No Child Left Behind Act
By bargaingirl
@bargaingirl (843)
United States
5 responses
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
17 Oct 07
There's a difference between not advancing/leaving behind & forgetting about, the Act dosn't discern the difference. My daughter probably should have been held back. Her basic reading skills aren't up to her present grade level & she's pretty much floundering. She's being pulled out for resourse to help her but without the reading skills her other subjects suffer. Even with all the help from us, her tutor & the resourse teacher her grades are pathetic. Personally I think she should be allowed to fail so she has time to develop the skills she needs before the next grade. I doubt that will happen though.
1 person likes this
@bargaingirl (843)
• United States
19 Oct 07
That's so wrong, it will hurt your daughter in the long run! Poor kid. I bet it will become frustrating if she gets further behind... At least you recognize this though, so as a parent you can acknowledge it and hopefully help. Good luck!
@uath13 (8192)
• United States
19 Oct 07
Continually advancing them when their not up to the grade level is even worse. At least by holding her back she'd get to go over the fundamentals again & have time to gain more maturity. If they continue to do this she'll fall further & further behind because she can't keep up with the other kids.
How can you expect someone to learn an advanced skill when they haven't even gotten a grasp on the basic yet? Thats like trying to teach someone how to build a house when they don't even know what a hammer & saw is or how to use them yet.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Oct 07
Nothing the Federal Government does is good for K-12 education. It is unconstitutional and wasteful. Primary Education is a local issue and should always stay that way.
1 person likes this

@bargaingirl (843)
• United States
19 Oct 07
Yes I agree. Not to mention that education is so terribly underfunded...

@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
18 Oct 07
The No Child Left Behind Act was an attempt by newly Elected President Bush to work with Senator Kennedy and the Democratics and a major peice of legistation they want to get passed. If I remember President Bush's remarks on the bill were that he wanted accountable for the money spent by the Federal Government and he wanted every child covered not just low income children.
Most education groups supported the Act until they found out they would have to show progress or face losing Federal Money. Once the bureaucrats got a hold of the Law and developed the rules and regulations it became the cumbersum Act we have now. As problems come up the bureaucraicy has to justify their existance so they keep changing the rules and regulations and every year. This way they have a career in a large Government Department that has lots of room for promotions. that is the name ofthe game.
1 person likes this
@soccermom (3198)
• United States
17 Oct 07
Most teachers think this wasn't worth the paper it was written on. I have spoken to several teachers who have told me this was worthless. And the sad part is (where I live anyway) that monetary aid for schools depends on how these kids perform, so there are a lot of kids who are getting passed when they shouldn't, they are being "prepped" for standardized tests, and in some cases are given the answers just so the schools don't end up on a watch list. Teachers aren't allowed to teach, and have to adhere to a strict schedule of lesson plans even if the students aren't ready to move on.
@bargaingirl (843)
• United States
19 Oct 07
Yes now the teachers are teaching to test. It strips a lot of creative freedom out of the schools. Fortunately though some of my education professors are helping us figure out how to get the information to the students in a fun manner. Still it is frustrating.
@gradyslady (4054)
• United States
17 Oct 07
I hate it too, back in high school a few years ago, we talked about how it's not helping children at all, it's helping them fail more.
1 person likes this






