Obama administration to let states opt out of No Child Left Behind!

[woolfe9999]

Maybe someone can help me out but what section of the Constitution grants the authority to the executive branch to alter laws without an act of congress?

When the law itself says he can. Right there in the OP's article:

But while the law itself clearly empowers Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to waive its provisions...

- wolf

 

[GTaudiophile]

I don't know one teacher who likes it...but then again, who likes accountability?

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't know one teacher who likes it...but then again, who likes accountability?

My sister and her husband are both teachers. Both hate it. They don't hate it because of accountability. It's the fact that it encourages teachers to do nothing but prepare their students for standardized tests. Most good educators believe that standardized tests should be one of many methods of evaluating students and teachers, not the only one.

 

[GTaudiophile]

My sister and her husband are both teachers. Both hate it. They don't hate it because of accountability. It's the fact that it encourages teachers to do nothing but prepare their students for standardized tests. Most good educators believe that standardized tests should be one of many methods of evaluating students and teachers, not the only one.

And most schools are concentrating on funding/scoring high on math/reading tests that social studies, foreign language, music, art, PE, etc. have all been on the decline.

 

[Patranus]

When the law itself says he can. Right there in the OP's article:



- wolf

Ok. Question answered. Thank you.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

I don't know one teacher who likes it...but then again, who likes accountability?

Schools will now be accountable to the state/district, not the federal gov't.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan — who himself had to follow No Child Left Behind when he was chief executive of the Chicago Public Schools from 2001 to 2008 — isn't just offering the waivers. He's actively encouraging education officials to apply for them, he said, because "No Child Left Behind is fundamentally broken."

That's why, he said in an interview with NBC News, "I'm actually giving away the power. ... We are giving the power to states and districts."

Nothing wrong with that...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44693695/ns/today-education_nation/

 

[waggy]

My sister and her husband are both teachers. Both hate it. They don't hate it because of accountability. It's the fact that it encourages teachers to do nothing but prepare their students for standardized tests. Most good educators believe that standardized tests should be one of many methods of evaluating students and teachers, not the only one.

same. i know a few teachers all hate it. They spend to much time on the standardized test. even then they teach on how to "game" the test.

 

[werepossum]

Why do you think it's worse? I kind of like the idea behind it. I'm a teacher, and I don't mind at all that I'm being evaluated at least partially based upon the performance of my students.

I agree. Although the words of a chemistry teacher come to mind: "These kids come in unable to read and I'm going to be evaluated on how well I teach them chemistry?"

Bush never should have let Kennedy anywhere near the crafting of that bill though. Opt-outs based on higher and more practical standards, keeping accountability, could be a good thing. Depends on how it's implemented. But one size fits all in anything is seldom a good thing.

 

[her209]

of all of bushes policies this may have been the most damaging.

One of many. One of many.

 

[Genx87]

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/sep/24/obama-waives-school-rules/?partner=yahoo_feeds



http://www.statesman.com/news/texas...t-no-child-left-1876594.html?cxtype=ynews_rss




I, living in Kentucky, see this every day and am 100% for getting rid of this piece of shit law. No Child Left Behind = ALL CHILDREN HELD BEHIND!!!

This is one of the few things that Obama has or is proposing that I agree on.

:thumbsup:

I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday and his guest had an interesting comment about Obama types within the democrat party. Basically they know there is something broken about the public school system and are trying to fix it. But at the same time they have to fight their own party due to the teacher's unions being such a large contributor. The guest mentioned if you listened to Chris Christie and Obama on education. They would sound the same. Obama is apparently also a big proponent of charter schools.

 

[JEDI]

someone explain why no child left behind is so bad?

 

[PingSpike]

I have brought this up before. The law as is sits now requires 100% of students to be proficient in math and reading by 2014 or the schools are flagged as failures. This is impossible and should have never been part of the law. The best schools are lucky if they can get into the 85 - 95% range.

And don't forget, this is the law that started the whole teaching to the test issue that most schools have to deal with.

