(it was a thing for my university writing class that got me kind of interested in this and what other people think about it)

For those who don't know, the No Child Left Behind act was introduced by our very dear president George W. Bush as a way to end the "soft bigotry of low expectation" mainly in reference to minority groups and students who come from "dysfunctional and impoverished environments." It sets a standard for each grade for what should have been learned in reading, math, and science and progress is measured by what everyone in public school should have taken at some point in time - standardized tests.

One problem with this is that people are arguing that schools aren't really teaching for the sake of learning anymore - they're teaching students to simply pass a test.

Dolores Umbridge ( ): “It is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be sufficient to get you through your examinations, which after all, is what school is all about.”

John Newman also talked about students becoming "test-taking machines" and that everything they learn to take these tests are forgotten immediately after.

That aside, there are a lot of schools that don't meet the standard and are in danger of losing their funding. People are also arguing that this system is only perpetuating what it's trying to stop. Studies show that Hispanics and Blacks typically do worse in the standardized tests and because of this, their schools lose funding.

Obviously, there are some serious flaws in the NCLB act - but at the same time, there should be a standard, right? We can't just let anyone graduate to the next grade.

Okay, so I'm pretty much cheating a little bit since I'm supposed to lead a 30-min discussion in class about this next Monday with my group. I'm pretty much using this debate forum to get ideas about what other people's viewpoints are on this. If it's not really a debate, you can move this to the lounge.

What I'm basically asking is for people to discuss these following ideas:
Does the NCLB act work? Do we need it? If not, what is a better system to follow?

Also, a lot of people seem to think that a child's future is mainly dependent on their parents. If his or her parents don't have anything higher than a HS degree, chances are they he or she wont, even with a NCLB act in place. I highly disagree with this statement, but the other members in my group agree with it completely, so different viewpoints on this would also be great.

Go!

A much better way to go about this would be to appoint a committee (there would be a precedent of well-minded people, of course, and there would have to be a certain kind of people for me to support it) of educational experts and have them design some broad standards that all high schools must follow (like all kids must at least learn the fundamentals of Algebra 2, no matter how, all kids must learn about systems of government, etc.). The focus here MUST be on education, of anything, not preparing someone for college or a career or a test. Offer more interesting classes with varying topics, not simply Math-Science-Social Studies-English. Get kids interested in learning, about anything. Kids don't want to learn the same stuff over and over, especially if it doesn't correspond to their interests.

No Child Left Behind SUCKS. Its goal is to bring the slower kids up and the gifted kids down so everyone is equal. Boo.

The question is ...

does pressuring students really work out?

Another thing i like to mentioned is that colleges are now looking more into student's standard test CST. it says that it reveals a true reflection of education better than SAT/ACT.

i think we need to expand the scope of education in this country. we should encourage kids to specialize in a particular field in the last two years of their high school years so they can prepare for the real world. if a kid wants to go to college/university, we should prepare them for their specific major but also combine those specialized courses with a more liberal education.

but we should also offer options to kids who aren't into academia. we still need skilled carpenters, construction workers, mechanics, business people, etc. and i think a more vocational track would be appropriate for them.

NCLB isn't going to increase the quality of our schools AT ALL, but i think it is our obligation to tackle the racist/classist element that is so prevalent in our school system. also, we need to quit building these mammoth schools and focus on creating smaller class sizes & smaller schools in general, because personal attention will create a better learning environment.

we also need to create a learning culture that emphasizes critical thinking and discussion of ideas & not just passive rote memorization of facts.

the most important thing, however, is bringing respect to the teaching profession. we need to train our teachers better by making them go through long-term internships and giving teachers more money for what they do. also, we need to give teaching jobs to the best of the best.

one law is not going to reform an entire education system. there should be a multi-tiered, long-term solution.

We use to focus very heavily on this type of education and still have vocation schools. However, having students specializing in high school proved to be very ineffective and pretty much useless. Many people change their majors and subjects in college. It's not productive to set a student on one track. Our system now in high school have electives and APs so the student can choose himself how much he wants to focus a particular field.

Vocation schools do exist but in today's world, a higher education degree would make the difference between staying in the same position from beginning to end and getting promoted. Once again, instead of setting the students on one track, the education system should provide choices.

I work in underfunded schools and you really see the detrimental/stupid effects of the NCLB act.

The first school I went to lost a bunch of grants because the student did below the expectation on a few exams. So what does the state do? They cut funding for extracurricular activities and other stuff. Sports/art got cut in funding. The funniest thing? They did really bad in literacy. Guess what gets cut? The library funding and other literacy budgets. The school has to worry about funding and pushing the students to meet standards that the conceptual and deeper understanding of subjects. The students definitely get the short end of the stick.

As for if there should be a standard, it's tricky. Most people who has been through high school and college, they are taught to compare themselves to averages. And there are grades for PASS and FAIL and other such things. However, from my students, I find that in one area they might meet the standard but in others, they fall short. For a lot of schools, promotion to the next grade depends solely on what the teachers believe should happen.



The SAT/ACT are standardized tests. And colleges are starting to stress the scores less, even though they do matter. It's a test that establishes a basis for what you should have know already. But then again, it's very much an endurance test also.

Well then our education system will truly be f**ked

For me, one of the biggest problems of NCLB is the fact that the school's funding is cut if they don't meet the requirements of their state.

My friend from Sweden told me that it was the exact opposite in Sweden. Schools that don't meet their requirements are actually given MORE money to hire more staff, more help, start more programs, etc.

Just thought that was interesting.

I know, that doesn't make sense at all. If a school is doing poorly, they clearly do not have the same resources. Generally, the schools that do well have a large money pool. Why in the world would you make it harder on them? To punish them for doing badly? How is it the school's fault? It's absolutely absurd.

Oh, Scandinavians...how great your countries are...

It just adds to the problems. Schools around the country continually get their funding cut due to not-meeting-standards. The funding becomes so poor that some schools actually have to close.

It seems so counter-productive.

Well, I'm a 15 year old highschool student.
& I just recently (when I say recently, I mean today and yesterday!) Took the MCA testing, brought to us, by the No Child Left Behind etc. etc.

My school is terribly 'poor' at test taking.

So what we do is do 'art grants' and such.

To raise money.

To than, do more testing.

I'm sorry, i forgot to mentioned it. it's CST. (california state testing)

NCLB is bullcrap. yeah well. it is.

our whole curriculum is based on what is going to appear on standardized tests. we have to pass three work prompts (writing, math and a science inquiry) and I think four state tests - i dont actually take them for some reason (math, reading, science and social studies) and we spend at least two hours a day testing, because we only have eight computers and the whole thing is computerized. we dont even have a computer lab. and now, as an 8th grader, a sophomore, and a junior, you have to take the ACT in stages. there's nine things you have to pass as an eighth grader into high school. and it's late may, and our class is still scrambling to pass. i myself have passed all my tests (when i did them in 6th grade, i was somehow qualified by my scores to go onto 9th.) and all my work samples, and i have F's and D's in all my subjects and am STILL on track to graduate 8th grade.

someone tell me if that isnt rediculous.
tell me now.

because i am intentionally failing just to prove this point.
(well, not so much intentionally failing language arts. that's just because i obviously cannot spell lol.)