Preserve 'core' of No Child Left Behind Act, Bush urges

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bush3mar03,1,164774.story


Preserve 'core' of No Child Left Behind Act, Bush urges

He warns Congress against 'watering down' the education law.

By James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer
March 3, 2007

LOUISVILLE, KY. — President Bush urged Congress to avoid broad changes to the education law that represented one of his key domestic policy accomplishments, saying Friday that "watering down" the No Child Left Behind Act "would be doing thousands of children a disservice."

"It's working," Bush said. "We can change parts of it for the better, but don't change the core of a piece of good legislation that's making a significant difference in the lives of a lot of children."

The law, which Bush signed in 2002, is to expire this year, and the president expressed his willingness to work with Capitol Hill's new Democratic majority on renewing it. He singled out the Democratic chairmen of the Senate and House education committees — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of Martinez — as crucial to those negotiations.

Kennedy and Miller helped provide bipartisan support for No Child Left Behind, but since its passage they and other Democrats have said that the administration has failed to provide sufficient funds to carry out its requirements.

Democratic leaders now can push for these and other changes to the law that they could not enact when Republicans controlled Congress.

before it destroys public education.

Back in '04, when Clark was still running for P, a woman came up to him at a campaign stop and wanted to know what he would do to fix "no child left behind." Clark said, "We're not going to fix it, we're going to get rid of it." Pretty sure his opinon of NCLB was that it was trojan horse legislation designed to de-fund public schools. Don't want to put words in his mouth, put I think that was the gist of it.

It does make teachers teach to the state curriculum standards - at least down here. It provides accountability. The test data needs analysis and we should be looking at the causes of poor performance. I don't know if we cure poor home environment or lack of parental concern. I don't think more money is the answer either. That being said, Texas is considering going with a series of end of course tests for high school. This would eliminate the single high stake test and remove the "teaching to the test" bugaboo.

taught to their own high standards.

You can't teach a teacher how to educate.

A teacher must be educated to think first and then allowed to pass down their reverence for education, critical thinking and learning to her/his students.

This bullshit law does none of the above. It forces teachers to "teach to the test", whatever corporate test is in use at the moment and screw "learning" or teaching critical thinking skills. In fact, critical thinking skills cost schools under this regime.

Of course, our corporate masters HATE education (for people who are not of their class). They want the lower classes only to be trained not educated. NCLB is another tool in their arsenal -- dumb down the masses, just show them which button to push to register the cheeseburger and which button for the fries.

Is that really the best method in all cases?

How about looking at the number of kids who stay in school? How about grades? There's plenty of "accuntability."

No, problems outside of school can't be "cured." But they can be treated.

And I'm still not convinced that more money wouldn't help.

Apparently it wasn't/ isn't always. Is it the best in all cases? I don't know, but it is what the student must be taught at each level. The TAKS test is based on TEKS. As for the "accuntability" (did I not use spell check?) there were a lot of dropouts before the testing. Grades can be and are inflated. The standardized test is a check on this problem. More money? Where will it go? Better teacher pay and smaller class sizes can't be argued with, but I oppose a big infusion of money with out some controls. We could start getting some of that money by cutting administration and consolidating some of the districts.

like he fuckin cares....

What a fraud...and a poor actor to boot

Is that the part where his brother Neil makes millions

of dollars shilling his crappy software?

Just curious...Mr boosh




:dunce: :hurts: :spank:

"legislation that's making a significant difference in the lives of a lot of children."

Yes, bush* ir's making a very significant difference in many lives. The children are dropping out of school like flies, teachers are teaching rote facts, not training children HOW to be critical thinkers. Then they will all be able to be molded into good little Republican robots.
Teachers are being almost forced to cheat on the tests in order to save their job or their school. There is nothing good about this program just as there is nothing good about anything bush* has ever done. Besides if bush* wanted help from Dems he should have funded the program instead of giving tax cuts to the rich. He should have thought about this before he decided to ignore Dems when they were in control. Big mistake!

is critical thinkers.

The law is working very well for them...

