Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:31:16 +0100

There's way too much to say about the problems with NCLB and its disastrous consequences (intended and unintended) than space here will allow. But what I really wonder is what will it take for the nation to engage in meaningful dialogue about the purposes of education in a democracy, and what we value when we speak of what it means to be educated. Do we value diversity? Learning in all the disciplines? Play and fun? The imagination? Or are we merely concerned with preparing students to be expert multiple choice test takers?

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:45:27 +0100

In one of Molly Ivins' books about George W. Bush, she showed what happened to the Texas public education system during Bush's tenure as governor. At the end of Bush's final term, Texas had one of the worst rankings for education.

My wise-a$$ tendency thinks that the reason Bush came up with this was because he thought this would have been great to have when he was growing up.

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:05:22 +0100

While on the one hand I can understand the opinion that some children need to be "left behind" because they do not want to learn or do not have the intellectual capacity, I generally disagree. I am no fan of NCLB or the way it has been implemented. However, I do believe that the intention of NCLB was honorable.

The public education system in the United States serves more students than most of us can even imagine. Any system this large is not going to be completely successful for every member it serves. HOWEVER, the efforts of most teachers, administrators and politicians for at least the past century have focused on creating the simplest teaching environment by tailoring curriculum, classroom materials, assignments and assessments to verbal learners. By this I mean that teachers primarily lecture, classroom materials are basically textbooks, and assignments & assessments are ALWAYS written. One might presume, then, that most learners are strong in verbal skills. ON THE CONTRARY, verbal learners comprise the smallest group of students in American schools.

Many of us became stronger in our verbal skills, because it was either sink or swim in our schools, but MOST people did not enter school as verbal learners. And those who could not evolve were labeled, retained, advised to go to technical schools, or chose to drop out of school once they were old enough.

Prior to NCLB, teachers were allowed to give up on students. They could decide that certain student(s) simply were not going to be successful and they would pass students to the next grade and let the new teacher handle it. As we all know, there were many college athletes who graduated high school unable to read.

The essence of NCLB for me, personally, is that we must find a way to help EVERY child learn; EVEN if that means that we must change our teaching methods, EVEN if we must get rid of textbooks and spend those BILLIONS of dollars on materials for project-based learning, EVEN if we must give assignments that are best suited to each individual learner. And CONTRARY TO NCLB, even if we must cease and desist from the current series of never-ending assessments, which are infringing on learning time!

NCLB was based upon the idea that our educational system must evolve in order to best serve ALL students. HOW ARE WE HELPING ALL STUDENTS WITH CONTINUAL ASSESSMENTS THAT ONLY ALLOW STRONG VERBAL STUDENTS TO BE HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL?

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:01:56 +0100

NCLB does not begin to touch the real issues in today's classrooms. I do not see issues of inequality. I see issues of behavior and nonmotivation, disengaged students and poor learning environments. Money will not solve this issue. Serious reevalution of the value and impact of compulsory education needs to take place. Earlier posters are correct. Some kids need to be "left behind". The view that education is a "right" is fine as long as a student is willing or able to not disrupt the learning environment for others. You cannot force, cajole, bribe, trick a teenager who does not want to learn into learning. Turn them loose to make minimum wage or less. Likely, they will be back with a real incentive for learning. We lose nothing by leaving these "children" to learn a valuable lesson for themselves. This is constructivist education at its best.

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:31:01 +0100

As far as NCLB, I would strongly recommend reading Linda Darling-Hammond's articl in The Nation and responses in order to develop an informed opinion.

Also, regarding international comparison, very few other countries have the same proportion of students graduate high school that the United States has. There is definitely room for improvement, but using studies like TIMSS to justify the need for it is shortsighted. Countries which do much better than us on TIMSS(like Singapore) envy our education system for the creativity it generates. As such, any real changes need to be based on a more considered understanding of educational goals than that we are 'falling behind' on basic math skills.

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:14:31 +0100

To keep students successful during High School, don't you think that it is important to make sure they are sucessful in all of elementary school and middle school. If they are consistently successful in each grade that leads up to high school, they will be able to keep up with the curriculum high schools have.

To keep students successful during elementary and middle school we DO need to get each student to learn and have skills at their grade level. But, the NCLB is pushing too hard and too quickly to make this happen. As far as students with disabilities go, the people that created the NCLB act need to understand that more than just 2% of children in special education need to be given modified or accomodated standarized tests to keep away from loosing funding to their public school. When a public school looses funding, valuable teachers and resources also get wiped out. How are we going to get students to perform at increasingly higher levels when the teachers and resources are being taken away?

The people that created the NCLB act may not (most likely NOT) be educators and may not realize that MANY students with special needs cannot take a state wide standardized test at a third grade level when their mind functions and learns at a first grade level.

How would a student that can barely solve one and two step addition or subtraction math problems even begin to solve multiple step problems that also consist of word problems? How can a student that can barely spell be asked to write a 5 paragraph persausive essay? How can the government ask teachers and young students to have SO much pressure to reach the bar on these tests and not loose funding, respect, and their motivation?

The NCLB act is asking for too much to be changed at a quicker rate than it can be done. Teachers are hard relentless workers and their students are struggling and frustrated with these standardized tests that create more problems, than take away problems, for the district and the employees of the district and the people of the community.

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:43:24 +0100

I don't want to sound heartless here, but certain people might need to be left behind. Kids that have severe mental or behavioral disabilities cost the schools sometimes as much as 20 times the other students. So my high school of 1350, could only take care of maybe 68.

The power curve drops off in high school, Americans are ahead of everyone in elementary school, competitive in middle school, but we fall way behind somewhere in high school. Something we HAVE to change.

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:18:15 +0100

I feel like if a child cant read or is not caught up in learning like the rest of the kids his/her age, the child might need to be left behind, however long it takes to read, "See Jane run." Also, all students need to understand Shakespeare. I feel it would help with students reading comprehension. The US is wayyy below the power curve in education. It is the main reason why Middle Eastern and Chinese foreign exchange students are flooding our colleges and taking most of the professional jobs that are available. If parents played more of a physical role in their childs education, there would be no need for such a policy.
As far as recruiting, I feel like the military recruiters should not be able to flood the high schools looking for more prey. Military should be a last resort. Every effort should be made for high school students to further their education at low to no cost. The NCLB law ensures that there will always be military infantry (no education needed) soldiers. No offense to the infantry, field artillary, and armor guys out there fighting. Hooah!

Comment on: No Child Left Behind Act- For it or against it?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:55:34 +0100

I am whole heartedly against no child left behind, because, among other things, it requires schools to hand over student information to military recruiters. This is one aspect of NCLB that is not brought up enough, and people need to think about the implications of that-- the military is compiling information on students-- no good can come from that.