Save
Random Shot: 
 

Welcome to the Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

 

Go Back  Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums > General Discussion > The War Room > No Child Left Behind Fails. Time for overhaul.

Reply
 
Sherdog Forums
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-16-2007, 10:59 PM   #1 (permalink)
IM KIND OF A BIG DEAL
 
Lubaolong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 15,732
Status: Lubaolong is offline
No Child Left Behind Fails. Time for overhaul.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The No Child Left Behind law was supposed to level the playing field, promising students an equal education no matter where they live or their background. From state to state, however, huge differences remain in what students are expected to know and learn.

Each state sets its own standards for subjects such as reading and math, then tests to see whether students meet those benchmarks. It's a practice under increasing scrutiny as Congress prepares to review the five-year-old law.

"Fourth-grade kids in the District of Columbia are learning different math from kids across the (Potomac) river in Virginia. It's crazy. Math is math," said Michael Petrilli, vice president for policy at the Thomas Fordham Foundation, a Washington-based education reform group.

The solution, say Petrilli and other advocates, means standards of learning that are uniform nationwide.

Republicans generally have opposed national standards. GOP lawmakers say state and local officials know what is best for their students and as the primary funders of elementary and secondary education, should have primary say in running schools.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has opposed national standards but recently indicated she would consider voluntary ones. Spellings said she would have strong reservations, however, about proposals that would free states from the No Child Left Behind law's requirements as a reward for raising standards.

Many Democrats, along with education reform and business groups, say a patchwork of standards is inefficient. They also say students in states with low standards will have trouble competing in the global economy. Many other industrial nations have more stringent standards than those in the U.S.

There are signs states are wrestling with the problem. Some are talking about sharing tests and looking at benchmarks that would identify the skills U.S. students should have when they finish high school.

Advocates of national standards say the No Child Left Behind law is encouraging states to set low standards so schools can avoid consequences that come with missing annual progress goals.

Schools that miss those targets must take steps such as paying for tutoring or overhauling staffs. All students have to be proficient, which generally means working at grade level, in reading and math by 2014.

At least one state, Missouri, lowered its standards after the federal law went into effect.

Gene Wilhoit, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, said it is understandable that some states would set low standards. "They're trying to make sense out of this. They're trying to survive," he said.

Wilhoit said, however, that it is seen as unfair that states with high standards are treated the same as those with lower standards. He said states willing to raise their standards to a high, possibly uniform, level should be given regulatory relief and financial incentives.

Comparing state, federal test scores
Supporters of national standards point to the vast differences between student performance on state tests compared with a rigorous national one as evidence states are using weak standards.

A study by the Washington-based children's advocacy group EdTrust showed 89 percent of fourth-graders in Mississippi were deemed proficient or better in reading on recent state tests. Meanwhile, only 18 percent reached that level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- the gold-standard of scholastic achievement in the United States.

In Oklahoma, 75 percent of fourth-graders were proficient or better in math on the state test. On the federal test, 29 percent met that standard.

In Massachusetts -- a state with relatively high standards -- the gap is narrower. Fifty percent of fourth graders were proficient in reading on state tests, compared with 44 percent on the national test.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, chairman of the committee overseeing education issues, has proposed legislation generally encouraging states to raise their standards to a consistent level, as has Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut.

Dodd's legislation won the endorsement of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teacher's union.

"We know that we need to take a look at the rigor and the wide diversity and range of content standards," NEA lobbyist Kim Anderson said.

One bit of evidence that uniform standards are effective comes from schools run by the Defense Department for military families.

Student scores at those schools, which operate outside the No Child Left Behind law but which have uniform standards, are higher on the national assessment than scores of other students, according to Vanderbilt University researcher Claire Smrekar.

She said there are many reasons for that trend but that uniform standards at the Defense Department schools play a role. "I would say they provide clarity and consistency within the system," she said.

Among educators, there is a concern national standards would become outdated and that changing them would be difficult and bureaucratic.

Brenda Dietrich, a superintendent in the Topeka, Kansas, area, said she has not formed an opinion on national standards, but does see a logic to them.

"If we're all going to be held to a standard, it certainly would be nice if it were the same standard," Dietrich said.

That is probably going to be the winning argument, says Michael Dannenberg, who directs education policy at the Washington-based New America Foundation, which recently held a forum on national standards. "My view is that the country is on an inexorable march toward national standards, and the question is not if but when and how," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/01....ap/index.html
__________________
If you do happen to see me out in the real world, do me a favor and don't talk to me. I'm far too rich and important to be seen with you.
Lubaolong is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote

Old 01-16-2007, 11:04 PM   #2 (permalink)
Huzzah
 
Octavian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 16,070
Status: Octavian is offline
It was a travesty of a system to begin with for so many reasons... to name a few: over emphasis on standardized testing - making education politized and underfunded from the start.

Bush and many Republicans want charter schools so that the government doesn't (states) have to pay teachers unions, pentions...etc. This is one step in their assault. Hold every teacher accountable, even if they have half their class at the special needs level and make everything else about the numbers.