And that's all this piece of legislation is---one giant doughnut hole.

for the hookers.

and fuck the children, while you're at it.

along with the Patriot Act and ANY AND ALL EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND SIGNING STATEMENTS.

All bush appointments would also be IMMEDIATELY null and void.

teaching to the test, any test, is not education!

It IS what the corporate masters want though. They want vocational training for the masses and education reserved for the elites.

That's what NCLB is all about!

I understand the pressures to meet ayp and to allow kids to graduate. I have some familiarity withe tests of several states. They are based on the curricula of the state. Teach the curricula and you teach what you need for the test. This does not remove critical thinking skills from the teaching - that has become a mantra. As is the tired old thing that companies want training and not education. That is not true. The complaints of universities and companies that high school graduates were unprepared - plus the fact that we were behind other countries in education - started us down the road of standardized testing. Remember the rush to train (educate) engineers after Sputnik? Folks, it started long before NLCB made it the thing it is today. It is too bad that NLCB only holds the students, teachers and schools accountable.

are good at taking tests...

They don't and can't prove critical thinking skill or even the ability to compose an intelligible sentence in the English language...

Math and science questions do test critical thinking. Language arts questions do test for the ability to write a clear english sentance and paragraph. These were the problems which originally brought on the standardized test. Many high school graduates were and still continue to arrive at university with less than adequate skills.

Yes, those who are good at taking tests do better. Yes, some of the practice tests help develop this skill. Is practice testing over done? Yes! Still, life is full of tests - personal, social and business. In most, you don't get a pass. Better learn now. Also consider the reduced level of standards that are required to pass many of the state tests. We are not talking 70 percent correct answers.

These tests are nearly useless to prepare folks for the "tests in life"...

All evidence I've seen and heard tells me that these high-risk standardized tests short circuit the process of EDUCATION in favor of teaching to the test. There are so many hours wasted in rote memorization exercises that the kids ain't got much time to learn how to learn.

How do math and science questions on a standardized test critical thinking????

Critical Thinking:

"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference.

Critical thinking - in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes - is
incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them:

scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components:

1. a set of skills to process and generate information and beliefs, and

2. the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior.

It is thus to be contrasted with:

1. the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, (because it
involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated,)

2. the mere possession of a set of skills, (because it involves the continual use of them,) and

3. the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results."

http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/crit2.html

and more definitions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=qEI&defl=en&q=define:Critical+Thinking&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Many math test questions are constructed so that the student must analyze the data contained in the question and work the problem. The answer choices usually contain dis tractors - answers that you would get if you made a mistake in working the problem. Reading and science similarly require the student to think -analyze the data in the question. So, doesn't meet the "critical thinking" buzz in the canned definition - fine.

I still maintain that if you teach the state curriculum, from which the test is made, you prepare for the test. Yes, not all students are of equal ability. Some need more help - in the subject or in test taking. Take away the state standardized test and what happens? Utopia? I don't think so. It goes back to the old deal of a lot kids being passed thru the system. I don't think you would see much critical thinking. If you look at the past results, we didn't.

The tests are not perfect. There is plenty of room for improvement. Don't throw out the idea, fix the problems. Lots of money has been made with phoney "test prep" strategies and gimmicks. That shouldn't be.

As for rote teaching, it isn't all bad. I have two grandchildren in third grade and they are memorizing multiplication tables - rote memory. Once it is learned, it will last them for life and help in all math. Same with grammar and spelling. Perhaps in the past we have over done this In social science - dates in history. Still, this is learning established facts. I have seen some of the new history classes and they seem to consist of the teacher's interpretation of history. Oh, sorry that must be critical thinking. Figure out what the teacher thinks and regurgitate it on the test. You get an A.

I also gather you are not a teacher and you don't see first hand how NCLB damages our schools and our kids.

Standardized tests do NOT promote critical thinking (it doesn't matter if they are based on state curriculum or not). Critical thinking comes from active learning, hands on activities and discussions in class. It can involve working cooperatively with peers to solve problems or spending time researching questions and putting a project together that reflects what you have learned. Portfolio based assessment is an excellent way to gauge critical thinking and problem solving.

