No child left behind

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by AKIron
BS

I graduated high school 5 years ago. Almost everytime a teacher had to make copys for their class they had to use personal funds for the paper.
4 of the best teachers i had in high school have left for private sector jobs due to lack of pay.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by AKIron
Perhaps you are a conservative democrat? Or just a confused one.

I lean more towards libertarian.

[Ripsnort]

I believe this program was hatched by Sen. Ed Kennedy, and promoted through congress. Once it was known that Bush would sign the bill, didn't the dems start bad mouthing the bill then?

Partisan? LOL!

[Lizking]

It is funded, check the Congressional Record.  Claims that it is not funded are based on schools wanting more money on top of the funding for "administration", i.e. more administrators, NEA guys, of course.

[strk]

Originally posted by AKIron
I'd like to hear someone from the left tell me how this plan is bad for the kids.

"Many schools had complained that under the previous rule they may be unable to get federal funds due to them just because a few students had failed to take the test. The concerns have not been measured to see if this had been a significant problem, but anecdotal stories suggested some real hesitation.

Schools that get federal poverty aid but don't make progress goals at least two years straight face mounting sanctions, from having to offer transfers to risking state takeover. "

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115565,00.html

In a nutshell, the NCLB puts requirements on schools that werent there before through standardized testing.  THe bill was supposed to provide extra federal money to fund the testing and the improvements that the bill sought.  

Bush* passed the bill with much fanfare, but when it came time to fund it, he did not authorize complete funding.  So what you have left is an additional federal requirements for the schools, with no money to pay for them.  The states are already facing severe budget cuts, so many are trying to opt out of federal funds and NCLB.

So you see, it was used by Bush* to make him appear compassionate, but when it came time to fund it he turned his back.  I guess those rich folks needed a little bigger tax cut.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by strk
I guess those rich folks needed a little bigger tax cut.

Kerry and his wife got one.

[strk]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Kerry and his wife got one.

your point?

[hawker238]

Incredible point, rip....


My problem with No Child is that it judges the school on the level of the lowest category of performers.  I'm sure no one would be happy to find they were denied access to a college because the school they came from wasn't accredited (sp?).

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by strk
In a nutshell, the NCLB puts requirements on schools that werent there before through standardized testing.  THe bill was supposed to provide extra federal money to fund the testing and the improvements that the bill sought.  

Bush* passed the bill with much fanfare, but when it came time to fund it, he did not authorize complete funding.  So what you have left is an additional federal requirements for the schools, with no money to pay for them.  The states are already facing severe budget cuts, so many are trying to opt out of federal funds and NCLB.
 

Underfunded?

2005 budget represents a 48 percent increase in spending for elementary and secondary education since 2001. Federal funding increased from about $25 billion in 2001 to more than $33 billion in 2003, primarily as a result of the law.  

"The law mandates that teachers have a college major for every core subject they cover"

Oh, yes, we wouldn't want qualified teachers teaching children would we!

The underfunding argument is a red herring because even though the allocated funds don't hit the maximum authorized level does not mean the programs aren't getting enough money.

"The arguments that it's underfunded are deceiving in the sense that the authorization levels are funding ceilings not floors. The point of schools is to have children proficient in math and reading; they're actually getting more money for what they should already be doing," Kafer said.

NCLB has received "an enormous amount of money" at a time "when you're just not seeing these kinds of increases in other domestic spending areas," Kafer said.

Kafer did say that implementation has had mixed success. Some districts have effectively advertised school choice options, but other districts have been "kind of deceptive" about other options for dissatisfied parents, she said.  

"One of the best things that has come out of No Child Left Behind is the focus on the need to be proficient in math and reading," Kafer said.

Nice try coffeecake! NEXT!

[myelo]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
I graduated high school 5 years ago.

Wow, they really are serious about this no child left behind business.

[strk]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Underfunded?

2005 budget represents a 48 percent increase in spending for elementary and secondary education since 2001. Federal funding increased from about $25 billion in 2001 to more than $33 billion in 2003, primarily as a result of the law.  

"The law mandates that teachers have a college major for every core subject they cover"

Oh, yes, we wouldn't want qualified teachers teaching children would we!



Nice try coffeecake! NEXT!

that's right cupcake, underfunded.  Why dont you do some real research on this before you show your ignorance so proudly.

you have a link for your wingnut cut and paste garbage?

[gofaster]

Weren't members of this board all up in arms not too long ago because they wanted a maximum tax cut/refund?

And now we're up in arms again because our schools are underfunded?

Interesting dynamic.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by myelo
Wow, they really are serious about this no child left behind business.

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Underfunded?

2005 budget represents a 48 percent increase in spending for elementary and secondary education since 2001. Federal funding increased from about $25 billion in 2001 to more than $33 billion in 2003, primarily as a result of the law.  

If true, what was the rate of increase in the number of schools that were opened and the number of kids that enrolled in the past 4 years?  What was the rate of increase in the cost of operating each school over the past 4 years?  You could be like the proverbial blind man feeling the elephant's trunk and declaring the elephant skinny.

I'd love to have the cost of living of 2001 right now.  Then maybe I wouldn't be considering buying a motorcycle and parking the SUV.

edit: point being, if the budget is increased 48%, but the cost of operating increases by 50%, then something is underfunded.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by strk


you have a link for your wingnut cut and paste garbage?

Im not going to explain everything to you coffeecake. If you want to learn about NCLB look it up yourself. I can tell by your comment that you have no freakin clue.