"No Child Left Behind"?

[cloudy]

Yet more evidence that Bush's "no child left behind" dealio is as crooked as he is:

2 million scores ignored in ‘No Child’ loophole
AP: With help of states, U.S. government, schools duck potential penalties

Editor's Note: More than four years after President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, nearly 2 million children’s test scores aren’t being counted under the law’s required racial categories. An Associated Press review found states are exploiting a legal loophole that is giving a false picture of academic progress. The law also is creating financial gain for some private consultants, and leaving teachers increasingly skeptical that all children will be able to read and perform math as promised. This is the first of a four-part series describing what AP found across the country.

Minorities — who historically haven’t fared as well as whites in testing — make up the vast majority of students whose scores are being excluded, AP found. And the numbers have been rising.

Under the law championed by President Bush, all public school students must be proficient in reading and math by 2014, although only children above second grade are required to be tested.

Schools receiving federal aid also must demonstrate annually that students in all racial categories are progressing or risk penalties that include extending the school year, changing curriculum or firing administrators and teachers.

Students whose tests aren’t being counted in required categories include Hispanics in California who don’t speak English well, blacks in the Chicago suburbs, American Indians in the Northwest and special education students in Virginia, AP found.

Bush’s home state of Texas — once cited as a model for the federal law — excludes scores for two entire groups. No test scores from Texas’ 65,000 Asian students or from several thousand American Indian students are broken out by race. The same is true in Arkansas.

One consequence is that educators are creating a false picture of academic progress.

“The states aren’t hiding the fact that they’re gaming the system,” said Dianne Piche, executive director of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, a group that supports No Child Left Behind. “When you do the math ... you see that far from this law being too burdensome and too onerous, there are all sorts of loopholes.”

To calculate a nationwide estimate, AP analyzed the 2003-04 enrollment figures the government collected — the latest on record — and applied the current racial category exemptions the states use.

Overall, AP found that about 1.9 million students — or about 1 in every 14 test scores — aren’t being counted under the law’s racial categories. Minorities are seven times as likely to have their scores excluded as whites, the analysis showed.

Less than 2 percent of white children’s scores aren’t being counted as a separate category. In contrast, Hispanics and blacks have roughly 10 percent of their scores excluded. More than one-third of Asian scores and nearly half of American Indian scores aren’t broken out, AP found.

Full article

 

[cantdog]

There is hardly any reason to justify hoping the NCLBA will "work." It was a silly idea designed in a harmful way. Finding that it is also implemented poorly is, consequently, no surprise. Evading its provisions is very likely the most intelligent response to it.

 

[rgraham666]

We had the same thing happen here in Ontario.

Dropout rate is now approaching 30% over all. Higher in problem groups.

Schools aren't maintained, janitors are part time. So are librarians.

Have to laugh at the man responsible though. I'm sure he thought he was going to get all kinds of directorships etc. Nada. No one wants such a bad manager anywhere near their company.

And he still, four years after he left office, has two police bodyguards 24/7.

God, he left a mess.

 

[sophia jane]

There are ways for all the states to do this because every state's requirements are different. Basically the gov said that they had to meet certain standards and then let the states pick their own standards, so there's lots of manipulation of data and the laws, etc.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I would cackle at the irony of 2M children left behind with the NCLBA...

...but it's always the kids that lose no matter how they dice and slice the data.

 

[amicus]

Let us not cloud the issue here. The complaints and resistance to the program come mainly from the NEA, the teachers union, that is resisting efforts to make them accountable for the product of their teaching.

The racial ingredients injected by the Associated Press article are part of the problem as it is not politically correct to differentiate between ethnic groups who have differing learning abilities.

It is at best a tempest in a teapot as mass public education, by definition, cannot serve the interests of the individual child and is destined to fail in every respect.

Once again, another effort to discredit the President and the current administration without regard to the issue at hand. If a true, non partisan, objective study were made of public education, the who concept would be abolished and turned over to private enterprise.

amicus...

 

[Guest]

Ami, I regret actually reading one of your posts.

A private enterprise, you say? In essence, running a school like a business?