Another article on the topic:
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Idaho-to-seek-waiver-for-No-Child-Left-Behind-law-2185150.php

Yeah, the 100% has me scratching my head. NCLB should be renamed The Creeping Failure Condition because its impossible.

 

[chucky2]

How would a teacher "teach" to a math or reading test? It's not like they're going to have the exact problems the students will have (unless the testing is that broken/rigged), so the students are going to have to learn how to do math, and learn how to read. I'm not understanding how that would be a bad thing....

Chuck

 

[werepossum]

How would a teacher "teach" to a math or reading test? It's not like they're going to have the exact problems the students will have (unless the testing is that broken/rigged), so the students are going to have to learn how to do math, and learn how to read. I'm not understanding how that would be a bad thing....

Chuck

I have no problem with teachers teaching "to the test". What we're trying to counter is the vast number of students unable to do the basics of the subject; in other words, the test. Teachers may think it's more important to warn the children of the evil of Republicans or the need for recycling or the greatness of Kwanza, but they are there to teach a specific subject. Once the children learn the material the teachers are being paid to teach, then the teachers can individually concentrate on what else they find important, but only AFTER they bring the students up to par on the class' core competencies.

 

[Uhtrinity]

How would a teacher "teach" to a math or reading test? It's not like they're going to have the exact problems the students will have (unless the testing is that broken/rigged), so the students are going to have to learn how to do math, and learn how to read. I'm not understanding how that would be a bad thing....

Chuck

Sit through enough tests and you will see specific problems or problem types and you know what to teach to. Since I run the computer lab I have seen these for the last 5 years and from the last 4 I can tell you the question pools haven't changed. As someone else mentioned some teachers also start teaching test taking strategies for multiple choice exams instead of just relying on solid foundations.

Fortunately I work in charter school that doesn't teach to the test and our students still do very well. Other than a few practice tutorial sessions and a brief mention of multiple choice practices we give very little prep to ISAT's.

 

[chucky2]

I guess I'm too honest to get this then. Let me try and describe what I'm saying:

We have a school system that for each of the grade groupings (1-5, 6-8, 9-12), is run by adminstrators and dept heads. These adminstrators obviously know about NCLB and the need for the students to know enough to take the tests and pass them. These adminstrators also know that school does not exist to teach kids how to game a test to pass, it exists to teach kids material so they learn it.

Given that, these administrators should be working with the dept heads, who in turn work with the teachers, to teach the proper material so the kids will learn the material in a proper manner so as to pass the test; it is assumed that these tests will test for the proper amount of knowledge at the level of student they're testing at.

So if the above is all true, how is it acedemia is b1tching about having their students having to take tests? Acedemia, if they are doing their jobs, is already setting policy to ensure the students are learning the material they are supposed to be learning: If they're not, then they should be held back for a year or for that subject to focus on their deficiency. So, when these students who acedemia is responsible for having learned the material then go and take the test to prove they know what acedemia says they know, then, what's the issue?

Should not the test scores reflect acedemia's job performance? Either the kids learned what acedemia says they taught them, or, they didn't. If they learned it, then the test will reflect that. If they didn't, then the test will reflect that. To me, it sounds like acedemia is b1tching because they're actually being held to accomplish something, rather than just letting kids flow on through and if they learn something, so be it (which was precisely the case where I went to school).

 

[CrackRabbit]

I have no problem with teachers teaching "to the test". What we're trying to counter is the vast number of students unable to do the basics of the subject; in other words, the test. Teachers may think it's more important to warn the children of the evil of Republicans or the need for recycling or the greatness of Kwanza, but they are there to teach a specific subject. Once the children learn the material the teachers are being paid to teach, then the teachers can individually concentrate on what else they find important, but only AFTER they bring the students up to par on the class' core competencies.

The problem with "teaching to the test" is that it causes kids to not learn the critical thinking and learning skills that are needed in life in general.

Kids are taught strategies to figure out the simple multiple choice answers on the tests but in general are not taught why such answers are correct.
My high school took three weeks out of the school year every year one of these tests were to be given and went over it, and the rest of the time teachers taught in a manner that was only really useful when taking those tests.
Without that knowledge of why an answer is correct, you have entire generations of people now that don't have the skills to think properly about problems and just want to divine a multiple choice answer.

