Who benefited from the No Child Left Behind?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by G-Kue 1911

The NCLB act also helps SINI (schools in need of improvement) with free after school tutoring from test prep companies like Princeton Review and Kaplan as long as the student receives free or reduced lunch. I agree that this too can be a complete failure if the educator is only teaching the students to pass state exams!

Many SINI are nowhere near a Kaplan, Sylvan, or Princton Review, and tutoring is not effective in a distance learning environment.

[G-Kue 1911]

I was a Site-Manager for 3 yrs and NYC DOE (Department of Education) requires that all providers conduct instruction at the school site after school. You hired educators with the license and hired to train at that school.

http://www.tprk12.com/index.php?opti...599&Itemid=242

Agree with you on your stance on distant learning.

Originally Posted by agzg

Many SINI are nowhere near a Kaplan, Sylvan, or Princton Review, and tutoring is not effective in a distance learning environment.

[deepimpact2]

NCLB hurt the school systems. But that's no surprise. That is what happens when you have people creating policies who don't really have enough experience with running school systems.

With respect to the certification issue, that really has not actually improved the quality of the teachers that are being hired. Point blank, until the government get its act together and starts offering teachers compensation that is really and truly in proportion to what they are worth, they will have a very difficult time finding quality teachers. The low pay and stringent requirements of NCLB are a deterrent for many, many people who would be excellent teachers.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by G-Kue 1911

The NCLB act also helps SINI (schools in need of improvement) with free after school tutoring from test prep companies like Princeton Review and Kaplan as long as the student receives free or reduced lunch. I agree that this too can be a complete failure if the educator is only teaching the students to pass state exams!

Implying that only poor kids who don't pass the test need tutoring? That's absurd.

The real problem with this philosophy of blaming the teacher and the school system when kids don't learn is that there are a million factors that determine where a child is academically. My kids would pass any standardized test in the world no matter what the skill level of the teachers who taught their courses was. They are intelligent kids who get good nutrition, don't live in fear of crime 24/7, who have parents who value education, who have an innate desire to know things and takes initiative to learn things on their own, whose parents have heat in the house and electricity and a computer for every person in the house, who don't have learning disabilities or mental or physical illnesses that prevent them from learning, who get their hearing and eyes checked regularly, etc. They've had good teachers and not so good teachers and when the teachers were not so good, they learned it on their own or asked for more help from their educated parents. A far cry from a kid who is living in poverty with no heat or electricity, who might eat the one free meal a day from the school, who has a learning disability and needs glasses but can't afford them, who is in a high crime area and is far more worried about staying safe walking home from the bus stop than getting their home work done, who don't sleep well because they live in fear of an alcoholic, abusive parent, etc.

Education is about so much more than how well a teacher can teach a subject.

[G-Kue 1911]

Who implied that free or reduced lunch made you poor...I didn't. And the eligibility requirements are only that you receive free or reduced lunch (not your State Standardized test scores). But you hit the nail on the head with your thoughts on other factors why students fail to achieve better grades. This is what so many people educators included fail to realize.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Implying that only poor kids who don't pass the test need tutoring? That's absurd.

The real problem with this philosophy of blaming the teacher and the school system when kids don't learn is that there are a million factors that determine where a child is academically. My kids would pass any standardized test in the world no matter what the skill level of the teachers who taught their courses was. They are intelligent kids who get good nutrition, don't live in fear of crime 24/7, who have parents who value education, who have an innate desire to know things and takes initiative to learn things on their own, whose parents have heat in the house and electricity and a computer for every person in the house, who don't have learning disabilities or mental or physical illnesses that prevent them from learning, who get their hearing and eyes checked regularly, etc. They've had good teachers and not so good teachers and when the teachers were not so good, they learned it on their own or asked for more help from their educated parents. A far cry from a kid who is living in poverty with no heat or electricity, who might eat the one free meal a day from the school, who has a learning disability and needs glasses but can't afford them, who is in a high crime area and is far more worried about staying safe walking home from the bus stop than getting their home work done, who don't sleep well because they live in fear of an alcoholic, abusive parent, etc.

Education is about so much more than how well a teacher can teach a subject.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by G-Kue 1911

Who implied that free or reduced lunch made you poor...I didn't. And the eligibility requirements are only that you receive free or reduced lunch (not your State Standardized test scores). But you hit the nail on the head with your thoughts on other factors why students fail to achieve better grades. This is what so many people educators included fail to realize.

To get free lunch, you have to be at poverty level. To get reduced lunch, you have to be at 25% above poverty level. That's why those students get free or reduced lunch. I know because I looked into it when my ex husband got laid off. I thought that at 50% of his pay, he would be eligible, but making $25K a year with 1 dependent, he is not. Living on less than $25K with a kid is most definitely not middle class.

[G-Kue 1911]

Wow...good information. I know that variety of the schools in NYC are on a universal system which allows all students to qualify for free lunch and SES services. You situation sounds close to my family's when I was younger...I remember it being tough...hope things are better.

Originally Posted by AGDee

To get free lunch, you have to be at poverty level. To get reduced lunch, you have to be at 25% above poverty level. That's why those students get free or reduced lunch. I know because I looked into it when my ex husband got laid off. I thought that at 50% of his pay, he would be eligible, b$25K a year with 1 dependent, he is not. Living on less than $25K with a kid is most definitely not middle class.

[agzg]

I normally don't engage madmax, but often times inner city schools have higher graduation rates than rural areas. Pregnancy rates are often as high, and sometimes it's just easier to leave school and work on a farm than to stick it out for a diploma when there are mouths to feed.

