Why is "no child left behind" a good Idea?

Question

If child is to slow or lazy, to keep up with his class, why shouldn't he be held back? And if he has a "learning Disability" Why shouldn't he be sent to a special school?

Answer 1

it isn't...that is why so many of our schools are failing, students are being pushed through regardless of how little they know...we are teaching kids to take a test, not to think or reason...many of my students lack basic knowledge of things that we took for granted growing up...teachers are doing very little teaching, everything now is about meeting standards, often in substandard schools, teachers are held more accountable than students or parents...I have a class of 6th graders who only met 50% of the standards needed to get into 6th grade...what the hell are they doing in the 6th grade? why aren't they repeating the 5th grade? because there is so much pressure on teachers to get as many kids to the next grade possible that I really think a lot of them are passing kids who shouldn't be passed or altering test grades...I teach an 8th grade math class where 1/2 of my students do not know their times tables past 3's and 3/4 of them could not identify a division problem...10 of them didn't know what a equal sign was...are you kidding me?

Answer 2

To some extent I agree with you. In fact, one of the main problems with the No Child Left Behind legislation is that it assumes that everyone can and will succeed at the same level. Without even worrying about laziness or learning disabilities, some students are just smarter than others--which the law does not allow for. The law also implies that students each year will do better than those from the year before--which makes no sense whatsoever. We should instead be comparing the same students from year to year, to see if they are learning over time.

Students with learning disabilities and other special education students come under the umbrella of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which basically specifies that the same opportunities must be available to all people. Civil rights decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education ruled that in most cases separate schools could not be considered to provide the same opportunities, so in general all students must be educated in the same schools.

Answer 3

In theory it's intentions are good. That every child achieves. That teachers and schools should be held accountable for making sure kids learn. Whats wrong with that?

It's been the implementation of the law and the fact that the only way to measure is by standardized testing that takes little subjective data into consideration. It has put so much focus on the behind kids, that the kids that already achieve are almost forgotton, and created so much paperwork for teachers that the art of teaching is lost.

Schools have become sterile enviroments for test-prep.

Answer 4

The purpose behind "no child left behind" was to ensure that teachers were teaching and students were learning. Very basic concept, but how does the lawmakers qualify the above? With tests at the end of every year that demonstrates mastering on what is believed to be done at that grade. "No Child Left Behind" has a number with it and can assign accountability to where the student has nothing to be afraid about, but a teacher has a lot to be afraid about. What happens if a teacher does consistently bad at getting the students ready for the exams? Sooner or later that teacher would be let go. On the student part, they would have more chances to screw people up.

Basically it gives students a way to screw their teachers when it comes time for the test.

Answer 5

It is a bad idea. It assumes that all children can and are willing to learn. It punishes schools and teachers in districts where the families are poor, uneducated, and bring the mentality that education isn't important to the children. It does take into account the learning disabled, and allows accomodations for them, but it doesn't account for the fact that alot of schools don't have the money or resources to provide the education that the government requires, and are they dishing out the money, nope!

Answer 6

i think of that the belief in the back of the regulation is solid, yet necessary greater theory. i don't think that the regulation fairly forces training on infants. The try standards are set by using each state one after the different; hence, the state can decrease or strengthen scholastic expectancies. The cons of the regulation are that it reduces effectual training and student studying because of the fact it ought to reason states to diminish success targets and inspire instructors to concentration purely on the try, which I even have experienced first hand. The training device is the accountability of the government, so the government is attempting to enhance training (which isn't the optimal interior the worldwide). they are able to achieve this by using first doing away with or improving colleges which do not meet with state standards. a solid element on the subject of the regulation, is it supplies mom and dad greater flexibility to % the colleges which they % their infants to attend. this implies a smart student isn't caught in a college which does not coach lots.

Answer 7

I HAVE A CHILD WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES AND SHE DOES NOT NEED A SPECIAL SCHOOL. SHE NEED PATIENCES AND PEOPLE WHO CARE. NO KID IS LAZY AND SLOW. I HOPE TO GOD U R NOT A TEACHER WITH THIS LAW PEOPLE WHO THINK LIKE U WON'T BE ABLE TO FORGET ABOUT ALL OF OUR KIDS

Answer 8

No child left behind isnt a good idea.