Connecticut Challenges No Child Left Behind Law

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jimkyser

Senior member
Nov 13, 2004
547
0
0
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: Train
wow, you mean teachers now have to face all the BS the rest of us deal with in the real world?

Sweet.

they were already dealing with plenty of BS trust me. there is a reason there is a shortage of teachers - no one want's to put up with all this crap for that pay. if they pay wasn't so bad i would have considered it as a profession but i didn't bust my ass through college to go out and make less than 30k with minimal raises every year.

You're looking at the wrong school districts. Here the starting salary for a green, right out of college with a BA/BS teacher is over $37k. They have gotten 8% raises the last three years while the major employers in the area (Lucent, Motorola, Tellabs) have been laying off the parents of their students left and right. They're about to go on strike and the delay the start of school (supposed to be tomorrow) because they don;t like the current school district offer of 5% per year for the next three. And this isn't even the highest paid district in the Chicago metro area.

That said, I think NCLB is stupid. Several districts around here, including the one I live in, have have trouble with it. Not because they have poor instructional programs, but because the special ed kids don't score well enough or show enough improvement. Interesting that when Bush had his miracle with the pilot for the NCLB in Texas they conveniently left out the special ed kids. Without them included all of these districts would pass in a walk.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: jimkyser
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: Train
wow, you mean teachers now have to face all the BS the rest of us deal with in the real world?

Sweet.

they were already dealing with plenty of BS trust me. there is a reason there is a shortage of teachers - no one want's to put up with all this crap for that pay. if they pay wasn't so bad i would have considered it as a profession but i didn't bust my ass through college to go out and make less than 30k with minimal raises every year.

You're looking at the wrong school districts. Here the starting salary for a green, right out of college with a BA/BS teacher is over $37k. They have gotten 8% raises the last three years while the major employers in the area (Lucent, Motorola, Tellabs) have been laying off the parents of their students left and right. They're about to go on strike and the delay the start of school (supposed to be tomorrow) because they don;t like the current school district offer of 5% per year for the next three. And this isn't even the highest paid district in the Chicago metro area.

depends where you live for sure.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: Tommunist

their days are much longer than mine - when i go home the day is over. when they go home it's time to start correcting papers.

the snow thing depends on the district. some districts (like the one I was in) very rarely call snow days. i can recall driving to schol a few days where I almost lost it a couple of times.

infinite job security? who wants it? most teachers bail early these days. long gone are the days of teachers doing their thing for 30 years and then retiring.

most full time jobs have decent benefits.

what would i know? i only lived with 2 teachers for 18 years and have firsthand knowledge about the kind of BS they have to put up with.

I also have to ask where these 2 teachers were working as well, my uncle was a teacher for some 30+ years, and as a recent high school student I have my observations.

In a 7 hour day broken into 9 45 minute blocks he only taught for 5 of them. The other 4 were free for lunch, prep, hall duty, and other useless stuff where he spent feeding most of his stuff into the scantron machine. It was easily possible to get most, if not all, of his grading done before he even went home.

In the event that a teacher has to come in for a "snow day", how does that make it different than any other job?

His benefits package was insane, by the time he retired he had around 2 years of paid vacation which he took.

Don't get me wrong, its never a job I would take (I don't like the salary much and I can't deal with kids all day), but I wouldn't say they have it rougher than many other jobs.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Tommunist

their days are much longer than mine - when i go home the day is over. when they go home it's time to start correcting papers.

the snow thing depends on the district. some districts (like the one I was in) very rarely call snow days. i can recall driving to schol a few days where I almost lost it a couple of times.

infinite job security? who wants it? most teachers bail early these days. long gone are the days of teachers doing their thing for 30 years and then retiring.

most full time jobs have decent benefits.

what would i know? i only lived with 2 teachers for 18 years and have firsthand knowledge about the kind of BS they have to put up with.

I also have to ask where these 2 teachers were working as well, my uncle was a teacher for some 30+ years, and as a recent high school student I have my observations.

In a 7 hour day broken into 9 45 minute blocks he only taught for 5 of them. The other 4 were free for lunch, prep, hall duty, and other useless stuff where he spent feeding most of his stuff into the scantron machine. It was easily possible to get most, if not all, of his grading done before he even went home.

In the event that a teacher has to come in for a "snow day", how does that make it different than any other job?

