INTERNET EXERCISE Question 1: The social movement organization I chose is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Their internet address is www.drugfreeamerica.org Question 2: The organization seems to be a reform movement. Question 3: Their website is full of information that is for mainly parents and caregivers. The information is geared towards anti-drug use and appears to be attempting to influence teenager's attitudes about drug use. Each article is centered around drugs and many articles are about governmental policies, either on a federal level or on a state level. EXAM Question 1: Aunt Mary, it is true our family is going through changes. Only one individual family fits the model you call a real family. That is Brent and Alice. Brent makes a very healthy salary while Alice stays home with their daughter. Now, all the other individual families fall outside the model family. It doesnt mean something is wrong with us though. I am taking a Sociology class at UNC-Charlotte and we talked about this very subject. I had felt the same as you until I attended this class. I found out that the stable and harmonious family is basically a myth. There never was an age of the ideal family. It existed under different variables. Spouses leaving the home, children born out of wedlock and abuse has always existed. Now the divorce rate was lower but that does not mean that spouses were any happier. Strong religious beliefs prevented many divorces so many couples remained married and unhappy. Also, there were children raised by single parents or step-parents because many women died during childbirth which also kept divorce rates low. In 1950, about 60 percent of all U.S. households fit the model of a modern family or a real family, which is: male breadwinner, his wife the homemaker and their children. Since then the economic climate has changed and the struggle for womens equality heated up. The families that arose from these factors are called post-modern families. They include divorce households which included step-parents and step-children. It also includes families with adult children who leave and then return home. Most of the post-modern families include 2 wage earners. It is not uncommon to find a home with a single parent who is working to provide for one or more children. Today, one out of two marriages will end in divorce. The younger people who marry before they reach twenty are two to three times more likely to divorce. Also, males who receive a higher education are less likely to divorce. Poverty is also a factor in divorce. The lower amount of income a person earns reflects a greater likelihood that divorce will enter the picture. Now, lets take a look at our family. My aunts and uncles were families during the 1950s and fit that model of a modern family. Then as the economy changed so did the structure of the families. Each one of my aunts left children with Grandma and Grandpa and went to work. As each one of my cousins grew into adulthood and married, their social norms also changed. Out of nine cousins, 3 have been divorced; two of which have been divorced twice and are married for the third time. One cousin never got married. The other five cousins have been married only once and seem to be happy. But, like I said only one out of those five fits that picture of a modern family. The other four families have dual-earners and are more post-modern. Actually, only 7 percent of all households in the U.S. fit the image of the ideal or modern family. We, as a family that includes aunts and uncles, cousins and spouses, are not really far off that mark. That only shows that we are normal when compared to the rest of society. Question 2: When my husband and I were searching for a new home our childrens education was a major factor. Our oldest child was 4 years old at the time and we wanted to buy a home within a promising school district. Within 2 years, our sons school began taking a nose dive. In fact, it went from being the top elementary school in the county to next-to-last. My oldest child recently graduated from high school and his elementary school is just now beginning its rise back to the top. As a parent, I feel betrayed and I feel my children were discounted and branded because of the school they attended. I dont feel I am alone with these feelings. Other parents I have spoken with feel the same. In 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act is a comprehensive education reform package which tracks schools and has four basic principles: stronger accountability, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on effective teaching methods. What was originally designed as a tracking strategy for students and schools has been met with controversy and major problems. First, let me define tracking. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary does an exemplary job by defining the word track as: one of several curricula of study to which students are assigned according to their needs or levels of ability. The Act of 2001 is the most sweeping reform of schools and redefined the federal role in education to help improve the academic achievement of all students. However, it is apparent that the Act and tracking perpetuates the inequalities among students. Let us examine the 3 aspects that is involved with the Act: finances, curriculum and personnel. Our schools are funded primarily by property taxes. Federal taxes account for only about 7 percent of funding for public schools. This creates a disparity among schools which can be seen state to state, county to county and district to district. For example, let us take the State of Texas. In the most affluent districts, the school systems invest as much as $40,500 per student. In the worst poverty stricken districts, the school systems invest only $2,500 per student. That is a difference of $38,000 per child. As I said before, one of the four basic principles of the Act of 2001 was to increase flexibility and local control. In this particular case the rich in Texas get a richer education due to more local input, in the form of money. The families in these districts are able to enhance their childrens social and learning environments by introducing enrichment activities. However, the poor in Texas get less of an education. A limited or reduced amount of spending per child limits the resources available to the student. The families in