Author Topic: California judge says no to homeschooling  (Read 111330 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #210 on: March 20, 2008, 01:03:57 PM »
Too few teachers? Just make provisional certificates easier to get. If that isn't enough, Let substitutes work a higher percentage of the time.

The judge said that was a no-no

Oh wait that only applied to home schools.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Home school teachers don't need certification.
The judge at most would have an effect in one of 50 states.

I was referring to the discussion of teachers in schools, not home schools taught by parents. They have no real effect on salaries of teachers or their competence.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16140
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #211 on: March 20, 2008, 02:52:58 PM »
How much of an increase to your property taxes are you willing to shoulder in order to pay teachers what you think they are worth?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #212 on: March 20, 2008, 03:03:59 PM »
How much of an increase to your property taxes are you willing to shoulder in order to pay teachers what you think they are worth?
==========================================================================================
I would need to see the figures, actually. What the total revenues are, what percentage goes to the teachers, etc.

Recently they gave the teachers a modest raise, then socked them with a new medical insurance policy, which had much higher copays and  fewer benefits, and they have been demonstrating.

About half of the $850 I pay in property taxes pay for schools, which includes an excessive number of highly paid administrators. According to the ads, profits from the State Lottery also mostly pay for schools.

I had exactly one daughter in the public schools, which she attended for a total of 3? years. I don't think I am undertaxed considering that.

I am not sure that property taxes are the best sort of taxes to pay for education. The state would be better off with some other taxes. We did have an intangibles tax on investments, but when Florida was prosperous several years ago, Jebbiebush abolished this tax, and cut back on a bunch of others.  He is increasingly seen as a bad governor, and I don't see him becoming a candidate for president, which is a good thing. Bushes suck as politicians.

They will never actually allow me to decide how much I pay for government services, so this is an entirely moot point.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16140
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #213 on: March 20, 2008, 03:09:19 PM »
Most schools systems are funded by property taxes, and most school systems claim they are underfunded. You are correct in that a careful analysis needs to be made of how that funding is spend, whether administration is top heavy for example, but if it is being spent wisely and the teachers are still underpaid, then what?


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #214 on: March 20, 2008, 04:04:10 PM »
Then. of course, they have to pay them more. We should see what they do in Europe, Taiwan, Japan and Korea, where their students score higher than ours.

Also, it is companies that benefit most from having educated employees, and perhaps they should pay a greater share, as well as taking a greater role in educating them.

It is obvious that many technical fields, auto electronics is one example, that require more intellectual skills than many college subjects. These are very poorly dealt with in trade schools. As a rule, high schools train students for pre college, or for nothing in particular. It would be best to train everyone for at least one career., in addition to basic skills that are no longer taught, such as geography, basic electronics, use of tools and such.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #215 on: March 20, 2008, 04:58:36 PM »
 We should see what they do in Europe, Taiwan, Japan and Korea, where their students score higher than ours.


I question that hese country really do better than the U.S.
I don`t doubt the higher scores ,but I do doubt they have better education than the U.S.
A friend of mine lived in england for 2 years and said at least in the U.S. most people have the chance to get a community college education and gain skills for a better or different job
in europe that is not the case
those high score are from the top schools from children more likely of some privilege.
we hear that the U.S. illiteracy is %20 and that`s bad
but does the european countries  have it better?
it`s funny nobody ever talked about the fact  the u.s. used to be most worst than %20

it`s actually quite rare today to know somebody who can`t read nowadays
when I came to this country I knew quite a few,now only a couple.

Brassmask

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #216 on: March 20, 2008, 05:01:57 PM »
I'm looking at my property tax statement from last year, and the portion dedicated solely to education is $1600. 

SO?  Do you want even more uneducated people working around you?

That's a chunk of change in my book.  

Not a big enough chunk since kids can't read when they leave school be caus ehtere are 40 students per student.

I don't feel that it's unfair to demand accountability when it's my money going to fund something, whether it's government, charity, whatever.

Don't you vote?

fatman

  • Guest
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #217 on: March 20, 2008, 05:25:03 PM »
SO?  Do you want even more uneducated people working around you?

