No child left behind

[Radaghast]

[size=1][b]Let me start off by saying this is an evil system which has been forced on my high-school.

It starts off when one student doesn't make the minimum required grade set by the government.

The following year, the school loses it's federal funding. To get funding back, the school has to get every student back above the minimum.

The problem with that is: With limited recourses it can, and will, be hard to get ever student back above the minimum.

So, after a while, the worst happens. The school loses it's accreditation and shuts down. When that happens, I will most likely have graduated. So that means that my mother, brother, and I will have to re-earn our high-school diploma.

I don't know that much about the working world,(being 14 and haven't worked at a real job) but having a job that requires a diploma, and then losing said diploma mean you lose your' job?

That's just bad for the economy.

What do you think?[/b][/size]

[pbfrontmanvdp]

Haha i love Mrs. Bush. I swear she is by far the stupidest person ever. This is just a way of her trying to get recognition, every first lady does it.

Reason i hate this law is a teacher doesnt ALWAYS have control over a child wanting to learn or not. I know of course that the teacher is considered the parent when the child first enters the class or in any case on school grounds. That doesnt necessarily mean a child will be willing to learn a given subject. If the teacher tries his/her hardest to teach the student the subject by devoting their time to them, then the school shouldn't be at fault. Of course there are some students who do show a strong effort to learn the subject and if this is the case anyway, the teacher usually doesnt fail them. I probably wouldn't exactly pass them, but from experiences in the past as a highschool ive seen teachers that have given D's to students just because they tried extremely hard to get to know the course. Of course this isn't a good thing since the student didn't learn anything, but i guess that decision was up to the teacher.

And like what Radaghast said early. This doesn't make matters simpler since his whole entire education might be at jeopardy.
Even this plan may work in some cases, it has 75% more drawbacks.

[Semjaza]

I'm not sure what you're meaning by this "So, after a while, the worst happens. The school loses it's accreditation and shuts down. When that happens, I will most likely have graduated. So that means that my mother, brother, and I will have to re-earn our high-school diploma."

If you graduate before this minimum thing happens, your diploma isn't suddenly void. When you graduate, the school will most likely still be accredited. It isn't repealed for the entire history of the school. It's not retroactive.

The same with your mother. I'm assuming she went to the same highschool as a teenager as you are currently? She graduated before this idea/law even existed. She wouldn't legally, from what I understand (because it seems like the Grandfather Clause would apply to this), even be held under that.

[pbfrontmanvdp]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B]If you graduate before this minimum thing happens, your diploma isn't suddenly void. When you graduate, the school will most likely still be accredited. It isn't repealed for the entire history of the school. It's not retroactive.[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm i kinda interpreted it wrong. I thought he meant that the current students that were in the school aren't going to be credited with a degree since it shut down (like it was a fact that it changed cause of the law). From what i know they will be credited.

It might affect him since i dont know where he would be able to go. He'll have to be bused to another school, but that cost a lot of money and is a waste of time(for the government). I also dont think he would want to go to a private school since thats a lot of money as well(for his family). Such a hassle of a policy.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B]Haha i love Mrs. Bush. I swear she is by far the stupidest person ever. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] No, that would be Howard Dean. [/color][/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B] This is just a way of her trying to get recognition, every first lady does it[/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] So she's trying to help school kids. sounds a lot better than Hillary Clinton trying to make the US a socialist medical state. [/color][/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B]Reason i hate this law is a teacher doesnt ALWAYS have control over a child wanting to learn or not. I know of course that the teacher is considered the parent when the child first enters the class or in any case on school grounds. That doesnt necessarily mean a child will be willing to learn a given subject. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] That has been the Bad Teacher's Mantra for far too long. "I can't make them learn; they just don't want to." Sure, there are kids that don't, but this law is trying to help those students who have be pigeonholed into "Bad neighborhoods."

Students in those neighborhoods are usually written off by teachers as being "hopeless causes" because of their circumstances, which is a bunch of crap. eVery child has the same ability to learn, and most of them aren't hostile to the idea. [/color][/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B] If the teacher tries his/her hardest to teach the student the subject by devoting their time to them, then the school shouldn't be at fault. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] You're looking at the problem from the wrong side. As it stands now, teachers suffer no penalty for their students' grades. So, in low-income high-crime areas, the areas this law is supposed to help, teachers don't have to show any interest at all in the subject. Because of the incredibly powerful lobbying ability of teachers' unions, it's almost impossible to fire bad teachers, and very hard to hire new ones.

Don't kid yourself; in bad areas, there are morew teachers who have written off the entire student body than there are who are willing to put in more time and effort to help their students learn. [/color][/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B]Of course there are some students who do show a strong effort to learn the subject and if this is the case anyway, the teacher usually doesnt fail them. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] What kind of crap is that? Teachers don't "fail" students; students fail. That is one of the greatest fallicies in education. [/color][/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B] I probably wouldn't exactly pass them, but from experiences in the past as a highschool ive seen teachers that have given D's to students just because they tried extremely hard to get to know the course. Of course this isn't a good thing since the student didn't learn anything, but i guess that decision was up to the teacher. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] Those teachers should be fired. They couyldn't do their jobs are are passing unprepared students in a misguided attempt at charity. The decision was not up to the teacher; there should be no "decision". Students should be taught on the same scale; ohers shouldn't be given leeway because they tried but didn't make it. You're only hurting the students by doing that. [/color][/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B]And like what Radaghast said early. This doesn't make matters simpler since his whole entire education might be at jeopardy. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] No, like Semjaza said, Radaghast was under an incredibly great misconception; if you graduate, you've graduated, period. If you pass a course, you've passed. Even if the school closes, you still have the records in the county showing what you did and didn't do. If you've passed, you're done.

Radaghast also overestimates the bar that has been set. The point of the law was to get students to pass high school at the barest possible standard.

