Talk:No Child Left Behind Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merging with AYP articles
No reason AYP needs to stand alone as seperate articles. Its a No Child Left Behind specific metric and term. Electrawn 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
No Child Gets Ahead
No Child Left Behind requires teachers to focus on getting the kids who are behind caught up with the kids who are ahead. This means that kids that could be learning faster must wait for the other students to catch up. However, problems occur when 3rd grade children who can only read at 1st grade level are not allowed to read 1st grade level books, or even second grade level books, and are required to read 3rd grade level books. They never get ahead. AND they never will
No Child Left Behind sets expectations and measures students but fails to provide a process to give the best result.
People can argue otherwise, but anyone familiar with the public school system or who has actually spoken or participated will tell you the problems. Success rarely comes from the Left Behind Program. It comes more frequently from school districts who have innovative principals and teachers blessed with active and involved parents. No Child Left Behind just takes credit for their work. Then it dodges responsibility where schools are failing.
The reality is that most students are taught to pass the test. No Child Left Behind meets test score expectations much like Enron and WorldCom met Wall Street expecations.
What the education system needs is a complete overhaul and reeavuation of the system. It is still being run under a "Leave It To Beaver" fantasy world born out of the Industrial Revolution trying to uniformly indoctrinate children in an assembly line fashion.
Adults are terrified of the potential that todays children are offered through computers and electronic media. Emotion stimulates memory retention and children today can learn through interactive video games and movies a terrifying amount of information that their parents had to extract from tattered textbooks and inaccurate encyclopedias.
Take Wikipedia as an example. Rather than take a one dimensional view of the American Revolution, a student can begin reading a synopsis of the American Revolution and then delve into the biographies and histories of the characters and events simply by clicking the embedded links.
Students can take math tests in video game fashion with instant individual grade feedback.
Through the internet, students can study reading and math, the foundations of every other science, as applied to their current interest.
But No Child Left Behind does not provide for an innovative process. It does not provide tools.
It merely says "We expect A's!" and then takes credit when they occur. But it does nothing.
So when No Child Left Behind is exposed like Enron and Iraq's WMD's, let us not say we were surprised.
[edit] Question on the Arguments for and against
The Arguments sections have become markedly out of balance over the months, due presumably to the enthusiasm of those critical of NCLB, casting a shadow on the article's aspiration toward NPOV. -- 66.166.183.7
Both of these sections seem a little strange to me but I'll admit that I'm new to Wikipedia. My concern is that both sections seem like statements of opinion rather than statements of fact. For instance this line: "The schools that need help the most are punished instead of given more funding as additional funding is often denied or at most minimized." is absolutely false. Schools that are identified as needing improvement actually receive more money then schools who make AYP. Are these suppose to be opinion sections or do the same neutral point of view and source rules apply?
Answer: I am pretty sure that they are the most common arguments made for or against the act, so they don't have to be true. I'm sure some of the arguments for it are also false. ;) -- 69.132.183.189 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
That was a kinda ugly redo of the intro, but it's better. If it's still there later, I'll redo it. -Elliott Shultz 17:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the sentence "This law attempts to improve the performance of America's primary and secondary schools by increasing the the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend" should maybe be changed. Some people believe that the law is not attempting to improve the performance of schools, but is an attemt to destroy the public school system, thus destroying vestiges of socialism in socieity which the Republican party has vocally disliked. I'm not saying it should say that, as that's a rather partisan view, but it shouldn't outright state what their motives are when we, of course, do not knows the motives behind the bill, only what the Bush administration says the motives behind the bill are. So maybe it should be changed this "This law claims to attempt to" or something. - Aerothorn 01:18, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
I was sitting at a diner discussing this with my friends. I mean, the evidence is in Rod Paige's history that he wished to eliminate the national department of eductation. Same with Ronald Regan. Now, this is a theory, and also an argument for/against, i mean, it depends on your political viewpoint on the desire to eliminate the department of education. According to some of my teacher/administrator friends, because of the good special education programs they have, some of the top schools in the area they work at fail and start losing funding because of their failing. they also told me that within 8 years, every single school in the wealthy western suburbs of chicago will be failing the standard. therefore after a certain period of time, they won't recieve federal funding, and if 80% of schools in the nation go that way (like many suburban communities do i've heard also from friends in new york, wisconsin, and the D.C. Metro area) then, they might as well nix federal funding for all school and abolish the department of education. if you concur that that is a possibility and could be ladled into this entry then, (and just because i word it to sound like it's a bad thing, doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it's a very conservative ideal obviously for states rights and less national control, it's just not my idea), then concur... (statement follows)
- NCLB may be a covert flushing mechanism developed by Rod Paige to eliminate the Department of Education by requireing unreachable high standards to fail a disproportionate amount of schools and reduce the amount of federal funding handed out so that eventually the individual states would pay entirely for their school system.
