Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WP,pg1: For Teachers, 'Highly Qualified' Is Subjective: 'No Child' Standards Widely Interpreted

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:15 AM
Original message
WP,pg1: For Teachers, 'Highly Qualified' Is Subjective: 'No Child' Standards Widely Interpreted
For Teachers, Being 'Highly Qualified' Is a Subjective Matter
'No Child' Standards of Content Mastery Widely Interpreted
By Michael Alison Chandler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 13, 2007; Page A01

To overhaul public education, the No Child Left Behind law required a massive expansion of student testing. But it also called for states to ensure that all teachers in core academic subjects are "highly qualified" to help students succeed -- an unprecedented mandate that has delivered less than promised.

The law, which turned five years old this week, has held schools to increasingly higher standards for student achievement. For teachers, however, standards meant to guarantee that they know their subjects are often vague and open to broad interpretation.

Legal loopholes and uneven implementation by states and the U.S. Department of Education have diluted the law's impact on the teaching workforce, some education experts say. They say that meeting the standards of quality is more about shuffling paper than achieving two vital goals: ensuring that teachers are prepared to help students succeed and reducing the teacher talent gap between rich and poor schools.

"Meeting the qualifications has become an exercise in bureaucratic compliance," said Andrew J. Rotherham, a member of the Virginia Board of Education and a former education adviser in the Clinton administration. "It's not a process that gets at the fundamental issues of quality or effectiveness." Congress may soon tackle those issues as it considers renewing the law....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202218.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenTea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 02:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. Six years of lies...all about an image...
Edited on Sat Jan-13-07 02:41 AM by GreenTea
A purposely, non thoughtful & non workable right-wing campaign to convince us (of bullshit) They learned, terminology....What, "No Kid Left".... No....totally non workable, less, never proved or even heard about (made up slogan)....and that there might be some soul & caring behind those dead BushCo eyes... And people believed it as a real option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-13-07 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. NCLB is one of the bills that the Dems should be destroying right now.
They never will though. Nevermind that it sets standards that are impossible to achieve. Nevermind that is gives no consideration to children with severe learning disabilities, or those that don't speak the language. Nevermind that it places such a heavy focus on Math and English that other subjects get ignored. Nevermind any of the hundreds of reasons why it should be destroyed. Politicians will never touch it because they don't want to be labeled as the politician that doesn't think all children are capable of learning, and parents who don't have a clue about what the modern classroom is like are too stupid to understand that it is a scam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC