The No Child Left Behind Act

[Cynthia]

Intention--good.

Funding---questionable from the national end/gov.

Expectations for 2014 not so priceless.


Support.....The jury  continues to be out on who is responsible for the very detailed regulations/rules/ and seemingly vast and powerful rejection of our school's efforts to educate the American child.

Spending and funding for the act were  supposed to begin at the federal level. .... Reading First schools.

The actions taken to make the system better were sent to the state's administrator's desks for approval and authorization.

The jury is always going to be out on this issue, folks.

Someday, I hope to be able to outline and  provide the line item details of those culprits involved in this "issue" of negativity against the schools...via this act.

There is still a question as to why the NCLB ACT was left up to the individual schools to provide impact to the average child's education.

No one has clearly won this fight on the debate board. I am not here to say that I was wrong, nor was I completely right in my assessment of the ACT....but there is a reason why many states in our nation have had to ask permission to claim success or AYP accuracy. The NCLB ACT is still at the bottom line of this.
I realize that the ACT itself was set up to help children thrive. But the government is one powerful variable in all of this. There has to be more to the story than blaming the individual states...there JUST HAS TO BE. With all due respect to my fellow posters on this board, someday I will find out more about this act and why we had to struggle to teach. Too many children have been left behind for these past five years or more. Why. Is it really the fault of the individual states? I wonder. I really have to wonder. But, I agree that the INTENTION of the act was a good thing and always will be. My final point on the matter.


 Nite.

[Amianthus]

Spending and funding for the act were  supposed to begin at the federal level. .... Reading First schools.

It was over $13B last year, wasn't it?

[Cynthia]

Spending and funding for the act were  supposed to begin at the federal level. .... Reading First schools.

It was over $13B last year, wasn't it?

It was supposed to be used to leave no child behind. I still feel that there are issues within the very act itself with regard to how the schools are punished or rewarded. Just today we had a meeting, and I was told that the one reason why the baseline NCLB ACT hasn't worked is due to the lack of a bell curve. NOt ALL children can read at the same level at the same rate, with the same fluency, accuracy etc. Not possible. Yet, by 2014 the schools must see to it that all children, unless they are classified as MR will and must read at grade level. Apparently, I was told today that that is why the act is flawed. So, why? Why did this act, which I was also told was drafted by an attorney, not even an educator.....come out as our Bible?

I still believe that the intention is a good thing, however. So, after some of these unrealistic elements within the very premise of the act are resolved, I have hope that we shall see a surge of success rates. The act was not developed with children's varying developmental needs in mind. Period.

Good year this school term...already our local school has found a way to bring back all the subject areas except for music. That's a great thing. Kuddos to the leaders here on our local site.

[Amianthus]

Just today we had a meeting, and I was told that the one reason why the baseline NCLB ACT hasn't worked is due to the lack of a bell curve. NOt ALL children can read at the same level at the same rate, with the same fluency, accuracy etc. Not possible.

That's why the act allows states to setup multiple levels of achievement in each subject area.

[Cynthia]

Just today we had a meeting, and I was told that the one reason why the baseline NCLB ACT hasn't worked is due to the lack of a bell curve. NOt ALL children can read at the same level at the same rate, with the same fluency, accuracy etc. Not possible.

That's why the act allows states to setup multiple levels of achievement in each subject area.

I would love to see the state that has setup such multiple levels of achievement, and consequently shown more that 75% success rate in the area of having met AYP overall. From what I hear, the act itself has set up an unreal expectation. That's is what needs improved, apparently. I hope for that...because I do believe in the actual act, overall.

[Amianthus]

I would love to see the state that has setup such multiple levels of achievement, and consequently shown more that 75% success rate in the area of having met AYP overall.

I think I saw that Idaho had set five levels instead of the federally mandated minimum of three.

From what I hear, the act itself has set up an unreal expectation. That's is what needs improved, apparently. I hope for that...because I do believe in the actual act, overall.

Yeah, it's unreal that it sets no goals - it leaves those totally up to the state. Which means that a student might be doing fine in Texas, but that same student might not make the grade in, say, Utah. Totally unreal.

[BT]

http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/D90C064A-C788-466C-992F-DD588C073B25/0/ESEAMyths.pdf

[Cynthia]

I would love to see the state that has setup such multiple levels of achievement, and consequently shown more that 75% success rate in the area of having met AYP overall.

I think I saw that Idaho had set five levels instead of the federally mandated minimum of three.

From what I hear, the act itself has set up an unreal expectation. That's is what needs improved, apparently. I hope for that...because I do believe in the actual act, overall.

Yeah, it's unreal that it sets no goals - it leaves those totally up to the state. Which means that a student might be doing fine in Texas, but that same student might not make the grade in, say, Utah. Totally unreal.