--Evesummernight 22:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
What bothers me about it is it's turned what were once classes about, say, English, into year-long test-coaching sessions. —Casey J. Morris 03:55, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] A few suggestions
I've just discovered wikipedia, so I'm still feeling my way around. I am however, familiar with NCLB, and have a few suggestions.
First, in the main article, I would consider adding to the end of the first paragraph a sentance or two about the basis of NCLB. Such as:
The No Child Left Behind Act is based primarily on the reform strategies instituted by President Bush during his tenure as governor of Texas. These reforms dubbed "The Texas Miracle" have come into question in Texas where allegations have surfaced that schools were manipulating data to improve their results.
I would also suggest that in advance of the arguements for and against, major requirements of the law be listed then list the pro's and con's. Here are some of the major requirements.
- All student's progress will be measured annually in reading/language arts and math in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school. By the end of the 2007-2008 school year, testing will also be conducted in science once during grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.
- Provides support for parents by requiring that states and school districts issue detailed report cards on the status of schools and districts. Under the law, parents must also be informed when their child is being taught by a teacher who does not meet "highly qualified" status. Schools are also required to include and involve parents in the school planning.
- Schools receiving Title I funds that do not meet "adequate yearly progress" requirements for a two consecutive years will be required to institute school choice allowing eligible children to transfer to higher performing schools. If the school does not meet targets the next year, supplemental educational services such as tutoring and after school programs must also be offered. If the school continues in "in need of improvement" status it will be required to take corrective action uch as removing relevant staff, implementing new curriculum, decreasing management authority, appointing outside experts to advise the school, extending the length of the school day or year or restructuring the school's internal organization.
- Schools are required to use "scientifically based" strategies.
Please note: I have deliberately not used the term "failing" as the 4th argument for does in the article. The U.S. Dept. of Education has been very clear that schools are not deemed "failing" when they do not make AYP and that they do not want that term used. Education Week
[edit] adding what I can
I'd love to get more help on this topic from teachers and admins --DennisDaniels 02:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Changes that need to be made here
I'd like to see a more exhaustive and detailed explanation of what the law requires and provides. Also, the arguments for/against sections need to be more thoroughly explained and documented, so it's clear that the bullet points are statements of positions in the ongoing debate, not facts. Finally, a section on the political controversy should be added, since the fate of NCLB is perhaps the key education issue in the U.S. presidential race. I'll be coming back to work on this more when I'm not at my ed-reform job. :-) -- Lottelita 22:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Documentation of conservative opposition to federalization of education
Here is a link to some of Ron Paul's discussion of the federal control fears deriving from the NCLB voucher provisions:
Here is a quote from that document: "In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test. "
John Kerry, in his 100 day plan to change America, gives reality to these fears of increased federalization, with his mandatory public service for high school graduation proposal. See [talk:Revival of the draft] for more links to documentation.--Silverback 08:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms
I cut this from the article, but it could be repaired and put back:
- While governor of Texas, Mr. Bush presided over the "the Texas Miracle" — a series of public school improvements under laws very similar to the current national No Child Left Behind Act.