Passing an American high school, (doing the bare minnimum), is about the easiest thing you'll ever do. If you can't, even with additional aid, you might as well get out of the gene pool, because you're going nowhere fast, unless you have some other means of supporting yourself.

I highly doubt this law will cause Radaghasts' school to close any time soon. and if it does, no offense intended, the school might have needed to be closed. [/color][/size]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by pbfrontmanvdp [/i]
[B]Even this plan may work in some cases, it has 75% more drawbacks. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=indigo][size=1] Come on, admit it; you pulled that statistic out of your arse.:smirk: [/color][/size]

[pbfrontmanvdp]

[color=indigo][size=1] So she's trying to help school kids. sounds a lot better than Hillary Clinton trying to make the US a socialist medical state. [/color][/size]

Yea i hated Hiliary as well and thought it was a pointless act, but this isnt helping kids out at all for this no child act. Look at what happen to the whole entire school district of Radaghast's town. Im not sure how many students were in his school district, but if you apply this type of law to Camden then they're screwed. Trust me i've had field experience there for 2 weeks just to see what it was like there and a lot of the students just do not care. The teacher i was observing was doing a hell of a job. A child "wanting" to learn and a child not caring at all are 2 different things. You cant tell me you have never met students that just didnt care about their grades or what they do in school. Some students just go to school purposely to chat. If a student doesn't do their HW, doesn't do well on tests, doesn't stay after for extra help, just doesn't do anything at all to succeed in getting an education and the teacher has tried their best to help the student why should the teacher be responible for this? Its not bad teaching, you cant help every single student out. I do want to help every student out. Most of the examples i was saying were of what i have experienced from what other teachers have done with students.

[color=indigo][size=1] That has been the Bad Teacher's Mantra for far too long. "I can't make them learn; they just don't want to." Sure, there are kids that don't, but this law is trying to help those students who have be pigeonholed into "Bad neighborhoods."[/color][/size]

Like i said take Camden for an example. You cant just take this law and apply it to a terrible neighborhood right there and then. The government has to put money into changing the environment of the neighborhood itself before changing the school district. If a child views bad situations at home in his/her neighborhood, then thats what the child will bring to the school as well. Either that or they should do each simultaneously: change the environment of the school and neighborhood.

[color=indigo][size=1] Students in those neighborhoods are usually written off by teachers as being "hopeless causes" because of their circumstances, which is a bunch of crap. eVery child has the same ability to learn, and most of them aren't hostile to the idea. [/color][/size]

If your still referring the law to the majority of "Bad neighborhoods," then the Camden class i visited had a lot of students that seemed to just not care. Of course every child has the ability to learn, but if the child doesnt have the desire to, even with countless times of teachers pushing towards ways to helping them, then it's the fault of the environment in which the student lives in.

[color=indigo][size=1] You're looking at the problem from the wrong side. As it stands now, teachers suffer no penalty for their students' grades. So, in low-income high-crime areas, the areas this law is supposed to help, teachers don't have to show any interest at all in the subject. Because of the incredibly powerful lobbying ability of teachers' unions, it's almost impossible to fire bad teachers, and very hard to hire new ones.

Don't kid yourself; in bad areas, there are morew teachers who have written off the entire student body than there are who are willing to put in more time and effort to help their students learn. [/color][/size]

I do believe tenure is a terrible thing, i dont think that should even be allowed since it is a fact some teachers slack off and take the profession for granted. These types of teachers should be fired, but the teachers union just doesn't want to change its ways on tenure yet.

[color=indigo][size=1] What kind of crap is that? Teachers don't "fail" students; students fail. That is one of the greatest fallicies in education. [/color][/size]

Ha this is the funniest thing ive ever heard. It has happened before that teachers haven't necessarily failed a student, but they have given a student a lower grade just for not liking them. Is this wrong, of course it is. Can the parents of the child fight it, of course they can. If the parents and child can prove the teacher did in fact give a false grade based on other circumstances other than the criteria needed to get the grade they deserved then the teacher will be forced to change the grade. I know this is true though since it happen to me once. My parents had to go up to the school along with other follow parents to complain why no one was getting higher than a C in his class. From what i remember (this happened in middle school) and since the teacher wasn't following the criteria of the course and not referring to the book, he had to change the grades.

[color=indigo][size=1] Those teachers should be fired. They couyldn't do their jobs are are passing unprepared students in a misguided attempt at charity. The decision was not up to the teacher; there should be no "decision". Students should be taught on the same scale; ohers shouldn't be given leeway because they tried but didn't make it. You're only hurting the students by doing that. [/color][/size]

So what you are saying is the teachers should just fail the students??? What should be given is an overview of a teacher by a representative of the B.O.E. more often. None of this once a semester crap that has been going on for decades now, but a more substantial evaluation needs to be implemented.

[color=indigo][size=1] No, like Semjaza said, Radaghast was under an incredibly great misconception; if you graduate, you've graduated, period. If you pass a course, you've passed. Even if the school closes, you still have the records in the county showing what you did and didn't do. If you've passed, you're done.

Radaghast also overestimates the bar that has been set. The point of the law was to get students to pass high school at the barest possible standard.

Passing an American high school, (doing the bare minnimum), is about the easiest thing you'll ever do. If you can't, even with additional aid, you might as well get out of the gene pool, because you're going nowhere fast, unless you have some other means of supporting yourself.

I highly doubt this law will cause Radaghasts' school to close any time soon. and if it does, no offense intended, the school might have needed to be closed. [/color][/size]

Yea i read that part wrong i changed it in my other post.

[color=indigo][size=1] Come on, admit it; you pulled that statistic out of your arse.:smirk: [/color][/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

Of course i was i didnt quote it from someone. It was supposed to be sarcastic.

