What is every bodies view on the " No Child Left Behind program"? My personal belief is that it keeps the higher level students from getting the best education they can get and it keeps the slower kids from learning really anything because the class might be alittle too fast for them. This is my personal opinion and I'm sorry if I offended or upset anybody whatsoever. I think this from seeing how everybody in my school is doing, and I just wanted to see what the dollars think of it.

I would have to say that I agree. As a person in quite a few higher-level classes, I often find myself doing more work, but work of the same level as the academic-level people. At my school, it's become a sort of joke to be in an advanced class, because of this increased workload but lack of a differentiated curriculum.

Ah, ze "No Child Left Behind Act," the "... act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind."

I believe it holds back public schools, since public schools, by law, must take every student in, be they disabled, or them having "special needs." I am not opposed to all having an opportunity for education... however, ze Act forces a heavy reliance on "test scores."

In public schools, this is more of a problem, since, let's face it, there is typically a group of about five students that cause constant disruption, often impeding education for others; they themselves not typically caring for being learned men/women nor test scores.
Test scores I say? Yes. Much of the funding for schools relies on; the amount of students (each regular student needing about 7 thousand dollars to teach and 30 thousand for special needs), how well the children do on test scores, and how much voucher/private schools steal from the public and how many crumbs they leave for the poor public schools.

Also, the "No Child Left Behind" teaches more to learn and follow the rhetoric without questioning it or going deep inside of it. We are taught that if you alter f(x) to -4f((1/4)x+2), that f(x)'s functioned is reflected over the x-axis, vertically and horizontally stretched by a factor of four, and then moved two units to the left, but we are not taught we purpose it serves or what practicality does it have in real life or when we will need to know such or why we need to learn it other than "You need to learn it so you can pass Algebra II and get your credits to get a diploma."

All in all, since I'm typing this up shortly without too much thought or consideration going into it, I'll just end on this: It's good for students who care about learning and want to learn, but it's horrible that it is wasted on certain individuals and there is little to nothing one can do about it. The Act should push path educational knowledge and give real world experience, and not just give way to rhetoric, but have kids question and learn and strive to succeed. The Act should give everyone an equal opportunity to learn, and should cast away those that wish not to learn.

But that is just a blunt and unrefined and poorly-thought out less-than-a-minute-put-into opinion; it is my opinion.

No Child Left Behind was the single worst thing that Bush did to America. Fuck the debt and pointless wars, because, in my opinion, this Act of Congress destroyed public education.

1. This Act is the reason that your personal information is widely available to military recruiters unless you jump through hoops to opt out of it. As someone who dislikes the military for personal reasons, the last thing I want is them continually contacting me trying to recruit me. I have friends who are Seniors who forgot to opt out, and they are getting called once every few weeks to be asked if they've changed their minds. Even when they asked them to stop calling, they were told you have to opt out beforehand and that they wouldn't get rid of their contact information.

2. Standardized tests are bullshit. This Act is the reason why the entirety of your curriculum is based around tests. You don't learn in school anymore. Why's that? Because you're only learning how to take tests. You're not learning a trade or even learning anything that will be relatively useful. Why's that. Because you're only learning how to take tests. Teachers have to rush through everything to give you a relative understanding of what will be on their tests and the standardized tests that you'll be given. Why's that? Because the government has the right to fire every single employee if the students don't do well on it for several years in a row. They can even fire everyone in charge of the school and hand it over to a public institution or just blatantly close the school without warning. Some states have also given their government the right to deduct pay from teachers' salaries whose students don't do well and lower the budgets for schools with such students.

This is a complete invasion of public schooling rights, in my opinion, and doesn't help anybody except the government. It gives them a cookie cutter standard that they can use to judge the schools. That way, they don't have to actually make their own employees work. That way, they don't have to actually send someone out to check on the school's conditions or to see how good the teachers/students are. It also means that they can deem any school they wish not worthy of their money, thus saving them money as they wish. That saves them a great deal of money and time, which is the only important thing to the government.

The public education system went to shit the second this Act was approved, obviously. Judging how well teachers teach using Standardized Testing is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Tests don't define intelligence or learning ability, and some people just aren't good test takers. Some people are better at verbal tests rather than written tests, as well. Some people aren't good at multiple choice questions, which these tests are usually made up of because they're too lazy to pay people by the hour to read legitimate answers. Some people are just bad at the core subjects like math and English.

