This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I was under the impression that "100% compliance" had been officially redefined so that it wasn't 100%. Specifically, this regulation appears to exempt the bottom 1% of students (which pretty much means anyone with significant intellectual disabilities, but none of the kids with mild dyslexia). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Edburke317 ( talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Actually, the answer to whether ALL students must be tested is, "No," and it is found in current footnotes #s 48 and 49 in the main article. The statutory reference is IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), Sec. 612(a)(16) et ff. Hope this helps! EdBurke317Edburke317 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edburke317" 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Somebody knows if a child from private school can attend ESL program in the public, since we pay same taxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.88.123 ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The citation to the following quote -- "schools have been shown to exclude minorities or other groups (to enhance apparent school performance; as many as 2 million students)" -- has expired and needs to be updated or should be deleted. I searched Internet Archive and google and only found wiki-related citations to it, not the full text. Jd147703 ( talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have created an archive of the old discussions. I have copied back to this page all recent conversations. In case anyone needs to know in the future, I used the Move Page method. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The recently added information about kids with ADHD and testing is so misleading as to be wrong. Kids with these issues are always entitled to an appropriate testing arrangement. It's routinely specified in IEPs. The results may not be as accurate (in either situation: the ADD kid in the standard setting or in an accomodated setting) for these kids, but the writers of the standardized tests don't (and, in practice, can't) ban variations on the setting any more than they can ban a reader for a blind child. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That example is an improvement, although I note that the NEA press release (and every other reference) carefully omits a date, a place, or any other identifying information, so that no one can find out whether this was a simple error that was immediately corrected, or whether "did not specifically allow for test readers" actually meant "Reading the test aloud was specifically disallowed because the whole point of the test was to find out whether the student could actually read words printed (or Brailled) on a piece of paper." Turning a reading test into a listening test, but still trying to pretend that the students were reading for the purpose of statewide reports, is at least illogical and possibly unethical. (If your child could not read, would you want the school to get credit for having supposedly taught him how to read?)
Despite the NEA's assertions, it's not really the job of the test writers to create specific protocols for accommodating disabilities. In general, the rule is that even "If a specific accommodation is not on the list of accommodations in the Examiner’s Manual, the accommodation can still be used." [3] States issue lists of accommodations that are always accepted as valid, accommodations which may be valid with limits (like reading aloud: fine for math, but not usually for reading comprehension), and a method of getting approval for any accommodation that isn't on the list.
Also in Missouri's Division of Special Education manual (since its relevant to the new example) is the unusual permission to convert of the reading test into a listening test. Their list of pre-approved accomodations (table 2) includes reading the test aloud; it is valid for all students except on the reading test, and for the small subset of "children identified as Blind/Visually Impaired who use oral reading as their primary instructional method" it is considered valid even for reading, even though common sense will indicate that no reading is being done that way. Most states, however, including Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, South Dakota and Arkansas (just to name a few), allow reading aloud on everything except the reading comprehension sections, since that is a modification (making the test easier, or at least significantly different) rather than an accommodation (leveling the playing field). Also -- there just aren't that many blind students (especially if you exclude deaf-blind students, who obviously wouldn't benefit from reading out loud either). Even if none of them were learning Braille, that's still only one student in every seven hundred, which is well within the exemption rate. Dealing with these kinds of issues is why that exemption rate exists, after all.
Overall, I'm inclined to make this into a separate section, since this isn't so much a "problem with standardized testing" as a disability-specific concern. After all, a blind student isn't going to be able to read printed text even if it's a non-standardized non-test assessment. There are also NCLB-related issues that have nothing to do with testing: disabled students are learning more academic skills than they did in the past, which takes time away from life skills and job training. What do you think about that idea?
