"No Child Left Behind"????????
 

Honestly, being childless, I don't know jack about this.

But last night at work I listened to a group of guys ranting about it and how bad they think it is. One even said he had sold his house and moved out of town because of it. I'm guessing, from the words he used, it had something to do with "bussing" and race?

So......What's the big deal?
Anyone care to enlighten me?

Dave

Roughly, it is a way of evaluating teachers, schools and school districts on the basis of how students perform on standardized tests. High percentages of students have to achieve a minimally high score for the school to have fulfilled it's duty to "leave no child behind." It essentially forces schools to teach to the lowest common denominator because they have to focus their attention on getting the students on the left side of the bell curve to pass. If you're in a large school district, there will usually be gifted programs for the kids on the right side of the bell curve, to try to keep them engaged, but the ones in the middle end up not getting pushed to achieve more.

Regards,

D-Ray

it's a glorious idea that has failed in practice.

We need to kill the teachers union and adopt (I believe) the Netherlands system that attaches school funds to the child at birth. Schools then compete for said funds. Competition insues creating better and better schools. The end result is yet another nation killing us in quality of education. Just watch Jay Leno's strett smarts or what ever it's called. The last couple of generations don't know how many branches of government there are or who we fought in WWII. Oh yea, we also need to stop being such PC pussies and bring back a little corporal punishment. Pretty basic, if it hurts when you do that you tend to stop doing that. It worked on me.

The need for corporal punishment is an indictment for poor parenting. People that need to abuse kids because of there own shortcomings are the problem, not the kids.

I don't quite understand that statement Elwood. Is that the basis for the statement that we need to kill the teachers unions, that they keep education funds from getting to the teachers. Teachers unions seek to increase the funds that make it to teachers. They work to obtain a salary level that recognizes the importance of education to our economy and our society. If young people can make twice the salary level in other jobs with training in the same subject matter as they are needed to teach, it makes it difficult to attract the best and the brightest to teaching.

I'm not saying that good people aren't motivated to become teachers. There are those who treat it as a calling, and teach, despite the low salaries, because they care about the kids. It just doesn't make sense to penalize a profession because many practitioners are passionate about their work. If we believe that having an educated work force and having intelligent and well-prepared enterpreneurs is vital to our economy, shouldn't more be invested in education, and shouldn't schools also be able to compete economically with other industries for the best talent?

Perhaps the ruling class considers it dangerous to have a well educated population. If people are able to see through the BS that is spewed by those in control of the dollars, that control is more likely to be challenged. People who are taught to think for themselves are much more difficult to manupulate. Critical thinking by workers and conumers cuts into the profit margin. Nope, lets get rid of the teachers unions and anything else that might raise the status of teachers and the awareness of the populace.

Regards,

D-Ray

It was simply a way to keep teachers in check. If they give any exemption the teachers will use it.

No busing for that, and good luck moving out of Federal jurisdiction :)

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go exercise some bad parenting ;)

Pete

Teachers here sometimes dig into their own funds to buy stuff the students need, All this union bashing is pure horse hockey.

There are good and bad teachers just like people.

Not to name any denomination here, but the Catholic church is notorious for paying employees low wages, because if they are working for the church, they are working for the "Glory of God." Similarly, we as a society expect teachers to be committed to the children and "called" to teach, but don't want to pay them according to the importance of the mission with which they have been entrusted.

If a union stands between teachers and the demands of administrators it is seen as an obstruction when it really should be seen as helping the teachers fulfill their mission.

Good catch on my spelling. I think what I meant to say is that unions (in theory) are great, but they have been bastardized by the greedy. Do the math. 449 billion spent on 6.2 million teachers = $72,419.00 per teacher. Average pay is $47,394.00. That leaves 155 billion dollars at the top. Considering that schools don't supply anything accept the room and teacher sums it up. As for punishment, how many of remember "swats" in gym class and did the threat keep you inline? Because of pussy parents, teachers are afraid to teach because of the threat of lawsuits. I think I just made your point Noonereal. Dammit! Your right parents need to step up.

I agree that parents should be more involved, then I think back to my days as a working stiff. Young engineers putting in 10 hour days, wives also working, when would they have time to attend PTA meetings?

Then there are the businesses (who moved into the area because they were promised a tax holiday) moaning about how the schools are not turning out the people they need.

They did not give me a tax holiday, over the 22 years we have been here I do believe we single handedly paid for the foundation of the new school building up the road.

They say that we have some of the best schools in the nation here in Howard and Montgomery counties so maybe it is all worth it.

My last hometown, Parma, the teachers went on strike because they were asked to pay 1% of their health care. 1%!!

So in a heavy pro-labor district, district of Kucinich, they lost the next levy request. A-B-C. Teachers aren't immune from human wants and desires.

$47k average? A 250 workday year (common rule of thumb for us normal workers) = $23.50/hr plus some great bennies. How many days off do they have?

Pete

No child left behind. WHAT A JOKE!!!!
I have kiddo's and am greatly invoilved with their education and the schools.
NCLB, was a political ploy to get kuddos for a deranged president. He signed a piece of paper that made him a savior to kiddos. There was no thought, no funding, no real consideration ever put into this legislation. Simply put, Bush did this to pat himself on the back.

What does it really do, it forces the teachers toteach to a test or loose money for the school. Note, I did not say it forces the teachers to teach the children. Children do not benefit from this. Shcools use funds to manage a worhtless program. Parents are expected to take a bigger role in their kids(now here is a republican ideal - we will tell you how to manage yourself). I figure a parent will or won't. Nothing we can do to change that.