these districts struggle just to meet daily demands and enrichment activities are not an option. The curriculum is designed to create stronger accountability. The progress and achievement of each student is measured by a test, that is 1 test which is administered to each child once a year. Your childs progress for the entire year comes down to his/her performance on one day, on one test. Some children simply do not test well. Others may simply have a bad day due to illness or outside influences and do poorly on the test. These tests are standardized and do not measure learning of all children. They only track achievement in reading and math. Very often, teachers cover material only on the tests and the teaching of other subject is diminished, such as social studies, science and health issues. The third aspect of the Act of 2001 is personnel. Basically, school districts want to recruit and retain the best teachers they can afford. Translated, the better teachers with the better credentials are attracted to the high salaries that the top schools offer. Again, the poorer school districts lose out. In an effort to better train teachers and teacher aides, all non-degree educators must meet new requirements. If by some chance you are currently teaching without a teachers license you must obtain a license by 2005. Teacher aides must obtain a 2 year degree in order to retain their position. These changes are an effort to put a highly qualified teach in each classroom. Many older teacher aids have been in the classroom for around 20 years. This Act does not take into consideration the hands-on knowledge that these individuals have obtained. The money that these changes require is not spent wisely. I remember when I was in high school. My high school was more rural than our rival in the more affluent part of the county. Both high schools were newly built and looked almost the same. However, the rival school had better athletic facilities and better technological advancements. When test scores were revealed, our school ranked second to our rival. The media even reflected the superiority. When discussing schools in the newspaper, the rival school was always mentioned first. I also remember when I graduated from high school how big the graduating class was. There were 360 of us! I ranked 22 and worked very hard to achieve my academic ranking. The person who ranked 21st had not taken the more academically challenging courses which I had struggled in. He had taken just what he had to take to graduate. I remember the resentment I felt when he was ranked higher than I and how he was rewarded for his accomplishments just as I. Tracking the achievement of each student is a noble goal. However, for each promising step comes multiple problems. The most profound problem that is perpetuated is that of racial and gender inequality. If this is what it means to close the achievement gap between the disadvantaged students, minority students and school districts and their peers, it is not working.
INTERNET EXERCISE
Question 1:
The social movement organization I chose is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Their internet address is www.drugfreeamerica.org
Question 2:
The organization seems to be a reform movement.
Question 3:
Their website is full of information that is for mainly parents and caregivers. The information is geared towards anti-drug use and appears to be attempting to influence teenager's attitudes about drug use. Each article is centered around drugs and many articles are about governmental policies, either on a federal level or on a state level.
EXAM
Aunt Mary, it is true our family is going through changes. Only one individual family fits the model you call a real family. That is Brent and Alice. Brent makes a very healthy salary while Alice stays home with their daughter. Now, all the other individual families fall outside the model family. It doesnt mean something is wrong with us though.
I am taking a Sociology class at UNC-Charlotte and we talked about this very subject. I had felt the same as you until I attended this class. I found out that the stable and harmonious family is basically a myth. There never was an age of the ideal family. It existed under different variables. Spouses leaving the home, children born out of wedlock and abuse has always existed. Now the divorce rate was lower but that does not mean that spouses were any happier. Strong religious beliefs prevented many divorces so many couples remained married and unhappy. Also, there were children raised by single parents or step-parents because many women died during childbirth which also kept divorce rates low.
In 1950, about 60 percent of all U.S. households fit the model of a modern family or a real family, which is: male breadwinner, his wife the homemaker and their children. Since then the economic climate has changed and the struggle for womens equality heated up. The families that arose from these factors are called post-modern families. They include divorce households which included step-parents and step-children. It also includes families with adult children who leave and then return home. Most of the post-modern families include 2 wage earners. It is not uncommon to find a home with a single parent who is working to provide for one or more children.
Today, one out of two marriages will end in divorce. The younger people who marry before they reach twenty are two to three times more likely to divorce. Also, males who receive a higher education are less likely to divorce. Poverty is also a factor in divorce. The lower amount of income a person earns reflects a greater likelihood that divorce will enter the picture.
Now, lets take a look at our family. My aunts and uncles were families during the 1950s and fit that model of a modern family. Then as the economy changed so did the structure of the families. Each one of my aunts left children with Grandma and Grandpa and went to work. As each one of my cousins grew into adulthood and married, their social norms also changed. Out of nine cousins, 3 have been divorced; two of which have been divorced twice and are married for the third time. One cousin never got married. The other five cousins have been married only once and seem to be happy. But, like I said only one out of those five fits that picture of a modern family. The other four families have dual-earners and are more post-modern.