[Baron Samedi]

I think that is shocking. They would cut off an entire school's funding... from the lack of one student's willingness to learn? That is... seems to be wrong. If the minimum grade is so easy to achieve... Than this shouldn't even be an issue should it?

I have known someone who failed Year 8. How bad is that? There are some people who always muck around or don't pay attention, or are just damn stubborn. I'm sure most of you would know or have met a person like that. Withdrawing funding, for that. If teachers try... which they do, yet a student is [i]just not willing[/i] to learn, which some aren't, then what happens. How is that fair?

The diploma issue is unnecessary. Been cleared up. But cutting off funding? Extreme, and harsh. School will likely expel bad students, rather thsan lose funding.

[Radaghast]

[size=1][b]I admit that I didn't know any of the things about the diploma being kept.

But just look at the domino effect that the loss of funding causes.
There [i]will[/i] always be someone who just doesn't care about their education and causes this to happen.[/b][/size]

[Crimson Warrior]

[COLOR=crimson]Thats gotta suck. I know if my school was like that it woulda shut down a long time ago. Just like when the princy was thinkin about drug tests....that woulda eliminated over half the foot ball team -_-; [/COLOR]

[COLOR=crimson]Anyway back to the subject, its unfair for them to take away funding if one person is not passing. Everyone is different and plus some people are dumb. They shouldnt ruin someone elses education just because someone is a slacker or fell off the dumb tree.[/COLOR]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Guys, let's think about this; there is simply no way legislation like that could ever pass through Congress. It's simply too stupid, and the flaws are obvious.

I'm going to find the exact legikslation involving the NCLB acts; I'll post the links when I find them. ^__^

[b]Edit![/b]

[url=http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html]The exact legislation of the No Child Left Behin Act[/url]

Sorry, guys, but I'm way to tired to pour over all of that. ^^; At least it's there for reference.[/color][/size][/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=violet]This legislation has already passed, why do you think we're talking about it now?
The no child left behind act is a poor attempt to boost the grades of bellow average students. Some kids are just too damn stubborn to want to learn. Others just aren't motivated because they don't find the curriculum to be challenging enough but since they aren't doing anything to bring their grades up, the teacher isn't going to move them up a grade.
Then there's this lovely gray area for students with learning disabilities who are in special ed classes.
In New York state every student who graduated in the year 2000 and after had to earn a regents diplome in order to graduate from high school. (I'm using this as an example since I live in NY) O.k. this isn't hard for the kids who get the honor roll and are in the mainstream classes where subjects are taught at a fast pace, but what about the students in special ed classes? There is no way most of them could pass the regents exams required for graduation. I should know, they put me in special ed when I was a freshman and it was too easy. That's why they moved me to mainstream classes.
Anyway, back to my story. From 2000 to 2002 (I don't know about 2003 because I was in TX) atleast five exams have had to be re-taken and graded on a lower curve in order to pass the students. In 2001 a chemistry test in one of the suburban school districts had to be redone because the test had nothing to do with what the students had learned during the school year. This is part of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Please, my 12 year old cousin has to write essays for gym class thanks to this dumb law. This is an excersise in stupidity, thank you G.W. Bush.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]I am aware the legislation passed; my point was, if the system worked as it was originally stated to work, with cutting the fndings to school with high drop out rates, it would be far too moronic to pass through Congress, which, as was stated, it already did.

Now, anyone who looked over the legislation I provided the link to, as in, the actual law that was signed by the President after passing through both Houses, they would gain a far better idea of what they're talking about.

First, the [b]myth[/b] of cutting funding to failing schools: that is the complete and total opposite of what the law says. In Title 1, Section 1001, sub-section five, it states the following:

[QUOTE]distributing and targeting resources sufficiently to make a difference to local educational agencies and schools where needs are greatest[/QUOTE]

As you can see, that is the complete opposite of the law's purpose. These tests that are being distributed are trying to discover "where needs are the greeatest".

Also, there is no "gray area" involving special needs children, according to the letter of the law. Title 1, Section 1001, subsection 2 states:

[QUOTE]meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, [b]children with disabilities[/b], Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance[/QUOTE], emphasis mine.

Now, whether or not the law is being carried out effectivly is debatable, but I hardly think it is simply because it's (relativly) new legislation. However, the purpose and intentions of the law are not malicious.

I posted the link to the legislation a few pots up. If you are concerned, [b]read it[/b], and seperate truth from myths.

Now, I enter personal rant mode: There are two great misconceptions in the education system which, ironically and admittedly, contradict each other, but they're from opposite sides of the fence, so it's easy to understand why.

First, the "Students that don't want to learn" myth; as I said earlier, that is the Bad Teacher's Mantra, the one applied when teachers wish to disavow responsibility with the learning process.

I tell you right now, any teacher who says that is a bad teacher. They have given up, period. Why should they bother if they've written the students off in their minds? They need to look for a new job and make way for educators that actually think their students aren't slack-jawed yokels.

Now, when outside observers say this, they are uninformed because they're outside. They might actually be right, but I'd rather hear what someone who actually has a hand in the educational process has to say, wouldn't you?

When a student sauys that there are kids that don't want to learn, they're right. There are some students who simply don't care. But you knoww hat? They're in the minority. You might be unfortunate enough to be in class with them, but most students at least want to pass. (Whether or not they do anything towards achieving this goal is another matter entirely.) You can't write off the whole barrel for a few bad apples.

The "the student isn't challenged" myth; I actually find this funny. what you are saying is that the student could easily do well in the class, s/he just doesn't. S/he isn't "challeneged"; this smacks of a complete and total refusal of responsibility for yoyr grades and your future. If you're not in a situation where you can be "challeneged", and you're bored in class because you know everything, my God, you have absolutely [b]no excuse[/b] for not passing!