No.  I want the people around me to have an adequate education, which evidently at least some are not getting from public schools.  If they choose to further their education through college, trade school, or an apprenticeship, they should feel free to do so.  The means are there.  However, if they can't do basic math or read a book, that kind of limits their options.  Why should I have to continue to support failure with my tax dollars?  Isn't that one of the many reasons people are against the Iraq War?

Not a big enough chunk since kids can't read when they leave school be caus ehtere are 40 students per student.

I've never bought into the rationale of class size.  When I was in elementary school in the mid to late 80's, the school had four classrooms, with four teachers and roughly 150 students.  Classroom I was first and second grade, Classroom II was second and third grade,   Classroom III was fourth and fifth grade, and Classroom IV was fifth and sixth grade.  Most of us that went to that school graduated.  Some didn't.  I'll tell you one thing though, if you couldn't read the material or do the math, you didn't get passed.  Period.  Having an oversized classroom is no more of an excuse for passing a student unable to meet the requirements of that grade than it is for a Child Protective Services caseworker to let a kid die of neglect due to a large caseload, or for a murderer to go out and kill again because his Parole Officer had too many people on his caseload.  The argument doesn't fly.  The accountability at the school is with the teacher and the Administration.  Sometimes that's unfair, but that's the system.  When there are people out there with High School diplomas who can't read or add, the blame is rightfully going to fall onto the teachers.

Don't you vote?

Yes, and while I usually vote in favor of school levies (for education), I almost always vote no for bonds (buildings and maintenance).  Voting is not the only way to expect accountability, especially for a bureaucracy like most school systems have become.  I have had very good teachers, and I have had extremely lousy ones, the ones that stick in my mind are the ones that the students knew the course material better than the teacher did.  Teaching has become something much like the armed forces, a sacred cow that can't be criticized or accountability expected of, lest you harm the reputation of soldiers or teachers (that's an extremely broad stroke, but I think you'll understand what I'm getting at).

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #218 on: March 20, 2008, 07:12:54 PM »
I question that hese country really do better than the U.S.
I don`t doubt the higher scores ,but I do doubt they have better education than the U.S.
A friend of mine lived in england for 2 years and said at least in the U.S. most people have the chance to get a community college education and gain skills for a better or different job
in europe that is not the case
those high score are from the top schools from children more likely of some privilege.
================================
The scores given are not for he entire population, but just those that are still i school to be tested. So those in school do better, but we have more in school, where they are mostly mediocre students. I have been teaching mediocre students for 30 years.

I can attest to the fact that foreign languages are taught better in Western Europe than in the US.

English language instruction in Japan is a joke. Japanese English teachers seem to speak 'Eengrees', a type of English only spoken by other Japanese teacher of English. Those who really want to speak English well in Japan and Taiwan go to "Cram schools" with British, American and Canadian teachers who force them to pronounce English intelligibly.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #219 on: March 20, 2008, 07:31:16 PM »
have you seen the show 30 days?
it by the guy who did supersize me
in one episode they had a guy go to india to work in a call desk
the trainer spoke not just english ,but perfect american english
those guys in india are speaking better american than us.

about western europe
it kinda makes people will learn multiple language.since the countries are so small they have a greater need to know other languages
the only place with a need to speak another language in the U.S. is the southern borders
but unfortunately not all of those place are willing to learn.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #220 on: March 20, 2008, 11:55:33 PM »
but how about attracting good teachers?

The problem you run into is there is no way to factually discern who is and isn't a "good" teacher.  Bad teachers can pass poor students.

But not pass standardized tests.  That will FACTUALLY help demonstrate who is and isn't a good teacher

No, sirs, it will NOT demonstrate who is and who is not a good teacher.

I did not say it was the ONLY means of demonstration.....simply a significant one.  Hard to pass failing students and then have them pass standardized testing, and call yourself a "good teacher"


It's obvious you are not a teacher. You have not clue, with all due respect.

Then, I would expect no further criticizing of Bush and the war in Iraq, since its obvious you're not in the military and apparently have no clue, with all due respect

 
And I would expect NO further criticism or praise in the direction of the public schools, teachers and the NCLB act since it is obvious that you know nothing about the details within. .with all due respect. I am a good teacher.  Your tactic to throw a low blow in my direction is childish, and frankly, shows your lack of taste, Sirs.  I am surprised at your comment.