The amount of testing for this and in state testing takes a serious chunk of time and of funding, that is not sufficiently given and also specified in how to spend it. So budgets are busy paying testing company's millions of dollars for the tests and materials.
__________________
JCVDD




"If a motherfucker can’t live on $3 trillion, fuck em, you know what I’m sayin?"

~kingstu
Octavian is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 10:14 AM   #3 (permalink)

Green Belt
 
Immolation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: anyplace I choose
Posts: 1,038
Status: Immolation is offline
The number one thing most of these politicians do not take into account is that most kids do not care about learning and their parents will do anything to undermine the teacher. I was a teacher at one time and I know people that have done it for 30 yrs. Nobody wants to blame the kids and parents for their failures but hey quickly blame the teachers. The No Child LEft Behind law was just more crap for teacher to do while stripping htem of more power. Teachers cannot do anyhting to get kids to work and yet are forced to raise these kids since their parents don't want to. Everyone needs to be accountible from teachers to the students and that includes the parents. No one can expect a student to follow their teachers order if they know they will not get punished. Would you comply with a cops orders if you knew he could not tough you in any way or arrest you? Not only that you knew there would be no consequences since the cops supervisors are all on your side? That is our educational system.
__________________
My parents said I could be anything when I grew up so I became an asshole
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html Check this site if you beleive cops care about you
Immolation is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 10:31 AM   #4 (permalink)

Brown Belt
 
kartaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,919
Status: kartaron is offline
It was gutted by congress before it was implemented. Never had a chance.

I love how Octavian is arguing that standardizing the tests was the problem, while the article argues that the standards on the tests were too inconsistant.
__________________
Hey, we are having a nice little discussion here.....please put your Samurai sword away and play nice. Titlefight
kartaron is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 10:47 AM   #5 (permalink)

Black Belt
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,318
Status: kingstu is offline
This researcher provides a different and controversial perspective. Possibly some kids are just not intelligent enough to learn certain skills. Let the intelligence debate begin.

Part 1 of 3 below (I will post the other two if there’s any interest in them).

Quote:
Intelligence in the Classroom
By CHARLES MURRAY

January 16, 2007; Page A21

Education is becoming the preferred method for diagnosing and attacking a wide range problems in American life. The No Child Left Behind Act is one prominent example. Another is the recent volley of articles that blame rising income inequality on the increasing economic premium for advanced education. Crime, drugs, extramarital births, unemployment -- you name the problem, and I will show you a stack of claims that education is to blame, or at least implicated.

One word is missing from these discussions: intelligence. Hardly anyone will admit it, but education's role in causing or solving any problem cannot be evaluated without considering the underlying intellectual ability of the people being educated. Today and over the next two days, I will put the case for three simple truths about the mediating role of intelligence that should bear on the way we think about education and the nation's future.

Today's simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.

Our ability to improve the academic accomplishment of students in the lower half of the distribution of intelligence is severely limited. It is a matter of ceilings. Suppose a girl in the 99th percentile of intelligence, corresponding to an IQ of 135, is getting a C in English. She is underachieving, and someone who sets out to raise her performance might be able to get a spectacular result. Now suppose the boy sitting behind her is getting a D, but his IQ is a bit below 100, at the 49th percentile.

We can hope to raise his grade. But teaching him more vocabulary words or drilling him on the parts of speech will not open up new vistas for him. It is not within his power to learn to follow an exposition written beyond a limited level of complexity, any more than it is within my power to follow a proof in the American Journal of Mathematics. In both cases, the problem is not that we have not been taught enough, but that we are not smart enough.

Now take the girl sitting across the aisle who is getting an F. She is at the 20th percentile of intelligence, which means she has an IQ of 88. If the grading is honest, it may not be possible to do more than give her an E for effort. Even if she is taught to read every bit as well as her intelligence permits, she still will be able to comprehend only simple written material. It is a good thing that she becomes functionally literate, and it will have an effect on the range of jobs she can hold. But still she will be confined to jobs that require minimal reading skills. She is just not smart enough to do more than that.

How about raising intelligence? It would be nice if we knew how, but we do not. It has been shown that some intensive interventions temporarily raise IQ scores by amounts ranging up to seven or eight points. Investigated psychometrically, these increases are a mix of test effects and increases in the underlying general factor of intellectual ability -- "g." In any case, the increases fade to insignificance within a few years after the intervention. Richard Herrnstein and I reviewed the technical literature on this topic in "The Bell Curve" (1994), and studies since then have told the same story.

There is no reason to believe that raising intelligence significantly and permanently is a current policy option, no matter how much money we are willing to spend. Nor can we look for much help from the Flynn Effect, the rise in IQ scores that has been observed internationally for several decades. Only a portion of that rise represents an increase in g, and recent studies indicate that the rise has stopped in advanced nations.

Some say that the public schools are so awful that there is huge room for improvement in academic performance just by improving education. There are two problems with that position. The first is that the numbers used to indict the public schools are missing a crucial component. For example, in the 2005 round of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 36% of all fourth-graders were below the NAEP's "basic achievement" score in reading. It sounds like a terrible record. But we know from the mathematics of the normal distribution that 36% of fourth-graders also have IQs lower than 95.