You say as much yourself; "I'm not being challenged; this is too easy." If it's too easy, why aren't you passing? So it's boring; suck it up. It's simple logic; if you pass your classes with ease, you'll be noticed, and increase your odds of being placed in a class where you're "challenged". you have no excuse not to do outstandingly well if your excuse is that you're "not challenged".

So you'll have to go in to a daily string of monotony; welcome to the real world. You think that sucks, wait 'till you get a job.

The problem with the world today is that no one wants to take responsibility for themselves. Speaking of which...

The other great myth of education, what can be called the Bad Student's Mantra: "The teacher failed me."

Right, so I'm guessing the fact that you don't know the subject matter has nothing to do with it? [b]The teacher doesn't "fail" you; you failed![/b] If it was English, maybe you failed because you're using the word "failed" incorrectly...

Now, I am aware that in classes that require a great deal of essay writing and the like, the teacher's personal discretion can ienter in a lot more than a class full of multiple choice quizzes, and that some teachers can simply not like a student.

First off, those instances are few and far between when you consider the unfathomably vast amount of classes that are going on accross the country. And if it turns out that the dislike is on the basis of gender or race, guess what? Lawsuit; you now own that teacher. If you can prove that the teacher is being unfair in his/her grading scale, you can solve the problem.

However, the entire phrase "Failed me" indicates a lack of esponsibility on the student's part. Education is a two-way street. Teschers have to want to teach, true, but students actually have the more powerful position, because they decide their own dedication to success.

Even if you are unfortunate enough to have a really crappy teacher, you can take the responsibility to learn the subject yourself. I agree that it's unfair and you shouldn't have to, but it's better to put your education in your own hands rather than leave it up to an apathetic educator.

This is yet another problem of people not taking responsibility for their actions. When teachers don't want to take responsibility, "The students just don't want to learn." When stuidents don't want to take responsibility, "The Teachers failed me."

Next time you hear those phrases, consider who said them? Ask yourself if that person strikes you by their behavior as one who is dedicated to teacher/learning. More than not, they won't be.

And what's wrong with writing essays in gym class? I did.[/color][/size][/font]

[Semjaza]

I really don't get the worry over this. People are acting as if this is based on the grades of a student. It's based on a new set of a assessment tests, and in the case of High School, they only have to be taken [i]once[/i] between 10th and 12th grade. All it currently covers is reading skills. If a kid is that far ahead in school, I think it's safe to say that they're not going to have much trouble with basic reading comprehension. This isn't targetting kids that are getting Ds on an average basis, it's targetting kids who simply shouldn't be there in the first place on even a basic level.... and it's not punishing them either, it's an attempt to help them because people understand the system isn't as good as originally thought.

There's such a basic misunderstanding of how this works anyway.

Let's say it's decided your school isn't above this so-called minimum. They don't just close it. They mark it as "needing improvement" before the school year ends and begin a two year program to help improve the school. Extra help is given to those who need it academically as well as low-income families.

It is [i]required[/i] that students be given the option to transfer to a school that does not need improvement at this point. It's not like you'll suddenly be broadsided by the idea that your school is having a problem. You won't be in your Senior year and suddenly all your work means nothing.

Besides, this is such a long process. After the third year, tutoring services are provided to low-income families and students are [i]still[/i] given the option to be transfered. After the fourth, some members of the staff of the school will be replaced and new curriculum will be instated.

If it doesn't fix itself after five whole years (which is quite a while for anyone currently in these schools... you'd be graduated from that highschool before then), they'll basically start the school over from scratch. Replace the staff almost entirely, etc.

So I don't really know where anyone gets these ideas. People are making it sound like if a [i]single[/i] student is doing poorly, everyone is screwed and the school is almost instantaneously forgotten. It doesn't work like that. Hell, the test results are broken down into race and situation of each child, so I severely doubt anything will happen in terms of handicapped children or anyone else who obviously can't be held to the same standards. They can easily be taken into account.

After the tests are given, the lowest demographic is considered a starting point. It's the responsibility of the school to raise these children to a certain level after two years of work (which I doubt is all that high). The idea is that as children get better, the bar can be raised -- causing children to be better in school on average.

So yeah, I can see how this could cause problems for some schools in the future. However, the problems being cited in here aren't even issues for the most part. Read the documentation on the law first. Considering some of the opinions placed in here, you'd think information on it was nonexistant. On the contrary, it's all over the place. I can't believe how off some of these comments are.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B] Considering some of the opinions placed in here, you'd think information on it was nonexistant. On the contrary, it's all over the place. I can't believe how off some of these comments are. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Of course, it's so much easier to attack something based on half-truths and misinformation than it is to actually look up something you don't understand. Seriously, most of the legislation turned out to be common sense.

I suspect the immediate association made was "Bush did it, so it has to be bad or stupid". Sigh. [/color][/size][/font]

[Genkai]

Okay, from what I'v heard, it works like this.. A below average school gets less funding than one that's above average. In intelligence that is.

I don't see how that works. If they get less money, they have less money to pay teachers, to get equipment.. How the hell is that helping the school? That might even shut down the school, leaving all of those children behind! I thought we weren't leaving them behind!!! WTF?

That's my understanding, but,uh, I'm stupid, so... I don't know if I've got it down correctly.

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]That's the exact opposite of how the NCLB act is supposed to work. Schools with lower grades and fewer passing students get [b]more[/b] money, not less.

I'm kind of curious as to why so many people have the completely wrong idea on what the act is trying to accomplish. Where did ya'll hear this from?[/color][/size][/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B][color=indigo][size=1][font=century]That's the exact opposite of how the NCLB act is supposed to work. Schools with lower grades and fewer passing students get [b]more[/b] money, not less.

I'm kind of curious as to why so many people have the completely wrong idea on what the act is trying to accomplish. Where did ya'll hear this from?[/color][/size][/font] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I got my information at a government sponsored web site ([url]http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testing-faq.html[/url]) and it seems to me you are partially wrong and partially (but mostly) right.