Of course it would work. And it would work well.

Businesses choose which raw materials they wish and eliminate those that do not meet their needs. They cater the end product to the whims of the fickle public and they update stock regularly to remove the nonessential elements.

They DON'T have to use everyone. Thus a private enterprise running a school would just eliminate those students with special needs. Of course they would. They'd have to, if they wished to show a profit (high test scores).

And about No Child Left Behind?

I live this thing, ami. I've read it, I understand it, I've collaborated with university committees in Kansas (a pro-Bush state) in an attempt to make it possible for public schools to utilize this poorly-written bureaucratic-laden nightmare of paperwork.

It doesn't matter. There isn't a great deal anyone can do to make this happen. It isn't funded, the extra teachers necessary cannot be staffed, and even though the next step in this NCLB idiocy will focus on High School, it will never work.

And you and others like you who believe in this piece of paperwork just because it trickled from the lips of the C student currently residing in the White House?

You don't have a fucking clue.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Ami, I regret actually reading one of your posts.

A private enterprise, you say? In essence, running a school like a business?

Of course it would work. And it would work well.

Businesses choose which raw materials they wish and eliminate those that do not meet their needs. They cater the end product to the whims of the fickle public and they update stock regularly to remove the nonessential elements.

They DON'T have to use everyone. Thus a private enterprise running a school would just eliminate those students with special needs. Of course they would. They'd have to, if they wished to show a profit (high test scores).

And about No Child Left Behind?

I live this thing, ami. I've read it, I understand it, I've collaborated with university committees in Kansas (a pro-Bush state) in an attempt to make it possible for public schools to utilize this poorly-written bureaucratic-laden nightmare of paperwork.

It doesn't matter. There isn't a great deal anyone can do to make this happen. It isn't funded, the extra teachers necessary cannot be staffed, and even though the next step in this NCLB idiocy will focus on High School, it will never work.

And you and others like you who believe in this piece of paperwork just because it trickled from the lips of the C student currently residing in the White House?

You don't have a fucking clue.

You miss Amicus's point. In his world, only those who can pay for education for their kids get education for their kids. If your child has special needs and you're willng to pay for it, he/she will get the finest education possible, given his/her circumstances.

In his world, the only vector is market force. So supply will adjust to met demand. those who cannot pay to send their kids to school are not createing a demand, those who can are, so those who can will be catered to. Eventually, the schools will have to offer discounted prices, in order to atract more students and this will allow people who couldn't afford it at first to now afford it. the increased dmeand wil fuel more competitors and thus more capacity, lowering prices and allowing more people to afford it, which again will increase demand, until equilbrium is reached.

You see, to amicus, a free public education is disgraceful. An ignorant electorate is not a bad thing to him. The bad thing is educating those who can't afford it at public expense. What that particular pet project has to do with the discussion...I admit I haven't the foggiest.

To me No Child is trying to adress a reality in public education. That reality is a lack of accountability. My education, past seventh grade was private and it was very good. My freinds who stayed in the public system fell behind me at a rate that was almost staggering. Even those in the gifted program weren't getting the kind of advanced teaching I was.

I graduated with 2 years of Algebra, a year of Trig. geometry and calc. Cal based physics, Chemistry, and earth sciences. English and american lit, advanced writing.

They had part of a year in basic algebra, no calc, no gemometry, a half year of trig. No cal based physics obviously, no chemistry, and a watered down earth sceinces. Half a year of english lit half a year of American. To make up fo rit they got three eyars of band, strings, chroal or shop, a year of home ec or wood working, three extra years of social studies, health and two extra rec periods eumphemistically called study hall.

Someone, somewhere, is dropping the ball in the public schools. I just don't know that any piece of legislation can adress it, because I'm not convinced the failure isn't systemic, originating with clueless lawmakers, and running through parcimonious local officals, under qualified administrators and teachers who aren't accountable to anyone for the level of teaching they provide. The kids are the ones getting screwed, but I find trying to place blame to be a Giordian knot. If you can't identify the root cause, it seems to me any legislation is taking the splattergun approach. Firing at the whole mass and hoping at lest some of the pellets find the mark.

