No Child Left Behind...$$$$???

[clumzgirl]

I've been doing a good bit of polling in my county and I've heard repeated mentions of how terrible the No Child Left Behind initiative is, especially from teachers. I don't really know much about it except that it sounds good on paper, but teachers complain that 1) it was federally mandated and the money that would normally go toward books, supplies, etc. now goes toward testing, and 2) that LD students are not getting the help they need, instead being funneled through with other students.
I know some of you are teachers. Any thoughts?
I need to know how to answer teachers' questions and complaints, but GWB.com doesn't provide much help and I don't have the time to thoroughly research this.
Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[Annie]

I've been doing a good bit of polling in my county and I've heard repeated mentions of how terrible the No Child Left Behind initiative is, especially from teachers. I don't really know much about it except that it sounds good on paper, but teachers complain that 1) it was federally mandated and the money that would normally go toward books, supplies, etc. now goes toward testing, and 2) that LD students are not getting the help they need, instead being funneled through with other students.
I know some of you are teachers. Any thoughts?
I need to know how to answer teachers' questions and complaints, but GWB.com doesn't provide much help and I don't have the time to thoroughly research this.
Thanks in advance for your input.

Just my take on what has happened here. NCLB is good in the sense that it REQUIRES accountability:
1.teachers to keep their skills at a minimum level-or lose their certification
2.school systems-certain levels of performance, over time-or risk subsidized competition.
3.students-perform at minimum levels or no promotion.

Negatives:
1.Because ALL students are measured, schools with a high percentage of special needs children are at a disadvantage.
2.Low income students are at risk of truency, etc., they bring down the scores.
3.Too much testing.
4.Unfinanced/Underfinanced mandating-problem at all levels of government

 

[5stringJeff]

I say (and have said repeatedly) that the federal government should get out of the education business, dissolve the Dept. of Education, and provide a corresponding tax cut to the American people. I would also be fine if states and/or local governments raised taxes to make up for the loss, if they really needed it to run their schools.

 

[musicman]

That makes sense to me. And, a belated happy birthday, Jeff!

 

[Annie]

I say (and have said repeatedly) that the federal government should get out of the education business, dissolve the Dept. of Education, and provide a corresponding tax cut to the American people. I would also be fine if states and/or local governments raised taxes to make up for the loss, if they really needed it to run their schools.

Jeff, I agree with you. Problem is the states have a failing record at requiring accountability from the districts. I'd like to see the states pro-actively co-opt the DOEd. by creating the requirements with a more realistic way of teacher quality evaluations, help for lower income schools, and a rational way of testing-with minimum loss of teaching time.

 

[tpahl]

Just my take on what has happened here. NCLB is good in the sense that it REQUIRES accountability:
1.teachers to keep their skills at a minimum level-or lose their certification
2.school systems-certain levels of performance, over time-or risk subsidized competition.
3.students-perform at minimum levels or no promotion.

1. Government should not be in the business of certifying teachers. If a person wishes to teach and a parent wants that person to teach their child, the government should have no say in the matter.

Negatives:
1.Because ALL students are measured, schools with a high percentage of special needs children are at a disadvantage.
2.Low income students are at risk of truency, etc., they bring down the scores.
3.Too much testing.
4.Unfinanced/Underfinanced mandating-problem at all levels of government

I would add to the negatives,

5. The federal government has no authority nor does it even make sense to have education directed from a national level. The department of edcuation is unconstitutional and should be abolished as the GOP used to advocate up until 8 years ago.

6. If it takes more money to work properly as your #4 suggests, and Bushs 60% increase in the department of education was not enough for it to be properly funded at the federal level, then it is obviously a hugely inefficient way to get results in terms of results/dollar spent.

I leave you with a quote from badnarik on education that I think puts things into perspective...

The Department of Health Education and Welfare was created in 1953 at a time when American students placed number one in math and science worldwide. Now, after fifty
years of government control of schools, we spend ten times as much per student, and American students now finish twenty-first in math and science compared to other countries. Even if the Department of Education was Constitutional (which it is not), the department should be eliminated due to incompetence.

source: http://www.purepolitics.com/MichaelBadnarik.htm

 

[tpahl]

Jeff, I agree with you. Problem is the states have a failing record at requiring accountability from the districts. I'd like to see the states pro-actively co-opt the DOEd. by creating the requirements with a more realistic way of teacher quality evaluations, help for lower income schools, and a rational way of testing-with minimum loss of teaching time.

Our nation for nearly the first 100 years essentially did not have any government education and it was not until about 50 years ago that we had a federal government involvement in education. Not only would it be great to get rid of the federal government involvement as many of you agree with Badnarik on (yet Bush disagrees strongly), but also for some of the state and local government to elliminate their hold on education and instead return it to a free market.