Ami, you know we have talked about this before. I am not saying that the NCLB act is a bad thing. I am trying to understand why the act failed to see that children can not possible all hit the same mark at the same time. That's all I am concerned about. If the act had been organized and well designed years ago, the success stories would be googled so darn fast by now. My point is that there are issues in the act. Those politicians involved know that this act isn't perfect. You guys know it. I am no longer here to argue the whole apple as rotten. I am here to find say that indeed, there are issues that have caused children to fall behind....in all its irony....

The NCLB has to be revisited.

I am not mooning it any longer.

[Amianthus]

I am trying to understand why the act failed to see that children can not possible all hit the same mark at the same time.

I think it DID foresee that problem. That's why it leaves the decisions about what level needs to be met and how many levels to set up for each grade up the each individual state.

[Cynthia]

I am trying to understand why the act failed to see that children can not possible all hit the same mark at the same time.

I think it DID foresee that problem. That's why it leaves the decisions about what level needs to be met and how many levels to set up for each grade up the each individual state.

Then, as I've said, Ami, I would have expected more than a couple of states to show success. I would have expected all fifty states to be on their way to stage two of any program--revision of the minor details that don't seem to be working. But, in fact, there are too many major issues to be ironed out. The act needs to be revamped, overhauled AND, has become a major point in both presidential camps. That shouldn't be if the act had been such a jewel and spot on law from the getgo.

[Cynthia]

The bottom line is this, Ami.
You know I agree with the act overall. I do. I see it's potential for great change in this nation's public schools.

But, hon....there are issues within which need a looksee.

I would love to see the act overhauled to the point where there are more success stories, than complaints from so many. As a teacher, I can say that something isn't right. The act isnt' perfect, especially having been drafted by an attorney and not educators.

So, hey....we are on the same page, but I do believe that there are a few fine points that must be resolved in order to make this the best public school system in the world.

I have told folks here of my own experiences.....after 33 years in the schools, I have never seen such a reverse in educating the child. If that's the fault of the state, I will concur. I agree.

But, there are areas within the NCLB act which need to be revisited and changed overall. I am sure there will be more success stories when such wrinkles are ironed out.

I am happy with the state of the 'intent' of the act. So, I am no longer arguing on my platform against the act itself. That's why I believe that in time, things will work out. I was an Obama supporter based on this issue alone.

I must vote my heart when it comes to abortion.
Cindy

[Amianthus]

That shouldn't be if the act had been such a jewel and spot on law from the getgo.

That would be if the state level administrators are more interested in CYA than in getting their job done.

As I said, the problem with the act is not that it mandates too much from the above, but rather that it mandates too little from above.

[Cynthia]

That shouldn't be if the act had been such a jewel and spot on law from the getgo.

That would be if the state level administrators are more interested in CYA than in getting their job done.

As I said, the problem with the act is not that it mandates too much from the above, but rather that it mandates too little from above.

I understand that, Ami. I agree with you. But, what I am hearing from those who have researched in depth more than I , is that all children must reach a certain goal (reading on grade level by a specific year). There are problems within the original act and apparently this unrealistic expectation is one of them. While I am happy with the way the local areas around the country are dealing with the mandates from the nclb act, I am still concerned that the expectations are unrealistic. There is no bell curve. The bell curve was not 'invented' by an attorney once upon a long ago time. The bell curve is part of reality in education. We are always going to give our best to children at their developmental level. That's a given from the viewpoint in which I work. But, if the law had been written with more insight into how children learn, I do believe we wouldn't have had these discussions. NCLB would not have been an issue in the presidential race, etc etc, etc. I do agree that the individual states must take responsibility for implementation, but I question why the "buzz" for so many years over the law itself. I will always want to understand why. I plan to keep my mind open with regard to the intent and progress of the nclb act. I was dead set against it becasue of what we have had to experience on the ground level. But, now I have hope that something within the act itself will shift. There's nothing wrong with fine tuning something that has a promise for children. I continue to listen to those in the field who know more about this. I will continue to report back based on their knowledge. Googling doesn't cut it for me. But, I appreciate your desire to support the law, Ami. I do.
I am not agruing with the intent of the law. Mandates are fine. BUt, reason is lost in the original act. I just learned a bit more on Friday. So, my quest continues.

[Amianthus]

But, what I am hearing from those who have researched in depth more than I , is that all children must reach a certain goal (reading on grade level by a specific year).

And that goal is set by each state. Again, the goal itself is NOT set in the act.

[Cynthia]

But, what I am hearing from those who have researched in depth more than I , is that all children must reach a certain goal (reading on grade level by a specific year).

And that goal is set by each state. Again, the goal itself is NOT set in the act.

The act was designed by Kennedy. The act was encouraged by Bush....and he makes no bones about  joining Kennedy on this. My point? I am here to say that I DO NOT BLAME BUSH. I used to. I am not doing that now. 

However, the act does state that ALL children must read at grade level by 2014. ALL! no matter who, what circumstances etc. That IS NOT the job or goal of the state, Ami. No. you're wrong there.

I have no problem with setting goals. I have no problem with mandates. I do have a problem with the act in that it requires all children to hit a grade level mark in reading with little regard to developmental variables.