There you go again. "Researched Extensively"
So you have researched NCLB extensively. Perhaps you could explain how NCLB is failing. From a statistical standpoint is it failing because the School interoperability framework is flawed or is the Performance based data management initiative flawed.
Here is one example of extensive research: (I wrote this in another forum)
No federal standards are set as to what defines a low-income student etc. etc. It is up to the state to define a standard. NCLB measures lower income students through a quartile of the state defined measure of low-income students. Here is where the many gaps increase. Most states will define a low-income student as a student who has free or reduced lunch. The process for receiving free and reduced lunch consists of signing a piece of paper that states you are poor and your child needs free or reduced lunch. At no point is actual income measured. This means corrupt low-income student data at the school, district, and state level.
If an elementary school is divided into sub-populations that could potentially be populations ranging from 30 to 1 then from a standpoint of confidentiality (FERPA), sub-populations less than 11 will not be reported. I guarantee that this will result in larger populations being padded by smaller sub-populations, which will corrupt the data (children being left behind).
Really this means that the low-income children will not be held to low standards. They will not be held to any standards.
Like any act that makes very little sense the only winners are the sub-contractors. They are cashing in on poorly researched legislation. The focal point of NCLB is reading. Reading fluency is something that cannot be taught in school. It is a fact that Reading fluency must be gained in the home. How is it possible that we hold teachers to a standard that is impossible without parental support.
I think that there is a need for an NCLB like act. The fact that we need this kind of regulated control over education is a reflection of the crumbling of our society. We no longer expect parents to teach their own children the basis for learning so we attempt to hold the teacher accountable for a poor learning environment at home.
NCLB is designed to measure from the school level up. If what you say is true then NCLB is targeting individual children and is violating FERPA standards. This is possible since NCLB attempts to measure every subpopulation without standards for accuracy, confidence level, etc. etc. What does this mean to you? From a local government standpoint: For instructional purposes only Let's say that Your child's school has failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress due to an achievement failure in one subpopulation. This subpopulation can easily be just one child. Your child can be identified as the sole cause for the school's failure, which could result in a district failure to meet AYP. Your child's subpopulation is reported to the federal government and posted on a website publicly. Now let's pretend that your child is the only black male child in grade 3 in the school (easy to meet those subpopulation requirements isn't it). On a website for all of the state and all of the world to see it states that a black male child in grade three in that school is measured at below basic achievement level. Your child is now linked to the school failing publicly. This is how NCLB violates FERPA. Now let's pretend the state foresees this problem and NCLB is taken with a dose of salt. Larger populations are padded with subpopulations and Walla your child is left behind.
NCLB does not work.
Now what does your research show?
Author
Topic: Well Done America (Read 476 times)