 

[amicus]

You sound like an educator and a dues paid NEA person, right?

Someone has to teach and I am sure many do an excellent job in spite of difficult circumstances.

There is no point continuing a discussion concerning the advantages of a free market place as opposed to a forced system, we are simply to far apart to ever actually discuss the issue.

A common mistake made by those who criticize the market place is to assume, as you do, that the market would not fulfill the needs of those least able to pay for services.

I think the market place has demonstrated, time and time again, its ability to provide goods and services to all classes of people and their preferences. It would provide for 'special needs kids' in a far better way than the current system, on an individual basis tailored to meet the needs of the individual child.

I always wonder if it is just the blind, ingrained hatred of the market system that drives the opinion of many, or the deep fear of having to make individual decisions without the heavy hand of government forcing you.

Freedom is a scary place to be for some.

amicus...

 

[Xelebes]

You sound like an educator and a dues paid NEA person, right?

Someone has to teach and I am sure many do an excellent job in spite of difficult circumstances.

There is no point continuing a discussion concerning the advantages of a free market place as opposed to a forced system, we are simply to far apart to ever actually discuss the issue.

A common mistake made by those who criticize the market place is to assume, as you do, that the market would not fulfill the needs of those least able to pay for services.

I think the market place has demonstrated, time and time again, its ability to provide goods and services to all classes of people and their preferences. It would provide for 'special needs kids' in a far better way than the current system, on an individual basis tailored to meet the needs of the individual child.

I always wonder if it is just the blind, ingrained hatred of the market system that drives the opinion of many, or the deep fear of having to make individual decisions without the heavy hand of government forcing you.

Freedom is a scary place to be for some.

amicus...

Problem dude, back when the free market did the schooling, not all the needs were met. People were refused a lot because they couldn't pay or could not put out the grades to make it through and left a lot of people illiterate.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You sound like an educator and a dues paid NEA person, right?

Someone has to teach and I am sure many do an excellent job in spite of difficult circumstances.

There is no point continuing a discussion concerning the advantages of a free market place as opposed to a forced system, we are simply to far apart to ever actually discuss the issue.

A common mistake made by those who criticize the market place is to assume, as you do, that the market would not fulfill the needs of those least able to pay for services.

I think the market place has demonstrated, time and time again, its ability to provide goods and services to all classes of people and their preferences. It would provide for 'special needs kids' in a far better way than the current system, on an individual basis tailored to meet the needs of the individual child.

I always wonder if it is just the blind, ingrained hatred of the market system that drives the opinion of many, or the deep fear of having to make individual decisions without the heavy hand of government forcing you.

Freedom is a scary place to be for some.

amicus...

How would you know? You require a callous oligarchy to even begin to expound your pathetic ramblings. Steeped in illogical, irrational and unreasonable debate that is depeandant on pendantic matras that you have to elevate tot he level of Axioms or maxims to prevent them from being shredded by a rational opponent.

I'm tired of you attacking me, rather than my points.

I find it amazingly funny, that you go to great lengths to detail the flaws in feminine thinking, yet when presented with a rational argument, you evdicne all of them, from illogic, to emotive appeals to just plain simpering and whining.

Carry on Mr. jester. We are all laughing I assure you.

 

[cloudy]

You sound like an educator and a dues paid NEA person, right?

Someone has to teach and I am sure many do an excellent job in spite of difficult circumstances.

There is no point continuing a discussion concerning the advantages of a free market place as opposed to a forced system, we are simply to far apart to ever actually discuss the issue.

A common mistake made by those who criticize the market place is to assume, as you do, that the market would not fulfill the needs of those least able to pay for services.

I think the market place has demonstrated, time and time again, its ability to provide goods and services to all classes of people and their preferences. It would provide for 'special needs kids' in a far better way than the current system, on an individual basis tailored to meet the needs of the individual child.

I always wonder if it is just the blind, ingrained hatred of the market system that drives the opinion of many, or the deep fear of having to make individual decisions without the heavy hand of government forcing you.

Freedom is a scary place to be for some.

amicus...