People  seem to be stuck on one element that stains the thread throughout their carpet of posts.....and that is....if the child is not retained, or if the student  fails to pass a test, or if a young teenager does not graduate from High School, that it is the fault of the teacher, solely?.   Not always accurate.

I suppose my argument is this;
Such failures are not necessarily about bad teaching. Your leap of bias and your very transparent political stance, only project your lack of knowledge on the subject. The NCLB act has made a decent attempt to help children become literate and viable citizens in this country. I see that. But, why? There is a great need to heal the PS system.  But, the unrealistic and unjustly punitive points stemming from the act itself have not helped the situation, as I have seen it. In fact, it has caused the system to take several steps back on the chalk line.  I would love to see our school system "work" better for all.
Some European schools have a consistent and manageable system in place, because they have stayed the course. They obviously use tried and true, highly operational programs that have apparently worked for all. The support of the community, the expectations, the fact that all teachers are respected and are already good enough make for a good lookin place to hang one's pencil and pad. 
Within the public school system these days, the only thing constant is the change in methodology, theory, and practice. Change is fine, don?t? get me wrong, Doctors must learn the newest methods for healing in order to save lives, But in this system we change the way we approach educating our children sometimes few months!!...oh, and not to mention the amount of paper work we must fill out for the sake of the NCLB.

We are trained in something called Baldrige, (a business management system), then a few months later trained to teach using Balanced Literacy and/or Four block, then in math, we are trained in Terc Investigations one year, Everydaymath the next, or/and Wilson and the Fundations program..... and on and on---all within a two year period of time, and sometimes the changes come within a trimester.

Ok, well and fine. Good programs, viable, usable and rearch based.
However, the challenge is that we are not encouraged to use such programs for any length of time to make a difference.
  Soon there will be another new program to learn! All of this continues to be based on a mandate of the NCLB (reading first schools). One change after another, one more regulation after another---- year after year.  I have seen this for at least 8 years in a row now..
The schools are revamping, changing and doing the best they can to catch up..and you all knock us down for a job not well done. Not fair. Unjust, and wrong...


The newest regulation;  teachers must teach only 3 children at a time for 30 minutes a day for a differentiated instruction time. Those 3 children need the most help.
The idea sounds great. Who wouldn?t want to have a smaller student-teacher ratio? But the devil's detailing is in the timing; 30 minutes a day servicing only 3 kids!! period. We have only so many "minutes" a day to service all kids in all subject areas..and those other subject areas must also provide differentiated instruction time in groups of 3. (math, writing).
Ok, then, how do we meet the needs of the other 4-10 challenged kids? They deserve an education. They need one on one instruction with fidelity to program via quality intervention.

BUT... instead? ThEY FALL BEHIND!
In the past, we were able to teach 5-6 kids at a time. We were allowed to use the best methods we learned in college. Those were the days. The good old days when taught all children, all of the time, in all subject areas.


All of these crazy and  unreasonalbe regulations stem from the trickle down effect of the NCLB act. Period.

So, Who's at fault? Who's to blame for changing our path to do it the NCLB way or the highway? Not the teacher's fault! There are so many details within our daily routine that people are not aware of, Sirs.

 We have had to put aside all the best practices in order to meet a grade. My god, it's unreasonable.
No one wants to hear such details.

Who?s at fault? I still maintain, not the teacher.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 12:13:55 AM by Cynthia »

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #221 on: March 21, 2008, 03:30:04 AM »
It's obvious you are not a teacher. You have not clue, with all due respect.

Then, I would expect no further criticizing of Bush and the war in Iraq, since its obvious you're not in the military and apparently have no clue, with all due respect (since it is obvious that you know nothing about the details within)

And I would expect NO further criticism or praise in the direction of the public schools, teachers and the NCLB act since it is obvious that you know nothing about the details within.

Ok, so that's the deal right?  You're not to criticize the war any further and I'm not to criticize public education any longer.  Deal?