"[I]Under the act's accountability provisions, states must describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. They must produce annual state and school district report cards that inform parents and communities about state and school progress. Schools that do not make progress must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance; take corrective actions; and, if still not making adequate yearly progress after five years, make dramatic changes to the way the school is run."--above web site[/i]

Just a point I would like to make about the supplemental services. If a school performs poorly they can request additional funding to help provide extra services, however, both the state and the federal government can decline additional funding if they think that present funding is more than adequate. If a school continue to score poorly after five years obviously the administration will be fired and funding will be reduced.

As of right now the bill is not terribly strict, and the testing is relatively simple. My biggest problem is that it has the potential (with added legislation) to actually take away even more freedom from the teachers to teach what they find important. As of right now the bill is fair (although I will always be under the impression that some kids should be left behind) but it is something to keep a close watch on over time.[/color]

[Semjaza]

Yeah, I can't remember if I made the point in my post or not... but the teachers could potentially be robbed of a lot of freedom and importance by this. There are sections in there that basically seem to make me feel like the children have more control over how the school works than the teachers do... which is really strange. However, I suppose if a school isn't improving after five entire years, you have to wonder how great these teachers are as it is.

The basic idea of it is fine, I think. It just really depends on how much else is added to it.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B]Yeah, I can't remember if I made the point in my post or not... but the teachers could potentially be robbed of a lot of freedom and importance by this. There are sections in there that basically seem to make me feel like the children have more control over how the school works than the teachers do... which is really strange. However, I suppose if a school isn't improving after five entire years, you have to wonder how great these teachers are as it is.
[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Well, at the same time you have to consider that inner city public schools don?t pay there teachers enough to get by on half the time, so you are going to get a mixture of great teachers that teach because they enjoy it and teachers that are horrible but cannot be fired because they school cannot find replacements (that was a pointless tangent :)).

I do agree with what you said though, I was and am against this bill. Fortunately, it was watered down in congress, but I still think that it is beginning a poor precedent and could have horrid effects in the future. It is my big black mark towards Bush this election, however, all of the democratic candidates are so vague about education reform that it is hard to place anyone. [/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo]Well, at the same time you have to consider that inner city public schools don?t pay there teachers enough to get by on half the time, so you are going to get a mixture of great teachers that teach because they enjoy it and teachers that are horrible but cannot be fired because they school cannot find replacements (that was a pointless tangent :)).
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]HC, while that is a valid point about Inner city school teachers, I think I should point out that teachers in many of the suburban school districts are under paid as well. I went to a private school and some of the teachers had to take on extra jobs in order to pay bills.
Everyone is always so quick to point out how bad the inner city schools are. And that is true, John Marshall HS where my husband attended school prior to dropping out has a high drop out rate, much higher than either my HS or my brother's. Maybe if the schools had more funding they could encourage more students to want to learn and stay in school.
I had a point somewhere, but I forgot it, so I'll say this. Purhaps Bush should forget about the Moon, Mars and WMDs and try to raise teacher's pay.
As for curriculem. That's a really screwed up peice of work. My 12 year old cousin is comming over tonight because his social studies teacher wants his class to do a project using Word Point or some really out there word program. Not only is it not user friendly, but doesn't need to be used by everyone. Never the less, the state decided that this was part of the curriculem (which I can't spell, but am to lazy to look up)
Well, there's my $.02. have fun![/color]

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][color=violet] Purhaps Bush should forget about the Moon, Mars and WMDs and try to raise teacher's pay.
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]I'm sorry, but that's really an unfair statement; teachers are notorious for being underpayed, and the situation has been this way for a while. To place all the blame on President Bush is to place blame on him for events that have been transpiring before he was even in office. (Or govenor of Texas.)

One could just as easily ask why President Clinton did nothing regarding teachers' salaries during his term, when the US experienced unprecented economic growth. seems like that would have been the perfect time to address the issue. (Then again, I asked the same question about NASA; why cut their funding when there's more money than ever?) President Clinton was the poster-child for squandered opportunities...

Whether or not you agree with what President Bush did with the NCLB bill, you cannot accuse him of ignoring the issue. We all basically want the same things for the education system, regardless of parties. President Bush is trying to do it the way he believes will work, as will the next president.

While I have several reservations about the bill myself, I feel better with itt han had there been no legislation at all. Granted, blaming President Bush for everything is so all the rage nowadays, sometimes logic doesn't enter in.

As for your cousin's troubles, I believe cirriculum is determined on a state and county level, not the federal level. If she is in a bad way, it would be your govenor who is to blame.[/color][/size][/font]

[Brasil]

DeathBug...let me tell you a few things.

I don't have the time to read the legislation fully, but there are a few points you make that...are rather ill-advised.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
Now, I enter personal rant mode: There are two great misconceptions in the education system which, ironically and admittedly, contradict each other, but they're from opposite sides of the fence, so it's easy to understand why.

First, the "Students that don't want to learn" myth; as I said earlier, that is the Bad Teacher's Mantra, the one applied when teachers wish to disavow responsibility with the learning process.

I tell you right now, any teacher who says that is a bad teacher. They have given up, period. Why should they bother if they've written the students off in their minds? They need to look for a new job and make way for educators that actually think their students aren't slack-jawed yokels.[/quote]

So, I'm a bad teacher, then? Surely, you're not accusing me of having given up when I [i]know[/i] that there are students who will just not try at all in a class? Surely, you're not calling me heartless? Uncaring?

Don't even start to try to tell me that because I've seen the reality of education, both in high school and on a college level, that I don't know what I'm talking about and/or I'm some...apathetic instructor.

