If a school cannot be held accountable for student performance then why do they exist?
_______________________________________________________________________
The school was accountable. They gave the materials to the students, presented lessons, and gave quizzes, test, and projects. The students either did not do the work, or failed to meet the standards of the school. Parents knew the phone number to the school and where the building is located, along with its hours of operation if they want to check on their child’s progress.
I am amazed that the school flunked them. I had a student two years ago that failed every class but P.E. and lunch for two years. I went to the assistant principle and asked if we were going to hold him back. I was told it was up to the parent. Even if his mom did ask, we probably would not hold him.
Now if the teachers were not telling the kids their grades, or when the assignments were due then yes the school would be accountable. If there are bad practices in the building then they need to be fixed. However failing students do not always mean failing schools.
My question goes back to Obama. He was responsible for giving these schools money in order to improve the education of these kids. I would like to know what kind of follow-up Obama did. How was this money used? Was it used to do a “survey” or was it used to pay for the salary of a student aid who would sit down with the kids and try to help them with their studies if needed. I would just like to know how the money was used based on this high failure rate. Was this Obama’s first “Stimulus Package”?
How do flunk lunch, eat only junk food?