The No Child Left Behind Act

[Plane]

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.

Can you give us an example of what a reasonable goal would be?

Don't bother with a complete picture , just give a slice by giveing one resonable goal on one subject.

[Amianthus]

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.

The act states that all children must read at a state determined grade level by 2014. Again, the act leaves the job of determining what that level is to the state. Would you like me to provide the text of it again?

[Cynthia]

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.

The act states that all children must read at a state determined grade level by 2014. Again, the act leaves the job of determining what that level is to the state. Would you like me to provide the text of it again?

Ok, I"ll look into this again, Ami. But, you are the ONLY one who seems to 'know' ....the ONLY one ....in a group of many that the state THE STATE is responsible for such determination. If you are correct, that's great. You will be the man of the hour. I respect you, you know that, hon. I am on the hunt for truth...so...........I'll get back to you ,  friend.

BTW, The NCLB act that I READ states clearly that all children are expected and required to read AT GRADE LEVEL by a certain year. What part of that is not clear? But, again, I will look into the act/law ---if I have to email those in government myself. I have heard too many on the other side of YOUR FENCE, with all due respect....lay out the truth when it comes to the expectations from the law.

The bottom line is....I have attended meeting after meeting for four years now. No one..NO ONE in the adminstration have EVER stated that 'Hey, we here in our state of NM are responsible for adjusting the law and making the grade. My goodness....why should I believe that YOU know, Ami.

Again, I have only heard quite the opposite from many educators from the top down. My goodness, why do I have to contact Pres. Bush himself ...LOL

But, if I have to, I will show you that there are issues with this law/act.

I have a feeling, with all due respect, that you are capable (since you have such a high IQ) of putting forth a question/challenge our way....but I will not be convinced, hon. Not until I hear it from those who know best.

This debate is on and not to be decided based on your final answer...again, You know I adore you and I trust you...but, hon...there are problems within this act. I will prove those glitches to you eventually.

Cindy

[Cynthia]

The state's goals are no different from the federal government's goals. Proficiency is still considered  "on grade level". Those goals you speak of, Ami, are indeed aligned with the grade of a B+, if you will.
 The feds THE NCLB maintains that the each state sets a proficiency goal; but the proficiency goals on average no different from the old scoring of a B+...AND that 'level' of proficiency set by the state (or expected by the feds) is still mandated for ALL CHILDREN, no matter the category. A child can belong to five categories at one time; Hispanic/special ed/free and reduced lunch/ELL....and that child is counted by the state FIVE TIMES. It only takes .5 child to place a school on NOT MEETING AYP. That's crazy.

Ok, here's what I have googled...in spite of the fact that I said I would not google for this debate. I am not finished yet, Ami. There will be more, dear friend. We applied for a grant two years ago and in the process we are using a research based reading program in our school. OK, THAT'S FANTASTIC, btw. It works.
The fact that the NCLB requires that TITLE 1 schools such as we follow regulations to improve all children's education is a good thing. I have no issue with that. However, the way the child is counted as having met the requirements is not realistically feasible. We can be HQ AND experienced beyond our years, but we are not miracle workers. There is a mandate from the NCLB act which insists that all children meet a particular level of achievement by 2014. That is not possilbe. Why can't any average intelligent human being see that? Children can not possibly meet a proficient level (equal to a B+) if they are not mentally capable. That's my argument. The states set up such a criteria...but that criteria is proficiency.....i.e. B+ or A.....we grade according to SBPR with an Advanced grade....a  Proficient grade ...a Nearing proficient  grade and finally an Emerging grade these days. There are no more letter grades on the docket. The rubric for such an assessment also varies according to the subject area.

ALL FOR ONE....it isn't possible, Ami.




No Child Left Behind (NCLB) covers all states, school districts, and schools that accept Title 1 federal grants. Title 1 grants provide funding for remedial education programs for poor and disadvantaged children in public schools, and in some private programs. NCLB applies differently to Title 1 schools than to schools that do not receive Title 1 grants. However, one way or another, this law covers all public schools in all states.
NCLB emphasizes accountability and teaching methods that work.

A large focus of this law is on reading achievement. Only 32% of fourth graders are proficient readers who read at a fourth grade level.[1]

Schools that receive Title 1 funds may apply for Reading First grants to pay for classroom-reading instruction for grades K-3. These Reading First grants are only available for reading programs that are proven successful based on independent research.

Reading First grants will fund classroom-reading instruction for 90-minute blocks, 5 days a week. Schools may use part of this money to train K-3 teachers in these research-based methods. They may also use a portion of this money to train K-12 special education teachers.