What about the special needs child born to parents at or below the poverty level? Do you actually think they would be provided for?

They wouldn't, and you know it.

*pats ami on the head*

Bless your heart.

 

[Guest]

You miss Amicus's point. In his world, only those who can pay for education for their kids get education for their kids. If your child has special needs and you're willng to pay for it, he/she will get the finest education possible, given his/her circumstances.

In his world, the only vector is market force. So supply will adjust to met demand. those who cannot pay to send their kids to school are not createing a demand, those who can are, so those who can will be catered to. Eventually, the schools will have to offer discounted prices, in order to atract more students and this will allow people who couldn't afford it at first to now afford it. the increased dmeand wil fuel more competitors and thus more capacity, lowering prices and allowing more people to afford it, which again will increase demand, until equilbrium is reached.

You see, to amicus, a free public education is disgraceful. An ignorant electorate is not a bad thing to him. The bad thing is educating those who can't afford it at public expense. What that particular pet project has to do with the discussion...I admit I haven't the foggiest.

To me No Child is trying to adress a reality in public education. That reality is a lack of accountability. My education, past seventh grade was private and it was very good. My freinds who stayed in the public system fell behind me at a rate that was almost staggering. Even those in the gifted program weren't getting the kind of advanced teaching I was.

I graduated with 2 years of Algebra, a year of Trig. geometry and calc. Cal based physics, Chemistry, and earth sciences. English and american lit, advanced writing.

They had part of a year in basic algebra, no calc, no gemometry, a half year of trig. No cal based physics obviously, no chemistry, and a watered down earth sceinces. Half a year of english lit half a year of American. To make up fo rit they got three eyars of band, strings, chroal or shop, a year of home ec or wood working, three extra years of social studies, health and two extra rec periods eumphemistically called study hall.

Someone, somewhere, is dropping the ball in the public schools. I just don't know that any piece of legislation can adress it, because I'm not convinced the failure isn't systemic, originating with clueless lawmakers, and running through parcimonious local officals, under qualified administrators and teachers who aren't accountable to anyone for the level of teaching they provide. The kids are the ones getting screwed, but I find trying to place blame to be a Giordian knot. If you can't identify the root cause, it seems to me any legislation is taking the splattergun approach. Firing at the whole mass and hoping at lest some of the pellets find the mark.

I agree with much of what you said, Colly.

But my public school education was very similar to your private school education. I'm sure it depends upon which school district you attend, although private ed, with the much smaller class sizes (and a more select group, let's face it) can certainly cover more ground in less time.

I maxed out on math and science courses, Algebra I & II, Geometry, Calculus, Biology, Chem I & II, Physics. I had 3 years of German and one year of Latin. I was in advanced English courses for four years. The only thing I wasn't thrilled with was history - my teachers were horrible - but my first year as an undergrad I had a terrific Current Events course and didn't look back.

I was able to take the CLEP test and get out of taking any math, science and language arts as an undergrad - just bought the credit hours because I scored high enough.

So - it depends. But as parents, we supplement what our kids get from public school. Our daughter did start in private school because she was reading at such a young age but we didn't like the segregated atmosphere so we switched her over in 2nd grade.

We supply extra reading materials, we push computer skills, we monitor TV viewing (it isn't much) we give them music lessons (shown to increase intelligence) we have a telescope, microscope and other fun toys, they take karate and swim nearly every day.

No one entity can educate a child. There must be a collaboration of many different groups. That's the only intelligent thing I've heard from the White House - previous admin, of course. It Takes a Village - and it does.

 

[Guest]

Ami -

I do not belong to the NEA.

And as a matter of fact, this may surprise you, but the dues are so high I know many educators who do not choose to join, especially the newest teachers.

When you're scraping by with a bare minimum of salary to lose an extra $35 a month can certainly be noticeable.

I have nothing against free market. My relatives in Michigan are fairly wealthy and all make their living off the tourist trade. More power to 'em - I love them.

But children are NOT pieces to toss about in this manner. Never.

It is interesting, with your firm stance on anti-abortion, that you neither want to provide for the unwanted children nor to educate them.