What IQ is necessary to give a child a reasonable chance to meet the NAEP's basic achievement score? Remarkably, it appears that no one has tried to answer that question. We only know for sure that if the bar for basic achievement is meaningfully defined, some substantial proportion of students will be unable to meet it no matter how well they are taught. As it happens, the NAEP's definition of basic achievement is said to be on the tough side. That substantial proportion of fourth-graders who cannot reasonably be expected to meet it could well be close to 36%.

The second problem with the argument that education can be vastly improved is the false assumption that educators already know how to educate everyone and that they just need to try harder -- the assumption that prompted No Child Left Behind. We have never known how to educate everyone. The widely held image of a golden age of American education when teachers brooked no nonsense and all the children learned their three Rs is a myth. If we confine the discussion to children in the lower half of the intelligence distribution (education of the gifted is another story), the overall trend of the 20th century was one of slow, hard-won improvement. A detailed review of this evidence, never challenged with data, was also part of "The Bell Curve."

This is not to say that American public schools cannot be improved. Many of them, especially in large cities, are dreadful. But even the best schools under the best conditions cannot repeal the limits on achievement set by limits on intelligence.

To say that even a perfect education system is not going to make much difference in the performance of children in the lower half of the distribution understandably grates. But the easy retorts do not work. It's no use coming up with the example of a child who was getting Ds in school, met an inspiring teacher, and went on to become an astrophysicist. That is an underachievement story, not the story of someone at the 49th percentile of intelligence. It's no use to cite the differences in test scores between public schools and private ones -- for students in the bottom half of the distribution, the differences are real but modest. It's no use to say that IQ scores can be wrong. I am not talking about scores on specific tests, but about a student's underlying intellectual ability, g, whether or not it has been measured with a test. And it's no use to say that there's no such thing as g.

While concepts such as "emotional intelligence" and "multiple intelligences" have their uses, a century of psychometric evidence has been augmented over the last decade by a growing body of neuroscientific evidence. Like it or not, g exists, is grounded in the architecture and neural functioning of the brain, and is the raw material for academic performance. If you do not have a lot of g when you enter kindergarten, you are never going to have a lot of it. No change in the educational system will change that hard fact.

That says nothing about the quality of the lives that should be open to everyone across the range of ability. I am among the most emphatic of those who think that the importance of IQ in living a good life is vastly overrated. My point is just this: It is true that many social and economic problems are disproportionately found among people with little education, but the culprit for their educational deficit is often low intelligence. Refusing to come to grips with that reality has produced policies that have been ineffectual at best and damaging at worst.

Mr. Murray is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This is the first in a three-part series, concluding on Thursday
kingstu is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 12:57 PM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Sudd-Na-Rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Moving around
Posts: 1,437
Status: Sudd-Na-Rok is offline
The problem with the"no child left behind" concept is that half of the kids are below average intelligence.
Sudd-Na-Rok is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 01:04 PM   #7 (permalink)
WAR ROOM WARRIORS
 
chardog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,154
Status: chardog is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingstu
This researcher provides a different and controversial perspective. Possibly some kids are just not intelligent enough to learn certain skills. Let the intelligence debate begin.

Part 1 of 3 below (I will post the other two if there’s any interest in them).
There is no doubt that not all intelligence levels are the same. I dont think it's much of a debate. People are different! Cultures are different. In some cultures, you are praised to have a good education, and in some other cultures, education doesnt mean much.
__________________
"Mens Rea: Living Legend and a Friend"
- Lubaolong
chardog is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 01:51 PM   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,004
Status: Mens Rea is offline
Some children should be left behind.
__________________
"I've seen and done three hundred times what you have, I'm infinitely stronger and faster than you, [and] I could easily kick the shit out of you"
-Polynikes
Mens Rea is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 01:55 PM   #9 (permalink)

Red Belt
 
AmericaOverAll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The place that's the best.
Posts: 7,681
Status: AmericaOverAll is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mens Rea
Some children should be left behind.
True dat. Liberals dont understand that to get the SAME results from DIFFERENT people, you have to treat them differently. There is no uniform formula for it. They just dont want to believe that some people are just naturally more intelligent/interested in education than others.
How could test scores ever be the same for everyone? It's impossible, no matter what the formula.
__________________
"America is the greatest sin against God." -Barack Hussein Obama's pastor buddy
AmericaOverAll is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 01:59 PM   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,004
Status: Mens Rea is offline
I understand fundamentals like literacy. Everyone in the country should learn to read.

But aside from that, if a child wants (it's a sign of their diversity/culture/whatever) to be a worthless degenerate or start pumping out babies at age 14, there's no need to pull the rest of the class down to their level.
__________________
"I've seen and done three hundred times what you have, I'm infinitely stronger and faster than you, [and] I could easily kick the shit out of you"
-Polynikes
Mens Rea is offline  | 
 
   
Reply With Quote

Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version {1. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008 Sherdog.com | Privacy Policy | Click here to advertise on Sherdog