His benefits package was insane, by the time he retired he had around 2 years of paid vacation which he took.

Don't get me wrong, its never a job I would take (I don't like the salary much and I can't deal with kids all day), but I wouldn't say they have it rougher than many other jobs.

the type of teacher affects the amount of grading that has to be done (as well as if the teacher actually gives a rats a$$ about doing a good job). 2 years of paid vacation at retirement? this is either BS or very very unusual (even if he never used his PTO while working).

the main point is that people (like yourself) like to paint teaching like it's so easy and it's not. unless you really really want to help kids learn the pay isn't even close to worth it.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Unfortunately for NCLB opponents, they have yet to come up with a system that better determines what a child has learned.

Teachers give tests in order to give grades. Kids take the SAT in order to get into college. So tests are wonderful for everything else, but when it comes to NCLB they're suddenly a poor indicator of education? Give me a break.
 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Unfortunately for NCLB opponents, they have yet to come up with a system that better determines what a child has learned.

Teachers give tests in order to give grades. Kids take the SAT in order to get into college. So tests are wonderful for everything else, but when it comes to NCLB they're suddenly a poor indicator of education? Give me a break.

the first tests you mentioned don't determine school funding - they are for the student and teacher to know how much the student has learned and retained. the NCLB system is creating a situation that isn't in the best interests of the students. initially it takes away from every subject other than math and english and it also assumes that the people who made the test know what kind of questions/topics are the most important. i'd rather the fed gov't not have such sweeping control on what goes into young minds.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Unfortunately for NCLB opponents, they have yet to come up with a system that better determines what a child has learned.

Teachers give tests in order to give grades. Kids take the SAT in order to get into college. So tests are wonderful for everything else, but when it comes to NCLB they're suddenly a poor indicator of education? Give me a break.

the first tests you mentioned don't determine school funding - they are for the student and teacher to know how much the student has learned and retained. the NCLB system is creating a situation that isn't in the best interests of the students. initially it takes away from every subject other than math and english and it also assumes that the people who made the test know what kind of questions/topics are the most important. i'd rather the fed gov't not have such sweeping control on what goes into young minds.

A test is a test is a test. If testing is good enough for college acceptance, then it's good enough for school funding. The argument is that NCLB forces teachers to teach the test. But if people are so against testing because it forces teachers to teach test material, then why do we bother to ever test school children at all? :confused:

As far as the federal government having a say in what is taught in classrooms, who else is going to do it? Every time some southern state declares that ID will be taught in the classroom the leftists in this forum go apesh!t. Can you imagine what would happen if the feds stepped out of curriculum completely?
 

cwgannon

Member
May 24, 2005
112
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Tommunist

their days are much longer than mine - when i go home the day is over. when they go home it's time to start correcting papers.

the snow thing depends on the district. some districts (like the one I was in) very rarely call snow days. i can recall driving to schol a few days where I almost lost it a couple of times.

infinite job security? who wants it? most teachers bail early these days. long gone are the days of teachers doing their thing for 30 years and then retiring.

most full time jobs have decent benefits.

what would i know? i only lived with 2 teachers for 18 years and have firsthand knowledge about the kind of BS they have to put up with.

I also have to ask where these 2 teachers were working as well, my uncle was a teacher for some 30+ years, and as a recent high school student I have my observations.

In a 7 hour day broken into 9 45 minute blocks he only taught for 5 of them. The other 4 were free for lunch, prep, hall duty, and other useless stuff where he spent feeding most of his stuff into the scantron machine. It was easily possible to get most, if not all, of his grading done before he even went home.

In the event that a teacher has to come in for a "snow day", how does that make it different than any other job?

His benefits package was insane, by the time he retired he had around 2 years of paid vacation which he took.

Don't get me wrong, its never a job I would take (I don't like the salary much and I can't deal with kids all day), but I wouldn't say they have it rougher than many other jobs.

I'm glad you're willing to use your uncle's experience as a basis for every one of your beliefs.