"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #222 on: March 21, 2008, 12:58:43 PM »
It's obvious you are not a teacher. You have not clue, with all due respect.

Then, I would expect no further criticizing of Bush and the war in Iraq, since its obvious you're not in the military and apparently have no clue, with all due respect (since it is obvious that you know nothing about the details within)

And I would expect NO further criticism or praise in the direction of the public schools, teachers and the NCLB act since it is obvious that you know nothing about the details within.

Ok, so that's the deal right?  You're not to criticize the war any further and I'm not to criticize public education any longer.  Deal?





Oh, and by the way you are not in Iraq-fighting for our freedom, so you can't say squat in that dept either.
 ;)

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #223 on: March 21, 2008, 01:15:59 PM »
This sums it up.
Cynthia


Making lemonade from NCLB lemons
By Monty Neill
As the impact of the "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) legislation continues to unfold across the country, educators and child advocates face the difficult task of explaining how NCLB hurts schools instead of helps them. NCLB is the current version of the longstanding federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), first implemented in the 1960s.
Many education reformers, including FairTest, the group I work for, believe that NCLB is a fundamentally punitive law that uses flawed standardized tests to label schools as failures and punish them with counterproductive sanctions. It must be transformed into a supportive law that really promotes school improvement and makes good on the promise to leave no child behind. The legislation must be reconsidered and rewritten, particularly in the areas of assessment and accountability. But given the current political climate, this won't be a simple task.
Educators and advocates concerned about this law need to do three things. We need to sharpen and popularize our critique of the law's faults, develop a clear model for a new law, and build a powerful grassroots campaign that will persuade Congress to overhaul ESEA.
While opinion polls suggest most people know little about NCLB, key promises within the law have wide support. For example, the law authorizes the federal government to increase funding for the education of low-income students. It mandates that states eliminate the academic "achievement gap" that exists between different groups of students, paying particular attention to the progress of students who historically have not been well served. It also requires states, districts, and schools to find ways to educate all students successfully.
Such promises have played a key role in winning support for NCLB from some political and civil rights groups who do not share the Bush administration's agenda of privatization and hostility to public education. Understandably, some child advocates and school reformers, long frustrated with the quality of education for poor students, viewed NCLB as a potential tool to force schools to improve. Clarifying the reasons why NCLB, as currently written, will be unable to fulfill its lofty promises is a key to building a coalition that can force Congress to make changes in the law.
Sharpening the Critique
In this critique I will focus on three fundamental problems with the law: underfunding, testing, and school improvement. (Several others, like the provisions on improving teacher quality and on promoting "scientific" approaches to reading also deserve attention, but are beyond the scope of this article.)
 Underfunding . NCLB's unfunded mandate to eliminate all test-score gaps in 12 years assumes that schools by themselves can overcome the educational consequences of poverty and racism. Not only has the federal government failed to meet the social, economic, and health-related needs of many children, but NCLB itself does not authorize nearly enough funding to meet its new requirements. The Bush administration has sought almost no increase in ESEA expenditures for the coming year. The current education appropriations bill before Congress would underfund the already inadequate authorized spending levels by $8 billion. Meanwhile, states are suffering their worst budget crises since World War II and cutting education as well as the social programs needed by low-income people.
 Testing . The one-size-fits-all assessment requirements-annual testing in reading and math and periodic testing in science-and the accountability provisions attached to them are rigid, harmful, and ultimately unworkable. They will promote bad educational practices and deform curricula in significant ways. In the end, they will lower, not raise, standards for most students. For example, the assessment requirements will lead to further devaluing of non-tested subjects like social studies, music, and art. NCLB focuses on large-scale testing, which is a poor tool for diagnosing individual students' needs and for assessing higher-order learning. The provisions of the law are turning large numbers of schools, particularly those serving low-income children, into test-prep programs. The testing regime punishes the teachers who choose to work in the nation's most under-resourced schools and fosters the inaccurate view that most of the nation's public schools are failing. In the end, NCLB will enforce lower standards, not high quality learning.