- Evidence suggests that some of the Texas school improvements came about with score tampering.
Is there an article on the Texas Miracle? Did student achievement go up (or even up spectacularly), as the term miracle would imply?
The weasel words "evidence suggests" are no substitute for attributing the POV of the advocates who oppose NCLB for duplicating the 'duplicity' of Texas Miracle. We should identify these advocates, or omit the criticism altogether. Perhaps the unsigned contributor above knows whose POV this is.
Many people have ideas about what is "best" for children's education. And even among those who agree that the focus should be on the "Three R's" there is heated disagreement on HOW children should be taught to read, write, and do arithmetic.
As an engineer who values clear and accurate communication along with honest reporting on problems and attempted solutions, I have a Point of View (POV) in this controversy, but I will try hard to distinguish between "objective reality" and my own POV. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:43, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Equality of results
The idea that any system which produces unequal results must necessarily be "unfair", informs much of the ethical arguments about education (as well as employment). This bleeds over into the affirmative action controversy.
Please help me distinguish between the ideas of Stephen Covey and Sun Myung Moon, who emphasize personal responsibility -- and other ideas such as "equal opportunity should result in equal outcomes". As a Covey fan and Moon follower, I am so wedded to their ideas that it might blind me to my biases. I'll think, "Of course it's true that students who apply themselves will get better grades than dunces who watch TV all afternoon."
I think a good teacher will set strict standards, explain the concepts in a way children can understand, and do their best to make education enjoyable. Bad teachers, i.e., those who cannot or will not do these things, should be paid less or, better, fired.
Parents who complain that their kids "aren't learning" should first examine their own child-rearing methods. Do they require their children to do homework before goofing off? Do they reward diligence and achievement? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Texas Miracle criticisms
I was the contributor who originally suggested that content. In regards to evidence concerning the duplicity of the "Texas Miracle" I included a link in my original suggestion to a CBS article on the questionable drop out statistics reported by the Houston Independent School District (which by the way is where Secretary of Education Rod Paige was Superintendent and where many of the reforms within NCLB sprang from)
The article reports on the findings of Robert Kimball, an assistant principal at Sharpstown High School in Houston, who took a closer look at his schools drop out statistics when he noticed that "his school claimed that no students – not a single one – had dropped out in 2001-2002."
The article further goes on to say:
"Investigators checked half of the city’s regular high schools. They reviewed the records of nearly 5,500 students who left those schools, and checked how the schools explained it. They found that almost 3,000 students should have been, but weren’t, coded as dropouts. The audit substantiated Kimball’s allegations."
Here is a second article from MSNBC that looks at the drop out rates at Austin High School (also in Houston) where the article explains that "during a decade in which, routinely, as many as half of Austin students failed to graduate, the school’s reported dropout rate fell from 14.4 percent to 0.3 percent."
The same article goes on to describe how achievement on the 10th grade math exam skyrocketed from 26 percent passing in 1995 when Paige became superintendent to 99 percent in 2001 when he left the district.
Weaker students are held back in 9th grade. After two or more years in 9th grade those students are then moved up to 12th grade therefore skipping the test altogether.
So I guess I could have left out the "evidence suggests" and just plain said they lied, but I was trying to be impartial and let the reader decide for themselves the value of the evidence.
I could continue by pointing out similar concerns regarding the reporting of school violence and investigations underway in Houston and Dallas regarding what can only be described as blatant cheating on the TAKS exams.
- Having studied this issue in grad school, I agree with this user's comments on the need to discuss the test-rigging issue. No one has raised any issues that would question this, so I'm going to go ahead and make the change. SlipperyN 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Privatization of schools
This is listed in the "arguments against":
- # NCLB is designed to set the stage for the eventual privatization of the U.S. public school system: reports about struggling schools sour public opinion and may cause more and more voters to question the viability of public education.
