Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on March 30, 2004, 10:32:11 AM
-
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
-
The plan had been to make sure that schools don't leave out lower-performing students on test days in order to make themselves look like they are performing better than they are.
I don't know if I'm left or right, but it seems to me that you can bench bad athletes, but not bad students. Its one thing if your testing population is off due to students out with medical, personal (juvey hall for exmple), or family issues, but if you're preventing a student from taking a progress test, that's just wrong.
-
I don't especially like Bush but I do like that he is a get things done kinda person and I do like most of what he is doing.
Most liberals would rather sit around complaining about how unjust America is rather than do anything likely to fix some of our harder problems. Bush has recognized that poverty can be self-perpetuating and is actually trying to do something about it that might have a chance to succeed. Of course there will be opposition, especially from those that are content with the status quo.
-
I think the federal government should get out of the education business altogether. It's a state issue.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I think the federal government should get out of the education business altogether. It's a state issue.
Are you saying that because the federal govt is now run by Republicans or will you hold that view permanently and about areas other than education?
-
Not too familiar with all the details, but the NCLB bill is a good thing. Most Dems voted for it I believe. The only issue they have with it now is the lack of promised funding proposed by the administration.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Not too familiar with all the details, but the NCLB bill is a good thing. Most Dems voted for it I believe. The only issue they have with it now is the lack of promised funding proposed by the administration.
According to what I've read that complaint is an excuse for not implementing the policies of the program, a claim that is denied by the federal govt I'll add.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I think the federal government should get out of the education business altogether. It's a state issue.
Mississippi and Alabama should be punished because they don't have the tax base of New York, New Jersey, or Califonia?
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Mississippi and Alabama should be punished because they don't have the tax base of New York, New Jersey, or Califonia?
They can move if they don't like it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Are you saying that because the federal govt is now run by Republicans or will you hold that view permanently and about areas other than education?
It's not a partisan opinion.
...and yes, there are other areas as well.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's not a partisan opinion.
...and yes, there are other areas as well.
Perhaps you are a conservative democrat? Or just a confused one. :p
-
NCLB is not funded.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
NCLB is not funded.
The federal government disagrees but let's just for the sake of argument say that you're right. So what? Most public schools receive federal money, some receive extra money. Part of what this program is about is demanding that schools start doing the job they are already being paid to do. Do you think the answer is to pay underperforming teachers more money? I think we're more likely to see improvement if we rather hold them accountable and fire their sorry tulips (by letting these kids transfer) if they won't work harder to get the job done.
-
I think the answer is to pay teachers enough money so the ones that do perform do not leave for higher paying positions in college or private schools.
The schools cannot afford the testing in NCLB.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I think the answer is to pay teachers enough money so the ones that do perform do not leave for higher paying positions in college or private schools.
The schools cannot afford the testing in NCLB.
BS
-
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.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Perhaps you are a conservative democrat? Or just a confused one. :p
I lean more towards libertarian.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by strk
I guess those rich folks needed a little bigger tax cut.
Kerry and his wife got one. :aok
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Kerry and his wife got one. :aok
your point?
-
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?).
-
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!
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I graduated high school 5 years ago.
Wow, they really are serious about this no child left behind business.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Wow, they really are serious about this no child left behind business.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
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.
-
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.
:p
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
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.
:p
ah the old "Im going to mirror everything you say" defense. That is so third grade!
Or did you get left behind?
Its easy to post garbage with no link. If you stand by your post, give us the link. Otherwise go fix your make-up, cupcake
-
Originally posted by strk
ah the old "Im going to mirror everything you say" defense. That is so third grade!
Or did you get left behind?
Its easy to post garbage with no link. If you stand by your post, give us the link. Otherwise go fix your make-up, cupcake
Good for the goose, but not the Gander? Ah, okay. Your support for Dean says it all.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Why am I being ignored? :p
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good for the goose, but not the Gander? Ah, okay. Your support for Dean says it all.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I dont support him, he supports ME
YEEAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Why am I being ignored? :p
You're not. If you want to research the COL data, be my guest.
-
Help me! I've been left behind!
-
"When the House was debating its budget resolution, the Democrats proposed no alternative of their own. . .Rather than fake it, the House Democrats punted. . .[The] budget resolution. . .is designed to be the clearest statement of a party’s policy priorities. As long as they are silent, the Democrats cannot be part of serious political debate." (Broder, "The Democrats Punt," Washington Post, April 7, 2002)
Democrat leaders are charging that proposed appropriations levels for the Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provide less funding than "authorized." But when they were in control of the White House and Congress, Democrats did exactly the same thing. Democrats used the same approach to education funding in 1994, the last time the Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was reauthorized – yet not a single Democrat leader accused President Clinton or then-Majority Leader Gephardt of providing "less than promised" for education. Prior to passage of No Child Left Behind, the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) occurred in 1994 – under a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House. The total authorization level for the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) for FY1995 was $13 billion. However, IASA activities were appropriated at $10.3 billion for FY1995 – a discrepancy of $2.7 billion.