There's no reason to blame the teacher for those students failure.

Another part that is sure to piss you off,
"The act requires schools to rely on scientifically based research for programs and teaching methods. The act defines this as 'research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs.'"


Ever get pissed because some subjects seem to have no good teachers? Ever wonder why nobody in your school does good in a certain subject? Would you believe me if said that was this Act's fault? They have set curriculum and teaching methods for certain subjects. These curriculums aren't good for everybody.

There's something the government doesn't seem to get...
Our brains aren't made of cookie dough, and you can't use a cookie-cutter education system while expecting to get decent results.

Some people have complained that No Child Left Behind has affected the way schools treat high-leveled students. I haven't really had this problem because I come from a relatively wealthy school district which invests a great deal of it its budget in Advanced Students and high level classes. My personal school isn't that wealthy, but the district itself is in control of those programs' budgets.

Ever wonder why your guidance counselor fusses over you when nobody else cares? Because the law requires them to. A part of the NCLB Act is the Dropout Prevention Act, and it requires schools to provide counselors to guide students along and to dissuade them from dropping out. Students who still choose to drop out of their own free will negatively affect how the school is seen. I don't agree with this, to be honest. Some people have better things to do, and the school should not be punished because its students choose to start life/end school early.

The Disabilities Education Act is a load of bullshit, too. They just lowered the standards. It's still a cookie-cutter system that they're using on them, which is even worse. Every disabled kid is different. You can't just throw something up on the board and expect them to know what it is. You need to give them individual attention. By the time they have to take a standardized test, they may not all be at the same level because they have disabilities of differing levels. The government doesn't take the level of their disabilities into consideration. All of the disabled students are supposed to take the same test and are all expected to do well. It's flat out stupid.

Even if your school district is full of Latino kids, guess what? They have to take the test in English.

"All students who are learning English have an automatic three-year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must normally demonstrate proficiency on an English-language assessment. However, the local education authority may grant an exception to any individual English learner for another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis.

"In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers). The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.[72]

"Many schools test or assess students with limited English proficiency even when the students are exempt from NCLB-mandated reporting, because the tests may provide useful information to the teacher and school. In certain schools with large immigrant populations, this exemption comprises a majority of young students."

It's, again, flat out stupid.

I wish Bush's parents never taught him to write, sort of like how they never taught him to use common sense.

The entirety of the No Child Left Behind Act is stupid, and I don't get why the government is having so much trouble figuring it out.

...oh.

I kind of got really into it and forgot to keep numbering my points, but-

You can deal with it.

>>5 There are many possible reasons, but I'm going to be mean and guess that it's an attempt to save money, since that seems to be what all these laws are fussing about. The government is full of very rich and powerful politicians, who of course, care about money as much as the next homeless person that walks by them. It's similar to Goldman Sachs. One of the reasons our economy tanked was because of all the unnecessary loans they gave out, everyone had o pay at once and that became a huge issue of course. In fact a lot of politicians defend Goldman Sachs Just because Goldman Sachs pays them to read a script favoring them. I'm just using that as an example, but mainly the government deals with issues and Ives solutions that give them the mot money. Not all the time, or everyone in the government, but it's true non the less. That's what I think...

I think schools should be more challenging. When I was in... I'd like to say third grade, maybe fourth, I could do most of Algebra (most, not all). Most people in high school still struggle with the basics of Algebra... =w=

We should have higher standards and less bullshittiness.

