CNN: No Child Left Behind lawsuit thrown out

[Robert Cooper]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/23/education.lawsuit.ap/index.html

"The lawsuit alleged that there was a gap between federal funding and the cost of complying with the law. Illinois, for example, will spend $15.4 million annually to meet the law's requirements on curriculum and testing but will receive $13 million a year, the lawsuit said."

...

"Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said, "This is a victory for children and parents all across the country. Chief Judge Friedman's decision validates our partnership with states to close the achievement gap, hold schools accountable and to ensure all students are reading and doing math at grade-level by 2014." "

Okay, two questions:

1. Given the $2.4 million annual deficit on this plan, why not opt out altogether, create their own plan, etc?

2. "...to ensure all students are reading and doing math at grade-level by 2014." -2014- ?? What possible excuse is there for graduating kids who are -not- "reading and doing math at grade-level"? A lot of kids are going to graduate high school by then. How are they supposed to compete for jobs against those who graduate after 2014, if their reading and math skills are below grade-level? How do we apply the words "No Child Left Behind" if thousands of kids are going to finish school before 2014 without grade-level reading and math skills? Is the current generation of students just guinea pigs, a throw-away generation?

Okay, a few more than -two- questions.

How does it feel to have kids in school who are expected to fail reading and math until 2014?

[renie408]

1. This explains why I am homeschooling my fourth grader n/t

[Robert Cooper]

4. Is it due to NCLB...

or would you homeschool anyway?

[renie408]

16. Well, because of NCLB

my daughter's school spends nearly half the year teaching to the test leaving, in my opinion, huge gaps in her education. They are so worried about their year-end test results that the focus from mid-February on is test taking skills and the year-end test.

When you combine that with the over all educational standard in South Carolina and the lack of availability of quality advanced programs in our rural community at her grade level...we just decided homeschooling was something we should try. Also, she was catching heat from kids in her class because we are atheists. After the third or fourth time that she came home in tears because the good little Christian kids were teasing her that her parents were going to burn in hell, I got sick of dealing with it.

(BTW...I have repeatedly joked that we are the only people in the history of South Carolina who decided to homeschool because we are NOT Christians!)

[Robert Cooper]

17. Well done Renie

Those are all excellent reasons, IMHO.

[tsuki]

46. Yep, that's the reason we have a progressive home schooling

association in our county.

[EFerrari]

2. First, you have to remember that NCLB is like all the other

Orwellian pieces of the Bush agenda. It doesn't seek to improve public schools but rather to end them and divert those monies elsewhere -- in part, to private schools, and to BFEE cronies -- publishers, testing consultants, etc., directly or indirectly.

So, "opting out" would suit the agenda just fine!

And, there is no evidence that in 2014 public education will be one iota better. By that time, schools will have become adept at getting kids to pass standardized tests. That's not the same as literacy.

:)

[Robert Cooper]

3. So any state that opts out...

has it's PS system undercut by the Feds? I thought education was a state right. How can the Feds monkey with the way a state handles its education system? What happens if a state passes laws that nullify NCLB?

[EFerrari]

6. The Feds can pull the money. And as the Feds have been pulling

so many funds in so many areas, the states are already in crisis.

And, the states can't legislate the Federal Budget.

[danielmillstone]

8. Refusal to comply with No Child Left Behind

Federal aid to education is conditioned on compliance with NCLB. A state may opt out if it elects not to receive federal money; Utah has been debating such an opt-out.

[EFerrari]

10. Welcome to DU, daniel

:hi:

[Robert Cooper]

13. Thanks and welcome...

....ahh, it seems like only yesterday that I had "1 post". Use them wisely and enjoy :-)

[newyawker99]

42. Hi danielmillstone!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[tsuki]

47. The feds cannot only pull the money for NCLB, but if they go to

enforcement, can pull all federal funding for schools.

[renie408]

18. DING DING DING

Right answer!!

Schools are teaching tests now, not courses.