Qualifications of Teachers and Paraprofessionals

This law raises the requirements for teachers. Because all states have accepted Title 1 funds, this quality standard applies to all public school teachers in all states.

Highly-Qualified Teachers

Any new teacher, or any teacher working in a Title 1 program, must meet the criteria for being "highly qualified." That means they hold at least a bachelors degree and have passed a state test of subject knowledge.

Elementary school teachers must demonstrate knowledge of teaching math and reading. Teachers in higher grades must demonstrate knowledge of the subject they teach, or have majored in that subject. Other teachers had until 2005-2006 to obtain at least a bachelor's degree, licensure and or certification.[2]

Teachers with license and certification waivers, even if for an emergency basis, will not meet this standard.

New Standards for Paraprofessionals

New paraprofessionals who assist in Title 1 programs must have completed two years of college or pass a test. The test will assess their ability to support teachers in reading, writing and math instruction. Paraprofessionals already employed had until 2006 to meet these requirements.[3]

Parents' Right to Know Teacher Qualifications

If your child attends a Title 1 school, you are entitled to information about your child's teacher. You are entitled to know whether the teacher is certified and qualified to teach the particular subject and grade. You are entitled to information about the teacher's college degree and major.

If your child receives any services from a paraprofessional, the school is required to provide you with information about the paraprofessional's qualifications.[4]

Proficiency Testing of Children

By the 2013-2014 school year, NCLB requires that all children will be at the proficient level on state testing. To help states and districts accomplish this, NCLB gives states more flexibility in combining federal grants and expenditures.

States and districts may use federal money for research-based programs that are proven effective.

NCLB contains various deadlines for compliance.

School & School District Report Cards

Beginning in the fall of 2002, your district must report the scores for statewide testing to parents. This is the district or school's report card. Your district will report scores for each school as a whole.

The scores will also be broken out into four subgroups: children with disabilities, limited English proficiency, racial minorities and children from low-income families. This information will tell you if your school has been successful in teaching all groups of children. You will be able to compare the report card from your child's school to the report cards from other schools in your district and state.

Annual Testing

Beginning in 2005, your school must test all children in grades 3-8 every year in math and reading. By Fall, 2007, science assessments were required.

These test scores determine if your school is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the goal of proficiency for all children by the 2013-2014 deadline. Proficiency means the child is performing at average grade level.[5] All subgroups of children, as well as the school as a whole, must meet the AYP goal or the school will fail.


http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.parent.guide.heath.htm

[Amianthus]

The feds THE NCLB maintains that the each state sets a proficiency goal; but the proficiency goals on average no different from the old scoring of a B+...AND that 'level' of proficiency set by the state (or expected by the feds) is still mandated for ALL CHILDREN, no matter the category.

First, the definition in the act for "all" is 95%, not 100%. Second, there is an exemption - the state can setup an "alternate" proficiency goal for children with disabilities.

not less than 95 percent of each group of students described in subparagraph (C)(v) who are enrolled in the school are required to take the assessments, consistent with paragraph (3)(C)(xi) and with accommodations, guidelines, and alternative assessments provided in the same manner as those provided under section 612(a)(17)(A) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and paragraph (3), on which adequate yearly progress is based

[Xavier_Onassis]

The title "No child left behind" is basically absurd.

There are always children who are born without any learning abilities whatever. A very small percentage, but nonetheless, there will always be microcephalics and others that are essentially untrainable and unteachable.

[Cynthia]

The feds THE NCLB maintains that the each state sets a proficiency goal; but the proficiency goals on average no different from the old scoring of a B+...AND that 'level' of proficiency set by the state (or expected by the feds) is still mandated for ALL CHILDREN, no matter the category.

First, the definition in the act for "all" is 95%, not 100%. Second, there is an exemption - the state can setup an "alternate" proficiency goal for children with disabilities.

not less than 95 percent of each group of students described in subparagraph (C)(v) who are enrolled in the school are required to take the assessments, consistent with paragraph (3)(C)(xi) and with accommodations, guidelines, and alternative assessments provided in the same manner as those provided under section 612(a)(17)(A) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and paragraph (3), on which adequate yearly progress is based

The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014. Sure, the participation rate is 95%, but that too has gone through reform.