I see this as an NPOV issue, because this point could clearly be an argument for or against; the article as it currently stands displays a bias in opposition to privatization.
~ Booyabazooka 02:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- The people who actually raise the prospect of complete privatization see it as a negative, and we're reporting their position. If some notable spokesperson has endorsed NCLB because it will be one step on the road to privatization, we can quote that person. I suspect you're correct that many of them think that way, but they probably consider it politically unwise to admit it. Our problem, then, is that we don't base our discussion of differing POVs on speculation. We'd need to find somebody prominent who openly hails the prospect of phasing out public education. JamesMLane 03:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about a link to a page that describes what "Title I" is?
[edit] Military recruiters dispute
There appears to be some disagreement about how the section about access to military recruiters (in "Arguments Against") should be worded. I argue, based upon [2] and my understanding of the law as an educator, that it is misleading to state that schools are required to provide only that access which they provide to other institutions of higher learning, and in fact that many schools do not provide any comprehensive list of their students to colleges and universities. Cultofpj disagrees (and he can probably summarize his reasoning better than I can). Any third-party thoughts? ESkog 2 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)
Here is the exact wording from the law: [3] SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION. (a) POLICY- (1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings. (2) CONSENT- A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the student's name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request. (3) SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS- Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.
Thanks for offering to resolve this on the talk page. Cultofpj 4 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
- Good enough for me. Thanks for clarifying. ESkog 6 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
[edit] Arguments against that need clarification
- Supports early learning, an approach criticized in "Better Late Than Early", by Raymond Moore, et al.
- Indicators of school performance are not accurate or viable.
- Testing is not coupled with plans and funding to remedy problems that might be detected by the testing. Instead, a system of increasing punishments is provided to take away resources from schools (i.e. from the students and employees of schools) which exhibit failing threashold scores.
- Although "local freedom" is advertised as a benefit of NCLB, school districts are free to choose one curriculum package from a federally developed list of about 6 products, and cannot use the funding for any other purpose. Thus, the main immediate effect of NCLB is to provide a lucrative income stream to large corporate curriculum publishers. There is some public accusation of political cronyism in this result.
- NCLB gives future teachers no creativity in the teaching process.
- Students with disabilities do not have the proper learning techniques because the standardized testing is over-stressed.
And this, I believe, is incorrect:
- Students with learning disabilities do not receive extra help when taking the standardized tests, and can jeopardize the assigned rating the entire school is given.
It's proven?
- Students who are learning English as a second language are expected to take the standardized tests and show proficiency equal to their English-speaking peers, when it is proven that English-Language-Learners take between 5 and 10 years to "catch up" to grade-level proficiency.
Also likely incorrect, since the law places an emphasis on special education improvement:
- Focus on improving the average student's education may ignore individual differences between students, and potentially harm both special and gifted education programs.
Does it "remove funding"?
- NCLB focuses on basic educational classes and removes funding from music programs, art programs, etc. This results in schools being forced to remove elective and after school programs.
Thanks for helping me sort this out, in advance. Rkevins82 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I was a special education teacher in Texas whoe retired in 2004 and am somewhat familiar with to provisions of NCLB re special education. Prior to NCLB, speced students could taken a State Developed Alternative Assessment in lieu of the TAKS test the regular students took. SDAA is available in a variety of grade levels and a speced student could take the test at whatever level was deemed appropriate. When NCLB is fully implemented, they will have to take the same test as regular students, at the same grade level. Also, students could, if part of the Individual Education Plan, receive various types of assistance, such as having the test read to them, which will not be allowed under NCLB. There was a lot of discussion at the time of the conflict between existing laws/regulations regarding speced modifications and NCLB, which basically says that all students will acheive the same results.
