NEWS: "No Child Left Behind" leaves inner city schools behind

NCLB is a failure because it defined standards (test scores) without addressing the actual process of education. Other than standardized tests it is difficult to quantify the success of an educational process. However, testing doesn't take into account the situation in a particular school or population.

Rather than trying to tweak a failed system, as noted in the article, a new philosophy needs to be implemented. Funding schools is one issue that needs attention - by tying school funding to the affluence of the community (property taxes) we have a built-in bias. It seems to me that shifting school funding from property taxes to statewide income tax would result in a more equitable distribution of financial resources. It could also help address the issue of patronage in local school systems.

If we believe that the federal government has the responsibility to guarantee an education to all, then perhaps we should ask that federal taxes, rather than local or state taxes, be used to fund it. I know that at least here in NJ that proposal would be anathema to many. "Home rule" is an almost religious belief here.

And while I believe that teachers should have the prospect of being able to earn a nice living from their vocation, I see the teachers unions as part of the problem. By resisting the notion that good teachers should be rewarded and bad teachers fired, the unions can be a roadblock to reform.

Excellent point indeed.

The entire U.S. educational system is flawed primarily do to this reason.
And 401kboy hit the nail write on the head.

With money for schools comming from the property tax in each area, poor communities receive less funding. Less funding means poor conditions, subpar learning materials and less motivation for teachers and students. Not only does state and local governments have to step up, the Federal Government has to step in if anything is to be done to correct this. Without proper funding for all, the system will never work

A set group of Education Standard needs to be put in place for all States. And the Educational Material has to be current and indept. Yes, this will upset a lot of people with the teaching of The Theory of Evolution and such. But students will need this information, and mostly the ability to think and decide for themselves, if they are going to be able to compete in the world (not just their community).

Teacher must be paid more, no question. But they will also need to be monitored and graded as well. I've had teachers who hated children, taught their own religious and social beliefs, and were all around psycho. Luckily not many and I really didn't know how they were allowed to teach and be paid the same amount as good, caring a professional teachers, then I heard about a shortage of teachers in publick schools, and understood.

The solution; pay them well and give them what they need to do there jobs and you be able to pic and choose the best and brightest, and the students will only benefit from it.

Point taken.

read me

Sounds as if uncontrolled throwing of money at it didn't work. Who'd have thought?

Uncontrolled and unlimited - money is not the issue.

Quite possibly. What is, then?

Good teachers are the solution, teach how to present information, set realistic measurable goals, the worst schools should receive the most experienced teacher, reward success for both students and teachers in less wealthy areas/districts, and sucking money from the public school system to support private schools is not the answer.

In 1991 IDGAS taught remedial English and Math in BedSty. I was and remain completely unqualified to teach English remedial or not to anyone.

Your link covers a very complicated situation, not easily summed up in one sentence - and your source is very biased.

Remember, hard cases make bad law.

I would never be so bold as to think I have the answer in full, but, since you asked I have an opinion (as usual).


It is the realization that PERFORMANCE does count.
It is less television more books.
It is less playstation, xbox, wii more books.
It is less parents being friends and more parents being PARENTS.

Now the hard parts -
It is the acceptance that you may have to work very hard for minimal gain.
It is the acceptance that you have the right to the pursuit of happiness - but pursuit does not mean you are going to have it. Keep chasing it, please, keep chasing it.
IIt means that if you rely on someone else (teachers, society, the government) YOU ARE SCREWED.
If you feel you are not being given a fair shot, unfortunately, you have to work harder.


Just my opinion.

Hard cases also make good law sometimes.

here

in some cases they make people talk about laws


here[URL]


and in some cases they refuse to deal with it at all


don't click me - I am obscene

To say a source is biased is to say they disagree - so yes Cato is biased against anybody that does not rely on themselves.

Many people on both sides of the issue would not agree that Roe V. Wade is good law.

Also, one can recognize the heavy bias of a source without agreeing or disagreeing with their conclusion.

Please try to be less condescending, thanks.

I am not being condescending at all.

I never said that I agree personally with Roe v. Wade but I do believe it is a good law because it re-affirms personal choice.

Cato's bias is that they stress personal choice and freedom , as do I. Their bias and mine - don't tell me what to do and don't hurt me ( be it in the pursuit of finance, happiness ((see constitution of the US)) or physically) and I won't tell you what to do.

Free thoughts, free ideas, free markets.

Can you ask for anything more?

You miss the point. Whether you, or I, agree with Roe has nothing to do with it being good law.

Also, you agree with Cato's libertarian bias, which is fine. Their bias suits your bias.

That has nothing to do with recognizing that they are, in fact, biased - which colors everything they say and do. Recognizing *that* bias is important to effectively analyze what they are saying...and equally importantly, what they are not saying.

II don't think i missed the fact that they are biased, in fact I said as much

see from above -

Cato is biased against anybody that does not rely on themselves

do your biases not color everything?

They on the other hand provide hard data as well.

If you have data that will help me make a more informed opinion, I would really love to read it.

Come on. Boiling the libertarian bias down to that is the grossest of simplifications, and you know it.

We're talking about recognizing the bias in sources here. One would hope the intelligent reader would need little help in knowing their own biases.

If you're interested in seeing people from both sides' criticisms of Roe, you can start with section "liberal legal criticisms" and also the footnotes in the Wikipedia entry. It's not comprehensive, but you get a basic idea of why Roe is considered by many legal peoples to be bad law.

I think you also know a sharp legal-minded person who can do some basic research on this if she is so inclined.

To amplify this point, highly regarded US colleges and universities typically have accommodation options for a good proportion of their students.

No, I think the libertarian bias is perfectly summed up that way.

The horrible part about all of this is, I am not a Libertarian.

I like data. I like facts. I asked for data on the KC spending spree - I cannot find any that contradict that. If you have them please send them.

My questions -

So the judge is not qualified to hand out money as needed. Who is?
There should be no standardized test scores. How to judge qualification?
Qualified to move on who is to judge? See question #1?

And by the way, the minute it comes to the topics of immigration and the war in Iraq, the Libertarians would run screaming from me as fast as they can.

That said - the rebublicans don't want me.
The democrats really don't want me .

Shall we say, I am a party of one. So yes, it may seem I distilling the libertarian view point but it was really just a slim view of my view point.

Also, Brooklyn has better things to do than look stuff up for me. I tend to form my own opinions, much to her chagrin, but it makes wonderful conversation at dinner parties.

I am aware of the liberal disagreements with Roe v. Wade. I think they are terrible, the same way I think the conservative disagreements with it are.