About this blog Subscribe to this blog

Pandering To Voters: Gas Tax Vs. Ending NCLB

Gas_prices Which is the bigger pander -- promising to "end" NCLB or pushing for a summer holiday from the federal gas tax?  Ending NCLB, I'd say.  They're both hugely empty promises, cynical ploys to win votes.  They're both unlikely to be done in ways that would create substantial relief for educators or motorists.  They're punch lines.  But promising to "bag" NCLB (as Bill Clinton is quoted in today's New York Times) is like calling for a complete reversal in the nation's energy policy.  The press is making a giant deal over the gas tax proposal, which is a relatively minor thing.  What about examining the realities of "ending" NCLB?  I think that it would soon be clear that there's little behind the candidates' rhetoric on this front, and no clear consensus among experts and parents that ending NCLB is the way to go. 

Comments

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f8c25c9883400e55211df438833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pandering To Voters: Gas Tax Vs. Ending NCLB:

Permalink

Permalink URL for this entry:
https://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2008/05/pandering-to-vo.html

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

How would either pander compare with the statement about "no clear consensus among experts and parents that ending NCLB is the way to go."

"Ending NCLB" is shorthand for ending the NCLB-type of accountability.

In that case there is a growing consensus that NCLB has failed, at least there is if we are talking about helping poor children. If we're just talking tough and trying to settle scores, there may not be a consensus about the politics of NCLB.

As long as people argue on the blogs that AYP is the heart of NCLB and must be retained, we will continue to fight over this.

So actually you may be inventing something of a reverse pander, using a simple phrase to keep arguments going.


A comment with a little bit of venting.

The mantra of the NCLB Act that reauthorized the terms of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, appears to
always be taken out of context.

No real consequences makes all the rantings about
fixing or discarding NCLB moot. Each President
that comes in every 4 years gets to make changes
( on paper) with their own legislative team.

Most paper accountings are usually not in practice.
As many States either laughed or scoffed off what they
were not required to do because real consequences
were not in place or enforced by the SEA.
The State would also create some loose ruling
to let the LEA off the hook for complying with
the terms of the NCLB Act.

The proof is in the pudding.

Take the term RESTRUCTURING, any school that is
the sixth year of this phase, which is now has
no other level to go to.

Yet for the most part, many schools have not been
informed that effective September 2008 across the
United States the school will be undergoing a
transformation of some sort.

Parents and State were to be notified in writing last year what
the school was doing to implement some sort of action to
correct what needed fixing before the school was put under
Restructuring?

Parents cannot even get information for
the present year about their school let alone what they plan
to do next year, or what they even did last year
and let me be correct, Staff is also left out of
the loop.


NCLB put in place a timely accounting of
what will be happening because
a school and the students did not make enough progress.

EXAMPLE:

After six years, If a child / student fails for one year in a classroom
setting, there are immediate consequences, period.

Why would it take a law with some new specific terms to address
a school failing it's students?

That is basically all the NCLB Act
was putting in place with a few notable
glitches about HOW it was to be done.


Funding is vital but with so many variables in funding by
State census information and some
poor districts doing more with less than
districts with money. It becomes about how one
uses the money they receive not how much they receive.


It is not rocket science what a real assessment process could
mean to children / students if real models were used to determine
whether more funds were needed in some category.

Funding failure was no longer an option under the NCLB Act
and it was long long overdue.

Funded or unfunded, accountability holds
people to the task at hand but without real
consequences. It is just a smoking mirror
to the real issue.

Are children being educated in safe healthy
learning environments? And if not what
has been put in place by practice and not
on paper.

Are Professional Development Sessions
which were very well funded reflecting they
were successful? What stats does one have
to reflect the sessions were successful
by practices, that other educators could adopt.
with clear concise methodologies for what
can be done versus what should never be done.

The Heart of the NCLB is not AYP,
it never was. One would expect
a school to make progress, how much
is what the NCLB Act was encouraging.
What could be wrong with having that
type of standard?

You expect the children to perform or be failed,
Now what do we expect from the adults held
responsible for educating children and what
we will now call it since the cute name did not
work??

Thanks for the moments,

I welcome
intelligent ( not political ) feedback as
correction is always the best part of
growth.

O. Lewis
Illinois Resident

The comments to this entry are closed.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in This Week In Education are strictly those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Scholastic, Inc.