Thread: No Child Left Behind Is NOT Good.

oneironaught, swing and a miss![/INDENT]



ps. i wasn't adding to the thread, or anyhting about privitising education, I was mocking conservativism and being cynical about america's low ranking of public education.

Originally Posted by shark!

oneironaught, swing and a miss![/indent]


ps. i wasn't adding to the thread, or anyhting about privitising education, I was mocking conservativism and being cynical about america's low ranking of public education.

We have a trash element that screws up the averages in places where it exists.

Our private schools are awesome. Do you know why? It's because they are PRIVATE and not under the stagnant control of government socialist style patheticism. Competition works miracles. That is the secret behind capitalism.

Oneironaught, the fact is we have lot's of subsidized things, like Police, Firemen, the military, prisons... no matter how much you argue it Free Market is not a universal principle. In certain aspects the private sector has helped us rise to the top as a nation, but in other areas I feel like money should not be the bottom line. Health should be the bottom line of Healthcare, and yet HMOs screw as many people as they can in order to save money. Learning should be the bottom line of education but test scores do not record the progress of learning, there are countless studies to prove that.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Oneironaught, the fact is we have lot's of subsidized things, like Police, Firemen, the military, prisons... no matter how much you argue it Free Market is not a universal principle. In certain aspects the private sector has helped us rise to the top as a nation, but in other areas I feel like money should not be the bottom line. Health should be the bottom line of Healthcare, and yet HMOs screw as many people as they can in order to save money. Learning should be the bottom line of education but test scores do not record the progress of learning, there are countless studies to prove that.

I understand what you're saying in that some things should be government controlled. I actually believe that most schools should be public as well. My point is that - when money acts as an incentive for schools to be in top form - more schools are at the top of their game.

We don't need competing Police depts.; that's not wise. That's only asking for trouble. Same goes for the prisons, fire depts., etc... But you can't compare upholding law and order with education. They aren't in the same class.

My only point was that the free market is not a universal law to follow in this country. And I agree money is an incentive to put out the best product but standardized tests do not rate the best schools. All schools need to be public, it's the teachers, not the schools, that should be competing to be the best. Private schools widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is an indicator of a society in decline.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

My only point was that the free market is not a universal law to follow in this country. And I agree money is an incentive to put out the best product but standardized tests do not rate the best schools. All schools need to be public, it's the teachers, not the schools, that should be competing to be the best. Private schools widen the gap between the rich and the poor, which is an indicator of a society in decline.

Private schools widen the gap between the rich and poor only because they excell the rich. I want the poor to excell too. The success of our private schools is proof that financial competition makes schools work better than they do without it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Private schools widen the gap between the rich and poor only because they excell the rich. I want the poor to excell too. The success of our private schools is proof that financial competition makes schools work better than they do without it.

My private school cost $12,500 a year. I think this may be the reason for its excellence.

But, then again, if we put the public school taxes pack into the pockets of the tax payers, they could afford to pay tuition.

That brings up a good question. How much of a tax payer's money goes to public schooling yearly?

Correct me if I'm reading into this too much but it seems like you guys see a choice between total free market and communism.

Certain democratic candidates are pro-big government (in fact most of them) which means a strong centralized government. However, they suck.

A strong centralized government is not what our schools should rely on, nor should they rely on private schools to leave students out of the loop (or have them at all because they're unfair). The local government should be in charge of our schools, duh. Money should be given to schools based on student populace, and if the rich kids were going, too, parents could donate money.

What you're saying is schools need competition to be better, I understand that completely, but like I was saying you can't judge learning with standardized tests so until you come up with a real method to judge how much students are learning that point is pretty worthless.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

My private school cost $12,500 a year. I think this may be the reason for its excellence.

But, then again, if we put the public school taxes pack into the pockets of the tax payers, they could afford to pay tuition.

That brings up a good question. How much of a tax payer's money goes to public schooling yearly?

I was going to ask just that. I'm pretty sure it isn't some high number like 12,500. While I think a private "component" to schools is fine, full privatization leads to the ridiculous tuition fee you quoted. I went to high school in Montreal. It was a private school, but still partially funded by government. There was a clear distinction between my school and what some public schools I've seen look like. My yearly tuition was about 10% of the number you quoted, and I don't think the quality was all that bad.

Originally Posted by Replicon

I was going to ask just that. I'm pretty sure it isn't some high number like 12,500. While I think a private "component" to schools is fine, full privatization leads to the ridiculous tuition fee you quoted. I went to high school in Montreal. It was a private school, but still partially funded by government. There was a clear distinction between my school and what some public schools I've seen look like. My yearly tuition was about 10% of the number you quoted, and I don't think the quality was all that bad.

Now, I'll admit I haven't thought the following idea through thoroughly so there may be holes:

I think there should be a balance between "private" and "public", meaning that taxes pay for it but it's run by private entities with government oversight. After all, most taxes are spent to private businesses in the end.

I believe in the voucher system I talked about, not the complete privatization of all schools, at least at this point in time. We can hopefully evolve into complete privatization, but I don't think we should suddenly dive into it. $12,500 a year is a whole lot to pay per year to go to a private school. Not all private schools will be as good as one that charges that, but they will all be better than the lowest level of government schools we have right now. And we can give government funds to people who truly can't afford to go anywhere with their parents' money or their own.

My private school was extremely high end, though. And yea, 12 5 is a hefty check. Now that I think about it, I really don't remember what was so great about it. Fancy looking buildings was about it.