I got scared when my daughter was making straight A's, but was still reading at a very elementary level and had no clue about fractions or division in the fourth grade.

[TomClash]

5. They'll be "recruited" into the military

"No Child Left Behind" allows the Pentagon to create a database on every high school age child in the US for recruiting purposes.

This is perfect for the ruling class, the haute bourgeoisie and their putrid vassals. It allows them to evade service to the country while reaping the benefits from the service of others - all the time comfortably snug in the knowledge that they are "better" than those who fight for them.

Nice people, eh?

[EFerrari]

7. That's right! That was the double-extra bonus.

I just heard this during a reading on BookTV: "The SS is very concerned for the security of relocating Jews."

[TomClash]

23. Huh?

I don't understand.

[EFerrari]

27. The quote was Nazi double talk -- of the kind we're grown so

familiar with over the last 5 years.

NCLB's extra bonus for the Cabal is, in addition to raping our schools, they can more easily harvest the children.

[TomClash]

28. Got it.

Thanks, I'm a bit slow today. :)

[EFerrari]

35. I think we must all have cranberry hangovers.

Sorry! :)

[ComerPerro]

9. I would be very interested in seeing an analysis of costs

that are associated with NCLB requirements.

I would like to see how states are funded and how that funding they recieve compares to their required costs, as a percentage.

And I would like to see that percentage and those figures broken down over several categories, including cost per student, funding per school, and cost per state population, as well as a few other statistics.

Then, for each of those categories I would like to see how the numbers break down in each statistic when comparing states with Democratic governors to ones with Republican governors, as well as Blue vs. Red based on the 2004 election....


Not that I suspect the Administration of playing politics with children's futures, or anything...

[EFerrari]

11. And they pretend to be against the redistribution of wealth!

Wasn't there a chart floating around here last January that showed the red states are funded by the blue states?

[ComerPerro]

14. Red State welfare queens? Yeah. I can't remember the data

but it pretty much expressed Federal funds vs. population and taxes paid.

[dkofos]

33. You forget

Cost is no object, when tax dollars go to make your CRONIES richer!!

[LizW]

12. Answers

To question 1: The federal government will withhold other funding too, if states opt out of NCLB. The other funding is too important to low achieving and special needs children, and states have no funds to replace it.

#2: ALL student will NEVER read and do math at grade level, if NCLB stays the law until eternity. The public schools are charged with educating ALL children, but all children aren't the same. The public schools take every child, as required by law, and there are many, many children with special educational, language, or physical needs. Special provisions and accommodations are made for children who need them. NCLB doesn't take any of that into account. For instance, a child who comes to the United States speaking no English and enrolls in school is expected to take that year's test in English, with no help, if he's been in school three months before the test. That child will fail to test on grade level, not because he's not smart, and not because the school isn't teaching him, but because he doesn't yet read the language the test is given in. By the next year, that child may pass, but there may be another child who has just come to the school and now he has to take the test in English and now HE fails. NCLB doesn't track individual student progress, it tracks groups of similar students. If a school system has enough of a particular group of students, and children of that type generally fail, they will be considered not meeting the standard. If a school has even one group of students that fails on any standard, the entire school is counted as not meeting yearly progress, even though the students being tested in that group are different kids, and are kids who may not have even been in that school last year.

NCLB is very complicated, and in my opinion is intended to make people come to just the conclusion you did, that the public schools aren't doing a good job. It is a set up to call the public schools failures so funding can be shifted to private schools.

[Robert Cooper]

15. Thanks, now I have a couple more questions

You said "The other funding is too important to low achieving and special needs children, and states have no funds to replace it." This doesn't sound like the schools were doing very well with these kids before NCLB.

And it seems that any level of government that hands out cash has an obligation to institute some means of determining that the money is actually making a difference.

I understand the problem you've described with the method NCLB is using, and I agree with you. That method is unfair and could have the result of forcing public schools to abandon kids who are going to cause the school to fail (I can see schools encouraging these kids to drop out so as to protect their funding).