Did it ever occur to you that there are teachers who say "students that don't want to learn" for a reason? The reason is because that's true. Ever been in a high school course? Hell, even some college classrooms still have those students.

[quote]Now, when outside observers say this, they are uninformed because they're outside. They might actually be right, but I'd rather hear what someone who actually has a hand in the educational process has to say, wouldn't you?[/quote]

Let me get this straight.

When a teacher says it, you disregard it. You just had a tirade about it above. And you disregard "outsiders" saying it, because they're "outside," and thus uninformed. But "they might actually be right," you say, but that apparently doesn't matter, because you'd like to hear it from someone who has a hand in the educational process...which would be teachers.

Also, you are subscribing to a horrid educational myth right there; that students are not part of their educational process. That is wholly false. You have obviously been poisoned by some second-rate instructor to think that. So, now I question your motives entirely.

[quote]When a student sauys that there are kids that don't want to learn, they're right. There are some students who simply don't care. But you knoww hat? They're in the minority. You might be unfortunate enough to be in class with them, but most students at least want to pass. (Whether or not they do anything towards achieving this goal is another matter entirely.) You can't write off the whole barrel for a few bad apples.[/quote]

So...now you're believing students are "right"? Didn't you just write off the teachers' statements? Now you're siding with the students? Well, forgive me for asking, but...do you realize how big of a contradiction that is? In the very same post, you disregard instructor opinion, then when an outsider to the educational system brings up the same point, you disregard that, flying back to the instructors' point, which was the same damn idea. Now, you're saying that students know what's going on, and they're saying the same thing as the instructors. What are you trying to say?

[quote]The "the student isn't challenged" myth; I actually find this funny. what you are saying is that the student could easily do well in the class, s/he just doesn't. S/he isn't "challeneged"; this smacks of a complete and total refusal of responsibility for yoyr grades and your future. If you're not in a situation where you can be "challeneged", and you're bored in class because you know everything, my God, you have absolutely [b]no excuse[/b] for not passing!

You say as much yourself; "I'm not being challenged; this is too easy." If it's too easy, why aren't you passing? So it's boring; suck it up. It's simple logic; if you pass your classes with ease, you'll be noticed, and increase your odds of being placed in a class where you're "challenged". you have no excuse not to do outstandingly well if your excuse is that you're "not challenged".

So you'll have to go in to a daily string of monotony; welcome to the real world. You think that sucks, wait 'till you get a job.

The problem with the world today is that no one wants to take responsibility for themselves. Speaking of which...[/quote]

Cheers! Now practice what you preach. You have not convinced me that you are a good student by any stretch of the imagination. All I see here in your post, is someone who is bitter over a grade, school year, etc. I don't see someone who understands the educational system. You have yet to "show your stuff."

[quote]The other great myth of education, what can be called the Bad Student's Mantra: "The teacher failed me."

Right, so I'm guessing the fact that you don't know the subject matter has nothing to do with it? [b]The teacher doesn't "fail" you; you failed![/b] If it was English, maybe you failed because you're using the word "failed" incorrectly...[/quote]

Ooh. The problem with your argument here, is that my Sociology of Education instructor failed me this past Fall of 2003. No big deal. Summer classes will take care of the credits.

But here's where your argument loses strength. I knew the material like the back of my hand. I could have taught the course. Seriously. I could have gotten up in front of 120 students and taught the course. The instructor's curriculum featured "educational articles" dating back to the 60s. Our most recent "text" was a book called Jocks And Burnouts, written and published in 1989.

Also, keeping in mind, that in my notebook, I had jotted down some paper topics in the first week of the semester (September). The paper was on how to effectively develop rapport with students. This is what I wrote: "Take the first week and talk with your students. Get to know them."

Flash forward to the end of November. Guess what one of the very [i]last[/i] reading assignments was? Guess what it advised. To spend a week or two getting to know your students.

I'm sure I didn't know the class material, huh?

[quote]Now, I am aware that in classes that require a great deal of essay writing and the like, the teacher's personal discretion can ienter in a lot more than a class full of multiple choice quizzes, and that some teachers can simply not like a student.

First off, those instances are few and far between when you consider the unfathomably vast amount of classes that are going on accross the country. And if it turns out that the dislike is on the basis of gender or race, guess what? Lawsuit; you now own that teacher. If you can prove that the teacher is being unfair in his/her grading scale, you can solve the problem.[/quote]

"And if it turns out that the dislike is on the basis of gender or race, guess what? Lawsuit; you now own that teacher."

That is why I do not respect your argument at all. That kind of...mentality in the educational system, whether propagated by students such as yourself, or instructors, is deplorable. Deathbug, you seem like an intelligent guy, but I'd strongly advise you to re-think that opinion there.

[quote]However, the entire phrase "Failed me" indicates a lack of esponsibility on the student's part. Education is a two-way street. Teschers have to want to teach, true, but students actually have the more powerful position, because they decide their own dedication to success. [/quote]

Wait, so now you're saying that [i]both[/i] teachers and students have say in the classroom?

Actually, about the power issue...go and fight your teacher for control of the classroom. Go ahead. Try it, lol. I guarantee you'll be on the receiving end of an Academic Bitchslap.

You don't outright challenge the instructor. Students have very limited power in that respect. It's...political suicide to go up against an instructor. You're really not giving too much respect to educators here, are you? Your tone is very offensive to the teacher profession.

Yes, students [i]can[/i] decide their dedication to success, but the question is, [i]do they?[/i] Considering the substandard grades in my old high school when I was attending there, and now I hear the school has gotten flushed right down the toilet, I think it's very safe to say that students are truly not caring. If they do care, they're not trying, and therefore, the teachers are totally appropriate--and in the right--to fail them.

[quote]Even if you are unfortunate enough to have a really crappy teacher, you can take the responsibility to learn the subject yourself. I agree that it's unfair and you shouldn't have to, but it's better to put your education in your own hands rather than leave it up to an apathetic educator.

