-income students start to fall behind in the educational …show more content…
These high stake tests are taken in third grade and help determine if the student can continue into the next grade. As Kozol explains, students with a higher position in the socioeconomic scale tend to have higher scores than low-income students. He writes, “Children who have been in programs like those offered by the “Baby Ivies” since the age of two, by now, received the benefits of six years of education nearly twice as many as the children who have been denied these opportunities”(Kozol 616) Kozol explains that the scores are related to the students basic preparation therefore it is determined by resources that that the student has. Ultimately, more resources the student has then the more likely the student is to excel on their …show more content…
Alain Jehlen, a writer and editor for National Education Association, analyses the No Child Left Behind Act in her article, NCLB: Is It Working?: The Scientifically Based Answer. According to Jehlen, the No Child Left Behind statistics are wrong because analyst use a certain technique called Campbell’s Law to show the drastic improvement in low-income students’ test scores. Jehlen describes that with Campbell’s Law, “Scores always rise when you put high stakes on a particular test, whether or not students actually know more.” (NEA) Jehlen analyses that when NEA make the same tests there was a huge gap between the low-income students and the wealthy students. Like Jehlen states, this only means that No Child Left behind was not
Kozol suggests that since toddler years, low-income students start to fall behind in the educational …show more content…
These high stake tests are taken in third grade and help determine if the student can continue into the next grade. As Kozol explains, students with a higher position in the socioeconomic scale tend to have higher scores than low-income students. He writes, “Children who have been in programs like those offered by the “Baby Ivies” since the age of two, by now, received the benefits of six years of education nearly twice as many as the children who have been denied these opportunities”(Kozol 616) Kozol explains that the scores are related to the students basic preparation therefore it is determined by resources that that the student has. Ultimately, more resources the student has then the more likely the student is to excel on their …show more content…
Alain Jehlen, a writer and editor for National Education Association, analyses the No Child Left Behind Act in her article, NCLB: Is It Working?: The Scientifically Based Answer. According to Jehlen, the No Child Left Behind statistics are wrong because analyst use a certain technique called Campbell’s Law to show the drastic improvement in low-income students’ test scores. Jehlen describes that with Campbell’s Law, “Scores always rise when you put high stakes on a particular test, whether or not students actually know more.” (NEA) Jehlen analyses that when NEA make the same tests there was a huge gap between the low-income students and the wealthy students. Like Jehlen states, this only means that No Child Left behind was not