But here's a question: what is the problem with letting failing kids transfer to a private school? I understand that this is a loss of tax dollars to the PS system, but the kid is failing. Must the PS system insist on keeping kids who are failing the system so as to get their tax dollars? Is it not more important that the child pass and get a decent education? If that isn't happening in the PS system (and your answer to the first question indicates this was the case), why shouldn't the parents shop around for a system that better educates their child?

It seems that failing kids must be locked into a system where they fail because the system needs the cash. I would have a tough time sympathizing with the PS system if -that- was the argument in favour of the PS system.

[China_cat]

19. One of the other requirements

of NCLB outside of test scores is 'improvement' over the previous year. And here's where the destruction of the public schools comes.

The kids at your school can pass the tests and do all the other stuff (attendance, compliance with reporting the kids to military, etc) but if you do not have that 'improvement', the school fails. It's set up so that the ones that actually are doing a halfway decent job are going to fail for DOING that halfway decent job. The better you get, the greater your chance of being closed.

Two schools right here in Charleston last year...met all the requirements 2 years in a row and were closed for not meeting the improvement. The kids from these schools have been funneled into THE very best school in the area which will now fail this year (they'll have actually gone backwards rather than improved due to the overcrowding) and will be closed.

I give it 3 years before Charleston County has maybe 2 high schools left open if we're lucky and maybe 10/12 combined elementary/middle schools.

As to transferring a failing student to a private school...try it sometime. You'll find that they won't take failing students. Or ones who are disciplinary problems. Or ones who are handicapped, or have language difficulties. That's how they keep their 'success' rates up.

[Robert Cooper]

24. Thanks...

...I was unaware of that aspect of NCLB. Good point.

As for private schools, I'm sure you are right. But it appears to me an economic niche is being created for kids like that.

And there is home-schooling.

[EFerrari]

20. You're talking about kids who are routinely dumped any way.

Handicapped kids, kids with learning differences or disabilities, and so on. It's not like schools are trying to hang onto these kids at all costs, although there are real heroes in our public schools who fight to help these kids and struggle to retain them.

The bureaucracy does not.

[Robert Cooper]

25. Yes

that is my thought also.

But as a parent of a kid with a problem, I know I'm -never- going to give up on his education. What I don't see is paying the school if it isn't going to educate my son. Why shouldn't I (or an educator I hire) receive the appropriate amount of education taxes for his education?

They can be spent on him sitting in a class and failing, or they can be spent on him sitting in a class and succeeding. Either way the money gets spent.

[EFerrari]

26. That's right.

Good luck to us all. :)

[LizW]

21. Okay.

There are kids in public schools who, because of different inherent abilities, will NEVER read on grade level. Public schools can't just write these children off. They make special accomodations to teach these children to the highest level they can achieve. Every single child who has a special need has an individualized plan, by law. It is very expensive, naturally, and the schools welcome federal funding, grants, ANY funding they can get.

When I was in grade school, the "special" cildren were just placed in the back of the classroom until they finally got old enough to drop out. But everyone realized that was wrong, and if we are going to say we have "public" education, it has to do the best it can for everyone. For decades, since Title I started back in the 50's (60's?), schools have been working at NOT writing off the special children and poor children.

NCLB pretends to build on that educational philosophy, but with a cynical twist. The catch of NCLB is that it ties funding to getting EVERY child, even special education and non-English speaking children, up to the SAME standard.

No decent educator would ever encourage a child to drop out of school in order to protect funding, but I do see problems arising in communities where parents get frustrated because otherwise successful schools are "marked" as failures. In the school system where my children attend, the schools are exceptional, but the three schools with the highest percentage of non-English speaking children "failed" in that subgroup. It is causing "white-flight" from those schools, even though those schools are excellent.

I see absolutely no problem with letting failing kids, or any kids, transfer to private schools. I am a big believer in private schools for families who desire private education for any reason. I do not agree with public funds being spent for private education, though. The entire basis for the NCLB law is accountability for our education tax dollars. We are paying for education for the nation's children, and we are measuring and evaluating what we are getting. If we aren't getting the results we want, the solution is to make the public education system work better, not transfer its funding to a private system that has even less accountability.