Many children in rural areas face similar problems to children in inner city schools, it's just that no one seems to make that connection.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by NinjaPoodle

What do you guys think? Did anyone benefit?

Of course someone found benefit.

Companies that write standardized tests.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Of course someone found benefit.

Companies that write standardized tests.

Yes! Honestly liked the idea of NCLB, but I think it was very sloppily implemented.

[AGDee]

Are low graduation rates a school's fault? Or the parents' faults? Or society's fault? The kids I knew who dropped out of school did so because A) they were pregnant, B) they were too high to go to school or C) They were suspended from every school in the area due to their own behavior and were out of options

Do kids really not graduate because of poor teaching ability of teachers?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Are low graduation rates a school's fault? Or the parents' faults? Or society's fault? The kids I knew who dropped out of school did so because A) they were pregnant, B) they were too high to go to school or C) They were suspended from every school in the area due to their own behavior and were out of options

Do kids really not graduate because of poor teaching ability of teachers?

I think if you have to place the blame somewhere, I would think that low graduation rates are a community's fault. A community (whether it be the local city, the state, etc) should try and implement more programs to assist those who are on the verge of dropping out. I'm not saying that, they HAVE to do it, but it would be nice. You can blame it on the parents, but you'll get nowhere trying to get them on board w/ education. A lot of parents here see HS education as a waste of time, they rather their son go get a job and help provide for the family, and their daughters to help take care of the house. So the kids feel a lot of pressure to drop out (some want to stay in school, some are glad to drop out). It's one of those "i'm poor, and i'm gonna stay poor, so why waste my time getting a diploma" mentality. Then of course you have the girls who get pregnant and decide just to drop out because they don't want to deal with a kid and school. It doesn't matter that the school districts here have "School Age Parent Centers" where the mothers can get an education and have a daycare for their kid(s). Most of the time those parent centers are utilized while the girls are pregnant, and the girls will stay only if they have the type of parents that really care about the girl's education. By around 8th grade,though, a kid here knows if they are gonna finish school or not.

Kids don't drop out because of a poor teacher. But to NCLB it doesn't really matter. Graduation rate affects the AYP. My HS, for example, has met all the AYP standards for the different subjects, but not for graduation rates. So they got put on the 5 year plan. If the school doesn't bring up it's graduation rate in 5 years, then the school will get taken over by the government and restructured. It has NOTHING to do with the teachers ability, but if the school gets restructured, those HS teachers will most likely lose their job and be replaced by more "effective" teachers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Are low graduation rates a school's fault? Or the parents' faults? Or society's fault?

Yes.

But any of those three can do something to fix the problem. There are some very enterprising and successful programs aimed at these troubled schools. I think very highly of the KIPP schools which have been able to duplicate their successful methods all around the nation. There are also quite a few highly successful charter and enterprise schools which are taking the same kids who would have failed in public schools and sending them to college.

Of course parents can take charge of their kids' education, but that's not always a viable option in, for example, single parent homes where mom thinks "burglar" is a fine vocation.

And "society"? I don't think blaming "society" should really be a viable option either. What exactly is "society"? A culture? A bad set of circumstances? It seems to me that out of the three, the kid herself has the most control over her circumstances with respect to their "society" or the impact that has upon them.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yes.

But any of those three can do something to fix the problem. There are some very enterprising and successful programs aimed at these troubled schools. I think very highly of the KIPP schools which have been able to duplicate their successful methods all around the nation. There are also quite a few highly successful charter and enterprise schools which are taking the same kids who would have failed in public schools and sending them to college.

Of course parents can take charge of their kids' education, but that's not always a viable option in, for example, single parent homes where mom thinks "burglar" is a fine vocation.

And "society"? I don't think blaming "society" should really be a viable option either. What exactly is "society"? A culture? A bad set of circumstances? It seems to me that out of the three, the kid herself has the most control over her circumstances with respect to their "society" or the impact that has upon them.

If KIPP schools were available everywhere, that could make some sense, but they are only in 19 states.. hardly accessible to all kids. The Detroit Public Schools, while failing as a district, do have some incredible specialized schools such as a foreign language immersion school where kids are taught in two languages simultaneously. There are also some great charter schools in the area. The parents who make the effort to get their children into these schools also have to transport them every day because those schools don't have buses. The point is, the parents have to sign their kids up for these schools. The parents have to care enough about their child's education to make that effort to sign them up and get them there. Therefore, those kids have an advantage over some of the others from the start, don't they? A child is not allowed to enroll themselves into a school without parental permission. Maybe they should be?

You and I will always disagree about whether society should be held accountable or not. I think it's insane that there are neighborhoods that aren't safe to walk through. It shouldn't happen anywhere, ever. There should be enough jails, enough police enforcement, enough everything to get criminals off the street and keep our streets safe. It should be the top priority of any society to get dangerous people behind bars.

Yes, there are some rare kids who fight the odds and manage to better themselves despite everything going against them. I think, in most of those cases, somebody believed in them and lit a fire under them to believe in themselves. Some of them never connect with a person who will do that for them. Perhaps some teachers do perform in that role for some kids, but not teachers who have over 200 students a day, who have to spend most of their day managing violence rather than teaching.

I just see it as a much bigger problem than teachers who can't teach.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by gamma

It is mostly the parent's fault. The problem is most inner city kids do not have two parents. Kids in the suburbs are raised by their parents and kids in the city are raised by their 30 year old grandmothers.

Don't quote my posts when you spout your crap. It implies that I'm on the same page as you and I most certainly am not.