 School improvement. Estimates by groups such as the National Conference of State Legislators suggest some 70 percent of the nation's schools will be declared "in need of improvement" before the decade is over and thus be subject to escalating sanctions. Florida reported that 87 percent of its schools and all of its districts failed to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) in 2002-03. NCLB's punitive test-and-label approach to accountability is the foundation for an equally ineffective approach to school improvement. The first step toward improving schools, according to NCLB, is to allow parents to transfer their children to a school with higher test scores. But it does not guarantee that classroom seats will be available. In Chicago, 240,000 students are in schools "in need of improvement," but the district says it has only 1035 spaces. In part, this is because a majority of Chicago schools are not making AYP. In districts where some schools are labeled "failing" and some are not, the new law may force increased class sizes by transferring students without creating new capacity. The Bush administration has said overcrowding does not matter. NCLB does not invest in building new schools in failing districts, nor does it make rich districts open their doors to students from poor districts. The transfer regulations are designed to manufacture a demand for alternative school placements and ultimately to transfer funds and students to profit-making private school corporations through vouchers. For those left behind, the next step is to "reconstitute" the school. Among the list of options in the law are to turn it into a charter school or privatize its management. These marketplace "solutions" to the difficult and complex problems of schooling will not improve the public school system, but may lead to dismantling it.
A New NCLB
Any response to the punitive nature of the NCLB must be balanced by recognition that there is a genuine need for helpful school accountability, particularly for those schools that serve communities of color and economically disenfranchised families. Opposition to NCLB doesn't mean opposing any and all forms of accountability. Rather, the law should be used to advocate for a way to develop genuine accountability that supports improved student learning and schools.
Advocates must work on several levels to move accountability beyond punitive tests and toward authentic forms of assessment that support teaching and learning practices that genuinely engage students. This can best be done at the school level through teachers and students collaborating with parents and communities to implement portfolios, exhibitions, student-led conferences, and other assessment strategies that promote real improvements in teaching and learning. Most importantly, teachers must use powerful "formative" assessments that can provide precise, useful feedback to each student. While this will be a difficult task in the face of high-stakes testing, there are schools and districts around the nation working in this direction.
On district and state levels, it can mean finding ways to use more authentic performance assessments that evaluate students on what they are capable of doing instead of how well they fill in a bubble sheet. The states of Maine and Nebraska are currently devising state assessment systems that will incorporate local assessments and minimize the role of state standardized testing. NCLB does allow such state assessment programs. By including local, particularly classroom-based data, much richer and more useful information will be included in accountability programs. While even these assessments can be misused in a wrong-headed accountability structure, they are worth exploring.
Ultimately, efforts at the local and state levels to make the best of a bad situation are unlikely to succeed unless Congress overhauls the federal law. Education reformers must work to amend ESEA or demand a new law that truly supports high-quality education for all. We must insist that federal and state governments provide equitable funding to all students. And we need a law that does not punish schools, educators, or students for problems they cannot resolve alone.
The law must change from one that relies primarily on standardized tests to one that encourages quality assessments and promotes better instructional practices in classrooms. Congress should cut back the amount of mandatory testing, prohibit the use of high-stakes testing for graduation or grade promotion, and encourage schools to focus on the use of multiple forms of assessment (as the law calls for but the Bush administration ignores). It should appropriate money to help teachers improve their classroom assessment practices.
Participatory democracy-local parents, educators, students, and other residents working together to make policy decisions about the school-should be at the heart of public school accountability systems. Ideally, information about student achievement would come primarily from student classroom work. This data would be combined with other important academic and non-academic information (including limited standardized testing) about schools to make decisions about school programs and student progress. Teachers and parents would collaborate to determine the areas on which to focus improvement efforts.
Similarly, there must be fundamental changes in NCLB's sanctions and school improvement strategies. En-couraging parents and students to flee schools and closing some down will not improve education. At the same time, we need to accept that schools that have adequate resources and are not doing a good job even with extra support should not be allowed to continue to miseducate children.
Keeping pressure on low-performing schools will undoubtedly raise a vast array of thorny issues: Even if funding is not adequate, cannot many schools still do better? How much better? Can accountability procedures avoid blaming schools for things they do not control while holding them responsible for what they can do? At what point and with what evidence should decisions to intervene in a specific school be made? If inflexible numerical triggers lead to "interventions" that undermine real education, will the absence of such triggers allow schools, districts, and states to continue to miseducate some children? Is there a way to pressure states to foster real equity without scapegoating local schools and districts? What should the role of the federal government be in promoting school improvement, and how much money should the federal government be contributing to education?
We already know a lot about how to create socially supportive and intellectually engaging environments for teachers and students. It takes hard work and resources. School communities need to have unity around goals and teaching practices. And schools need quality teachers, adequate support staff, engaging multicultural curriculum, useful assessments, adequate planning time and staff development, significant parent involvement, small class sizes, quality before- and after-school programs, early childhood education, and quality leadership.
 