In general:
1. After kindergarten, no late work should be accepted without an excused absence.
In arithmetic:
1. In kindergarten you should learn how to do addition and subtraction and by the time you leave you should have learned basic multiplication (I'd say multiplication tables would be basic).
2. By fourth grade you should be learning Algebra I by the second half of the school year.
By fifth or sixth grade, Geometry.
By eighth grade graduation, Algebra II and Trig. should be learned.
In high school, by eleventh grade, it should be required to take Calculus in the ninth or tenth grade (with pre-calc being available as an off-semester course), and other math classes being offered as electives.
3. By fifth or sixth grade, students should be able to create lab write-ups.
By sixth grade, students should already have basic biology learned.
By seventh, basic chemistry.
By ninth, though I highly recommend by eighth, basic engineering should be taught. And in high school, other science courses should be electives, only engineering being a required course if it was not taught it middle school.
4. For social studies, sociology and/or political science should be taught by fifth/sixth grade, economics by seventh, religious studies should be in tenth or eleventh grade in high school, basic geography by seventh, psychology in the eighth (with sociology also being learned before middle school graduation), anthropology in tenth, and civics by ninth.
History can be taught at anytime, though I think basic stuff should be taught in elementary with more deeper and advanced history being taught in eleventh or twelfth grade.
4. For English, people should be able to read modern day English near perfectly, with the present human error being a minimum, by the fifth grade.
By seventh, they should be able to understand Early Modern English, too.
By ninth, they should be able to write a "college-level" essay.
By tenth, they should be able to improve on the above as well as be able to know reading strategies.
By eleventh, writing strategies.
5. Foreign language should not be taught to the student if it is not the language they want to learn. However, students should have at least two years of it to graduate it in high school, be the student taught in late elementary, middle school, or high school.
6. Health should be taught around fifth or sixth grade.
Sex ed should be taught by fifth grade.
Physical exertion education should not be apart of the curriculum or learning, but rather a highly recommended elective. We should not have to force people to work out. The requirements to pass such class in high school may differ, but I'll get off of that subject.
7. Basic use of technology should be taught by fifth grade.
Technology should then be electives in middle and high school.
8. Art should be; writing, painting, singing, technological, or dancing. It should also be free to the student to choose what they wish to pursue/
There also should be many electives in seventh-twelfth grade for this field.
9. Electives should be a wide range of things, from home ec. to wood shop.

That's just a basic guideline.

>>4 well*

Just noticed that.

>>6 I said the same thing. The government saves money if they do it this way. Because, you know, Bush needed to screw up his citizens so he could (pretend to) have enough money to finish screwing up the nation and leave the office with a fuckton of debt.

/endrant

>>7 To be blunt, I don't agree with you at all. You're just suggesting another cookie-cutter standard for all schools to use. It doesn't work that way. Students learn differently. Schools are in different areas with students of different backgrounds. You can't have every school working the same exact way, because every school has different demographics and varying student attitudes.

Not to mention that most schools can't afford the kind of things you're suggesting. I know, despite being a wealthy school system, there is no way in hell that they would be able to implement all your suggestions in every school without breaking the budgets. Do you understand how many extra teachers they would need to give students all those choices? Do you understand that smaller schools would have to make additions so there are enough rooms for all the classes you're suggesting?

There is not enough money being put into the public education system for that. You might be able to find a rich Christian school to do it, but even the best of those aren't so structured.

Refusing to take late work after kindergarten? What the fuck? Shit happens in life. You're just trying to turn school into a stressful environment in which nobody can actually learn. The drop out rate would raise ridiculously with that kind of plan.

When you force kids to learn, they don't want to learn. Take, for example, our Spanish classes. I wanted to learn Spanish, but not in Elementary school when I didn't even know English. So I, and my fellow students, have been boycotting learning Spanish until we're out of the public education system. It's not because we don't want to learn it or because we don't think it's useful; it's our stupid way of rebelling against something we were forced to do. You're suggesting we should get rid of that, but in its place, you're shoving in all these requirements that won't help anybody.

Having a set guide of what students "should know" is ridiculous. Not everybody learns the same. Not everybody is on the same mental level. I agree that students should be able to read English properly by the end of their Elementary schooling, but making that a requirement that could keep them from going to Intermediate school is just not a good idea. What about kids who have English as a second language?

What about those kids who aren't good at math? Are you going to keep them back entire years because they don't "know [insert subject here] by [insert year here]"? It's not right. Everybody is different, and education HAS to take that into consideration.

There is no reason for school to be such an educational prison, either.

When I'm at home, I'll structure my response more, but this is all I have for now.

I don't support No Child left behind at all. (although we are better off with it now then we were when we didn't have it.) It's intention when it was first put into action was good, however it has become VERY corrupt. I am already assuming that you are familiar with the law, so I won't go into to much detail. The Ironic thing is that I am doing a project on this exact subject, well, kind of. Me and two other classmates are doing a project on how the "No child left behind act." Is indeed leaving children behind. Also, I believe that the standard tests that our country conducts are unfair. Different schools teach different things. They also have different rankings. For example Washington, our nations capital. Has the lowest reading level thus far. It's terrible how children with learning difficulties. (Such as Dyslexia and autism.) Are being left behind in normal schools. Tests have shown that they can learn, but not the way that most people do. I should know, I am a autistic Dyslexic. At my old school (It was a public school.) I was 2 years behind in reading, and I was just barely making my grade level in math. Now, at my current school that teaches using OG, I am able to flourish. I am currently in the 8th grade, and I am at a 10th grade math level. I am currently at a 9th grade reading and comprehension level, and am leaning Japanese. Kids can learn if they learn the way they think. With the right teacher, and the right approach. A bad student, can be made a straight A student.