 

[amicus]

My apology for thinking you were in the teaching profession and a union member.

I do have a rather nebulous question for you and anyone else who might care to answer.

Why to you assume that the function of the market place is so cruel as to dismiss children?

I should just leave it at that question and see how and if you respond...as a matter of fact, I think I will, but there are a host of other questions that go along with that one.

amicus...

 

[LadyJeanne]

It is interesting, with your firm stance on anti-abortion, that you neither want to provide for the unwanted children nor to educate them.

Once you make it out of that womb and they smack you on the ass, it's every man for himself in amicus-land.

 

[elsol]

Amicus... what are the 'differing learning abilities' between ethnic groups?

Really... this one I gotta hear.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[matriarch]

Interesting.
The system is slightly different in the UK.
Funding to schools comes from the government, and is paid to the Local Education Authorities in each county that are responsible for the performance of every school in their area. The funding is allocated according to the number of children in each school, with extra funding to each school for their Special Needs Children. Children are ALL tested at set intervals, the concept of not including racial groups from the final figures, is rather abhorent. As far as I am aware, this does not happen.

Every school is inspected (OFSTED) every 3 or 4 years, by a team of Government Inspectors who assess every area of the school's performance from leadership and management downwards, every curriculum area and social area, and special needs provision. If the school is graded below a certain level, they are automatically put into 'special measures', which involves constant assessment of that school, which is given usually a year to turn itself around. In some cases, if the situation is considered bad enough, the headteacher - and in some cases, teaching staff, can and will be removed, and a new headteacher appointed by the Local Education Authority while the monitoring and hopefully improvement takes place.

The inspections also take place on the actual Authorities, and if that authority is found failing in its performance, (i.e. responsibility for the overall school standards in their care), the management of that authority can (and some have been) removed and a new team put in place, appointed by the Government.

I have worked within this system for several years, in many areas and seen it from all sides - as a mother of two children, as a volunteer in a primary school, as a member of the PTA, as a paid classroom assistant in a middle school, and finally as an administrator within the LEA. The system isn't perfect, no system can be, but from my own experience, I think it works.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree with much of what you said, Colly.

But my public school education was very similar to your private school education. I'm sure it depends upon which school district you attend, although private ed, with the much smaller class sizes (and a more select group, let's face it) can certainly cover more ground in less time.

I maxed out on math and science courses, Algebra I & II, Geometry, Calculus, Biology, Chem I & II, Physics. I had 3 years of German and one year of Latin. I was in advanced English courses for four years. The only thing I wasn't thrilled with was history - my teachers were horrible - but my first year as an undergrad I had a terrific Current Events course and didn't look back.

I was able to take the CLEP test and get out of taking any math, science and language arts as an undergrad - just bought the credit hours because I scored high enough.

So - it depends. But as parents, we supplement what our kids get from public school. Our daughter did start in private school because she was reading at such a young age but we didn't like the segregated atmosphere so we switched her over in 2nd grade.

We supply extra reading materials, we push computer skills, we monitor TV viewing (it isn't much) we give them music lessons (shown to increase intelligence) we have a telescope, microscope and other fun toys, they take karate and swim nearly every day.

No one entity can educate a child. There must be a collaboration of many different groups. That's the only intelligent thing I've heard from the White House - previous admin, of course. It Takes a Village - and it does.

One of my cousin's wives quit her ob as a teacher and took her two daughters out of public school to home school them, for precisely the opposite reason, she was furious at the integration. Not intergation by race or creed, but the fact that her two very bright and fairly advacned daughters were being held to the same learning pace as the lowest common denominator. In general, kids whose parents did not care as much as you obviously do and were not doing anything at home to help. I can see her point, it seem wretchedlyunfair to penalize those who are willing to learn so a teacher can spend an inordinate amount of time shpherding along kids who aren't.

In my public school there was a track system up through sixth grade and I stayed in the fast track in every subject except math. In Jr. High, however, I was bussed far from my home because the classess were organized to meet standards of diversity. that whole year was a wasted one for me as far as education, because I was so far ahead of my peers. The teachers were teaching the material that was the next step in the slow track, so I had seen it all before.