Actually, only 7 percent of all households in the U.S. fit the image of the ideal or modern family. We, as a family that includes aunts and uncles, cousins and spouses, are not really far off that mark. That only shows that we are normal when compared to the rest of society.
When my husband and I were searching for a new home our childrens education was a major factor. Our oldest child was 4 years old at the time and we wanted to buy a home within a promising school district. Within 2 years, our sons school began taking a nose dive. In fact, it went from being the top elementary school in the county to next-to-last. My oldest child recently graduated from high school and his elementary school is just now beginning its rise back to the top. As a parent, I feel betrayed and I feel my children were discounted and branded because of the school they attended. I dont feel I am alone with these feelings. Other parents I have spoken with feel the same.
In 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act is a comprehensive education reform package which tracks schools and has four basic principles: stronger accountability, increased flexibility and local control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on effective teaching methods. What was originally designed as a tracking strategy for students and schools has been met with controversy and major problems.
First, let me define tracking. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary does an exemplary job by defining the word track as: one of several curricula of study to which students are assigned according to their needs or levels of ability. The Act of 2001 is the most sweeping reform of schools and redefined the federal role in education to help improve the academic achievement of all students. However, it is apparent that the Act and tracking perpetuates the inequalities among students.
Let us examine the 3 aspects that is involved with the Act: finances, curriculum and personnel. Our schools are funded primarily by property taxes. Federal taxes account for only about 7 percent of funding for public schools. This creates a disparity among schools which can be seen state to state, county to county and district to district. For example, let us take the State of Texas. In the most affluent districts, the school systems invest as much as $40,500 per student. In the worst poverty stricken districts, the school systems invest only $2,500 per student. That is a difference of $38,000 per child. As I said before, one of the four basic principles of the Act of 2001 was to increase flexibility and local control. In this particular case the rich in Texas get a richer education due to more local input, in the form of money. The families in these districts are able to enhance their childrens social and learning environments by introducing enrichment activities. However, the poor in Texas get less of an education. A limited or reduced amount of spending per child limits the resources available to the student. The families in these districts struggle just to meet daily demands and enrichment activities are not an option.
The curriculum is designed to create stronger accountability. The progress and achievement of each student is measured by a test, that is 1 test which is administered to each child once a year. Your childs progress for the entire year comes down to his/her performance on one day, on one test. Some children simply do not test well. Others may simply have a bad day due to illness or outside influences and do poorly on the test.
These tests are standardized and do not measure learning of all children. They only track achievement in reading and math. Very often, teachers cover material only on the tests and the teaching of other subject is diminished, such as social studies, science and health issues.
The third aspect of the Act of 2001 is personnel. Basically, school districts want to recruit and retain the best teachers they can afford. Translated, the better teachers with the better credentials are attracted to the high salaries that the top schools offer. Again, the poorer school districts lose out. In an effort to better train teachers and teacher aides, all non-degree educators must meet new requirements. If by some chance you are currently teaching without a teachers license you must obtain a license by 2005. Teacher aides must obtain a 2 year degree in order to retain their position. These changes are an effort to put a highly qualified teach in each classroom. Many older teacher aids have been in the classroom for around 20 years. This Act does not take into consideration the hands-on knowledge that these individuals have obtained. The money that these changes require is not spent wisely.
I remember when I was in high school. My high school was more rural than our rival in the more affluent part of the county. Both high schools were newly built and looked almost the same. However, the rival school had better athletic facilities and better technological advancements. When test scores were revealed, our school ranked second to our rival. The media even reflected the superiority. When discussing schools in the newspaper, the rival school was always mentioned first.
I also remember when I graduated from high school how big the graduating class was. There were 360 of us! I ranked 22 and worked very hard to achieve my academic ranking. The person who ranked 21st had not taken the more academically challenging courses which I had struggled in. He had taken just what he had to take to graduate. I remember the resentment I felt when he was ranked higher than I and how he was rewarded for his accomplishments just as I.
Tracking the achievement of each student is a noble goal. However, for each promising step comes multiple problems. The most profound problem that is perpetuated is that of racial and gender inequality. If this is what it means to close the achievement gap between the disadvantaged students, minority students and school districts and their peers, it is not working.