I also think that the first sentence about conflicting with IDEA is entirely inaccurate and should be removed. The student can be accommodated under IDEA, even if that invalidates the test. Validity here only matters to the extent that the school wants to get credit for the student's achievements; students can refuse to participate in the test if they are dissatisfied with the accommodations (just like they can refuse to use accommodations that they don't want). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There were twenty (20) external links here this morning. Several of them appear to be duplicates (how many links do we need to the text of the law itself?) or links to groups that are kind of about education reform, but not about NCLB in particular. How about we clean them out? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
When I looked at the list of articles and press releases listed yesterday, they seemed heavily tilted and biased in favor of the law. They were mostly releases from the Ed Secretary and the White House claiming good things. I added a critical article and a cartoon, but they were swiftly deleted by someone who evidently liked the previous balance better. I undid the deletion because I think the list is biased for the law without them. ( Questiontveracity ( talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
"Up for possible reauthorization in 2007, ..." -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I may just be missing it, but I couldn't find any place in this article which discussed who originally introduced and/or sponsored the original bill. Any help here? WDavis1911 ( talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just made some edits to address this. President Bush proposed a blueprint, the House took up the legislation first (which is why it is known as HR 1) and the Committee Chairman John Boehner and Ranking Member George Miller, then it went to the Senate (Gregg and Kennedy). I also added a link to the press release for the original blueprint. Vatwinmom ( talk) 02:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone Please ad One more part to this article (see below)
One thing I think that is a must to add, is that students quite commonly don't care to much for the test. Theres no major or frankly any incentive to do well as they don't determine college eligibility and don't determine grades in the classroom. So there purpose would not be served to students. I know some people arrived to take these tests just because our school gave a free breakfast. They didn't care about getting a 0. Then I had a very intellectual friend who told me he just filed in the dots randomly and played on his calculator (during the math section). Is that what where funding, free breakfast's and a free period to play on your calculator. Honestly I can't tell you how I could of 100% tried on this test. I certainly did not feel the same burden when taking the Sat which I knew If i screwed up could lead to many problems, now this test I just did what I did (guess based on mood). So if someone felt like taking the test (seriously taking it) then they would try (maybe even a little) on it. However if you had a major Chemistry test after this standardized test you bet that I would ignore this and actually stress over the chemistry grade. Does anybody see what I'm saying. Please incorporate this into the article. Students usually don't care about these tests, teachers sometimes even tell use that the state wants us to show up just to get aid (WOW teachers telling use to just show up). Which makes aid absolutely pointless. What are we even funding. Students showing up. Politics really need to enter a school once in a while and see what really happens. Theory is theory and its good but reality is reality and you can't just put a number dollar amount on it and expect to fix anything (or make it worse teachers telling students to just show up)
Any input would be great (but please add this to the article). It's really important because it is what is happening across the nation (probably in all 50 states) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 ( talk) 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The criticism of "some students may not learn as well" could definitely use some expansion. It fails to reflect the potential absurdity of blanket testing even amongst students who are grossly incapable of taking any sort of standardized test.
I've heard of numerous instances where students with very low functional levels were required to be tested. In several cases these were students who were unable to read the test questions. Even if appropriate modifications were made (they weren't), I also know of instances where the child's functional level was low enough that they would struggle even to repeat the questions back if they were read aloud. In some cases, I've heard of teachers struggling to get a child to put anything at all on an answer sheet.
I'm not aware of any criteria for immunity from testing, but I would be interested in knowing if any exists. Is such determination be made at a federal level as well, or does NCLB allow any sort of state or local determination? If a child lacked proper motor and verbal skills to communicate any sort of answers, does NCLB address this in any way? It's not unheard of for such students to remain in a public school environment, especially in larger districts that have the resources to institute programs specifically for them. While this may be more extreme instances than usual, what about the significant number of students for which appropriate modifications to standardized testing simply aren't possible or feasible?
I have no idea as to any citable sources in relation to this. If anyone knows any, I think it would be good to see this addressed.
Jbrownos ( talk) 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Especially in the sections "Criticisms of the Act" and Claims made in favor of the act", there are just way too many unconnected lists. "Narrow curriculum" is basically 4 unconnected sentences. They clearly have one thing in common, so why not make them into paragraphs with connectors and such? LedRush ( talk) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's a great resource which should be incorporated into the article:
Under ‘No Child’ Law, Even Solid Schools Falter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Comlish ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading through this page to get an understanding of what NCLB is, given I am not American, and noticed this under criticisms of NCLB: The comment about state education budgets is not actually a criticism in this context, as it does not say anything critical about NCLB, just that falling state tax revenue has lowered state education expenditure. In fact, this paragraph is probably better under "claims made in favour of the act" or "funding". I have moved it to be under funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 58.96.112.85
The second paragraph states that:
NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. Obviously, this method did not work.