I'd point out that it is a bit pathetic, but I really don't think you'd understand why.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Tommunist

their days are much longer than mine - when i go home the day is over. when they go home it's time to start correcting papers.

the snow thing depends on the district. some districts (like the one I was in) very rarely call snow days. i can recall driving to schol a few days where I almost lost it a couple of times.

infinite job security? who wants it? most teachers bail early these days. long gone are the days of teachers doing their thing for 30 years and then retiring.

most full time jobs have decent benefits.

what would i know? i only lived with 2 teachers for 18 years and have firsthand knowledge about the kind of BS they have to put up with.

I also have to ask where these 2 teachers were working as well, my uncle was a teacher for some 30+ years, and as a recent high school student I have my observations.

In a 7 hour day broken into 9 45 minute blocks he only taught for 5 of them. The other 4 were free for lunch, prep, hall duty, and other useless stuff where he spent feeding most of his stuff into the scantron machine. It was easily possible to get most, if not all, of his grading done before he even went home.

In the event that a teacher has to come in for a "snow day", how does that make it different than any other job?

His benefits package was insane, by the time he retired he had around 2 years of paid vacation which he took.

Don't get me wrong, its never a job I would take (I don't like the salary much and I can't deal with kids all day), but I wouldn't say they have it rougher than many other jobs.

the type of teacher affects the amount of grading that has to be done (as well as if the teacher actually gives a rats a$$ about doing a good job). 2 years of paid vacation at retirement? this is either BS or very very unusual (even if he never used his PTO while working).

the main point is that people (like yourself) like to paint teaching like it's so easy and it's not. unless you really really want to help kids learn the pay isn't even close to worth it.


My father retired from teaching after 30 years He rarely took sick or personal days. When he retired he had almost a full school year of leave. He was supposed to be able retire earlier by taking those days, but the rules changes a few years before his retirement. So it is possible over the couse of 30 years to save up a significant amount of leave.

The only time he had to work from home was at the end of each semister when he had to average all the grades and do the associated paperwork. THe admin always got on him about him failing students, but they always did real well on the standardized tests. Simple things about education, you demand more from your students, you get more from them.
 

cwgannon

Member
May 24, 2005
112
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Unfortunately for NCLB opponents, they have yet to come up with a system that better determines what a child has learned.

Teachers give tests in order to give grades. Kids take the SAT in order to get into college. So tests are wonderful for everything else, but when it comes to NCLB they're suddenly a poor indicator of education? Give me a break.

the first tests you mentioned don't determine school funding - they are for the student and teacher to know how much the student has learned and retained. the NCLB system is creating a situation that isn't in the best interests of the students. initially it takes away from every subject other than math and english and it also assumes that the people who made the test know what kind of questions/topics are the most important. i'd rather the fed gov't not have such sweeping control on what goes into young minds.

A test is a test is a test. If testing is good enough for college acceptance, then it's good enough for school funding. The argument is that NCLB forces teachers to teach the test. But if people are so against testing because it forces teachers to teach test material, then why do we bother to ever test school children at all? :confused:

As far as the federal government having a say in what is taught in classrooms, who else is going to do it? Every time some southern state declares that ID will be taught in the classroom the leftists in this forum go apesh!t. Can you imagine what would happen if the feds stepped out of curriculum completely?

You have to be kidding me...

If your inane rambling has any truth to it, name one school that accepts students based solely on test scores while disregarding factors such as grade point average, class rank, and extracurricular activities.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: cwgannon
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Tommunist
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Unfortunately for NCLB opponents, they have yet to come up with a system that better determines what a child has learned.

Teachers give tests in order to give grades. Kids take the SAT in order to get into college. So tests are wonderful for everything else, but when it comes to NCLB they're suddenly a poor indicator of education? Give me a break.

the first tests you mentioned don't determine school funding - they are for the student and teacher to know how much the student has learned and retained. the NCLB system is creating a situation that isn't in the best interests of the students. initially it takes away from every subject other than math and english and it also assumes that the people who made the test know what kind of questions/topics are the most important. i'd rather the fed gov't not have such sweeping control on what goes into young minds.

A test is a test is a test. If testing is good enough for college acceptance, then it's good enough for school funding. The argument is that NCLB forces teachers to teach the test. But if people are so against testing because it forces teachers to teach test material, then why do we bother to ever test school children at all? :confused:

As far as the federal government having a say in what is taught in classrooms, who else is going to do it? Every time some southern state declares that ID will be taught in the classroom the leftists in this forum go apesh!t. Can you imagine what would happen if the feds stepped out of curriculum completely?