I do not support No child left behind. They left me behind.
~Signed.
.,Otaku,.

I have no idea why this came up twice...

>>11 You do know you could delete your extra post, right? Click the [Del] thing.

>>8 "To be blunt, I don't agree with you at all. You're just suggesting another cookie-cutter standard for all schools to use. It doesn't work that way. Students learn differently. Schools are in different areas with students of different backgrounds. You can't have every school working the same exact way, because every school has different demographics and varying student attitudes."

Students are lazy nowadays. We need to PUSH them. We can't baby them all their life. We need to push them forward in life. High schools should not have students that still do not know basic grammar, such as the difference between "you're" and "your." Students can easily do algebra if we teach them it... Most students, like me, didn't really learn much in elementary school, besides for K4-5 and 2-3 grade (much of first, fourth, and fifth grade tends to be repeat of what is already supposed to be known), nearly nothing in middle school (I only learned; a few things in Social Studies sixth through seventh grade, a few vocabulary and writting startegies in eighth grade "honors"/"advanced" English, and a bit of Algebra in the eighth), and many of the things I already knew were spat back at me for half of tenth grade and most of eleventh and twelfth grade.

>>8 "Not to mention that most schools can't afford the kind of things you're suggesting."

Then why not stop voucher schools and certain private schools from taking public funding?

>>8 "Do you understand how many extra teachers they would need to give students all those choices?"

You wouldn't really need many extra teachers since many of the teachers are already qualified to teach us more than what they are told to teach. I do understand that we would need a few teachers, perhaps, to supplement the lack of one in certain fields, but baby steps my dear. I did not say we should throw the money immediately towards it, but school systems should work on getting the students the best possible education one can get, with equal and fair oppurtunity.

>>8 "Refusing to take late work after kindergarten? What the fuck? Shit happens in life."

"After kindergarten, [b]no late work should be accepted without an excused absence.[/b]"

If something happened, then a guardian or parent should call to verify this and ask to excuse the child for the day or at least sign a note verifying such. Perhaps we can set up a system in all schools were must go to the office to turn in the note and recieve something to verify the excuse, and then the child can show the sheet to each teacher as proof of being excused for that day.

>>8 "When you force kids to learn, they don't want to learn. Take, for example, our Spanish classes. I wanted to learn Spanish, but not in Elementary school when I didn't even know English. So I, and my fellow students, have been boycotting learning Spanish until we're out of the public education system. It's not because we don't want to learn it or because we don't think it's useful; it's our stupid way of rebelling against something we were forced to do. You're suggesting we should get rid of that, but in its place, you're shoving in all these requirements that won't help anybody."

You cannot force a child to learn, and they usually will not learn if they do not want to learn.
Also... you're rebelling against something you're forced to do even though you want to do it? That's like... rebelling against something that you're forced to do even though you want to do what you're being forced to do. That's... fatuous and self-harming/self-detrimental.

We need standards. We need to teach children. How No Children Left Behind is going about it is... just wrong. It rewards schools with high test scores, so all schools teach is what is on the test, and how to do the test, but they fail to teach the practicality or to push people forward, only rewarding doing the bare minimal. We are learning the minimal, and we need to learn more. We need to teach children to question. We need to teach children how to find the answers. We need to give them an education.

All in all, my stance is that the Act is detrimental, and that schools should have higher standards and better educational oppurtunities. We shouldn't reward mediocrity; we should reward knowledge and intellect; we should push the laurels that we rest up now to a taller height and we should give and get the support needed for such.

The Act has the positive side for rewarding what you're supposed to know, but it's negative since, with a few bad eggs, funding could go down, and time is spent wholly on just teaching a set of skills, be they practical or not.

On a side note, I should have re-read my post and fixed a few errors. ^^; Ah well. When time is scarce, perfection is scantier. :P

I think that instead of Gaving no child left behind, we have seperate schools for the smarter kids and the other for the not as smart ones. The No Child Left behind program, in my opinion, was another screw up by Bush. But I also believe that the speed of a class will only increase marginally if we segregate people into schools based off of their intelligence.