[Robert Cooper]

22. A few thoughts and questions...

Okay, this one set off the loudest alarms:

"I see absolutely no problem with letting failing kids, or any kids, transfer to private schools. I am a big believer in private schools for families who desire private education for any reason. I do not agree with public funds being spent for private education, though. The entire basis for the NCLB law is accountability for our education tax dollars. We are paying for education for the nation's children, and we are measuring and evaluating what we are getting. If we aren't getting the results we want, the solution is to make the public education system work better, not transfer its funding to a private system that has even less accountability."

So the parents of a kid who fails in the public school system should not only pay taxes to the system that failed their kid, but also pay the fees for whatever remedial work needs to be done to educate their child.

And the public school system has every right to expect those parents to pay into the system, and no obligation to pay for the education of a child the system could not educate successfully.

Meanwhile we should consider the public school system responsible for educating every child, even when it fails to educate a child through its own resources.

Did I get that about right? The schools are under no obligation to -successfully- educate a child? If the schools fail to educate, they should continue charging for the 'education' of that child? Parents of a failing child should choose between allowing that child to continue failing in the public school system or spending -more- money to avoid whatever mistakes the public school system is making and get their child enrolled in a school where their child can be successfully educated?

Society should pay schools to fail kids?

I'm the father and primary care-giver for a 3 year old who has language development delay. Failure is not an option for me, or him. And despite the fact the public system should educate him successfully, if they fail I have to pay no less than double: once for the system that failed him and once for the system that helps him succeed.

And if I can't afford it, he fails.

Tell me how this is a good thing for my son, for society.

"It is very expensive, naturally, and the schools welcome federal funding, grants, ANY funding they can get." In your previous response you said the states on their own don't have funding for this sort of thing. Without NCLB they'll go back to not having the funds, or else under-funding it to the point where it helps only a very few, the most critically in need perhaps.

So not only would the public system be failing a child like mine, they wouldn't really be making the effort to succeed because of a lack of funds. yet I should still pay double, once for the public system and once for the child the public system failed.

OR, if I can't afford it my son fails.

This is good for society in what way?

[LizW]

29. Uh, yeah.

So the parents of a kid who fails in the public school system should not only pay taxes to the system that failed their kid, but also pay the fees for whatever remedial work needs to be done to educate their child.

Of course. The taxes you pay aren't just paying for the education for your child. I paid taxes long before I had any children, and I will continue to do so after my children are grown. Citizens pay into a collective fund to educate all children, and society benefits from all its members being educated.

Until we understand the importance of educating every child and gets off their asses and demands that public schools are funded accordingly, parents who want something the public schools don't provide have to fund it themselves.

And the public school system has every right to expect those parents to pay into the system, and no obligation to pay for the education of a child the system could not educate successfully.

Public schools do have an obligation, but there is no guarantee. You won't get a guarantee from a private school, either. "Educate successfully" is a subjective term.

Did I get that about right? The schools are under no obligation to -successfully- educate a child? If the schools fail to educate, they should continue charging for the 'education' of that child? Parents of a failing child should choose between allowing that child to continue failing in the public school system or spending -more- money to avoid whatever mistakes the public school system is making and get their child enrolled in a school where their child can be successfully educated?

As I said, "Fail to educate" is a subjective term. Every parent will have to decide whether their child's school is doing what they want. If not, you have lots of options. You can lobby elected officials for more funding. You can advocate for your child's needs to be met with the school board and administration. You can work for a tax increase to benefit the schools in your area. You can work with your school's PTA and raise funds for programs the school needs.

I'm the father and primary care-giver for a 3 year old who has language development delay. Failure is not an option for me, or him. And despite the fact the public system should educate him successfully, if they fail I have to pay no less than double: once for the system that failed him and once for the system that helps him succeed.

And if I can't afford it, he fails.

