Talk:No Child Left Behind Act
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
Question on the Arguements for and against
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?
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)
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 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/60II/main591676.shtml) 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 (http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=41Media.h23)
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)
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)
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:
[1] (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr093003.htm)
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)
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)
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)
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 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/60II/main591676.shtml) 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 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3403664/) 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.
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?