I once heard, but have never been able to verify this, bush actually makes money off all the paperwork and documentation needed to "measure and contol" this legislation.

It's Neil. Remember him? S&L scandal? Basically the black sheep of a very dusky family.

Neil Bush owns a software company that preps students for the standardized tests they're required to take. Nice racket.

John

Careful with the math! The difference between cost per teacher and pay likely is due to benefits and various costs. Teachers may not get paid much salary, but they do have proper retirement and health plans.

Coming from a county with (mostly) good public schools and lots of emphasis on keeping them good, No Child Left Behind is nothing but yet another assessment test. The kids here probably had too many such tests before NCLB went into effect. So in this county, it is a waste of time and money. The same might not apply to the inner city schools near here. I still not convinced of its efficacy - seems like mostly feel-good BS to me.

Few people are aware of the true tragedy that is represented by the No Child Left Behind law. It was actually the result of a simple terrible typographical error.

I can hear you asking, "How can that be?"

Once upon a time, young Georgie Bush was sent to a private school where there was a strong belief in corporal punishment. Georgie was not immune, even though his father was a minister to the good King Richard, and Georgie basically got the crap beat out of him pretty much every week. He vowed that when he became king he would pass a law to cut down by fifty percent the amount of pain that could be inflicted on any child.

And lo, Georgie did become King, and Georgie told his minions, "Write me a law to accomplish this." And his minions thought and they thought. And what they came up with was a law that would allow paddling of a child on only the right buttock. They figured this would cut down the pain by one half. But a lowly scribe in the White Castle choked on a Slyder while she was typing up the name of the law, and it went to the legislators as No Child Left Behind instead of the intended name No Child's Left Behind. And for the remaining seven years of Georgie's reign there was a little S running around the White Castle causing nothing but trouble.

Both my kids were educated from Howard county schools. I was ultimately pleased with the education they received. It's good to hear that things are still good. Here in California things ain't so hot. There has been a steady erosion of quality and standards in what was once regarded as the best educational system in the country.

Not surprisingly, the slide downhill began under Gov. Reagan. He began the systematic underfunding of schools here for nakedly ideological reasons. I wish I could find the quote but he once asked why it would be a good idea for him to adequately fund education when it would just produce students who would grow up to vote against him.

St. Ronnie!

John

Meanwhile, the even more mischievous Big S was at a secure undisclosed location.

I wonder if Georgie got the right-buttock-only idea when he was merrily branding pledges at Yale with a hot coat hanger.

Ah, college daze!

John

I know several teachers who would be smiling at this thread.

Even though my sons took honors level courses in high school, and attended a well-regarded school district, my older son found that he was not prepared to tackle college level math at the university. Part of the problem might have been taking honors Calculus II in his first semester, but he just wasn't prepared to deal with something that really challenged him. The high school classes weren't challenging, because they had to be aimed at the lowest common denominator. NCLB also means no child pushed forward. I know parents are supposed to take responsibility in their children's education, and we did, but I couldn't give him more challenging work in math, because he passed my math background his sophmore year in high school.

Regards,

D-Ray

"Not surprisingly, the slide downhill began under Gov. Reagan. He began the systematic underfunding of schools here for nakedly ideological reasons.
St. Ronnie!

John"


The ignorant are more easily controlled?:D

Dave

Around here, folks are responsible for their own schools.

Pete

If they did who would they blame ???

Part of the no child left behind act was to give the military access to the names ages and addresses of all the students at every school that accepts money from this program. (BTW most all public schools do)
The schools must notify the patents each year of this. The parent then has the option to submit a letter to the school to withhold their child's name if they so wish. So every year I have to type up a new letter (this has been going on since the sixth grade) and submit it to the principle to keep my daughter off the school submitted list. (since she was 11!)

So in spite of this royal pain in the ass every year last week, (as a Christmas present I guess) she received a recruitment letter from the navy.
I wrote refused on it and placed it back in the mail. Now I am gonna write the principle and ask why he screwed up. I anticipate that it is already to late to correct this and as usual in our sociaty no one will face any sections for not doing their job.

Besides it being very frustrating I fail to see why the military needs access to kids so frigin young. I don't think they should be allowed to talk to them until they are 18. I m responsible for my kids till then, speak to me.

Before someone starts, I favor universal service for two years. It is just not appropriate for this legislation to have had this recruitment clause.

Because there are people among us who want to turn America into a Theocratic- Militarist state?

That's me!

Pete

Move to Iran.

I would fight alongside the Greens, yep yep yep.

National security is pretty important. We've been so strong for so long it's easy to forget how important it is.

Pete

Can't for the life of me understand why all the wing-nuts are getting on Obama's case over security, Teddy Roosevelt was the last Republican to ever win a war.

Looks like Bush'll have Iraq ;)

Obama'll have to make do with Afghanistan and Yemen! :D

Pete

Yes, it seems exactly like the radical religious right or the hate filled Muslims wanting to indoctrinate the kids as young as possible.

But, if you go fight with the Greens, you will be fighting AGAINST a Theocratic-Militarist Republic. You would be fighting for a more Democratic model. Are you sure this is what you want? Or would you help them win, then try to force Christianity on them-----Still a theocracy, but a Christian one?

I personally would love to see a Jeffersonian Democracy in Iran. Free of religious tyranny. Uh, and to me "Free of Religious tyranny" means free of ALL religious tyrants, even the ones who wear the Cross, BTW.

Dave

There I go. Getting off topic. And in my own thread no less.

Dave

More importantly, the "shoe bomber" episode was nearly identical and nobody but nobody criticized Bush for that.

John

Kill him. :)

I was being sarcastic you know. About the 'that's me' thing .

Pete