I think that this is a huge problem to those who actually try in a class, and because some people who choose not to try and have the others being held behind because of the fact that they don't want to apply and then do things like cheat and retake tests so that they are recommended to the higher class next year. It just is a plan to increase the popularity of Bush so that he could seem like he cared about the education of children.

I am in a gifted school and i agree with splitting up the schools. But I also think it is crucial that the schools continue to be split at least until college. This is because I have some friends, including myself, who fear children from other schools. I honestly am terrified of the fact that soon I will be put with less behaved, or non focused people. I have friends from the other schools that have changed because of their surrounfdings in other schools. In fact a majority have begun to do bad things that people in my school woul'nt even consider doing. This is my personal opinion and I do not intend to hurt anyone with my words. :3

I try to do good in school, in each of my classes but its hard because it seems like i`m the only one in my class who cares about getting an education i just wish i could be put in a better school or at least a good class... but i think its fine for splitting up the schools.but that is my opinion... :\

>>13
"Students are lazy nowadays. We need to PUSH them. We can't baby them all their life. We need to push them forward in life. High schools should not have students that still do not know basic grammar, such as the difference between 'you're' and 'your.' Students can easily do algebra if we teach them it... Most students, like me, didn't really learn much in elementary school, besides for K4-5 and 2-3 grade (much of first, fourth, and fifth grade tends to be repeat of what is already supposed to be known), nearly nothing in middle school (I only learned; a few things in Social Studies sixth through seventh grade, a few vocabulary and writting startegies in eighth grade 'honors'/'advanced' English, and a bit of Algebra in the eighth), and many of the things I already knew were spat back at me for half of tenth grade and most of eleventh and twelfth grade."

Them not knowing it isn't their own fault. Schools don't stress English anymore, and technology has been dragging this generation away from the idea of proper English. In my district, we went through basic grammar in elementary school and then never went back to it. Kids who had trouble with it the first time never got a chance to learn it. We only write essays once a year. All we do is read stories, analyze other people's essays, and memorize literary terms.

It's not the students' fault. If they were given a chance, not every student would be lazy. But when you're forced to go to school to learn things you're not going to use, what are you supposed to do? Like you said, with NCLB, you learn to the test and nothing more.

Students aren't lazy; they're just not interested or inspired because the schools themselves aren't trying hard enough to get them into it. Which you may thing is why they need to give them more work, but I don't believe that is the case. In order to be inspired, it has to be catered to you. Cookie-cutter methods that restrict teachers with premade plans aren't going to inspire or motivate anybody, and they will continue to keep teachers from using the full extent of their abilities. Even if the students have options and they can choose which they want to learn, there are still more restrictions in that you're suggesting a huge graduation requirement for students.

"You wouldn't really need many extra teachers since many of the teachers are already qualified to teach us more than what they are told to teach. I do understand that we would need a few teachers, perhaps, to supplement the lack of one in certain fields, but baby steps my dear. I did not say we should throw the money immediately towards it, but school systems should work on getting the students the best possible education one can get, with equal and fair oppurtunity."

Even if they are taught to each more than they do teach, it doesn't mean that they can be in so many different places at once. The sheer number of options and classes that you are suggesting would not allow the current number of teachers in any school I have been to, to teach them. Our own school would need more classrooms; we can barely handle the classes and students we have, nevermind with so many extra class options. And I know it's not just my school. Any small school in a district that either doesn't have much money or isn't putting much money towards that school would have a hell of a problem.

"If something happened, then a guardian or parent should call to verify this and ask to excuse the child for the day or at least sign a note verifying such. Perhaps we can set up a system in all schools were must go to the office to turn in the note and recieve something to verify the excuse, and then the child can show the sheet to each teacher as proof of being excused for that day."

You don't have to be absent to have a situation where you can't hand your work in. All you're doing is suggesting a stressful environment. I, personally, feel that school needs to be more laid-back on both teachers and students. We have opposite view points in that regard - you feel schools should be strict and stressful to ensure physical success, but I feel schools should be catered and comfortable to ensure emotional success.

"You cannot force a child to learn, and they usually will not learn if they do not want to learn.

"Also... you're rebelling against something you're forced to do even though you want to do it? That's like... rebelling against something that you're forced to do even though you want to do what you're being forced to do. That's... fatuous and self-harming/self-detrimental."