Filling in bubbles on an answer sheet for a multiple choice standardized test in no way promotes critical thinking. It promotes filling in bubbles on an answer sheet.

But the worst part of NCLB is not the testing and its effect on how our children are taught. The worst part is that it is an unfair law that only holds our neediest kids accountable. Only schools that receive Title I funding risk losing it. And only the subgroups in a school are held accountable for test scores (subgroups are minorities, low income, disabled and non English speaking).

The kids who need the most lose the most. That is the number one problem with this horrid law. You can argue about critical thinking all you want, but that is the least of the problems with this law.

I am saying that you teach the curriculum. That does not preclude teaching critical thinking. The tests may not promote critical thinking, but the questions do require the ability to think and analyze. I don't think the tests were ever intended to test anything but subject matter.

I agree there has been a lot of abuse in testing. There are lots of areas for improvement. I think we need to look at the application of the law to special education students and give some limited accommodation to non-english speaking students. Texas offers spanish speaking students assistance now - I don't know about the many other languages.

While NCLB and testing applies to all schools, regretfully the burden does seem to fall heavily on some minorities. I think the intent of the test was to strengthen those schools that fail these students by fixing the school or offering transfers to successful schools.

The law needs to be fixed and not scrapped.

Schools work best when they are controlled locally, not by the federal govt. I am in favor of not only tossing out NCLB and leaving the accountability issue up to the states, but I also strongly favor abolishing the US Dept of Education. It is a hungry bureaucratic monster. So little funding reaches the schools. Title I funding has been reduced significantly by the bush administration. Taking away what little they give to schools is just cruel. So I say do away with all federal spending on education and funnel that money back to the states. Let them hold schools accountable, and leave the feds out of it.

I was raised to believe in the local school. It was supposed to work best and I think it did for several generations. I have no idea why it changed. The ED was founded in 1980 with good intentions but it is a bureaucracy. The first rule of a bureaucracy is grow or die. So, lets dump it and send the responsibility solely back to the various states. I think funding for schools should also be local too. Let each state fund the various education programs as they see fit and let the schools compete with the rest of the state priorities. Let the state require a standardized test if they see fit - Texas did. I would appreciate the reduction in federal income tax. I would not like the additional burden on state financing. I think it was Connecticut that said no to testing and refused Federal funding. How is it working there? Can they be a test case?

My district is refusing federal funds for our high schools so they can't be penalized for their low test scores.

I do believe we need to hold our kids and our schools accountable. I have no objections to testing if it is done appropriately and the results are helpful in planning instruction. My state had a great state test until NCLB came into being and we had to scrap the good test for one that met federal requirements. We lost a LOT when we had to change our test.

Every damned line.

Kennedy got rolled by the Bush administration in passing the original Act. I strongly suspect he's going to come to any hearings on this piece of crap leglislation loaded like Dick Cheney going hunting.

Then, let's talk about renewal.

I would love to see Bush's score on Florida's infamous FCAT!

It's best if we disassemble everything you ever did and smash it to little tiny pieces.

leave the rest behind? :eyes:

Just increase education spending, not crazy test standards.

of utter failures.

Looking up failure in the dictionary should have a picture of chucklenuts.

Proficiency for all is going to result in every public school failing soon enough...

"In the following pages, we show why this is impossible, in several steps. First, we attempt to discern the meaning of 'proficiency' in NCLB, and conclude from the language and structure of the legislation that it intends all students to be proficient as defined by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Although the U.S. Department
of Education has looked the other way as many states have claimed compliance with NCLB by requiring only low skill levels to pass standardized tests, the law explicitly requires standards of proficiency to be "challenging," a term taken directly from NAEP's achievement level descriptions.

We show that by ignoring the inevitable and natural variation amongst individuals, the conceptual basis of NCLB is deeply flawed; no goal can simultaneously be challenging to and achievable by all students across the entire achievement distribution. A standard can either be a minimal standard which presents no challenge to typical and advanced students, or it can be a challenging standard which is unachievable by most below-average students. No standard can serve both purposes – this is why we call 'proficiency for all' an oxymoron - but this is what NCLB requires."

http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/viewpoints/rothstein_20061114.pdf

Another lie.