why does the no child left behind act take away funding for bad schools?

Answer 1

One wonders how many of those in Congress and the Bush administration actually read all 1,425 pages of the bill. It is a one-size-fits-all approach to student achievement that relies far too much on high-stakes testing to measure progress.

Worse, No Child is woefully underfunded. The funding in fiscal year 2005 fell $9.8 billion short of the act's authorized level. President Bush's fiscal year 2006 is $12 billion short. No Child totally ignores the fact that each state designs its own standards as to what is considered proficient.

It’s also silly to have one standard for NCLB and another for each state. For example, in Florida, 827 schools rated "A" by the state failed to meet Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), the benchmark established by No Child. Imagine being a parent of a child in one of those schools being congratulated by Gov. Jeb Bush, while at the same time getting a notice from the Bush administration saying that this same school is failing.

Indeed, if left as is, No Child will only serve to ensure that the majority of schools will fail. A California Department of Education study concluded that by 2014 (when No Child requires that 100 percent of students meet AYP), 99 percent of schools will be failing. Minnesota's legislative auditor concluded that 80 percent to 99 percent of their schools will fail. In Illinois, it's 95 percent to 99 percent; in Connecticut, a state known for its excellent public school system, it's 93 percent.

It’s time to scrap the law.

Answer 2

Because its another idiotic attempt by the Federal govt to interfere in what should be a local issue.

The bad schools need the funding the most so its denied to them as punishment. Yeah that makes sense. The money from the better neighborhoods which are already better funded get the rewards.

The biggest problem with govt education programs is that no matter how stupid they are once they inevitably fail, most educators and/or govt functionaries instantly assumed that the problem is that more money is needed. It never seems to dawn on them that MAYBE their idea was bad in the first place and that the best course of action would be to go back to the way things were. These people cannot admit failure. Nobody in the govt, at any level, can seem to admit failure despite the fact that they are virtually guaranteed employment for life unless they kill some of their co-workers or their boss.

Years ago, kids were doing much better in school. But can we go back to the way it was at that point? No. It wouldn't be progressive. The only thing of value from No Child Left Behind is that they fund some PBS kids programs that are pretty good. Beyond that - nothing.

Answer 3

The first guy is right. But the bill is designed to be more of an incentive. it was designed to give a push to schools that do not normally excel. However, bush didn't think this one all the way through..go figure. They should have really thought about this question...Why would you take away money from schools that really need it. When it comes down to it, the more money a school has, the more resources they will have, and the more resources a school has, the better their test scores are going to be. It is just a shame that the money isn't given out in a reverse affect. Schools with great scores really dont need all the funding. It shouls be given to the ones that need the help.

Answer 4

The concept is that no one wants to lose funding, so everyone will try to become a "good school". Why this logic is flawed:

1. If the school failed because of bad funding, this just escalates things.
2. It promotes (and rewards!) cheating on tests and statistics to prevent funding loss (as the "Texas Miracle" has been shown to seriously understate drop-out rates and make sure that those who don't test well avoid being placed in grade levels that test). The "Texas Miracle" was the basis for NCLB.
3. It makes schools want to "inspect" new students and possibly turn them away to other schools based on how they might affect that school's testing. Non-English-speakers and Special Ed students also fall into this mix.
4. It takes time away from teaching by adding more mandatory testing time into the school year, as well as time devoted purely for prepping for those tests. Non-test activities get pushed out of the curriculum.

Answer 5

Because it assumes that the only reason the schools are bad is lazy administrators and teachers. The idea that bad schools might be bad because they're already short of money to hire good administrators and teachers, not to mention fix the damn air conditioning or whatever, never occurred to the geniuses who wrote this silly law.

Answer 6

The theory is that schools will improve out of fear of losing their funding. Knowing this, they will take the necessary steps to get better. Of course, they are not ABLE to improve when they lose funding, but it IS the Bush administration afterall. Logic and sense are optional.

Answer 7

If the schools cannot even funtion at the lower standards in the no child act , then they need to be gotten rid of or forced to correct the situation. They are a drain on the system anyways, so why throw away more lives and money. and creat more welfare (drains) families.

Answer 8

Take a minute and see how many schools have actually lost their funding under NCLB.

Then see the number of schools that have improved under NCLB.

Take no one's word for it, look it up yourself.

Joe

Answer 9

It's an easy target, the net result of which is to advance the Neocon Agenda of dumbing down America. Once the sheep are completely stupid, it will just take a Judas Goat (e.g., Karl Rove) to lead them to slaughter.

Answer 10

Why give them funding if they are not going to improve or pass students? In other words "you never throw good money after bad" and one should never reward inferior work.