Thread: the end 'o No Child Left Behind

if you can't read and write and do math you shouldn't be given your diploma. Period. It's not hard to pass those standardized tests, the mentally impaired can even do it.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

so, let me ask ye all; what percentage 'o our country ought to be proficient in math and readin'? 'tis obvious that the liberal program 'o No Child Left Behind gives an unreasonable edict to our nation's schools (as state after state be rejectin' it), since it demanded that 100% 'o our students have a reasonable grasp 'o the king's english and mathmatics.

- MeedHawlPierit

Well, you are taking the goal of an unfunded and poorly designed program and using the corrupted program to say that the goals are wrong.

The No Child Left Behind Program didn't fail because its objectives are unreachable, it failed because it was bad law.

I suggest you have a real thorough look at a documentary called "Waiting for Superman." In order to affect change, change in this case must come at the very core of the system. That system is corrupt. Education in north America today is a bureaucracy that, like many, has grown fat, self interested and lazy. The few who are making changes need to be heeded and those who are holding change back, like Luddites, need to be gone.

The answer to your question is, of course, 100%, that is if the US wants to compete on the world stage. But the real question is how? and NCLB is not the way to do it.

You can legislate that a horse be lead to water, but you can't legislate that he drink.

I guess we'll see if we can turn him into glue for contempt of Congress.

Originally Posted by reality

if you can't read and write and do math you shouldn't be given your diploma. Period. It's not hard to pass those standardized tests, the mentally impaired can even do it.

ahoy Reality,

well matey, do ye agree that the mechanisms fer Ted Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind" were flawed? i mean, the edict went so far as to penalize school districts that were unable to have students master math and readin'.

how on earth are schools supposed to improve if they be penalized fer failure?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by reality

if you can't read and write and do math you shouldn't be given your diploma. Period. It's not hard to pass those standardized tests, the mentally impaired can even do it.

The problem is standardized tests dont test your knowledge, they test your ability to take tests and regurgitate information.

Being able to answer a question correctly is not the same as understanding why your answer was correct.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

The problem is standardized tests dont test your knowledge, they test your ability to take tests and regurgitate information.

Being able to answer a question correctly is not the same as understanding why your answer was correct.

ahoy Hoplite,

i think ye have a point if yer talkin' about history, matey...but i'd disagree if yer talkin' about algerbra, or math in general. the standardized tests imma talkin' about doesn't test a high school swabby's grasp of his/her civics class.
they center mostly 'round readin' comprehension and mathmatics.

i also think standardized tests that measure yer readin' comprehension are what they are; ye read a paragraph or two, and then ye must answer a few questions based on what ye just read. seems reasonable to me, aye?

at any rate me friend, what do ye think 'o the bleatin' from folks like Governor Perdue and other Governors across our great and learned land who claim that aspirin' to have 100% 'o our students master readin' comprehension and mathmatics isn't a realistic goal? also, how do ye feel 'bout the fact that accordin' to Mr. Duncan, its likely that 80% 'o our students cannot meet the goals that are laid out in No Child Left Behind...and therefore, we ought to settle fer less?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy all,

well me friends, we be seein' the death 'o liberal program 'o the late Senator Ted Kennedy, "No Child Left Behind"....


- MeedHawlPierit

It brings credit to you sir that you lay this program properly at the feet of it's true author. OCLB was George Bush's attempt to do as he promised... work with the other side... a fact too often forgotten.

That said, we all know that accountability in your job is a evil thing... This law has to go...

Originally Posted by tsquare

It brings credit to you sir that you lay this program properly at the feet of it's true author. OCLB was George Bush's attempt to do as he promised... work with the other side... a fact too often forgotten.