My freinds who stayed in public schools got a very good grounding in ethnic diversity. Entering college they were all far better at dealing with oeple than I was. They were also taking remididal courses in just about everything. i was defintely not as up on street english, or current events, or trands in music, but I also cleped out of most of my entry lkevel classess. I also tested well enugh to start taking 3000 level history courses, whoch mean I was able to skip all the survey classess. That alone saved a year off the time I had to spend in college. Their HS education socialized them quite well, but did a piss poor job of educating them. My HS education did nothing to socialize me, but they daned sure educated me.

Within six months I was just as comfortable as my peers in mixing with other people. They never caught me educationally, in fact, they all struggled and a good number flunked out of school. My observations here are obviously not represenative, but the brighter ones had the most trouble. IMHO they had gotten used to being able to just show up and pass, because in HS, that's all they had to do. I don't know how to say it, other than to say, they had been trained to be abysimal students.

They had never developed good study habits because they had never been required to study. They had never developed any writing skills because they were never pressed to write. They had never developed any self discipline, because they had never been challenged to the point where they had to exert any effort. Once they hit college, they had to take a crash course in being a student, something their time in HS hadn't prepared them for. In my case, I actually found college level courses to be less challengeing than some of my HS courses had been. Especially in reguard to how much time I had to spend out of class studying and in how much writing I had to do. I was already trained in the studyhabits that were needed.

Maybe it does difer by district. Perhaps it differs by state. Perhaps it's changed since way back when. But if I had a child, I wouldn't send them to public school if i could, by any amount of skimping on myself, afford to send them to a private school. i think the job of school is to educate: not to socialize, not to empower, not to build up self esteem, but to teach.

If you are failing in that core responsibility, and I think the public schools as a whole are, then the rest of the good works you do mean very little. Well socialized, empowered and confident, but dumb as a post seems a poor second to socially awkward, diligent, and a litle tenative, but well educated to me.

But all of this just illustrates one of the core problems of legislation to fix the schools. We, the people, who are kicking in our tax money to fund it, can't even agree on what the primary job of the schools should be. Our legislators, split down party lines, pass legilation that is at worst, mutually antagonistic, at best simply competing, to please their constituencies. Local officails are being squeezed between demands they educate our kids and demands they save money, you can't really blame them for saving money, it's quantifiable and not dependant on some sixth grader's grasp of mathematics. Administrators, quite often with little or no experience in academics, get more rules than the Pharasies had for worshiping, with many just as contradictory, and try to steer a middle course, well aware that a change in the political sentiments of the community might mean an end to their employment. And teachers are given little or no leeway in helping their advanced students, because they will be judged by how their least advanced perform on evaluation tests.

The problem is so complex, with so many mutually exclusive goals, that it seems more legislation is just an invitation to more confusion.

 

[Guest]

Beautifully said, Colly.



(I was going to add, and then there's amicus, but thought it would be rude. Never mind, I'll add it anyway.)

 

[Guest]

Interesting.
The system is slightly different in the UK.
Funding to schools comes from the government, and is paid to the Local Education Authorities in each county that are responsible for the performance of every school in their area. The funding is allocated according to the number of children in each school, with extra funding to each school for their Special Needs Children. Children are ALL tested at set intervals, the concept of not including racial groups from the final figures, is rather abhorent. As far as I am aware, this does not happen.

Every school is inspected (OFSTED) every 3 or 4 years, by a team of Government Inspectors who assess every area of the school's performance from leadership and management downwards, every curriculum area and social area, and special needs provision. If the school is graded below a certain level, they are automatically put into 'special measures', which involves constant assessment of that school, which is given usually a year to turn itself around. In some cases, if the situation is considered bad enough, the headteacher - and in some cases, teaching staff, can and will be removed, and a new headteacher appointed by the Local Education Authority while the monitoring and hopefully improvement takes place.

The inspections also take place on the actual Authorities, and if that authority is found failing in its performance, (i.e. responsibility for the overall school standards in their care), the management of that authority can (and some have been) removed and a new team put in place, appointed by the Government.