Travis pahl

 

[Annie]

Our nation for nearly the first 100 years essentially did not have any government education and it was not until about 50 years ago that we had a federal government involvement in education. Not only would it be great to get rid of the federal government involvement as many of you agree with Badnarik on (yet Bush disagrees strongly), but also for some of the state and local government to elliminate their hold on education and instead return it to a free market.

Travis pahl

So we abolish all educational standards/requirements? Let all parents educate or pay someone to educate their children? Homeschooling would be viable alternative, with no monitoring that children are learning at any measurable level, with no curriculum provided by any set standards? Sort of a return to 1920 and before?

 

[tpahl]

So we abolish all educational standards/requirements? Let all parents educate or pay someone to educate their children?

Yes. People often complain of the state acting like parents. Their involvement in education is a prime example of them telling parents how things must be rather than letting parents be parents. I trust a parent much more than I do a government to make sure a child is educated properly.

Homeschooling would be viable alternative, with no monitoring that children are learning at any measurable level, with no curriculum provided by any set standards? Sort of a return to 1920 and before?

In a way, yes it would be a return to 1920 and before, in other ways it would be drastically different. The government would be out of the way of the education industry. When you look at every other industry in our country, they have changed dramatically because a free market for the most part thrived and led to innovation. In education government has become so invloved that for the most part we have a socialist education system. It is basically run by the government just as the Soviet union ran its industries. By getting government out of governments hands we will allow for great innovations in the feild as well as a competive feild where schools will have to compete to get students at low costs.

Travis

 

[Annie]

You know, I don't really have a problem with that. I think that could work, perhaps with the minimum fallout within 3 generations time. Of course, no problem with those that have the money/education to make sure their kids DO succeed in a way that for the past 60 years has been open only to the very elite.

It certainly would bode well for the educated, but not well to do. Their children would certainly have benefits in the job markets of their times, not to mention government offices. It would be a system where if you have the money, you can outsource to 'professionals' and if you don't have the money, but are educated enough to teach your children, they too can succeed. Of course, someone has to stay home to care for them.

Only question, what happens to the rest? Truly Hobbesian, but doable.

 

[tpahl]

You know, I don't really have a problem with that. I think that could work, perhaps with the minimum fallout within 3 generations time. Of course, no problem with those that have the money/education to make sure their kids DO succeed in a way that for the past 60 years has been open only to the very elite.

Interestingly enough, alot of the initial supporters of government education made the arguement that it would only be required for a generation and after that everyone would be smart enough to know to educate their children. Of course everyone already was educating their children before government education came to the 'rescue'. The problem of course was that catholics were educating thier children at catholic schools rather than the protestant ones that the government leaders wanted them taught at.

It certainly would bode well for the educated, but not well to do.

Actually even the 'uneducated' have been found to place a very high value on education for their children and more often than not will make huge sacrifices when they know it will result in a better education for their children. However with the government system in place there is very little room for many oppurtunities for such people to send their children. Even with this obstacle many poor and uneducated still today make great sacrifices to improve their childrens education.

Their children would certainly have benefits in the job markets of their times, not to mention government offices. It would be a system where if you have the money, you can outsource to 'professionals' and if you don't have the money, but are educated enough to teach your children, they too can succeed. Of course, someone has to stay home to care for them.

Only question, what happens to the rest? Truly Hobbesian, but doable.

Actually I would say it is the government system that is far more Hobbesian and hurts the poor. Today the poor end up in the worst schools. Sure they may graduate, but it is hardly an education. With a free market, these schools that do not educate would go out of business while other schools that offer a real education at a low cost would thrive. Poor children would be able to get assistance from churches, charities, even local businesses that offer scholarships. The cost of education would be so much less than it is in todays beurocratic government schools that such assistance would go much further. Also education is often close to 40-50% of states and local governments budgets. Freeing up that much money from taxes would allow many parents to stay at home and home school.

And even the uneducated can often homeschool a child for many years before extra help is needed. And often just giving the child the desire to learn and read is enough to allow the child to educate themselves. But sadly that does not happen nearly enough in todays government schools.

Travis

 

[Annie]

Certainly would be worth discussion of.

 

[clumzgirl]

Ok, but what about NCLB? As a supporter of Bush, how do I argue that it is a good program? Or does it suck so bad that it is a thorn in the president's agenda? (Along with amnesty for illegals, but that's a different post...)

I'll give you the scenario:
I was volunteering at the Republican tent at our county fair when several history and social studies teachers came in to collect material to give equal space to both candidates on their bulletin boards. And while some of them were Bush supporters, they all had plenty of negative things to say about NCLB.
What would you have said in support of it?
Do most Republicans buy into it? Or is it one of those sore issues we sweep under the carpet?