You have to be kidding me...

If your inane rambling has any truth to it, name one school that accepts students based solely on test scores while disregarding factors such as grade point average, class rank, and extracurricular activities.



Most colleges accept people based on their sat/act scores. When those scores are too low they start looking at other factors.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: cwgannon
You have to be kidding me...

If your inane rambling has any truth to it, name one school that accepts students based solely on test scores while disregarding factors such as grade point average, class rank, and extracurricular activities.
So you're saying you want to base school funding on GPA and after school sports?

Again, I'll ask the question because fools like you keep dodging the real question. If these things are good enough to judge the student, why aren't they good enough to judge the quality of the school itself?
 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
There's nothing wrong with testing, there has to be some way to evaluate student retention of information. And there's nothing wrong with having a way to evaluate the job that schools are doing and holding them accountable for it. As I said before, Bush's intentions appear to be good in theory, but the way the evaluations are done and the way schools are forced to implement them are the problem.

The AYPs (Average Yearly Progress) are a mess of statistics and data that don't take the full scope of education into consideration and are at times counterproductive to making real life efforts to educate.

For example, just a couple of weeks ago at the beginning of this school year, our principal told us that we just barely escaped failing our AYP for Graduation rates. And the reason we almost failed was because our school made an extra effort to help dropouts.

A few years ago we started a program to get dropouts back to school with an after school program to help them pass the GED. Because the program was being done through the school, the students had to be enrolled with our state system by the grade they were in when they dropped out. Several of these students were enrolled as 9th graders even though they were much older than that. When NCLB came into effect, it held us accountable for those students because you're held accountable for the graduation rate of students from the 9th grade until the age of 23 regardless of the circumstances.

Because of the small population of our school, the fact that 4 or 5 of the people registered in this program as 9th graders either did not complete the program or completed it but did not take their GED, our graduation rate for last year's class was lowered. That even though most of these students are now in their early 20's and were not actually members of that class. We were going to be charged with failing a portion of No Child Left Behind by going our of our way to reach out to these former high-risk students and help them improve their futures through education. We would have passed NCLB with flying colors if we had not tried to help these people who had been left behind. Ironic isn't it?

The principal had tried all spring and summer since he'd found out about this to point that out to those in the bureaucratic strongholds of the program with no avail until late summer. Finally he was told that if he could find these 4 or 5 former members of the after school program and get them to re-register in another way, that the statistics could be changed to allow for only those who were actually members of last year's class to be counted. He found them and they agreed to re-register because even though they hadn't carried through for whatever reason, they appreciated what the school had tried to do for them.

It's that kind of bureaucratic statistical minutiae that doesn't take into account real efforts to educate that bug me. There needs to be an evaluation system that takes the full scope of education into account and that really does aspire to leave no child behind. Instead, it's turning schools into data centers and numbers crunchers just trying to find some way to meet statistical requirements, while trying to not let education get in the way.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Stunt
From what i've read, Bush is extremely strong on education, apparently this is one legacy of his to be proud of.

Except his "legacy" is an act with dubious effect even if it was properly funded, which it isn't. The idea that student education can be improved through testing alone is just silly. And I find it rather telling that I have yet to meet or hear of a single teacher in favor of the program.

Yep, same here. My GF is a teacher and she doesnt know a single teacher in favor of the program either. I hope all states follow suit.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Thanks for your comments, montanafan. :)

I wonder why NCLB isn't getting full funding, maybe it's the same reason N.O was denied funds to do more research on flood protection... Needed more money for the war... :(
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Stunt
I wish I could just post the article in the economist on Bush's education policies.
Buy into whatever you want, but fact is; Bush's education record is quite good.

Democrats have nothing to win on that front, they are better addressing war, spending, oil, healthcare.

I would really be interested in reading that. I have a hard time believing his policies have been so soundly bashed by education experts and others while actually being productive. But maybe I'm wrong.
Found the article!!

Everybody read it!! Economist

The NAEP (which conducted this study) is headed by the Commissioner of Education Statistics who is appointed by the president. No surprises here.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
On the morning of September 11th 2001 he was famously reading ?My Pet Goat? to a group of Florida schoolchildren. If Islamic terrorists hadn't changed the world that morning, Mr Bush might have been remembered mostly as an education president.
It's safe to say Bush will be remembered as the fiscal disaster president.