95 percent test participation: NCLB initially required that 95 percent of a school's total students and of each subgroup of students pass the test used in determining AYP.  Under a policy change announced in March 2004, states could average participation rates over a three-year period. In addition, students who are unable to take the test during the testing and make-up windows because of a significant medical emergency would not count against the school’s participation rate.
In addition, a state could use data from the previous year or two to average the participation rate data for a school and/or subgroup. If this two- or three-year average met or exceeded 95 percent, the school would still meet the AYP requirement. (The reason this is important is that some schools had been labeled as failing when only one or two students in a subgroup were absent.)
In order to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP), schools must demonstrate that at least 95 percent of all students participated in the assessment. This requirement must be met for all students in a school and subgroups of those students (including ethnicity, poverty, disability, or English language proficiency, if the subgroup has sufficient numbers of students).


Ami, I agree with the premise of this act. I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but there are and have been so many issues with this law that children have been left behind more so than any time before. Special ed. students are required to spend the first year or two in a regular education classroom- called the least restrictive environment. These students do not deserve to be manipulated by the government. But the law states that If a student belongs to all of those subgroups, and said student fails the test, that student is counted for each subgroup category. There have been schools under this law that have not made AYP because of .5 kid count. ! believe it or not. The NCLB act has caused so many problems during the past 6 years, that it's ridiculous. Children and teachers have had to jump through reforming hoops and now we are in a spin. Why? Because the act/law was so very flawed from the beginning. I have tried to speak to that point all along. There are still problems within the act that need to be addressed.


The No Child Left Behind Act implements President Bush's unequivocal commitment to ensuring that every child can read by the third grade. To accomplish this goal, the new Reading First initiative will significantly increase the Federal investment in scientifically based reading instruction programs in the early grades. One major benefit of this approach will be reduced identification of children for special education services due to a lack of appropriate reading instruction in their early years.

And believe me they have increased the investment for scientfically based reading instructions programs. That has always been a plus, as far as I am concerned. I am not against the bottom line intent of the law. There have been many positive changes in the nclb act. But there have also been unrealistic mandates. Punitive actions have had to be reformed. Unfortunately in the process time was wasted and good teachers left the systme.  That's a shame. Not to mention the children and the hoops they have had to endure. Lack of quality education. I believe in the NEA's approach. The feds need to get involved with the schools and districts directly...not sit back and mandate...and then blame the states as you have done.
With all due respect. I am a liberal when it comes to edcation, then. I don't want to be labled such, but if I agree with a few ideals that come from the NEA, then I suppose I am subject to sitting in their court. The original NCLB ACT was not designed well. Time has been wasted.

Many things are changing in the law. I am grateful for that. The law itself has experienced the following changes.    http://www.nea.org/esea/rules-changes.html

[Amianthus]

The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014.

That may be the "goal", but this law defines "all" as 95%. And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities.

[Cynthia]

The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014.

That may be the "goal", but this law defines "all" as 95%. And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities.

There were disagree. I am saying that the expectations is 100% according to the information I have received. 95% participation rate.

The point for me here is that the original law had no bell curve. The mandates were extreme. Slowly we have seen reform. So, I'll leave it at that.

The future might be brighter, but the law was too extreme, unfair, punitive when it should not have been. That has always been my point, and now that we are 'reading' that change and reform is more par for the course than the original course, I say that's a shame.

But, the law was not well planned out by the Bush administration, nor was the Iraqi war. BUt as for the latter, OTOH, Clinton didn't help in that arena one bit by doing away with a big chunk of the military.

[Xavier_Onassis]

OTOH, Clinton didn't help in that arena one bit by doing away with a big chunk of the military.


The US did not need any more military than it had to do a good job in Afghanistan.
There was no need to invade Iraq, nor was there a need to have the military to do it.

In the history of this country one thing is clear: if we give them an army, they will give us a war.

The US is one of the most warlike entities that has ever existed. It has bases in places where none will ever be needed.

Warmongering is like alcoholism, and the solution is similar: stay off the sauce, stay of the arms.

[Cynthia]

The goal is still 100% of ALL children will improve in reading and math by 3rd grade level by 2014.

That may be the "goal", but this law defines "all" as 95%. And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities.

"And that 95% excludes those with learning disabilities."


But that 95% does not exclude children who have undefined or undiagnosed learning disabilities. Because of the nclb act, the special education dept has limit the number of students it can place in program, as opposed to pre NCLB.
So, many poor, ELL, disadvantaged children are at a "disadvantage"....and yet they are counted at part of the 100% on grade level by 2014 group.

There are hidden issues that only we see in the classroom, but they are directly related to the original act. NOw, if the NEA can adjust these issues, as I have read this morning more about such details, then super! But, again, that wasn't the case when the law began. I like the new law. A LOT! So, I am going to probably be praising its tune more so than bashing it.