 

[tpahl]

Ok, but what about NCLB? As a supporter of Bush, how do I argue that it is a good program? Or does it suck so bad that it is a thorn in the president's agenda? (Along with amnesty for illegals, but that's a different post...)

I'll give you the scenario:
I was volunteering at the Republican tent at our county fair when several history and social studies teachers came in to collect material to give equal space to both candidates on their bulletin boards. And while some of them were Bush supporters, they all had plenty of negative things to say about NCLB.
What would you have said in support of it?
Do most Republicans buy into it? Or is it one of those sore issues we sweep under the carpet?

I am not a republican, but am a supporter of limited government. I would say it is not something to be proud of. Not more than 8 years ago the GOP had in its platform the abolition of the dept. of Education. I would think most teachers would be for less federal control of their schools. In the past 8 years the GOP has swung to the left so far on this issue that Bush is actually bragging that he increased the budget of the DOE by 60% in the past 3 years. Predominantly from my understanding this is to fund NCLB. yet NCLB has resulted in little improvements and requests for MORE money.

In reading the intents of NCLB it is a noble goal. But as with most government programs, it is not working as intended nor for the amount intially estimated.

If I were you I would tell people at the fair that many in the GOP feel that Bush has misled the party in terms of education but hopefully soon they will again push for less federal control in local schools.

Travis

 

[5stringJeff]

As a REPUBLICAN (and not as a Libertarian who is working for the downfall of the GOP) I would say that Bush believes that NCLB will help rasie the standards of education nationwide by making schools accountable; however, many conservatives in the party feel that while Bush's ideas are good, education should be handled at the state/local level, not the federal level.

 

[tpahl]

As a REPUBLICAN (and not as a Libertarian who is working for the downfall of the GOP)

Actually I am not just hoping for the downfall of the GOP. To be completly accurate, I am hoping for either the downfall of the GOP or (this is the important part so listen up) saving it from the path to liberalism that it has taken (by such things as NCLB and increasing the department of educations budget by 60% in only 3 years and then bragging about it.

I would say that Bush believes that NCLB will help rasie the standards of education nationwide by making schools accountable; however, many conservatives in the party feel that while Bush's ideas are good, education should be handled at the state/local level, not the federal level.

I would just add the word 'falsly' before the word beleives.

Travis

 

[Avatar4321]

My question is: If the No Child Left Behind act isnt being funded enough, why is it that the department of Education is requesting States spend the surplus funds the federal government gave them earmarked for Education or they will lose it?

 

[Annie]

My question is: If the No Child Left Behind act isnt being funded enough, why is it that the department of Education is requesting States spend the surplus funds the federal government gave them earmarked for Education or they will lose it?

Unfunded mandates. I know the school district I live in, (wealthy school district) turned down the funds in order to test how and when they wanted. Thus the problem when at the federal level, schools should be primarily local/state based. I disagree that there should be no laws regarding education and that all parents are equipped to educate their own children. I do support those that are committed to homeschooling, think that it has proven itself over time-but it takes a lot of effort.

I wish there was some mechanism to offset property tax for funding-to at least a minimum level. I'm not a bleeding heart by any means and right off the bat I'll say I have my app in for surrounding high school districts. My kids' high school spent $17,500 per student, in the 2003 school year. The grammar schools are over $13k per student and teachers avg $48k per year. HS Teacher with MA + 16, one extra curricular activity= $109k per year. Sports is a pay if you play, as is band/orchestra. School books cost an avg of $150 per year, out of pocket. Best teachers, best facilities.

How can a school with poorer parents, lower property taxes be considered comperable? Since 9/11 the state has cut the amount sent to the schools, with districts like mine taking a hit, but last two elections referendums have passed-the people want the $ in the school. I know North Chicago can't do that.

 

[WhatTheHell2]

I taught special education for years and in my last years I saw an increase in Hispanic students who did not speak English and extra help had to be hired to teach them. Mariposa School of Language is 98% Hispanic and was built especially for Spanish speaking children. Paid for by the tax payer who is losing their home in foreclosures.

 

[editec]

Ok, but what about NCLB? As a supporter of Bush, how do I argue that it is a good program? Or does it suck so bad that it is a thorn in the president's agenda? (Along with amnesty for illegals, but that's a different post...)

I'll give you the scenario:
I was volunteering at the Republican tent at our county fair when several history and social studies teachers came in to collect material to give equal space to both candidates on their bulletin boards. And while some of them were Bush supporters, they all had plenty of negative things to say about NCLB.
What would you have said in support of it?
Do most Republicans buy into it? Or is it one of those sore issues we sweep under the carpet?[/quote]

They buy into it because their hidden agenda is to defund public education so they don't have to pay taxes.