No child left behind

arbilad · Head Chef

No child left behind

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

The federal government has no constitutional authority given it to regulate education. And the last choice in the poll sums up most if not all programs that the feds implement for the improvement and equality of its citizens.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I never really understood what it was supposed to do. Yeah, make school districts and teachers more accountable, but did it really improve education? I don't know.

I'm abstaining from this vote until another possible answer of "I don't know" is provided. The I'm torn implies you understand what it was beyond what it became in the form of a repeated soundbyte and so-called talking point...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Get the Federal Government out of education.

Ros · Senior Member

This is how I feel about it.

No Child Left Behind .. Football version 1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship, their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the championship. 2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL! 3. Talented players will be asked to workout on their own, without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like football. 4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th and 11th game. It will create the New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind. If parents do not like this new law, they are encouraged to vote for vouchers and support private schools that can screen out the non-athletes and prevent their children from having to go to school with bad football players. --Steve PageMurray, Utah USA

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

The Federal Government can only exert control over your local school via one way. Through money. If your school wants Federal money then you have to play by their rules. If you don't want the federal money then don't play by their rules. I find it a bit hypocritical when schools, administrators, and teachers complain about rules and requirements such as those in No Child Left Behind yet they still take the money. It makes me suspect of what the true aim of those parties is. I think they want the money with no restrictions. I have no problem with getting the Federal Government out of our local schools but then the Federal Government should keep all the money. Fair?

I'm not defending No Child. It was obviously flawed in some ways. The schools do need some accountability. Out here in Nazifornia, the libs have fought every attempt in the courts to actually make a highschool diploma worth something. The highschool exit exam can be taken multiple times throughout highschool and tests basic ninth grade skills. You can pass it with a "D" and still get the diploma. The majority of highschool students pass it before graduation. Even after graduation they can still keep trying. The schools provide extra help and tutoring for those who need it. Yet the lawsuits continue because it's not fair that little Billy not get a diploma because he can't pass a basic reading, writing, and arithmetic test. It's also not fair that no one will hire little Billy because his highschool diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on without accountability.

When my parents generation graduated from Highschool their diplomas had some value. With a highschool diploma you could work your way up to middle or even upper management with a company. I'm seeing these guys retire out from some of my suppliers and they won't even consider someone with just a diploma for their replacement. The job hasn't changed since the highschool diploma guy was doing the job last week. So what has changed?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

NCLB has done something in our district that I never thought would happen:

It is actually FORCING us to deal with a school which has been sub-standard since it opened over 30 years ago!

NCLB is the absolutely correct thing to do, unfortunately it is seriously underfunded.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I think standards-based education is the right thing to do. I believe students should have achievement standards. I believe curriculum should be designed based on those standards. I believe students should receive assessments designed to measure their progress towards those standards. I believe parents and other stakeholders should receive reports based on progress towards those standards. Most of all, I believe that teachers should dedicate their professional careers to helping students achieve those standards.

I think NCLB tried to implement such a vision, and only now is starting to show progress.

However, I believe the Federal Government is absolutely the wrong way to do it. As Titus and Bok stated, Fedgov has no authority to be involved in education. They can take back all their programs and money.

I know it would be a rough transition, but I believe two things will greatly improve education. 1) Give education back to the communities so that community values can be integrated. 2) Transition education to a market enterprise so that competition can weed out non-performing schools and teachers and incent all schools and teachers to improve. Plus, I like the idea that an outstanding educator like me would have the chance to earn as much as, say, an outstanding engineer with similar education and experience.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

If it's left solely at the local level, how do you combat the "gated community" effect?

Wealthier regions of the country spend more on their schools in general, even at the local level, and therefore can incent superior teachers and educators, and for that population budgets aren't crunched... I know there are those who say that money ain't everything, but it's about the only thing that a federal system can control.

--Ray

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

But that same reasoning can be applied to health care and other social issues.

To provide an example carried to the absurd (or not so, depending on your perspective): What if the Federal Government, based on sound research and expert testimony, madated 200 sqft of private living space for the health of a child? Not a problem for wealthy or uppper-middle class families. So what do lower-middle class and poor families do? Stop having children? Or should the Federal Government subsidize living space at taxpayers' expense?

I know there would be great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth during the trasition. I believe at least one benefit is worth that social upheaval: Imagine a community with traditional values and a commitment to education. The school integrates the values of the community into curriculum and instruction. Community members become engaged in education because they have a sense of ownership. Soon, other people from outside the community, who hold the same values, start to move there. The community grows and prospers. Such an approach to education has proven viable, but not here in the U.S. The Reggio Emilia school in Italy is probably the best example.

Ahhh. It's a nice idea. But it will never happen in the U.S. The issue is too closely tied to the Civil Rights movement, and it would be seen as a return to segregation. It is therefore political suicide.

arbilad · Head Chef

I think such a system could be very successful for the poor. It seems to me that, by and large, the principals of schools that service the underprivileged feel that they've been stuck with an problem (poor kids) an must deal with it. I know, of course, that there are exceptions. But even if you're there to try to help the kids get an education, it would be easy to despair in such a situation.

What if, instead, it was viewed as an opportunity? I'm sure you've all driven through poor neighborhoods. They have businesses there. Obviously you're not going to find a Sharper Image store in a harlem slum. But you'll see plenty of 7-11s, pawn shops, pay day loan stores, etc. These business are aimed at poor people (well, maybe 7-11 isn't aimed at them, but it works well for them). These are businesses that serve the specific needs of poor people, and they can be pretty successful at it.

What if schools did the same thing? There could be plenty of reasons for schools to target poor people. For instance, corporations bemoan how poorly trained high school graduates are, and that they need to spend money on training them even for simple jobs. It is very conceivable that they could sponsor a school for the poor if the school was able to ensure that most graduates had basic job skills (such as knowing simple math).

Also, people aren't without feeling for the poor. They're very charitable. Many private schools charge higher fees so that they can take the excess and create scholarships for poor students. There's a private school in my area that is very high end, but part of the $10,000 a year they charge goes towards taking in some underadvantaged students.

So, combine schools that, for various reasons, specialize in teaching the poor, with high end schools that take in the poor on scholarship, and I think we'd manage the problem. Not immediately, but it would happen.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

The rich are rich because of our government, they benefit from it as much as those who get paltry sums from public welfare... the shared agreement is that if we're all free, we're free to be rich, pursue whatever, and we won't rise up enmasse and take stuff that doesn't belong to us... There are worse things than the agreement we have as the masses to not rise up for decent teachers against the warlords who control all the dough. It's give and take... hopefully there's not too much take to make the give... :)

--Ray