I agree that it's fairly stupid, but it's how the teenage mind works, whether we like it or not. Instead of being in denial about it or complaining about how that's a bad mindset and trying to force kids to change to fit into your own plans, it's better to accept that and twist your plans to work for them. The government is already forcing us to go to school; the least they could do is try to make it enjoyable and helpful. School is just stressful and detrimental to children's emotional health right now, and they are not learning anything by being taught-to-the-test.

"We need standards. We need to teach children. How No Children Left Behind is going about it is... just wrong. It rewards schools with high test scores, so all schools teach is what is on the test, and how to do the test, but they fail to teach the practicality or to push people forward, only rewarding doing the bare minimal. We are learning the minimal, and we need to learn more. We need to teach children to question. We need to teach children how to find the answers. We need to give them an education."

They need to learn more, yes, but they also need to be in an environment that isn't raising the teen suicide rate any further.

We agree that the Act has issues, but our ideas of what should be done in its place are perfect opposites.

you may think*

Also, whoops ^^' Missed this.

"Then why not stop voucher schools and certain private schools from taking public funding?"

I'm sorry, but I doubt that is going to be happening anytime soon. Instead of hoping for the unlikely and assuming things will change, isn't it better to fix what we can to what we have? It's fine to be hopeful, but you have to be realistic when talking about these kinds of changes.

>>19 "I'm sorry, but I doubt that is going to be happening anytime soon. Instead of hoping for the unlikely and assuming things will change, isn't it better to fix what we can to what we have? It's fine to be hopeful, but you have to be realistic when talking about these kinds of changes."

Then why not try to change something that should be changed?

>>18 "It's not the students' fault. If they were given a chance, not every student would be lazy. But when you're forced to go to school to learn things you're not going to use, what are you supposed to do?"

Students should make an active effort to learn the things they are supposed to know, but I also sympathize with the students not knowing something that was barely taught to them. Schools should also teach things that children should know.

>>20

"Schools should also teach things that children should know."

Such as what, exactly? Test scores and learning trivial things that you don't ever plan on applying is meaningless.

In my experience the only driving force is the motivation to continue forward in order to make a better future for yourself while still in school. What that motivation is is subjective, and having an environment where you're supposed to learn things that you may not plan on applying in your day to day life is more or less counter-productive. Why learn something you're not motivated to learn and you'll think is a chore? English IV, Algebra II, and History should be the requirement for communication purposes, but otherwise the student should be free to choose what they learn. Or, in the case of drop-outs, the school as a whole should be unaffected, as a large quantity of kids drop out every year.

I agree with Barabi that every student should be paced where they are most comfortable learning.

>>13 Your plan here isn't very practical in conjunction with attempting change. Isn't this a variation of the very act you think we should change?

>>21 Also, Government and Econ should be mandatory. Aside from English and Math, those were the two most single important classes our school required. You need to know how your damn government works.

They also need to teach you more practical things such as how to do your taxes. My school didn't so shit about that, and I still have no fucking clue how to do my taxes. That's some essential shit.

>>20 "Then why not try to change something that should be changed?"

You're missing my point. We do need to change it, but we shouldn't center what we consider our current changes around changes that would take much longer. It's like starting to make a grilled cheese sandwich before you've even gone out and bought the cheese. You have to do things in order of what is most likely. There are already a lot of questions within the government about NCLB, and even Obama has criticized it, so it will no doubt be revised at least a small bit in next few years. It will also be revised more in time. It will take a while for ANYTHING of either sort to be done, but I doubt it would take as much time for minor revisions/the revocation of the NCLB to come into effect as it would to get the government to stop funding private schools significantly less.

Instead of thinking what you're going to do once that happens, think about what can realistically be done in the next decade or two.

"Students should make an active effort to learn the things they are supposed to know, but I also sympathize with the students not knowing something that was barely taught to them. Schools should also teach things that children should know."

Should and will are two different things, and that has to be taken into considerations. If the, "things they need to know," aren't exciting or interesting (or if these "things" are shoved down their throats), few are going to bother thinking they're important. I agree that schools should teach things that students should know, but what exactly should they know? IMO, all they really need to get out of school is: English, Math, and Communication/Public Speaking. The other subjects are trivial and are dependent on the job you choose later on in life. But most people go to school for their odd jobs, and those schools they go to teach them much more than they are going to learn from public schools whether the topics were brought in or not.

>>21 I didn't say to learn trivial things.