Tell me how this is a good thing for my son, for society.

Here's a shocking fact: your child isn't the only child in the world. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I have no doubt that you are going to do everything in your power to make sure your child gets what he needs to succeeds in school and in life. He's fortunate to have a ferociously loving parent who will do what it takes.

So do my kids. But there are some kids out there who don't have that.

So yeah, we have to pay more. I pay a bunch of taxes, and I also have to pay out of pocket for all the things I want for my kids that the public schools don't provide. And I spend hours and hours of time, when I could be working for money, doing volunteer work and advocacy for my kids' schools. Should I be crying with my hand out for a voucher instead?

[Robert Cooper]

31. and poor people are screwed...

"Citizens pay into a collective fund to educate all children, and society benefits from all its members being educated." except society isn't teaching -all- children and not -all- children end up educated.

So let's see if I can figure this one out:

1. Rich parents with problem kids -can- pay for the additional help they need to educate their kids to be contributing members of society.

2. Poor parents with problem kids -must- keep their kids in public school where these kids will fail till they drop out and thus not become contributing members of society.

And this is good for society, right? Keeps pumping money into the system whether the kids are educated or not. Given the ratio between rich and poor, the more money from the poor and the fewer poor kids there are, the better the education for those who remain.

"Until we understand the importance of educating every child and gets off their asses and demands that public schools are funded accordingly, parents who want something the public schools don't provide have to fund it themselves. " Well that sounds reasonable for rich people. Poor people with problem kids are screwed, tho'. They're expected to pay twice when they can barely pay once, and because they're poor with a problem kid, they can be sure their child will not be a contributing member to society, so might as well teach them a life of crime because that's the -only- way they're going to crawl out of the ghetto.

And if the parent won't teach the child that, no doubt the local gang will.

And this is good for society, right?

"As I said, "Fail to educate" is a subjective term. Every parent will have to decide whether their child's school is doing what they want. If not, you have lots of options. You can lobby elected officials for more funding. You can advocate for your child's needs to be met with the school board and administration. You can work for a tax increase to benefit the schools in your area. You can work with your school's PTA and raise funds for programs the school needs."

Let's see:

lobby for more funding (ie raise taxes)
advocate for your child's needs to be met (another way of saying raise taxes)
work for a tax increase (a more direct way of saying raise taxes)
work with the PTA to raise funds (yet another way of saying raise taxes)

In other words, the poor are screwed.

"Should I be crying with my hand out for a voucher instead?" the first opportunity I get to stop paying public school taxes, you can be sure I will. A system with no checks and balances that does not accomplish its mission with a third of the children (drop out rates in Ontario are about 30%) and demands more money (four different ways) while not offering any guarantees that money will make a difference is not a system that inspires confidence, let alone a desire to contribute financially.

The buggaboo that we must educate all children for the benefit of society is betrayed by the fact that schools fail so many. The myth that we must all contribute because we all benefit is betrayed by the fact that schools fail so many.

Obviously this does not impact the rich as it does the poor. That we blithely dismiss the plight of the poor problem children by saying we can't afford to educate them demonstrates the elitism inherent in the system.

That we can blame the poor for the problem because obviously they are not trying hard enough to raise funds they don't have demonstrates an ability to victimize the victim.

I have to admit, vouchers appeal to me the more I learn about them.


"Public schools do have an obligation, but there is no guarantee. You won't get a guarantee from a private school, either. "Educate successfully" is a subjective term."

What is an "obligation" without a "guarantee"? With nothing hanging on the outcome, what is supposed to motivate anyone to overcome a learning disability and actually educate the child? if it doesn't matter whether I pass or fail kids, why should I care which and why bother working hard if laying back and taking it easy is rewarded just as well?

And without getting into semantics, how about "learn the course material" = "educate successfully"?

[Robert Cooper]

37. The case of Schaffer v. Weast, 04-698.

It seems poor people with a problem child are -really- screwed. SCOTUS ruled that it is up to the parents to prove an IEP is unsuitable.

