Are you for or againist the no child left behind act?

Question

why or why not?

Answer 1

I agree with the person above and I am against the act. That act goes against Darwin's law (survival of the fittest, in this case the child with the fitter mind shall survive and the ones unfit must be left behind). Bush is stupid too.

Answer 2

I am firmly against No Child Left Behind. First of all, Bush supports it, and that's a red flag right there.

1. seriously underfunded, so it can't work (classrooms nowadays have around 40+ students instead of the proposed 20 or less, which is a pretty clear sign that NCLB isn't working! Plus, have you SEEN some of the crappy teachers they hire nowadays?!)
2. in order to get funding under the NCLB act from the government, schools have to readily give up all private information requested of their students to the military for recruitment (and most kids don't even know about opt-out forms)
3. places too much emphasis on standardized testing. This is a very big mistake as the schools that tend to do well on tests are the ones who are already better off (and therefore don't need the money as badly as the schools who aren't well off but who also don't get very good scores on these tests, so the poor schools don't get the money they need).

Answer 3

Against. It is a matter of state rights. Each state should be setting the standards by which its schools are funded, not the federal government. The formulas they use are so convoluted and their requirements so goofed up as to sabotage struggling school systems around the country. The fact is that we need to privatize education. The civilian sector can do it better and cheaper. Look at the new york school system before Edison took over and look at it now. Major improvement. When you have a bureaucracy, you get top heavy with a lot of overpaid staff sitting around thinking deep thoughts and looking for the next revelation in improving education. Less money ends up in the classroom, student progress decreases, management blames teachers for not getting the job done, they hire some outside consultants for millions of dollars to correct the problem, and classroom funding is again cut to cover the consultants and whatever program they are selling. If you make it a competitive bid process, the company that can do it most efficiently will step forward and get it done while making a decent profit. Mind you that there will still need to be a school board overseeing them to make sure the job is getting done, but it will work. And Just for reference, I am a former teacher, and yes some of us support privatization.

Answer 4

Against. It should have been called all children left behind instead of none. It might have sounded like a good program, but they didnt' provide the schools the necessary funding to put it into action properly. For this reason kids are pushed way too quickly and can't retain half of what they learned the previous year.

Answer 5

Against it. It has left more children behind than ever before. It uses a reward and punishment system to fund kids. If they don't have the proper funding in the first place like most inner city schools, how are they ever supposed to improve enough to where they will get the funding they needed in the first place. It's backwards logic with a catchy name on it.

Answer 6

Against, but for very different reasons than most people.

1. it centralizes educational policy, rather than giving local school districts the flexibility they need to respond to each student's needs

2. it overemphasizes service to the disadvantaged. I think that as a society, we should focus education on those that have the potential to do well. Something is wrong when we spend more money on a mentally challenged child than an honors student.

3. it uses inappropriate labeling of schools. Just the mere fact that a school is labeled "failing" would probably scare away the good teachers.

Answer 7

It is better than Goal's 2000 but no child left behind sucks as well.

Answer 8

Against.


Because it was a stupid idea to begin with, and its still a stupid idea. Taking away funding from schools that need it the most is possibly the most idiotic idea I've heard since "trickle-down economics"!!

Answer 9

It had a lot of flaws but above all when you refuse to fund your own program you cannot be surprised when your results are poor.

Answer 10

If it will help a child who is considered a special needs child then I am for it.