As all people have their own agenda, (even the youngest child schemes) is it fair to impose on the school system that all should learn?
I liken it to the saying:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
I understand the desire to educate, but learning cannot be forced into a stubborn, rebellious mind.
When the basic control of a child is taken out of a teacher's hand, how can anyone think that the authority remains?
If a child cannot be disciplined (spankings etc...) he cannot be controlled. If he cannot be controlled, he cannot be taught.
Everything that a child is taught is FORCED uppon him:
What to eat, wear, when to go to bed, what words are inappropriate. etc...
A child that is taught, through actions of parents and others, that please and thank you are not needed, that listiening is optional, that abusive behavior is permitted, becomes an unteachable child. lowering standards to give the appearance of achievement only hurts the rest.
Your toughts?
2007-10-25 13:54:47 · 22 answers · asked by athorgarak 4 in Education & Reference ➔ Primary & Secondary Education
1. SPANKING IS NOT ABUSE! That is the type of thinking that has all but ruined the USA!
2. I did not state that forcing to eat, sleep and what not was in the NCLB legislation, I was pointing out a fact of life
Liberal, idiotic thinking of-don't punish the child, but punish the parent for the child's actions-has done immeasurable harm to our nation!
2007-10-25 14:11:55 · update #1
The educational system has been dumbed down to the lowest possible denominator, leaving bright children bored. So much more money is spent on special ed than gifted. Its really a shame since Russian educational system is 2 years ahead of even British which is ahead of the US. In nature, the animals feed the strongest first as they will be having the strongest children in turn. We humans seem to think we know better than nature.
2007-10-25 13:59:55 · answer #1 · answered by barthebear 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that the idea behind the law is good, but needed more thought. I don't believe that the law really forces education on children. The test requirements are set by each state separately; therefore, the state can lower or increase scholastic expectations. The cons of the law are that it reduces effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to focus just on the test, which I have experienced first hand. The education system is the responsibility of the government, so the government is trying to improve education (which isn't the highest in the world). They can achieve this by first getting rid of or improving schools which don't meet with state standards. A good point about the law, is it gives parents more flexibility to choose the schools which they want their children to attend. This means a smart student isn't stuck in a school which doesn't teach much.
2007-10-25 14:11:59 · answer #2 · answered by Ahmed A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi,
I believe that every child can be taught, can learn, can be dsciplined, and can be like any others.
The difference is the people that sorrounds this childs life could be at home, at school, or anywhere.
Depending on what the child see at home, what the child always hear at his home, and what the child was taught at his home by his first teachers (parents, guarduan or grands) before they put their first step at any school has something to do with how they will become as they are growing up.
What ever the parents of this child has learned from his and her parents growing up will be transferred to their child - and if it is not as good as the others, the child becomes separated from the rest and that is a problem and a big wonder how this child can be helped.
What I'm saying is, what will work for Jose, might not work for Juan....as the saying...
2007-10-25 14:03:39 · answer #3 · answered by yahoooo! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'No child left behind' is not a good idea. Every child who is willing to move forward, those kids who knows that there is a future that lies ahead of them are the only ones who are worth puching forward. If there is a rebellious child who refuses to learn, then they should not be allowed to move on until they gain that desire to learn. There is no point if they move on forward rejecting the very thought of leaning. Let those that show potential excel, and let the others stay behind until they can gain the attitude and understanding needed to move forward - it's not right to have them as equals to higher achivers. They will either not keep up with the harder work, or just feel worse about their intelligence. This will only encourage low self-esteem and discourage a will to learn - if there is any.
2007-10-25 14:09:34 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the idea is to close the gap between students, my fear is that the easy road will be taken.
The easy road is not to bring the poorest performing students upward to match the high achievers. The easy road is to discourage (or fail to encourage) the high achievers such that the gap closes from the high end.
Some of my peers refer to it as "no child gets ahead".
Personally, I don't like it. But most people wouldn't approve of my educational philosophy (which is founded upon "some people are smart and some people are not so bright") which is why I don't teach in the public schools anymore.
2007-10-25 14:08:15 · answer #5 · answered by CoachT 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
in my personal opinion NO NO and NO!!!! I like Bush and all but being a student in schools i absolutely HATE IT and especially since I am in advanced A.P. classes some kids are just in pre-algebra which i was in in 6th grade!!! Also in some classes if a kid does not understand the teacher has to take time to explain it to the whole class all over again. i asked a couple of my teachers if they like the "No child left behind" rule and they said "No" it is not need because if you need help in classes and or mental you should not be in pubic schools you should be in a private school that meets your need and if you cannot afford explain your situation! Hope that was what you were looking for See Ya!
2007-10-25 14:06:03 · answer #6 · answered by Emily Monkey girl 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the no child left behind thing is a good Idea. First of all for all the children who have learning disability's. Allot of them have just been pushed through school with out any one to help them. especially the ones with very minor disability's. As for the ones with behavior problems, they just need the right person to get through to them. This forces teachers to take notice of things / students they would normally put aside.
2007-10-25 14:04:42 · answer #7 · answered by Amber E 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No child left behind had good intentions considering society has established we need a "free public education". It costs $14,000 per child in our area. Some private schools cost $3500. My grandson goes to one. I work at the public school in the evening. I got some of the 4th grade work for him to do. He said it was easy. He's in 2nd grade.
2007-11-01 23:33:49 · answer #8 · answered by Old Man 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is this in regards to the 700 page "No Child left behind Act"? Have you read that? I dont remember it ever mentioning that what a child eats, wears or when to go to bed is forced on them... are we speaking of the same thing? I dont think so... sorry.
2007-10-25 14:00:18 · answer #9 · answered by collctor2 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow. i think I agree with you but what is the solution?I have 2 girls that are both college grads so I must have done something right. How do we help the parents??
They need help more than most of the kids do.
2007-10-25 14:02:37 · answer #10 · answered by Mike M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