"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.