The bold text seems very strange to me. Didn't it work? If so, why is it "obvious"? I'd say it needs a clear reference, and the "obvious" word is just POV noise, but I do not know much about NCLB. What do you think is needed to do? -- Brandizzi ( talk) 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a total interpretation: "...in order to comply with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifies that powers not granted to the federal government nor forbidden to state governments are reserved powers of the individual states." It shouldn't be stated as fact by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The list about what happens during each year that a school misses AYP was a blatant copyright violation. I have therefore deleted it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is a criticism of NCLB listed in the header instead of in the body where favorability and criticisms are listed? -- 75.82.70.58 ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Section was reverted without discussion posted. Should the benefits of NCLB also be posted in the header summary? This would be consistent. -- 75.82.70.58 ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) For example; see NCLB Found to Raise Scores Across Spectrum
Source Do exerpts from this article also belong in the header? Giving space to only a critical data in the header gives the NPOV impression that the NCLB is conclusively ineffective across the board, not just in the narrow area addressed by the citation. -- 75.82.70.58 ( talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The bias in this article against No Child Left Behind is quite distasteful. The Criticisms section is half the article. Wikipedia cheapens itself by having articles this biased. What a sad statement about the state of Wikipedia. -- 71.131.19.160 ( talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand this is a controversial subject, but how about leading the article with a discussion of the facts first, before we jump into support and criticism opinions? For example, there is a lot of talk about "standards" in all sections, but there is nothing that says what those standards are. As a template, maybe look at how the article on IEP (which is referenced here) handles it. If someone is looking for some idea about what all the bruhaha is over NCLB, they are certainly not going to get it here. I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.199.122 ( talk) 16:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like for you (whom it may concern) to consider my thuoghts on adding a writing education portion to the No Child Left Behind Act page here on Wikipedia. I would like to discuss why the addition of a topic based on how writing education under NCLB could be a positive contribution to the act itself. I have done my research and will be happy to cite my sources and welcome any input on the subject. Alex Marie ( talk) 14:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Alex Marie
So would you suggest I start a new page to discuss this? Alex Marie ( talk) 14:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Alex Marie
I looked up this article to find out what were the main provisions of the act, and all I found were assessments of its consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.9.220 ( talk) 03:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In this section the following was added:
"Teaching to the test" does not raise student test scores. Teachers who engage in it are typically below-average teachers.
however the source material referenced, a preliminary MET report funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is not peer-reviewed and all verbiage is couched in the tentative nature of the analysis presented. As such any definitive statement made based on this report is clearly a biased reading of the results as not even the authors are confident enough to make such a claim. The report does not conclude that teachers who engage in teaching to the test are typically below-average teachers. JSB73 ( talk) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Teachers unions and some education experts have argued that value-added is an unreliable measure that encourages rote learning and "teaching to the test."
But the study found that teachers whose students said they "taught to the test" were, on average, lower performers on value-added measures than their peers, not higher.
A Dec. 11 article in the LATExtra section reported that a preliminary study by education experts had found that teachers whose students said they "taught to the test" scored lower than average on value-added analysis. In fact, the study found that test preparation was positively correlated with a teacher's value-added scores, but not as strongly as other indicators, such as effective classroom management or efficient use of class time.
I have just rearranged the article so that it better complies with WP:STRUCTURE. I did not change the meanings/sentences/content of anything here (although a couple of sentences like "here's the list of common criticisms" were deleted). Most of this material still requires significant attention and improvements, but perhaps now we can do that in an integrated, topical fashion rather than as a list divided by political views.
