Should RIDE create a plan to encourage greater economic integration in our schools?
Debate Rounds (4)
Charter schools will rarely enroll the ESL students, while the PPSD enrolls hundreds of migrant and refugee children straight after they arrive for every grade level. City wide, PPSD"s elementary schools" William D"Abate (45% ESL), Robert F. Kennedy (10% ESL), and Vartan Gregorian (6% ESL), outscored elementary charter schools, Highlander (11% ESL), Times2 (8% ESL k-12) and Paul Cuffee (6% ESL k-12) on PARCC ELA/Literacy. PPSD"s Nathan Bishop and Nathaniel Greene (both 12% ESL) outscored charter middle schools in PARCC ELA/Literacy.
*Claim #2: Everyone benefits when rich and poor kids are mixed.
Researchers say that poor schools struggle because of their less-experienced staff while schools with lower levels of poverty have a range of benefits that include more stable staff, fewer discipline problems and more support from parents who work less and earn more. Many students in the lower-poverty schools performed 8 percentage points higher on standardized math tests than other students who attend higher-poverty schools. Many school districts have been trying out strategies that promote economic diversity, like student assignment policies that think about economic status and agreements that give poor kids a chance to attend schools in wealthier suburbs.
Court-ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. Questions about schooling should be left to communities to solve. Desegregation does not speak to dropout rates that hover near 50 percent for black and Hispanic high school students.
Claim 2: Parents should be allowed to make decisions about where to send their kids.
Following the success of Operation Exodus and METCO, parents and the community groups open their own "community" school. In a series of cases in Atlanta, Oklahoma City and Kansas City, Mo, frustrated parents, black and white, appealed to federal judges to stop shifting children from school to school like pieces on a game board.
Claim 3: We are already doing things to improve education for individual students in RI
Efforts to improve elementary and secondary schools shifted to magnet school, to allowing parents the choice to move their children out of failing schools and, most recently, to vouchers and charter schools. The federal No Child Left Behind plan has many critics, but there"s no denying that it"s an effective tool for forcing teachers" unions and school administrations to take responsibility for educating poor minority students.
2. What opportunities would the students get if the difference of education they receive is great?
3. Explain why you think that letting parents choose what school their children should attend will help those children in the future?
4. What evidence do you have that the No Child Left Behind plan(including testing) has actually improved education for students?
2.)Why does PPSD enroll hundreds of migrant and refugee children straight after they arrive for every grade?
3.)Why do we have to mix rich and poor kids? Why can"t we just work on fixing the poor schools?
2. PPSD enroll hundreds of migrant and refugee children because they would want to be able to give these children a chance to get an education.
3. We have to mix rich and poor kids in order for them to get an equal amount of education. Trying to work on fixing the poor schools would cost too much money.
2.)Students who get a better education then others would have better choices for college.
3.)The parents could choose to send their children to a school that has a better education system then one that was already decided for them.
4.)For example, 75% of Barrington"s students pass the PARCC testing, and they have a high property value ($894,098.90). And only 11% of Providence students at Central High School pass the PARCC testing along with a very low property value ($378,009.90).
#2 No, parents should not be allowed to make decisions about where to send their kids, because when parents choose what school their children will go, they would obviously choose somewhere that"s comfortable and close to home. By doing that they would create inequalities in the schools. For example, in 2015 PARCC, Central High School scored 11%, Barrington 75%, Cranston 43%, Lincoln 38%, and Pawtucket scored 15%.
#3 No, the things we have done hasn"t improved education for individual students, because charter schools and the federal No Child Left Behind plan doesn"t show much progress. For example, when we look at the test scores from before and after the No Child Left Behind there hasn"t been much change; students at rich school have still gotten higher scores than students at poor schools.
#2 No because only the poor students benefit from being mixed with the rich students. The poor students get better supplies and education while the rich students don"t gain anything from it. There would be discrimination between the rich students and the poor students. Because the rich students believe that they are better than the more poor students. There is also the possibility that while the poor students grades improve, the rich students grades could decrease.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.