> Which money? Taxpayer money or private donations to CMU?
Well someone somehow needs to come up with some money to fill that 10-billion
gap. NCLB is now a bunch of unfunded mandates after all the tax cuts. I'm in a
public college that is indirectly affected by the tax cuts, and I live in the
inner city that has more children left behind than 2 years ago.
> NCLB is a real problem when students and their parents refuse to avail
> themselves of the free tutoring which has been made available. Once again,
> huge money flows enter the education establishment, only to disappear to God
> knows where.
For a second I almost agreed with you. Don't I like the brainwashing machines on
FOX! Sean Hannity almost made me believe Dick Cheney's fart smells better than
ethanol. But no, huge money flows entered Iraq, not the education establishment.
""NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" AFTER TWO YEARS: A TRACK RECORD OF FAILURE
Thursday, January 8, 2004
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing
The increasingly visible flaws of the "No Child Left Behind" law and the
growing, bi-partisan criticisms of its provisions demonstrate that the law will
do more harm than good. NCLB's test-and-punish approach to school reform relies
on extremely limited, one-size-fits-all tools that reduce education to little
more than test prep programs. It produces unfair decisions and requires
unproven, often irrational approaches to complex educational problems. NCLB is
clearly underfunded. But fully funding a bad law is not the solution. If the
nation's goal really is to leave no child behind, the federal government must
overhaul NCLB to ensure that assessment and accountability genuinely improve
learning for all students.
* NCLB is based on false assumptions and therefore offers false remedies. The
facade that was created to portray Houston and "the Texas Miracle" as national
models is crumbling. Independent researchers have shown Houston failed to close
the race-based achievement gap, inflated test results by pushing out low-scoring
students, and failed to adequately prepare the few who actually graduate for
college-level work. Similar high-stakes approaches in other states, such as
Alabama and Mississippi, have left students mired at the bottom of national
rankings. The U.S. cannot test its way to better schools.
* Nearly all schools will eventually be rated "In Need of Improvement" because
of the way Adequate Yearly Progress statistics are calculated. A recent
California study confirms the findings of other researchers that the more
diverse a student body, the more likely schools or districts will fail to make
sufficient progress in test results to avoid NCLB sanctions. While diverse,
high-poverty schools will fail and be punished sooner, the consensus among
researchers is that almost every school will eventually fall short of the
arbitrary improvement requirements.
* NCLB's obsessive focus on raising test scores will mean an increasing emphasis
on test preparation, undermining the higher order thinking skills all students
need to succeed in work and life. Overwhelming pressure to meet test score
targets makes schools focus on drilling students for the exams. "Teaching to the
test" narrows the curriculum, forcing teachers and students to concentrate on
memorizing isolated facts. As a result, rising test scores will not mean
academic improvement. Fewer students will be prepared to be successful citizens
in our society.
* Demanding that disabled and limited English proficient students reach
"proficiency" on standardized tests sets those students and their teachers up
for failure. Rather than provide resources so schools can offer individualized
approaches these students need to succeed, NCLB offers the pretense that if we
hold them to the "same standards," they will magically rise to the occasion.
NCLB is already causing many students to be scapegoated for dragging down
average test scores, tempting some schools to drive them out. The failure to
provide high quality comprehensive assessments for all these students endangers
both the students and their schools.
* Tutoring provisions take money from schools that most need it and turn public
funds over to private entrepreneurs. Based on the simplistic, faulty premise
that low test scores are caused primarily by inadequate or lazy public school
teachers, NCLB paves the way for private firms to reap huge profits. Meanwhile,
strapped districts will see their budgets pinched further and be forced to lay
off staff and cut back on services to students who most need extra help.
* Transfer provisions make matters worse at both the home and receiving school,
while diverting money from education to "busing." This provision has been a
giant bust, with some receiving schools overwhelmed by transfers and
ill-equipped to handle them, but most parents saying, "No thanks." Parents
increasingly view this so-called choice provision as a hoax, recognizing that
better performing schools are tantalizingly out of reach, either in neighboring
districts that say no to their kids, or exam schools within their districts that
are also off limits.
* Many of the best teachers will flee schools where they are most needed. As
experienced and excellent teachers recognize that schools with society's most
vulnerable students are destined for failure and punishment, those who can will
transfer to higher performing schools. The abandoned schools will be
hard-pressed to recruit replacement teachers of any quality.
* NCLB funds fall far short of what would be needed to make every student in
every public school proficient. The failure to fully fund NCLB is the clearest
example of how it leaves many children behind. However, even with more adequate
funding, the law's assumptions and methods are so deeply flawed that it cannot
work without fundamental change.
* NCLB ignores the real reasons many children are left behind. The failure to
address factors outside of school that influence academic achievement guarantees
NCLB will not succeed. The best school, the best teachers and the best
curriculum can make a huge difference in the lives of disadvantaged children,
but basic needs like housing, health care and nutrition must also be addressed
to truly close the achievement gap between poor and rich children.
* The law's remedies for "failing" schools do not work. A series of studies
demonstrates that most attempts to "reconstitute" troubled schools fail to
improve student performance. Moreover, few if any states will have the capacity
to intervene in the large numbers of public schools that will eventually be
identified for NCLB's ultimate sanctions.
* Last, but not least, better alternatives exist to improve troubled schools.
Educators, researchers, and engaged parents have worked to create and use far
better assessments that meet the primary purposes of assessment -- improving
teaching and learning while informing the public about school quality. This
requires rich assessments, from tests and quizzes to projects and portfolios,
rooted in ongoing classroom work by students and teachers; professional
development for educators and time for them to plan improvements in curriculum
and instruction; involvement by parents as real partners not just consumers of
test scores; annual reports on student learning and other vital data that the
community needs to help improve their schools; monitoring by the state to ensure
schools are equitably serving all students; and targeted assistance for those
schools which really need it.
For more information about NCLB's flaws and better assessment alternatives that
will help improve academic performance for all students, please contact:
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing 342 Broadway, Cambridge, MA
02139 phone- (617) 864-4810 fax- (617) 497-2224 web-
http://www.fairtest.org"
Ram Lau
>> Stay informed about: CMU more affordable to low-income whites and Asian-Americans 
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