Another opportunity for the system to claim to be doing something whether it is or not, knowing that against all but the richest parents it has been immunized against lawsuit. As if the richest parents will be relying on an IEP.

(edit:typo)

[EFerrari]

39. Be careful with vouchers. Please check who gets paid.

Our poor public school system!

Whe I was in PS in CA, we were provided with BOOKS, and PAPER, and PENCILS! And we had foreign language teachers and art teachers and science teachers and we put after school leagues together for boys AND girls.

It wasn't perfect -- but it worked for the KIDS.

[Robert Cooper]

41. worked for -some- kids...

...but not all.

I'm not worried about the system. It has a bottomless pit for a bank account called taxes. It offers no assurances of success even tho' we know every kid needs to be educated and every kid -can- be educated. When it fails the kids of parents too poor to pay for an alternative, the kids are well and truly screwed. Thus poverty is perpetuated into another generation.

The question is whether the PS system is there to educate -every- child -sucessfully-, or is it a giant make-work program to keep thousands of people employed whether they accomplish anything or not?

What I've seen described looks far more like the latter than the former.

I'm not saying NCLB is the way to go. But I don't think a make-work project called 'education' is the solution either.

And calling for more money to be poured into a system that offers no checks and balances, no assurances or guarantees, is also a mistake.

It is one thing to pour money into pure research without those conditions. Researching the unknown comes without promises of success. But this isn't the case with education. There seems to be little if any research into better techniques and absolutely no financial responsibility for the kids whom the system fails.

It takes on a punitive character: if you fail the PS system you don't deserve to be educated and we won't pay one red cent towards any other method. If your parents are rich enough, you can escape that punishment. But if your parents are poor, you're condemned without hope of parole.

And rather than blame the system, we're supposed to blame the kids for being too stupid or too immature to succeed in the PS system.

Cute. No checks. No balances. No assurances. No guarantees. No blame. For more of the same: insert more money. Meanwhile, up to a third of the kids drop out without hope of ever escaping poverty except through crime.

This is good for society?

(edit: typo)

[countingbluecars]

43. There is plenty of educational research

being done. The trouble is that educational decisions are being made by politicians driven by right wing thought. Experts in education are not making the policy.

You say, "we're supposed to blame the kids for being too stupid or too immature to succeed in the PS system." Who is telling you to do this?

[Robert Cooper]

44. we're not to blame the system...

...so who else is there left to blame? These kids get written off. The fewer of them in the system the higher the average grade score. If you want to feel that you are preparing the next generation for the future what better way than to do it without the reminder that up to a third of the kids who started have dropped out or will drop out?

Where is the obligation to prepare -all- kids when we don't pay for alternatives for the kids whom the system fails?

The only alternative we pay for them is law enforcement, judiciary and prison or welfare, minimum wage and if they're lucky job training for something slightly above minimum wage.

The paradigm of feeding education money exclusively to the monolithic public school system without checks and balances, without assurances and guarantees, without any obligation to shoulder any of the blame for these failed kids, is a failed paradigm.

If public education were a drug that afflicted a third of consumers with poverty and stupidity how long would it last on the market? Even if it made two-thirds richer and smarter, would we say the drug-maker owes nothing to those who suffer the deleterious side-effects? Especially if -everyone- were required by -law- to consume the product while no one expected the drug-maker to address the problem, let alone accept responsibility for the problem?

Isn't that what Republicans are trying to do with the FDA?

"The trouble is that educational decisions are being made by politicians driven by right wing thought. Experts in education are not making the policy." It was not always that way and drop out rates are about as high as I recall them when I was in high school, several decades ago.

This is not a matter of whether the PS system is good for some kids. Certainly it is. The question is what to do for the kids who do not do well in the PS system.

The Public School system's answer is "nothing". No money should be spent on these children. The rich can escape that problem, while the poor are trapped by it.