 
Building a Reform Campaign
If there's any chance of changing this law in the next several years, we will have to build a powerful national alliance among education and civil rights organizations and strengthen our public engagement. Advocates can start by recognizing there is wide public concern around some key components of NCLB:
 The one-size-fits-all nature of testing.

 The unfairness of making decisions about individuals or schools based just on test scores.

 The danger of teaching to the test.

We can demonstrate that the choice between historically inadequate education and test-driven "reform" is a false choice because there are other, better options.

Several national education groups are already focusing on these issues. For example, the American Association of School Administrators opposed NCLB in Congress and continues to work for changes. The annual representative assembly of the National Education Association (NEA) passed a series of resolutions opposing high-stakes testing and calling for changes in NCLB. The organization has endorsed legislation that would reduce some of NCLB's more harmful impacts. The NEA also is proposing a lawsuit against NCLB because it is an unfunded mandate.

But education organizations cannot do it alone. Individual teachers must take an active and prominent role in educating the public about the law and its negative impact. Public opinion surveys, such as the respected Phi Delta Kappan annual poll, conclude that teachers are the most respected voices in education.

Teachers can help mobilize the public to support change. Educators especially need to reach out to parents, who are likely to turn to teachers for information. Parents can speak credibly in public. In non-union states, where teachers who speak out can more easily be fired, the public role of parents may be more important. Because parents are only occasionally well-organized, educator groups may need to provide support to parents, while allowing parents to retain their autonomy.

Civil rights groups also can be a powerful force for changing NCLB. Some spoke out against NCLB when it was in Congress. Recently, the Children's Defense Fund (the creators of the slogan, "leave no child behind") has raised concerns about the overuse and misuse of tests in NCLB. The educational platforms of the National Conference of Black Legislators and the NAACP both oppose high-stakes testing for individuals and warn against teaching to the test. Few members of the Congres-sional Black and Hispanic Caucuses voted for the new law. Virtually all civil rights groups oppose privatization, and they call for increased funding and equity.

To be sure, the civil rights community remains somewhat divided on NCLB. Support from some civil rights activists, such as the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, was important to passage of NCLB. Some view the new federal law as a powerful step toward ensuring that states and districts address long-ignored educational needs that have led to weak education for many students. Sanctions, they say, are necessary to force action. High-stakes tests for schools and districts appear to guarantee some sort of results.

The members and constituencies of education and civil rights groups are the people most affected by NCLB and have the most to gain from changing the law. But a successful campaign will require overcoming what are, at times, very different perspectives on the use of tests in high-stakes school accountability.

Over the next few years, an ESEA reform alliance will have to work to resolve these differences. There will need to be intense discussions with not just the national leaders of education and civil rights groups, but with classroom teachers, parents, and community activists. A key question remains unanswered: How best should the federal government intervene to help build a school system that serves to build a multiracial democracy in this country?

NCLB is a time bomb ticking at the center of the public education system. Unless we want to find ourselves standing amidst the rubble, we need to get to work.

Monty Neill (monty@fairtest.org) is the executive director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) in Cambridge, Mass. See www.fairtest.org for more information.

Fall 2003



http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/nclb181.shtml

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7966
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: California judge says no to homeschooling
« Reply #224 on: March 21, 2008, 02:07:04 PM »
funny part about NCLB if there is some really good budgeted programs in it
for the poor performing student it has a alotted budget for tutoring.
but strangely the setup encourages school to not use it for fear the budget will be lost.