>>21 >>22 Honestly, I think that:
English I-IV(or I-III or I-II, depending on what's being taught at what levels)
Sociology and Psychology
Economy
Government
Alg. I + II (and maybe some Geo)
Philosophy
Health (Social, emotional, (maybe) spiritual, intellectual, and physical wellness (phys. including sex ed.).)

This should be the mandatory. And the ability read at a college level or slightly below should be mandatory, too. Something along these guidelines should do, but I do stick to my higher standards of >>7.

>>23 Then we should work on all changes as quickly as possible.

Also, I think English, Reading (I'm stressing reading, 'cuz too many people can't fucking say basic words), and Alg. I+II, but there should be more to it than just that. Hell, I could graduate junior year if that was all we needed (granted, I only did English I-II so far, but my school has Eng. III-IV as repeats of the first two years).

>16
Don't worry too much about it. I've gone from a gifted, high standard middle school to a high school with a half-illiterate graduating class. If you watch out for yourself and keep your head down no one will bother you. The most important thing is something my dad told me, "Don't let school get in the way of your education." Do independent research on things that interest you, and grade your own papers depending on how well you think you did. I've gotten As from shit quality, and Fs on my best work.

>>22

Knew I was forgetting something. Yeah, that's important to, though people seem to forget how the government works over time.

When I was living in Japan (on a military base from K-3), I had a principal who thought that kids shouldn't be split up for anything. He thought special-ed kids should be put in with the normal population, including ESL students who knew zero English, and that putting some students in gifted classes would make the rest of the kids feel bad. In 3rd grade my class was behind every other 3rd grade class because we had one kid who required special attention. He would act up in class and the teacher would have to spend so much extra time on him that the rest of the class suffered. It wasn't helping him, it was hurting everyone in that class, including him.

Everyone is not created equal, some people need extra help and some can excel if given the chance. Unfortunately, those chances can't be given if every child is treated the same. Also, standardized tests are some of the stupidest things ever created. If they compared students to themselves to show that students were improving from year to year that would be one thing, but instead they compare student A to student B. There are so many factors that could affect these scores that they can't be considered accurate measures of improvement. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Oh, and No Child Left Behind started before Bush became President. It started in Texas while he was Governor. Guess which state doesn't use NCLB any more.

Alright, being a "child" myself (Haven't even started high school) I think that this "No Child Left Behind" program is complete bullshit.

Being one of the "smarter" students at my relatively poor school, I hated how a couple of students who really didn't care about their work would always be forced to join with our "advanced" group because there were no teachers to teach them, so the learning pace is slowed down for us. I mean, I would be just as mad as the kids who were forced to join us because of all that frustration of having to catch up.

>>7
Even after being at the top of my classes, I still feel pretty stupid. I don't even know half the stuff that you post up there, and you say it's should be MANDATORY that children and teenagers learn all this. I blame this on the [corrupt] schooling system. I feel so angry and disappointed in myself and the whole teaching system because I feel that I SHOULD KNOW MORE. Though I agree that this is just way too much, for a person that live in one of the worst states in schooling in the US, I feel envy to those who CAN have a good and better education than I do.

^
Because Master felt the need to make a Part Two with an OP that isn't all that much better when we're only at thirty posts here with enough debate already.

My teacher actually had a conversation about this in class. I think that every kid should be allowed to learn at their own pace and in their own way. Today's education system is way outdated and it only benefits those who are best suited for it. I'm really glad to hear that other people agree with this~

This dude, Sir Ken Robinson, had the same opinion and he made a good rant about it if anyone's interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

>>31 I checked out that video, and it's basically a less/more detailed version of what I was talking about. That guy has some great points. It's definitely worth checking out the entirety of.

>>1 That's understandable, I can really see how that can be unfair that it's taking away from the growth of the already advanced.. But on the flip side it could give a second chance to those who are unable, but willing to strive in this system. Maybe they should have a system do decide who get's left behind because their too lazy to get the work done and who get's to go on because of a genuine heated and full effort to excel while having a heavy lack of education to understand the lessons or assignments because of some situation or something... maybe they're in the ghetto and have to miss classes to take care of their family or something...

Anyway, I think it really is unfair that could push forward kids who have no intent to go on and are just being passed along when they really don't deserve it, and the ones that can fully offer because of the education that they could have had stay behind and lack due to some lazy kid who can't get his act together.

^