 

[chucky2]

So basically acedemia can't get the job done, so they're cheating. Doesn't sound like NCLB is the problem...

 

[drebo]

So basically acedemia can't get the job done, so they're cheating. Doesn't sound like NCLB is the problem...

NCLB disincentivises advanced classes and remedial classes.

Instead of putting the smart kids in a class together and the slow kids in a class together, the schools get rid of the remedial and advanced classes and instead put everyone in the same class. That way, the averages pan out and instead of looking like there's only a couple smart classes in the school, you see everyone in the school as mediocre or worse.

This fucks over the smart kids and the mediocre kids because they have to deal with Little Johnny Aspergers standing on his desk shouting all day instead of actually learning something.

Teachers need to be evaluated on their ability to teach. This isn't a question. But you can't do that by standardized testing alone.

Teaching in the US needs to be come more focused and less "college-driven". A mechanic doesn't need to know how many theses Martin Luther nailed to the church door. I don't begrudge anyone a well-rounded education, but, come on...we're creating a generation of kids who don't even know how to change a lightbulb here and expect to make $95k right out of college with a degree in Philosphy.

NCLB addresses none of the issues with our education system. It simply masks them by reducing standards. If a 4th grader wants to take algebra and can handle it, why they fuck should they be stuck studying addition and subtraction with kids who never learned to read?

 

[chucky2]

I agree with what you say, except maybe the split classes part, as I don't understand that.

If NCLB holds schools to a test, and you have slow learners, average learners, and faster learners, then I don't know why you couldn't have kids moving up to learn more advanced material. For kids behind on their learning, why stick them in an average class if they're that far behind? Obviously they need to be in a different class or in a more specialized program - and if necessary, held back.

I'm not getting why you'd have to dump everyone into one class because of NCLB...

 

[Engineer]

someone explain why no child left behind is so bad?

I'll tell you what I hear "first hand". Every child, regardless of disability, autism, etc. must stay with their class. They cannot (and are not) to be educated in a "special education" system and must not be "left behind". This creates severe problems for the teachers as they must not "try" to teach the rest of the classroom while these children are essentially running wild in the classroom. It's become a "baby sitting service" for children with special needs. Hell, the teachers even have a very difficult (if not impossible) time of removing an abusive student from the classroom.

It's holding every child behind...not just one or two...no child left behind = all children held behind.

 

[chucky2]

NCLB mandates this?

 

[Engineer]

NCLB mandates this?

I can't say it explicitly states this but I can tell you that it started when the law went into effect and has gotten progressively worse as the school/teachers push for those higher "test scores" from ALL children.

 

[werepossum]

The problem with "teaching to the test" is that it causes kids to not learn the critical thinking and learning skills that are needed in life in general.

Kids are taught strategies to figure out the simple multiple choice answers on the tests but in general are not taught why such answers are correct.
My high school took three weeks out of the school year every year one of these tests were to be given and went over it, and the rest of the time teachers taught in a manner that was only really useful when taking those tests.
Without that knowledge of why an answer is correct, you have entire generations of people now that don't have the skills to think properly about problems and just want to divine a multiple choice answer.

You have a point, but "No child left behind" was conceived and implemented because now we have children who don't have the critical thinking skills and also don't know the material. Perhaps we need to move the tests away from the multiple choice format to just blanks.

 

[Uhtrinity]

I agree with what you say, except maybe the split classes part, as I don't understand that.

If NCLB holds schools to a test, and you have slow learners, average learners, and faster learners, then I don't know why you couldn't have kids moving up to learn more advanced material. For kids behind on their learning, why stick them in an average class if they're that far behind? Obviously they need to be in a different class or in a more specialized program - and if necessary, held back.

I'm not getting why you'd have to dump everyone into one class because of NCLB...

Because regardless those slow learners won't be proficient and that will reflect against their teachers. The advanded kids are advanced for a reason, they are above proficient. Requiring 100% proficiency isn't possible and will never work.