I think competition within individual schools would be a a great solution. Real, tangible benefits students see for good grades and good behavior.

Why must I continue to digress...

How are schools supposed to compete when there's no way to measure how effective they are?

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Why must I continue to digress...

How are schools supposed to compete when there's no way to measure how effective they are?

I went to a private school, and I know first hand that everybody in the private school community knows the heirarchy. That knowledge has to do with PSAT and ACT scores, plus how the graduates turn out in the work world. When a school relatively sucks, it becomes the butt of jokes. When a school kicks the most ass, that school charges the most tuition and the richest people send their kids there. So the better a school does, the more money they make. That knowledge has the administrators and/or shareholders working hard to make sure the schools are run as well as they can be run.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Why must I continue to digress...

How are schools supposed to compete when there's no way to measure how effective they are?

Thats why I propose competition within individual schools, not between schools. That would take care of the extremely poor grades and extremely bad disciplinary problems with schools. But, that doesnt take care of funding.

We didn't have the ACT/SAT/TLA as a mandatory thing in Canada, and in Montreal, I went to cegep after high school, from which you go to university. I asked the advisor about the lack of standard gov't testing. "If you're in a better school where an 85 is worth way more than a 95 in a shitty school, how do they do admissions based on marks", I asked. The answer I got involved some kind of gut feeling. Like, there's no formal way to do it, but really, the universities know the schools that get applicants, just based on long-term results. She said something like, "I know the brochure said you need a 90-95 average to get in, but they know us pretty well, and the 80-85 range is quite sufficient."

Also, as part of the application process, I had to write an essay about why I wanted to join, which also probably played a big part on how I got in. That, and reference letters.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I went to a private school, and I know first hand that everybody in the private school community knows the heirarchy. That knowledge has to do with PSAT and ACT scores, plus how the graduates turn out in the work world. When a school relatively sucks, it becomes the butt of jokes. When a school kicks the most ass, that school charges the most tuition and the richest people send their kids there. So the better a school does, the more money they make. That knowledge has the administrators and/or shareholders working hard to make sure the schools are run as well as they can be run.

PSAT and ACT scores do not measure the learning taking place, only how well the teacher taught the test itself. There's a lot more useful ways to learn than just memorizing facts.

And half/dreaming, here's the best way to fund schools: Have all schools funded by their community's local taxes. That way each community is responsible for its own school. Oh yeah and private schools can't be allowed for this to work.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

PSAT and ACT scores do not measure the learning taking place, only how well the teacher taught the test itself. There's a lot more useful ways to learn than just memorizing facts.

Why do you think that? There is a ton of stuff you have to know to do well on those standarsized tests. It's not something that can be taught in a few weeks. It takes years of being in school to do well on them. The prep courses are mainly for learning test taking strategies and getting a helpful but not comprehensive overview of what students have already covered. There is a very high correlation between a school's ranking and the career successes of its graduates. Jackson Academy (private) does not have better standardized test turnout than Murrah High School (public) because they teach a better prep course. It's a much better school. That is known by the Northeast Jackson public.

Just because it takes time to prepare doesn't mean it's an adequate comparitive between schools. You're judging their prep courses, basically, when there is so much more to learning, and not only that but individual differences with a student's ability to demonstrate what they know vary as well.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Just because it takes time to prepare doesn't mean it's an adequate comparitive between schools. You're judging their prep courses, basically, when there is so much more to learning, and not only that but individual differences with a student's ability to demonstrate what they know vary as well.

I'm saying that standardized test scores reflect way more than differences in prep courses. Murrah (public) students could take Jackson Academy's prep course and vice-versa and Jackson Academy's scores will still be far better than Murrah's. It's because of the differences in years and years of learning. And like I said, career success is another indicator. There are reasons people who could send their kids to Murrah or whatever public school is in their region for free will pay $12,000 a year to send their kids to Jackson Academy or Jackson Prep or less money to send them to another private school in the area. It is knowable what schools are better than others. Do you really not have a sense of what schools are better than others in your area? Do you think there is no way to know?

That sounds a little judgmental to be honest. When I look at the schools in my area when I was in High School, I have to say that it's really only the teacher that makes the difference. As far as the schools go, it was really a matter of money and how well spent it is that made general differences. Like Marin Academy had the most money per student, and spent the most time preparing students for Standardized Tests so they looked much better on paper, thus driving up their tuition rates.

it really doesnt make much sense putting severley mentally handicapped people on the same level as normal students. there are a lot of tax dollars being spent on them and i dont mean to be offensive but, what kind of future do they really have ahead of them?

From what I see of the No Child left behind Act and its implementation in the local public school district, all it is is a method of dumbing down the people, and holding back those who do have the ability to achieve more.

It seems to be tied to money, I dont know for sure as the district refuses to provide firm answers. Seems after it was passed there were several learnig programs added to after school and summer time for students who were falling behind. My opinion( due to lack of answers) is that the school gets funding based on the numbers of students in thses programs. I note that recruitment efforts to put kids into these programs is contunually rising.
Another notation is that kids do not fail in school anymore. They might get D's and F's all through the year but at the end they always mysteriously just barely pass ( whether they know anything or not) .
Furthermore, I know of one family that was told that of ther child di not go to these auxillary classes their child would not pass. This went on for 3- 4 years, Finally they just said no to putting their kid in these programs. They didnt fail the kid, they just skated him on to the next grade with a mysteriously just passing grade in the last quarter of the school year.

All evidence here suggests the act is just a racket with no real basis in concern for education.