This is yet another problem of people not taking responsibility for their actions. When teachers don't want to take responsibility, "The students just don't want to learn." When stuidents don't want to take responsibility, "The Teachers failed me."

Next time you hear those phrases, consider who said them? Ask yourself if that person strikes you by their behavior as one who is dedicated to teacher/learning. More than not, they won't be.[/quote]

"than leave it up to an apathetic educator."

Yeah, you're biased. No offence. But your views are certainly tainted here.

"Next time you hear those phrases, consider who said them? Ask yourself if that person strikes you by their behavior as one who is dedicated to teacher/learning. More than not, they won't be."

Have you visited teacher prep courses? Sat in with people who will be teaching in 2006? We discuss that issue quite often, and even in one class, your argument loses steam. I don't know where you're looking, if you're looking at all, but "more than not," the teachers [i]are[/i] dedicated.

You're generalizing based on a small number of personal experiences that I can count on one hand.

[quote]And what's wrong with writing essays in gym class? I did.[/QUOTE]

Gym class does not serve a purpose to begin with, other than to make the school admins feel all warm and fuzzy that their brand-new track is being put to use. :p

EDIT: Ah, yes. No Child Left Behind.

I now have had a chance to peruse the legislation and I reach this conclusion.

The supporters of this act are doing nothing more than supporting throwing money on a fire.

Even if this link is the exact NCLB description, it's still substandard at best, and here's why.

For one, I question the very language of it. It is quite vague in many portions, often repeating terms over in the same section. They make references to "committees," essentially, but make no mention of [i]who[/i] will be on those committees. Now, considering just what government legislation and government-appointed committees have been in the past...really just government officials/worker/employees plucked out of whatever office they were in...can we really have any confidence in these proposed consultant groups? I see nowhere that this legislation makes a mention of incorporating educators into the restructuring, and that worries me very much.

Two, in nearly every section devoted to solutions, the only solution described is funding. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but that's nothing more than throwing money on a fire.

Three, did anyone notice how 80% of the high schools in South Jersey got an immediate warning after this...thing...was enacted? Yes, I expected Cinnaminson to get slapped. But I did not expect Cherry Hill schools to get smacked. I did not expect Moorestown to get smacked. Cherry Hill is known to be one of the best schools in Burlington County. Moorestown had a lawsuit over the Valedictorian position. Is that the sign of poor grades? Does anyone else see the logic of NCLB here? I certainly don't.

Four, as much as I wanted to see a detailed, step-by-step procedural outline, it would have still been an outline written by politicians.

If someone wants to argue that politicians are knowledgeable about the educational system, I'd point out Mayor John Street and Governor McGreevey.

Street proposed a total restructuring of the Philadelphia school systems. It was, in many respects, the government stepping in and taking control of everything. Teachers were going to get hurt badly--fired, if I remember correctly. Why did Street propose this? Because the schools weren't doing well. And we see how that turned out: a giant shitstorm. Teachers protested; the entire city was up in arms. Hell, even we South Jersey people couldn't stand what was going on.

McGreevey. Anyone heard of his restructuring proposal for higher education in Jersey? He had suggested that Rutgers be combined with a few other tech schools. The Rutgers name would be tossed aside. Rutgers as we know it would cease to exist, and would become part of some conglomerate school with a name like "New Jersey Network Of Technology." Does that make any sense at all? Is McGreevey demonstrating [i]any[/i] knowledge of the educational institution? I think not.

[InuyashaDeamon]

"No child left behind" is a bunch of crap. one thing is I was in resource english from 5th to 7th grade learning stuff I already know from the 3rd grade. I 8th I went into a half way class where it for students that are not ready for the regular english and yet too smart for resource english. passed with a C. I went into regular english with the hardest teacher luckly he had to have a sub for the year because my teach had a brain aneruism. But I was always behind in English and my senior year i had to take a juinor english and two senor englishes in th spring semester and I passed. But we you have a speech inpendment and teacher in 1 through 3 grade would put you in the bad of the class and ignore you for the whole year, and pass you out of pitty.

Now my friends little brother is in 7th grade and is at an 3rd grade reading lvl.

Truely the american school system is failing because, one lack of funding, two lack of teachers whole care about the students, not enough discipline to make where studnets will pay attention in class.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B][color=indigo][font=century]
The "the student isn't challenged" myth; I actually find this funny. what you are saying is that the student could easily do well in the class, s/he just doesn't. S/he isn't "challeneged"; this smacks of a complete and total refusal of responsibility for yoyr grades and your future. If you're not in a situation where you can be "challeneged", and you're bored in class because you know everything, my God, you have absolutely [b]no excuse[/b] for not passing!

You say as much yourself; "I'm not being challenged; this is too easy." If it's too easy, why aren't you passing? So it's boring; suck it up. It's simple logic; if you pass your classes with ease, you'll be noticed, and increase your odds of being placed in a class where you're "challenged". you have no excuse not to do outstandingly well if your excuse is that you're "not challenged".[/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]AN example of why a student may not do as well:I was placed in special education for one school year then they kept placing me in there up to my senior year of high school. I was too smart in those classes and all the other students hated me for that. A case like this can make a child refuse to learn any more so their peers would like them more. I didn't, but there is that possibility.
My husband attended a city high school before he dropped out (he attened Rancocca's Valley Regional High School in New Jersey prior to moving back to NY, but that's irrelevent) He was placed in 11th grade classes as a senior and slept thru most of the classes. Ok, he's actually a bad example. But he did get his GED and join the Army. Maybe if the school had placed him in the right grade he would've graduated-and maybe if Hitler had been hugged more as a child he wouldn't have started WW2.
My point is that sometimes a student's reaction to a lack of stimulous is refusal to do work at all. Even if that work is easier than what the student is capable of.[/color]

[quote][b]So you'll have to go in to a daily string of monotony; welcome to the real world. You think that sucks, wait 'till you get a job.[/b][/quote]
[color=violet]I've had quite a few jobs, starting in my junior year of high school. As many people know, I'm married, you want monotany, try looking for a job in central TX for a year.[/color]

[quote][b]The problem with the world today is that no one wants to take responsibility for themselves. Speaking of which...