That's not good enough. The inflexible nature of the public school system's grip on education dollars fuels the voucher concept. Until the PS system recognizes that some kids do better outside the system, and is willing to contribute funds for everyone to take advantage of that opportunity, the PS system is going to come under increasing attack by those it fails as well as those who recognize that failure is not an option.

[noiretextatique]

45. vouchers won't solve the problem

what the neos (cons and liberals) are pushing: educational management organizations, like HMOS. what will happen: the same INEQUITITIES will simply be transferred to a PRIVATE system. we saw how well privitization worked in the katrina disaster...it means ZERO accountability. like the HMO that was denying a dying man the treatment he needed, EMOs would deny education to some students...the ones who'd lower their bottom line.
whatever problems public education may have, it is an institution that has served most americans quite well until the neos starting monkeying with it, and until the most selfish generations, the ones who benefitted most from public education, started to resent paying for it.
and even now: the vast majority of americans are still being educated in our public school system. in spite of all the hysteria to the contrary.

[Robert Cooper]

49. How many fail, how many drop out, and what becomes of them? nt

[noiretextatique]

50. they get jobs, if they can

and probably work a low-wage jobs all their lives...unless they are smart enough to go back to school at some point.
here's a novel idea: FIX THE EXISITING PROBLEM vs. pretending privitization is a panacea.
who would the chief beneficiaries of privatization be? the families of people like bush would certainly benefit. instead of paying for their kids' elite educations, we would assist them by providing them funds from already poorly-funded public schools. meanwhile in the hood...inferior mcskools would no doubt crop up, just like the many rip-off private trade schools did.
as to the drop-out rate...i bet there is a correlation between school funding and crop-out rates.

[Robert Cooper]

51. May I refer you to...

my earlier response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5453953&mesg_id=5459916

(edit: adding link to another, earlier response)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5453953&mesg_id=5459165

[EFerrari]

48. The system I went through in the sixties is not the system we

have now, in CA anyway. That was before we pulled all kinds of funding for our schools via Prop 13.

I remember we had a Special Ed team at my school -- and remember because they took a lot of time with me. My 2nd grade teacher thought I was slow and the problem in fact was, I'd only just learned how to speak English. I got a battery of tests and follow up, they eventually had me skip a grade.

Now, my son has a couple of learning differences and I had to fight tooth and claw for him to get attention. It was just horrible and it was a battle I mostly lost, we lost. The Special Ed team was demoralized and even surly as they had no support for their project and had to fight for every dime.

Personally, I'm in favor of making the school districts locally responsible and locally empowered.

[jazzjunkysue]

40. Well said: It's another weasel: Words that sound good but aren't.

Plus, I interned in a school this summer, and 70% of their NCLB $$ were pulled, for no reason at all. The woman on the phone said the account was emptied back into the gvmnt coffers, so the schools couldn't get it.

First they kept coming up with bogus "mistakes" in our application, and even though we sent in more and more written material to answer every request, eventually she told us we just wouldn't get the money, period.

We've already written our congressperson about it.

[countingbluecars]

30. I am glad that the NEA

plans to appeal this ruling.

As to your question, "How does it feel to have kids in school who are expected to fail reading and math until 2014?", I can only surmise that you know very few teachers. I work with many dedicated educators who believe that every child can succeed, and they work tirelessly to see that they do succeed. The argument with NCLB, as I see it, is that children are not clones who learn and achieve benchmarks at exactly the same times. Each child comes to school with a different set of experiences. We accept them where they are and strive to take them as far as we can while they are our students. We don't expect them to fail.

[Robert Cooper]

32. despite your testimonial...

30% of Ontario children drop out of high school.

I don't think you know enough teachers to account for that fact.

[countingbluecars]

34. Actually, I don't know any teachers

in Canada. I thought this discussion was about the impact of NCLB on the public school system in the United States.

[Robert Cooper]

36. Am I to believe the drop out rate in America...

... is substantially less than 30%? I'd thought there were many areas with comparable drop out rates.

Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[EFerrari]

38. Here's to keeping your expectations straight!

Thank YOU!

:toast: