With Bush's "leave no child a chance" policy, has anything changed for the better in public school?

Answer 1

The kids can jump through hoops,but really don't learn anything else.

added. Mel. what is the purpose of having a school,if not for education? I help teach my kids too(and other kids),more than the schools do. If they are not there to learn an empty warehouse would be cheaper on the taxpayers. It is bad enough schools pay $5 for a box of crayolas,do we need more waste

Answer 2

We’re glad the House voted to sustain Bush’s veto of the bill to expand S-CHIP, the children’s health-insurance program. We think Bush is right on policy grounds, and that Republicans are in a better political position than a lot of people think.

The problem with the bill is not, primarily, that it represents “middle-class welfare.” Government policies have made enough of a mess of health care that even middle-class families can have trouble finding affordable health insurance. But the S-CHIP expansion is a perverse solution to this problem.

Its design guarantees that it will transfer money from poor states to rich ones, and from poor people to middle-class ones. It will lead to worse health care for some children. It will reduce social mobility by creating a poverty trap (wherein getting raises leads to a loss of benefits and thus of total income). And there are better alternatives: letting people buy cheaper insurance by reducing regulations, and ending the tax penalty for individually purchased insurance.

We understand why S-CHIP makes Republicans nervous. Nobody wants to be labeled as hostile to children. But over the next year the issue will inevitably take a back seat to the parties’ approaches toward health care in general. The Democrats may well be overreaching on that front. Universal coverage, their ideal, is not the public’s greatest concern. What they want is security in the health coverage that most of them already have. Being able to own their own health policies would give them that security. Conservatives can make that case — and if they do not want to make it, one has to ask why they got involved in politics in the first place.

Answer 3

Yes we have had two things happen, One Teachers teach the SOL test, and the students learn the SOL test.
Second there is allot more Money waisted in Government funded schools.
Teachers Unions are still a Political powerhouse. (working for Teachers not the benefit of Students.

Answer 4

The interesting thing is that this program wasn't written by Bush. It was a product of Ted Kennedy and Bush just sipported it.

Answer 5

No.
It was a waste of Tax-Payer Money.

As long as Unions Rule the Teachers, our schools will fail.

Bush got sucker-punched. NEVER TRUST A DEMOCRAT, especially Ted Kennedy.

(Bush should have Known.)

Answer 6

Thank God my Children are out of School. But when they were in school i do not remember having to have help from the Government to teach my child and for them to learn in a public school.
1-girl-Master degree-design

1-girl-Master degree-Medical

1-boy-PA,EMT,Pilot,US Army. 4 year degree.

All paid by me.
We need to stop depending on someone else taking care of our children.

All three went to a Public school.

Answer 7

While I certainly don't think NCLB is anywhere near perfect, I DO believe in the idea.

Far too many horrible teachers are inflicted on our children, and they are almost impossible to get rid of, thanks to a far-too-powerful union.

Good teachers are worth their weight in gold - and it's horribly unfair for a good teacher to have to deal with the aftermath of a horrible one.

Answer 8

NO.Funding is not the problem with schools,the problem is with the libs who run them. Now the idiots want to give birth control pills to 11 year olds.

Answer 9

Are you referring to "No Child Left Behind"? If so, no. It's a ridiculous idea that every single child will be proficient (even special ed).

Answer 10

The program was designed with the thought that PARENTS would INVOLVE THEMSELVES in their children's education. Silly president.

Amen Wolf.