Some people need a lesson in reading comprehension and evidence of causation.
All this is true, but self-confounding. Mr Bush's act may be very new. But the ideas that lie behind it?focusing on basic subjects such as maths and reading and using regular testing to hold schools accountable?have been widely tried at the state level since at least the mid-1990s.
It's a replay of what Bush did in Texas . . . taking credit for reforms/improvements that were ushered in by his predecessor, Ann Richards and even earlier initiatives backed by Ross Perot.

The most substantial gains for my wife's school were 2000-2003. Over that interval, school's began to fully utilize "literacy facilitators." In essence, a teacher that instructs the others on how to improve student achievement. Of course, my wife is her school's literacy facilitator.:D A low SES school that became one of the top performers in the district.

Bush deserves credit for "federalizing" initiatives that already existed in many states. It's great if it's well organized and funded. It's BS if it's not. NCLB is probably somewhere in the middle. Let's remember that the first man "running" DOE was a fraud Bush imported from Houston.

I almost forgot that Bush opposed mandatory kindergarten in TX b/c it was too expensive. Yep, that sounds like an education leader.:roll:
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Train
NCLB is put onto the states the same way the new DUI standards were put on, by baiting them with federal money.

Most states had a 0.1 legal alcohol limit, US said make it .08, states said no thanks. US said do it or else we won't donate to your highway fund this year. Wow look at that, every state now has a .08 legal limit.


Stunt, thanks for the link, wow, best test scores in over 30 years.

Speed limits too.

Is'nt the feds great:roll: Why anyone accepts federal taxes is beyond me. Most ironic is those states who pay the most and get the least back love taxes.
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,665
67
91
Originally posted by: Stunt
From what i've read, Bush is extremely strong on education, apparently this is one legacy of his to be proud of.

I hope not because the program is a TOTAL FAILURE
 

rustynails

Banned
Jun 22, 2005
115
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Stunt
I wish I could just post the article in the economist on Bush's education policies.
Buy into whatever you want, but fact is; Bush's education record is quite good.

Democrats have nothing to win on that front, they are better addressing war, spending, oil, healthcare.

I would really be interested in reading that. I have a hard time believing his policies have been so soundly bashed by education experts and others while actually being productive. But maybe I'm wrong.
Found the article!!

Everybody read it!! Economist

You can't be surprised by this.

The kids are no longer being taught anything other than to pass these tests.

A tape recorder can repeat the same thing when put in a loop. :confused:

Hey if they can look at trig question and figure it out that?s great, you either know it or you don?t. But I guess you?re still partial to the days of finger painting your name until 8th grade, stroking adolescent ego through the college years, and jamming liberal " i sooo good", crap down the impressionable mind. Teach them to read, fVcking write, and do math and nothing else. You will be surprised what this can do for an individual. But the liberal education philosophy is to keep them dumb and ignorant, so we can read to them what they need to hear, so we can pump are bullshat agenda into them and make them our fVcking marionettes.

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: Stunt
From what i've read, Bush is extremely strong on education, apparently this is one legacy of his to be proud of.

Bwahahaha. Oh man. Please talk to a variety of teachers before you draw your conclusions.

:thumbsup: to CT. Hopefully more states will catch on. NCLB is just like Iraq...big talk, small walk.
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,777
18
81
yes here in CT we stand for the future of the kids, our best assets for the future.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Teachers have been focusing on tests alot here in NY before NCLB ever came into the picture. Because you are required to pass a certain number of Regents tests in order to receive a diploma, you'll have teachers devoting 30% of class time to tests. Now, let's get something straight:

They are not devoting that time solely to describing what material you will find on this or that test. They are devoting a good deal of that time to telling you how to take the test.

Midterms and finals factored in heavily in your final grades in the school district I attended, and so kids would goof off and copy homework all year long, then study very thoroughly for 2 days before a big test, take the test... and then promptly forget everything they just studied. After all, what good is the knowledge after you've already passed the test?

The problem with NCLB (and the mandatory Regents) is that it encourages this behavior, not only from the students, but from the teachers themselves. It will continue until the students actually have a clear motive and interest in learning the material, and this will not happen until the teachers have the time, resources, and motivation to develop new methods of teaching and reaching out to students.