That said, we all know that accountability in your job is a evil thing... This law has to go...

ahoy Tsquare,

whether it be the GOP's killin' 'o the Glass-Steagall act courtesy 'o congresspersons Gramm, Biley and Leach - or Mr. Kennedy's authorship 'o No Child Left Behind - i think 'tis fair to credit (or blame, as the case may be) the parties that pushed hardest fer the legistlation to be passed and not focus overly much on who was President at the time, aye.

in terms 'o No Child Left Behind, though, it did penalize districts that were failin' to meet the program's stated goals, did it not?

also, do ye agree that the goal 'o havin' the majority 'o american schoolchildren display a mastery 'o both readin and mathmatics is unrealistic?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Reality,

well matey, do ye agree that the mechanisms fer Ted Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind" were flawed? i mean, the edict went so far as to penalize school districts that were unable to have students master math and readin'.

how on earth are schools supposed to improve if they be penalized fer failure?

- MeadHallPirate

In the bill as Kennedy envisaged it, there would be substantial federal funding to help failing schools turn around, but the bill was never funded, so it was all stick and no carrot.
It took on the conservative logic, that if my roof is leaking, I'll not spend any money on a new roof, until the old roof stops leaking, and I have warned that roof before, and made it very clear that I expect a roof to keep out the rain, and before I lavish funds on a roofer, I expect that roof to at least comply with the minimum standards I have set.

Originally Posted by goober

In the bill as Kennedy envisaged it, there would be substantial federal funding to help failing schools turn around, but the bill was never funded, so it was all stick and no carrot.
It took on the conservative logic, that if my roof is leaking, I'll not spend any money on a new roof, until the old roof stops leaking, and I have warned that roof before, and made it very clear that I expect a roof to keep out the rain, and before I lavish funds on a roofer, I expect that roof to at least comply with the minimum standards I have set.

ahoy Goober,

thanks fer pointin' that out to me, matey...i did not know 'o the nuances 'o how the bill was, or was not, supposed to be funded. that certainly changes me view a bit that Mr. Kennedy authored an unfunded bill.

what do ye think, though, about the idear that its unreasonable to expect the majority 'o our students to have master in english and mathmatics? the Governors across our land are not requestin' fundin' to support No Child Left Behind....they're sayin' that its goals are unrealistic and that expectations ought to be lowered.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

also, do ye agree that the goal 'o havin' the majority 'o american schoolchildren display a mastery 'o both readin and mathmatics is unrealistic?

- MeadHallPirate

If they learn that and only that, if that is all that they could learn in 13 years of education... for me that would be enough.

far too often it is a matter of not caring...

The parents don't care to see to it that the kids behave and learn
The kids don't care... mostly because they are kids and also because their parents don't care (parents = mom)
The teachers don't care... 'nobody else' cares, and hey it's just a job, right?
The administrators don't care... just mange the union labor force and hope nobody gets killed

And so it goes... pretty much like the big three car companies in the '70's and '80's. Except that the life span of a kid that is a 'lemon' is a lot longer than a crap car... but hey... there you go.

Originally Posted by tsquare

If they learn that and only that, if that is all that they could learn in 13 years of education... for me that would be enough.

far too often it is a matter of not caring...

The parents don't care to see to it that the kids behave and learn
The kids don't care... mostly because they are kids and also because their parents don't care (parents = mom)
The teachers don't care... 'nobody else' cares, and hey it's just a job, right?
The administrators don't care... just mange the union labor force and hope nobody gets killed

And so it goes... pretty much like the big three car companies in the '70's and '80's. Except that the life span of a kid that is a 'lemon' is a lot longer than a crap car... but hey... there you go.

ahoy oh Tsquare,

i'll say that i agree with ye mostly here.

'cept fer one thing;

i heap the bulk 'o the blame on the parents. heck, when i was in school and brought home a "B", i had alotta explainin' to do. if i had the temerity to get a "C", me dad woulda put me in irons and thrown me in the brig.

keep in mind that if 80% 'o our students are unable to meet the goals 'o No Child Left Behind, that is, to display proper seamanship when sailin' the seas 'o readin', writin' and 'rithmatic....'tis not just the children 'o single mothers or poverty level minorities and whatnot that are failin' to grasp these topics.

its everyone.

- MeadHallPirate

100% is not doable, there are so many kids with learning disabilities, and other issues like bad home situations, gang members, etc who absolutely won't work hard at school regardless of how ideal the school situation. 85% is probably more reasonable to actually achieve, with 90% being probably the best that any large public school system should be expected to reach.