We shall see. For now, Paradigm shifts are on the horizon. Thank goodness for the children.

[Cynthia]

OTOH, Clinton didn't help in that arena one bit by doing away with a big chunk of the military.


The US did not need any more military than it had to do a good job in Afghanistan.
There was no need to invade Iraq, nor was there a need to have the military to do it.

In the history of this country one thing is clear: if we give them an army, they will give us a war.

The US is one of the most warlike entities that has ever existed. It has bases in places where none will ever be needed.

Warmongering is like alcoholism, and the solution is similar: stay off the sauce, stay of the arms.

But, XO, the very reason we weren't well prepared to head into two countries with full force and a way to accomplish a mission was due to the lack of numbers. We had to use the NG ...which is pathetic. Mind you, I do agree that we should not have invaded Iraq as we did...let's get that clear. But, what if we had had to fight Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan..etc....Why not have a strong military to begin with. ..

Clinton cut the military during his stay in office, did he not?

[Xavier_Onassis]

ONE

MORE

TIME.

The US did not NEED to invade Iraq. It had all it needed to catch and get rid of Osama in Afghanistan, but Rummy was too incompetent to do this and all the Juniorbushies were obsessed with invading Iraq.

We should have had so few troops and munitions that Iraq would have been an IMPOSSIBILITY. The commanders would have told Juniorbush that an invasion would have been a suicidal defeat. Then he'd have had to go beat up on his inflatable Saddam doll in the Lincoln bedroom. That would have been a GOOD thing.

Give them an army, they give us a war. Did we need to invade Santo Domingo in 1964? No. Did we need troops in Beirut? No. Did we need to invade Vietnam? Hell, no. Did we need to invade Grenada? Panama? No and no.

Ever since the idiot Dulles brothers, the US has sought to solve problems with guns. This has resulted in lots of dead and maimed Americans, and the expense has prevented us from taking care of our own people.

Even now, listen to McCain blather about how we still can't give adequate health care because we are too poor, but does he even suggest that taxes be raised to pay for the huge amount that Iraq has cost us?

Here is his secret plan. Borrow more from the Chinese, squander it in Iraq, with Halliburton and Blackhawk and those other mercenary companies making even more money off it.


It's like alcoholism. What the US needs is a ten point program.

We can beat Canada, we can beat Mexico, and all our other borders are huge expanses of ocean. Easily defended, even compared to Sweden and Switzerland.

[Cynthia]

ONE

MORE

TIME.

The US did not NEED to invade Iraq. It had all it needed to catch and get rid of Osama in Afghanistan, but Rummy was too incompetent to do this and all the Juniorbushies were obsessed with invading Iraq.

We should have had so few troops that Iraq would have been an IMPOSSIBILITY.

Give them an army, they give us a war. Did we need to invade Santo Domingo in 1964? No. Did we need troops in Beirut? No. Did we need to invade Vietnam? Hell, no. Did we need to invade Grenada? Panama? No and no.

Ever since the idiot Dulles brothers, the US has sought to solve problems with guns. This has resulted in lots of dead and maimed Americans, and the expense has prevented us from taking care of our own people.

Even now, listen to McCain blather about how we still can't give adequate healthcare because we are too poor, but does he even suggest that taxes be raised to pay for the huge amount that Iraq has cost us?

It's like alcoholism. What the US needs is a ten point program.

Mind you, I do agree that we should not have invaded Iraq as we did...let's get that clear. But, what if we had had to fight Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan..etc....Why not have a strong military to begin with. ..My gosh, Xavier, you are in support of having a weak military in such a state of the world today?

Not wise, imo. No.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iran and Iraq were ZERO threat to Americans in America. How the hell is Iran going to attack the US in North America? It isn;t.

As for Israel, that IS NOT OUR PROBLEM, any more than who runs Kashmir or Sri Kanka is not our proble,m. Other than diplomacy, we need to stay out of that one and treat both sides the same.

And yes! we need LESS military. Too much, and we get more wars.

Why do you think Sweden and Switzerland don;t run about invading other countries for the past 400 years?

Because they lack the stuff to do it with.

The US should have stayed the eff OUT of WWi. Had they done that, there would have been no Hitler and no WWII.
Diplomacy could have prevented Korea. Vietnam was a huge mistake, made possible by too many weapons and assholes like LeMay and the Dulleses a-spoiing for a fight.

This crap about how we have to be able to flatten any other nation on the planet is just a lot pf propaganda to make big bucks for the military industrial complex.

We need to ditch them, and soon.