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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by clumzgirl, Aug 6, 2004.

  1. clumzgirl
    Offline

    clumzgirl Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    ohio
    Ratings:
    +20
    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.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    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
     
  3. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    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.
     
  4. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    That makes sense to me. And, a belated happy birthday, Jeff!
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    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.
     
  6. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    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.

    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...

    source: http://www.purepolitics.com/MichaelBadnarik.htm
     
  7. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    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
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    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?
     
  9. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    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.

    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
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    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.
     

Share This Page