The other great myth of education, what can be called the Bad Student's Mantra: "The teacher failed me."

Right, so I'm guessing the fact that you don't know the subject matter has nothing to do with it? [b]The teacher doesn't "fail" you; you failed![/b] If it was English, maybe you failed because you're using the word "failed" incorrectly....[/b][/quote]
[color=violet]This is a bit of a contradiction on your part since in one paragraph you blame the teachers and the next you blame the students. Either make up your mind or blame it on the schoolboard. Or maybe the planner. Or standardized tests. My brother was a good student, but choked at any essay question and some multiple choice due to a reading dissability. So I'd go with the standardized tests myself.
So yes, you should take responsibility for your actions. For example I'm tired of parents always wondering why their children have turned into spoiled brats. Perhaps they should look to how they raised their children.[/color]

[QUOTE][B]And what's wrong with writing essays in gym class? I did.[/color [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]I'm in a rather goofy mood right now so I'll respond to this-
I graduated in 99, the last of the New York state High school graduates who didn't need a regnets diploma to graduate. I never had to write an essay for gym class-altho I once had to take a test on volleyball. However, I can just guess how a paper about volleyball would go:
[b]we just finished the volleyball unit in gym class phase3. Volleyball originated in 33BCE where Egyptions....[/b]
I'm just going to stop now because this is too silly. Gym may serve some purpose-altho whether it's finding out just [i]how[/i] uncoordinated you are or getting excersize and being graded on it is up to other people to decide. But people, I had to take [b][i]aerobics[/i][/b] in gym class. I broke my ankle doing that![/color]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Looking back on what I wrote, it was not the clearest thing in the world....It seemed so beautiful when I was on my caffine high! What could have happened?

First, I'll state for the record that I have no real motive for typing this, other than self-expression. While I have been burdened with a useless non-teaching stump or two in my educational career, I really don't feel any grudges against them; I learned the material on my own when it became apparent that they would be no help, and I passed my courses all right. I took it for granted that I would get a lame duck teacher at some point in my life, and figured you just have to work with what you have.

In that sense, I might be biased; if I can overcome a crappy teacher and still do al right in the class, I'm not that sympathetic to those that don't.

Now, the NCLB act; I'll admit handily that I did'nt know anything about the act's legislation until this thread was started. The accusations that were flying, that the act would close the school if a student failed, seemed so incredibly counter-productive that I couldn't believe such legislation would pass Congress.

So I looked it up to find out what was going on. With such recent knowlege regarding the act, I really am in no position to argue semantics. My opinion on the legislation is this: President Bush was trying to do what he and his advisors thought best. Everyone wants to improve public education. Whether or not what the administration did actually would be successful remains to be seen.

(Admittedly, I'm a bit cautious when people instantly take to ragging on the President's actions. With Bush-bashing being the fashion, it pays to consider whether what is being assaulted is an action, or an action [u]done by Bush[/u].)

Now, my views on education. I speak only as a student, and not as one with experience in the teaching profession.

My views on education is that higher education is the shared responsibility of the student and the teacher. (Parents need to be heavily involved in early stages, but as time goes on, they're needed less and less.) A teacher must be trying to teach and a student must be trying to learn.

However, in this relationship, the student has the more powerful position. This is because the student is capable of learning without the teacher. Whether or not the student chooses to learn is a far more important choice that what the teacher decides to do.

I'm not sure why my earlier post comes off as anti-teacher, when I historically side with teachers. I place more responsibility on students, as a rule.

A teacher that say the "Students don't want to learn" is a bad teacher, emphasis on [i]student[b]s[/b][/i]. Plural. I'm not talking the odd unmotivated slacker student, I'm talking their students in general.

As for the phrase "failed me"; I simply cannot, on my priciples, condone the use of that phrase, at least not as much as it is used. It indicates a lack of responsibility for the outcome, and because, to my way of thinking, anyway, the student has more of an impact on their education than their teachers. The student takes the tests and does the projects. If they do good work and understand the subject matter, they should not fail.

Perhaps it is merely my own personality, but I can't stand it when students say that. If you fail, it is most likely your responsibility. You recount a personal incident, where it seems by what you said that you were well-aquainted with the subject material, but you left outt he most important detail: the basis on which you recieved a failing grade.

I'll gladly admit that I am biased against that phrase, because the students I always hear using it are the slackers who didn't put effort into the class in the first place. tHe whole phrase reeks of a lack of responsibility for the results of your education. My biggest pet peeve is responsuibilty, and how no one takes it any more.

I do not believe I said that a student should take control of their class; I said they should take control of their education. tHe materials are there, even if the teacher is apathetic. More than likely, they've got a book and the class outline, and more than likely, they can procure one if they don't.

I do still believe that a student who "isn't challenged" has no excuse for not passing. You have to pass your easier classes to move onto more difficult ones, even if it's boring to do so. There is some personal bias in that, because I "wasn't chalenged" for two years until I changed school systems and got some recognition and relocation.

As for the lawsuit statements....gah, what was I drinking when I wrote that crap? I was feeling mean-spirited; please disregard that garbage, and proceed to flog me until I get the point.

Basically...I feel that education is the shared responsibility of the teachers and the students. I aklao feel that my earlier posts were disorganized, mean-spirited crap. Thanks for calling me on it instead of letting me continue to make a fool of myself. ^^;;[/color][/size][/font]