The order of the items was determined by what required the least amount of cutting and pasting. If you want to rearrange it according to (for example) importance, please feel free. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
This lengthy section does nothing to explain how NCLB might be affecting racial segregation until the last three sentences, which although they sound reasonable point to a source dated from 1996. This is a call for anyone who wants to keep this section to add in some journals or quotes that back up the claim that NCLB is effecting race ratios... Masebrock ( talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Increases segregation in public schools Many people believe that No Child Left Behind has played a role in the increase of segregated public schools. Studies have shown that many African American students attend the lowest performing schools in the country, and African Americans score considerably lower on almost every indicator of academic well-being than do children of a Caucasian descent. [1] For example, high minority and high poverty schools score much lower on standardized tests than low minority and low poverty schools, but 71% of African Americans attend high minority schools and 72% of African Americans attend high-poverty schools. Standardized assessment scores reflect these disparities: the percentage of African Americans meeting proficiency in national assessments in reading and math is less than one fourth of that of White students. [2] NCLB controls the portion of federal Title I funding based upon each school meeting annual set standards. Any participating school that does not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years must offer parents the choice to send their child to a non-failing school in the district, and after three years, must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance. After five years of not meeting AYP, the school must make dramatic changes to how the school is run, which could entail state-takeover. [3] One recent study has shown that schools in California and Illinois that have not met AYP serve 75–85% minority students while schools meeting AYP have less than 40% minority students. [4] Also, even though schools that do not meet AYP are required to offer their students' parents the opportunity to transfer their students to a non-failing school within the district, it is not required that the other school accepts the student. [2] The parents with more education and resources are most likely to leave high-poverty schools. They are more likely to research the schools and make an informed decision on where to transfer their child. This often leads to segregated schools by both race and class. [5] |
We have this -- "This program has failed. It blames the people who study because they have to stay behind to catch people up. This means that children who skip the halls all day will have to pass. That spells trouble. They will cheat to pass. But one thing is certain, the government should stay out of education." -- with no attribution. I couldn't find the souce in a ten-minute web search. I plan to take the quote out. Objections? -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The 48th reference had a dead link. I googled it and found it here @ http://users.rcn.com/crawj/langpol/misguided.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.35.74 ( talk) 01:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Umm, "children of a Caucasian descent"? Are you kidding me?! Clearly some white person wrote this. This ethnifying, deracializing of language in typical white liberal PC manner is not okay. Call a white kid "a white kid", Jesus H. Christ. Anyazelie ( talk) 20:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Under "Effects on curriculum and standards", we have:
Quality of education
The reference takes you only to the text of the legislation.
I propose to change the section title to "Intended effects on curriculum and standards". Any objections? -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Reported on CNN-- Nickvet419 ( talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
== Едва лишь транссексуалы
==
Одна из первых обязанностей дружбы состоит в том, чтобы предупреждать просьбы друзей. Исократ. Никогда не говорите дурно о себе; ваши друзья сами достаточно наговорят о вас. Ш. Талейран. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.4.199.238 ( talk) 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the "limited" qualifier on "bipartisan support." If you follow the cited source, it's clear this passed with broad, and almost univeral, bipartisan support in both houses. I'm inclined to change "limited" to "broad" - but simply deleted the qualifier for now. John2510 ( talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
In particular, at Houston’s Sharpstown High School, 463 of its 1,700 students left during the 2001-2002 school year but not one was reported as a dropout, which makes Houston’s dropout rate somewhere between 33 and 50 percent rather than the reported 1.5 percent. I don't know how dropout rates are calculated, apparently it isn't as simple as number of dropouts divided by number of students, but how can zero reported dropouts result in a dropout rate of 1.5 percent? -- 88.73.24.184 ( talk) 12:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
NCLB redirects to this page, and I'm sure this is the primary use of that initialism, but I think that a disambiguation page that also points to the ACLU predecessor, the National Civil Liberties Bureau would be nice. I just have no idea how to make it work. :/ 99.238.239.254 ( talk) 06:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 or 2002? The page refers to one in the first paragraph and the other in the info box.-- 205.178.36.171 ( talk) 03:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
No Child Left Behind Act. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This law has been repealed ( Source), so should the Proposals for reform section be replaced with a section about this law being repealed? A condensed version of the contents of Proposals for reform section could be included in such a new section. SMP0328. ( talk) 06:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
No Child Left Behind Act. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on No Child Left Behind Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Before I edited it, I notice that the previous version said that the House of Representatives and the Senate each passed the bill in May 2001 and that President Bush signed it in January 2001. Anyone familiar with how legislation is passed should have caught the fact that something is very wrong if the President doesn't sign a bill for several months after it passes both houses of Congress, because if he doesn't sing it within ten business days it either becomes law if Congress is in session or it is a pocket veto if Congress is not in session. It was presented to him on January 4, 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlineAdjunct ( talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Below are a few peer-reviewed articles and books that I will be using when editing the page in the future. I have posted them here for safe-keeping. Thank you all so much!
DeBray-Pelot, E., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328524
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586
Nichols, S. L., Berliner, D. C., & Noddings, N. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Harvard Education Press. - Nemerson4970 ( talk) 18:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nemerson4970 ( talk) 18:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)