No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Bottom

[packsaddle]

A thorough answer to that question could fill a book. But the briefest answer I can give is that, it isn't. Education, in some sense, is an individual function that is free to be embraced or rejected by every family and child, in spite of compulsory education laws. In my view education is the responsibility that families have for their children. I am of the view that uneducated persons are not competent to decide what constitutes education and that is why adults are the ones who impose it on children. Likewise, adults as a society do this for several reasons: duty to family, love, and self-interest.

 

There is no aspect of society that benefits from ignorance and so we have decided that even those without the personal means must be provided basic educational opportunities. The future of the society depends on it. Such a public purpose can be accomplished in many ways and we are free to turn away from public schools to private ones. But as a society we do see the importance of providing this opportunity to all children and we have chosen to employ existing government structures to provide the means to this end. Enter politics and, inevitably, all the comments that are exemplified by this thread.

It is an evolving process, constantly identifying the changing goals and then modifying the means to achieve them.

That's my view, at least.

[hot_foot_eagle]

Packsaddle's comment about uneducated persons not being competent to decide what constitutes education is spot-on. I believe it applies to some adults in our society as much as it does children.

 

Education, like police and fire protection, sanitation, etc. is a public good, and consequently a government function. Successful learning is an individual endeavor, though.

 

As a society we have come to expect that equal opportunity also means equally guaranteed success. That's just not the case, and we (as a society, at least) have yet to come to terms with that.

 

We need to determine what constitutes a completed elementary school education, high school education, etc. and hold to that standard. Hold the individual responsible if he/she doesn't meet the standard, not the schools.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Hot-foot-eagle, I couldn't agree more regarding your comment about some adults. It brought to mind an observation I made a almost two years ago. I was attending a meeting of a committee for my state, one that is charged with providing approval of educational standards. The committee members were chosen through a strictly political process and are mostly members of the legislature. There are no professional educators or academics on it.

Accordingly they are quite varied in their experience and outlook, as varied as the population. I heard one member observe, during discussion of science standards, "The Bible is all the textbook we need." Later, this individual and others made admissions that they didn't know the definition of science and some other fairly basic concepts. I was present as were at least two dozen professional scientists. The committee members knew we were there and declined to allow us to speak. Fortunately their attempt to scuttle the state educational standards did not carry the day...for now. Like I said, it is an evolving process, they have not by any means given up but, rather, have evolved by promoting their agenda through different, modified approaches.

Those states whose standards have been 'dumbed down' may have similar stories...the people either lacked sufficient vigilance or else they supported the 'dumbing down'. It would be interesting to hear those individual accounts.

[Beavah]

Yah, but there's an additional problem, eh?

 

At the time the NCLB law was written, not a single public school district anywhere could meet the requirements that every school district is supposed to meet by 2014.

 

In fact, there's still not a single district that meets the requirements.

 

Seems like before mandating an outcome for everybody, it would be nice to have one successful "proof of concept."

 

So the law created a situation where by 2014, every district, even packsaddles, will be designated "failing." In the end, either the law will change or the states will have to dumb down the tests.

 

Politicians pretendin' to be educators, no question. Pretty much the same result as politicians pretendin' to be diplomats or scientists or generals.

 

Beavah

[acco40]

At my workplace (or as Bobwhite would have me write, the place that I work) the big push is "process" and "metrics" for everything. Forget the fact that we are an engineering house and each of us do different things. So metrics are forced upon us and guess what, now individuals focus on meeting those metrics and not doing "a good job." Is anyone surprise that the same occurs with NCLB? How are educators measured? Standardized tests? Well, guess where they are going to put their emphasis.

 

Another facet of NCLB is the push for academics. In our country, a college education is needed for most to make up for our lacking secondary education. But is a college/university really for everyone? What does a bright kid who wants to be a machinist, mechanic, etc. pursue in his education?

[TheScout]

Acco40,

 

Great point! As a rather recent graduate of the American high school system, you correctly point out that options other than college are totally ignored. The whole time I spent in high school I did not here one mention of the ability to go into the trades or the military, which are all respectable careers, from the counselors or any other school personnel. All one hears is that you have to go to college.

[OldGreyEagle]

Got into a long protracted discussion with the principal of the local catholic high school awhile back. He had spoken during Sunday Mass about Catholic Education and how valuable it was. He had reams of statistics about how many of that years seniors were already accepted into College, a pretty good number as I seem to remember, what the average SAT scores were, how many of recent alumni had gone on to achieve graduate degrees. he concluded by saying he was staying after mass to answer questions.

 

I stayed afterwards. I asked him what sort of technical/vocational programs they had. He responded he didnt have any, the focus was on college preparatory work and again began to repeat his statistics on percentage of college graduates after 4 years. After he was done, I asked him a question which he had no answer, I asked him if he realized Jesus could not have learned carpentry at his school.

[packsaddle]

Beavah, you're right of course. But does anyone really believe that NCLB will still mean much a few seconds after Bush is gone? If we stay focused ourselves on what is really important, as Brent implied earlier, BS legislation can come and go but we'll still have the results we demand.

Acco40, right again. The technical skills you mention are of critical importance and there's a good living to be had employing them as well. Once the scientists and engineers have invented the technology of tomorrow, it will still require thoughtful and highly trained persons (who care about what they do) to make those inventions work for us. The 'institution that I serve' has a parallel program with a local tech school where persons can easily 'bridge' from one to the other, in either direction, course credit intact. This seamless relationship actually strengthens both institutions. We're not unique either. This kind of thing is happening in numerous instances across the nation so it's not quite as dire as it might seem.

OGE, heh, heh, so....what did cross-examination of your priest cost you?

[SSScout]

""The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.""

 

 

John W. Garner, Forbes Thought page Aug 1, 1977 from The Official Rules by Paul Dickson

 

 

[Hunt]

I think it's interesting that Ed mentioned NCLB and zero tolerance together--to me, they both demonstrate a very difficult tension in education (and many other settings): namely, how much discretion to give the people who have to deliver the "program." Zero tolerance and NCLB are both in part a response to many, many situations in which the program deliverers couldn't be trusted with discretion and did a lousy job. The problem, of course, is that these initiatives tie the hands of people who can be trusted with discretion and would do a better job without the limitations. I mean, you'll probably never get spoiled food in a McDonalds, but you'll never get a gourmet meal either.

[tcherven]

This is an interesting discussion.

 

When I read LongHaul's post, both my sons fit, as well as one of my nephews. (My nephew dropped out of High School, and later earned his GED - finished the GED test in less than 1/2 the time considered normal and scored 100%.)

 

I'm fortunate that my school district has Gifted/Talented services, thought at most schools, it is one hour one day a week. In addition to having the Gifted/Talented services, however, the district also has a Gifted/Talented School. This is a public school and I don't need to pay anything extra for my older son to go to it. Unfortunately, my younger son didn't score high enough on the test to get in, but we're going to have him retested. I don't think he did as well as he could have (neither does my wife).

 

NCLB is a good concept, I don't think it has been presented well or completely thought through. It's an area I haven't spent too much time learning about, though I probably should.

 

I know I expect my children to do as well as they can in school and to do their best with their homework at home. As mentioned before, parental involvement is needed. Both my wife and I are involved with our children's education, getting to know the teachers, staying in touch, and volunteering for school events. I'm fortunate that both of the schools my sons attend have many other involved parents. It really makes a difference.