To be fair, I should point out that there has been the preception, at least, that schools were guilty of placing students in special ed inappropriately in order to make apparent gains in test results.Wschart 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Did George Bush choose the term for its "Revelation" Significance
Certainly our President was well aware of the popular series of books and movies when he named this program. Do you think it was an intentional "codeword" to equate educating children with soul-saving? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themeparkphoto (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but to include such a claim in the article you would need to cite a reliable source for that information. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unbalenced Nature of "Arguments" section
There are easily twice the number of "cons" as "pros" listed for NCLB. I don't know what the other pros are, but I'm sure they exist, and we should list them.12.17.189.77 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It would also help to attribute all of the pros and cons to the people who have advanced these arguments. I'll see what I can find. Lottelita 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I added several new arguments which I hope will help address this issue. SlipperyN 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criteria
There should be something in the article about how a school can be doing overall very well, but if a very small number of students in a particular group are not improving every year, then the whole school can be labeled as failing. Also, how the act creates incentives not to count students as being "dropouts". AnonMoos 15:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. Each ethnic group, with those recieving free lunch counted as an additional ethnic group, must show ayp which means, amoung other things, 95% showing up to take the test. If a school as 10 native americans out of a population of, say, 2000 students, and one native american doesn't show up, that school could get a demerit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beowulfen (talk • contribs) .
-
- This is not usually the case. To start, a minimum number of students have to be present in a school for it to count for accountability reasons. States were allowed to set the size (10 is used in some states). However, in the American Indian example, the one student would have to be out of school for the entire test window (generally, two weeks) for an unexcused reason. This is fairly rare. Also, there are safeharbors that protect against this by averaging across years. See United States Department of Education (2004-05-19). Policy Letter to Chief State School Officers on Flexibility in Calculating Participation Rates Under No Child Left Behind. Press release. Retrieved on 2006-09-11.
Rkevins82 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proponents vs Opponents
NCLB does not have the effect of "restricting collective bargaining rights" in most districts. Rather, it allows for creation of charter schools--which tend not to be unionized due to the free choice of staffers who vote to remain out of the unions. So let's be fair in stating proponents' case and not use opponent-type arguments for both sides. (ChulaOne 14 July 2006)
[edit] Seperation of powers
Is there any point to adding a section covering how this might be seen as a violation of the 10th amendment?
Education has been a state/local area of concedrn because it is not mentioned in the constitution.
--flyingember
- Do you intend to do this for every act which may not be directly provided for by the Constitution? Rkevins82 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup of Pros and Cons sections
As many have noted on this talk page, the pros and cons sections are poorly referenced and often redundant, and fail to distinguish between factual and rhetorical claims. I'm wondering if people have suggestions as to how to clean this up and get this to quality standards. I'm gathering references and would like to try to consolidate, but what do others think is the best way to approach this? SlipperyN 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I made the changes to the opposition section of the act, consolidating and adding references so that all claims are supported. Any feedback on these changes would be welcome! SlipperyN 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merger Performed
I performed the long-suggested merger by redirecting the criticisms page to here. All the content of that page was redundant with the lengthier criticism page here. SlipperyN 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality Dispute
In response to Ragnar the Magnificent's neutrality dispute tag, I've added several additional claims made in favor of the act and supporting references. I think it is appropriate to remove the tag or at least point to specific missing pieces and add them, or point them out for others to add. The mere face that there are more arguments in opposition than in favor does not, in and of itself, constitute a neutrality violation.SlipperyN 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I reread the article and think your improvements end the npov dispute. I've removed the tag. Benzocane 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Violation of separation of church and state
I propose that this section (found under Aguements against NCLB) be removed. It doesn't pertain to NCLB because nothing in the law directs funds to nonpublic, private, or parochial schools. Cultofpj 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Additions to claims in favor
A recent anon addition of all the claims the gov makes in favor of the act seems misplaced to me as they are unsourced. The claims in favor prior to that addition are at least backed up with research, however controversial. But just listing all of the promised advantages of the legislation at length seems unencyclopedic to me. Our focus should be on registering objective and measurable effects of the legislation in question, not just advertising it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
