Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in ‘No Child’ Law

[jefferson_dem]

Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in ‘No Child’ Law By SAM DILLON

The Obama administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of President Bush’s signature education law, No Child Left Behind, and will call for broad changes in how schools are judged to be succeeding or failing, as well as for the elimination of the law’s 2014 deadline for bringing every American child to academic proficiency.

Educators who have been briefed by administration officials said the proposals for changes in the main law governing the federal role in public schools would eliminate or rework many of the provisions that teachers’ unions, associations of principals, school boards and other groups have found most objectionable.

Yet the administration is not planning to abandon the law’s commitments to closing the achievement gap between minority and white students and to encouraging teacher quality.

Significantly, said those who have been briefed, the White House wants to change federal financing formulas so that a portion of the money is awarded based on academic progress, rather than by formulas that apportion money to districts according to their numbers of students, especially poor students. The well-worn formulas for distributing tens of billions of dollars in federal aid have, for decades, been a mainstay of the annual budgeting process in the nation’s 14,000 school districts.

Peter Cunningham, a Department of Education spokesman, acknowledged that the administration was planning to ask Congress for broad changes to the education law, but declined to describe the changes specifically.

He said that although the administration had developed various proposals, it would solicit input from Congressional leaders of both parties in coming weeks to create legislative language that can attract bipartisan support. Some details of the president’s proposals are expected to be made public on Monday, when the president outlines his $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year.

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html?src=tptw&pagewanted=print

[saracat]

1. It is really too bad the WH doesn't listen to the teachers instead of the jackass Arne.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Oh, you mean Katrina Arne?

Jackass is too kind.

[Dinger]

6. I Thought It Was "Heck of a job arne"?

Am I mistaken? Maybe it's the same thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Oh swell

the White House wants to change federal financing formulas so that a portion of the money is awarded based on academic progress, rather than by formulas that apportion money to districts according to their numbers of students, especially poor students

[Dinger]

7. That Got My Attention Too

Why let districts who most need it get help? Whee!!

[jobycom]

4. Fantastic, except for tying federal funding to "academic progress."

The worst part of the current law is that so many rewards for teachers and schools are tied to success of students on standardized tests that kids who don't meet the test standards are bullied by the system. They are held back with kids emotionally not as developed as them and made to retake courses they have already passed just so they won't fail the reading test or math test the next year and interfere with the pay raises and funding for the school. Some kids need to be held back if they haven't completed a large part of the requirements or if they are just not emotionally ready to advance. But with the testing system and the funds tied to it, kids who master the curriculum but have trouble reading at the test's standards are held back the year before the tests just so the school will meet its own testing requirements. Those are the kids who get bored taking classes they've already learned because of a deficiency in one area only, and lose interest in school altogether.

That's the part that needs to be dumped, not expanded. Tie funds to the kids' needs, not to standardized test scores that measure little other than ability to take standardized tests. Let teachers teach again.

Other than that, :applause: for Obama.

[Frustratedlady]

5. The teachers in my family will be happy to see NCLB go.

They want to get back to teaching, rather than slogging through the testing and paperwork. It has taken the joy out of teaching and left a decade of kids behind.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Are you under the impression it's going somewhere?

Obama is giving NCLB steroids :)

[Dinger]

8. + 1. K & R For A Reply If I Could : )

Thank you.:)

[mzteris]

9. nah- they never "listen to teachers"

"Educators who have been briefed by administration officials said the proposals for changes in the main law governing the federal role in public schools would eliminate or rework many of the provisions that teachers’ unions, associations of principals, school boards and other groups have found most objectionable."

[ensho]

10. good

nt

[-wulf-]

11. failure to learn from unintendend consiquences

of basing funding on academic performance.

"Significantly, said those who have been briefed, the White House wants to change federal financing formulas so that a portion of the money is awarded based on academic progress, rather than by formulas that apportion money to districts according to their numbers of students, especially poor students."


As stated already, this practice is one of the fundamental flaws of the current system. It is for this reason that schools have figured out how to tweak the system so that it appears their test scores go up and therefore make them eligible for more money.

For example, my daughter can only receive one of three grades in any subject. She can "earn" a "MS" (Meets standards), "IP" (In progress), or "DNM" (Does not meet standard.) I asked the teacher last year to explain to us who grew up with the more traditional 0-100 system how to quantify the "MS" and she told me that anything that averages out to 82 or above is a "Meets Standards."

For the first time ever, I actually found myself seriously contemplating home-school. I think back to my high school years, and realize that there is now no difference between a C average student and an A average student. I remember difference in effort required to make a C on a test and to make an A on a test, much less to earn an A average in a subject.

They wonder why kids are coming out of the public school systems with a seemingly lower education level when they're bascially taking away the incentive for students to work hard.


The only reason that she is still in the public school system is because I do not believe that it is the school's or the public's responsibility to educate her in the first place, and with that in mind it is my responsibility to recognize that it is my job to fill in the many gaps that the school system will leave.

It makes me a little sad to know that she is in the second grade, but can read "The Hobbit" in its entirety by herself in less than two weeks, and take a fifth grade test on the book and only miss one question, and the best she can do is "meet standard" which is the same grade that the kids in her class who are still stuck on "Go Dog Go" are given.

I'm still trying to figure out how they plan on awarding the Valedictorian when they graduate.