I have worked within this system for several years, in many areas and seen it from all sides - as a mother of two children, as a volunteer in a primary school, as a member of the PTA, as a paid classroom assistant in a middle school, and finally as an administrator within the LEA. The system isn't perfect, no system can be, but from my own experience, I think it works.

NCLB separates data by age, gender and different ethnicity. If one specific group does not make significant gains, it isn't counted as such for the whole.

The groups are tested in areas of math and reading competence. Both good ideas, of course, and both needed.

But if the school makes adequate yearly progress in math, but not in reading, they do not pass for the year. Period.

Two years of insufficient gains (not just any gains - in some districts it could be as high as 20%) and the school could lose funding and be reorganized.

Those gains, by the way, don't necessary mean the school has that far to go to gain competency. All schools start the testing process at different places and each state decides what is an appropriate growth pattern. Which means a school that already scores at a high level may not make adequate yearly progress because of the way the growth pattern is designed.

Nonetheless, by 2014 every single school in every single state must achieve 100% competency from all students in math and reading.

Right.

 

[lil_elvis]

What galls me the most about NCLB is that the schools spend so much time preparing the kids to take the tests. It's not for the benefit of the students so much as it is for the school's evaluation in meeting the NCLB standards.

 

[Liar]

I do have a rather nebulous question for you and anyone else who might care to answer.

Why to you assume that the function of the market place is so cruel as to dismiss children?

It's not cruel. At least not the way I think of the word, since cruel implies intent, malice. What it is, is indifferent. "The market" is mechanics driven by one ulterior motive - profit. Make more money than you consume. Invest time and resources and reap the harvest. And at the end of the day, put food on your table. It's a good systen, and almost all of the time, the best one. However, if something costs more than it's economically worth, there is no incentive within the mechanics of the market to pursue it. Caring about the less fortunate (in this case special needs kids w non-wealthy parents) might be a positive thing for long term synergy effects. But most often, such action doesn't give immediate enough profit for a business to pursue, and a high risk of never generating any income at all.

Society as a whole might gain from educating problem-kids. If they get education, they can get good jobs, and thus contribute to the economic apparus via turnover and taxes, as opposed to being unemployme and maybe criminal. But will the individual business that put in the resources to educate him reap that benefit? No. others might, but you, the private education company? Who'll pay you? The parents can't afford to put enough food on your table that compensates for the time and effort you must put into educating their kid. You optimize your activities to what is best for your bottom line. That's the core mechanics of the free market.

Society at large might benefit from educating everyone, due to synergic effects. Taxation and distributed funding is a system of synergic effects solidified. It's often way too ineffectual and inflexible, bit that's another story.

Now, why do YOU assume that the function of the market place is so compassionate as to plough down resources into activities that will not generate income for them?

 

[TheEarl]

Why to you assume that the function of the market place is so cruel as to dismiss children?

The market place isn't cruel amicus. It isn't cruel and it isn't benevolent either. It's logical. Supremely rationally logical. Emotion doesn't enter into it.

So, children will be dismissed because the market won't find utility from teaching some of them. I refer you to poor children being employed as chimney sweeps in Victorian times. Very, very simple free-market economics, both in Keynesian and Traditional models.

The Earl

 

[rgraham666]

Grrrr.

Last post in this one.

I grew up in an 'old fashioned' school system. Frequent tests, 'norms' that had to be met, the whole nine yards.

And I failed. The tests were all based on your ability to write. And I can't write well. Thanks to a mild learning disability I can't do cursive longhand quickly nor especially legibly. Even typing after thirty years of doing it is hard and not fast.

And the school system gave up on me. When I was nine,my mom and I were called to the principle's office. He told my mom I was uneducable. That precise word. He didn't think I could understand it. I was a dummy according to my test scores.

They were going to make sure I got through to the end by making sure my marks were enough to pass, but there was no way they were going to waste the time to make sure I got a proper education.

So I did what they wanted and dropped out as soon as I could.

But let's face it. Years of the message 'You're no good' didn't exactly prepare me for the 'real world'.

You want kids to be well educated? Pay for it, and give them some hope.