Let's improve No Child Left Behind, and boost America's test scores!

[Slyfox696]

The Background

Because, as we all know, the only important part of education is being able to answer questions on a test.

With that in mind, it's time to revise No Child Left Behind in a manner that actually makes sense and will see results. For those of you who are unaware, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is legislation that stipulates every single child in America will score, by the year 2014, the same as every other child, in essence saying, that every student in America will be equally educated as every other student. Ignoring for a moment how ridiculous this is based upon the fact that not every child has the same ability to think in the same way, which causes top students to be brought down to a level that bottom students will never reach, this sounds like a great plan.

However, there is a big problem. All across the country, states are finding that schools are being unable to meet their AYP (adequate yearly progress), which means that test scores are not as high as they should be for that year. Yes, test scores may improve by 10%, but if they don't reach the arbitrary value set by the state for that year, then the school district fails. But, why should schools care about improvement? Anyways, states are finding that students are not reaching their goals, and according to NCLB, school districts must begin paying for additional accommodations for students to be allowed to go to other school districts at the school's expense, will eventually turn over public school districts to state control (because if you ever want things done right, and money spent correctly, give it to the government), and schools are to do this with less money (thanks to the lack of supporting funds from NCLB, and the two economic recessions we've had since NCLB was started).

What this means is that once a school and its students get behind, there's really no chance to catch up, because schools are being asked to catch up with less money to spend on resources, including textbooks, technology and even teachers. And, even if that additional money is given, scores are still completely dependent upon whether or not a student wishes to give his/her best effort on the test, which as we all know, isn't exactly going to happen, especially in school districts where 75% or more of the population never attended any kind of university education. The significance of that is if school wasn't important to the parent, why would they impress that importance on to their child? Education is the responsibility of three parties; the teacher, the child and the parent. If two of the three are missing, education is not looking likely. And according to NCLB, if even ONE child in a school district isn't up to the correct level by 2014, then the entire school district is a failure.

So, we have a system which sets schools and children up to fail, handicaps them more if they do, provides no money to help catch up, and school districts have to fight an uphill battle when only one student can ruin a school and his/her parent doesn't care. Not exactly a promising future for the public school system.

The Solution

With all of the previous information in mind, I have come up with the PERFECT solution, which solves every problem faced by public school, with the exception of the intelligence of individual students. And to be honest, my solution is so great, it should be put into practice yesterday.

If you are the parent of a child, and that child fails to meet the AYP goal that is set by your state in any one or more categories, then you the parent are required to pay a penalty anywhere between $2000-$5000, for every child of yours that fails, and for every year he/she fails. That money will then be sent, untouched, to the school district in which your child failed.

I mean, think about it. It's a brilliant solution. I'm not going to put a specific price tag on the penalty, because it should be determined by each state and/or school district, but what a great solution. It puts the responsibility of education on EVERY person in life, including the child and the parent of that child. Obviously, the extra work and the penalties that currently exist upon teachers can stay (and what those penalties are I think depends upon the state...you can look them up yourself), but no longer is the teacher and the district having to fight an uphill battle. If your child isn't doing well, then YOU can help your child get that education that a bunch of people in Washington D.C. thinks your child should have.

And the money you're spending is going right back to your child. It's not like it's going to build some bridge 400 miles away, it's going right back toward your child's education. And no, it won't go to fund the sports teams, it will be earmarked for educational resources. And for those parents who don't care if their child does well? I guarantee that after dropping $15,000 because their three children slept through the test, those parents will be paying a LOT more attention to the school work their children are doing.

It's a winning solution every which way you look at it. Unmotivated parents will now force their unmotivated children to do well. Schools will have the resources to improve your child's education. Students will now be given the best chance of all to show they know the things that are important to other people in life. And our government will finally get the results they want.

Use this thread to bask in the glow of my great idea.

[τδιγλε]

Have they even done a statistical breakdown of the socioeconomic backgrounds of those students who fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress? If it's found that income is positively related to Adequate Yearly Progress, then your plan, while having good intentions, will be impractical (how will the parents of underachieving students be able to pay the penalty if they're poor in the first place?).

People keep on bitching about the American education system, but I think it's time we all just admit that people with money are going to get a better education than those without it. It is what it is.

[Slyfox696]

Originally Posted by We Await Silent tdigle's Empire

Have they even done a statistical breakdown of the socioeconomic backgrounds of those students who fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress? If it's found that income is positively related to Adequate Yearly Progress, then your plan, while having good intentions, will be impractical (how will the parents of underachieving students be able to pay the penalty if they're poor in the first place?).

The whole point is to keep parents from having to pay the penalty. So, if parents know they can't pay the penalty, they're going to buckle down and make sure their child does better in school, be a lot more proactive in his/her assignments, and really stress the importance of education to their child.

We don't WANT people to pay fines, just like we don't WANT people to break the law. But, if something isn't right, then you have to pay. And if your child doesn't do well, then the parent will have to pay.

People keep on bitching about the American education system, but I think it's time we all just admit that people with money are going to get a better education than those without it. It is what it is.

Yes, but the way it is set up now, in the next 10 years, ONLY the people with money will get an education. Unless something changes, the only people who will get an education are those with money.

That's why my plan should be implemented yesterday. To preserve education for everyone in America who wants it.

[FTS]

I posted this in the bar, but I want to repeat it her for the purposes of the debate.

I love this idea. I do see the validity in tests, and we've debated it to death already, so I am not addressing that.

I think that education does begin at home. I think that parents who involve themselves in their child's education tend to have high preforming children. I think the fines should be expanded. $100 for an office visit, $100 for a skipped class, $500 for detention, $1000 per day for a suspension, etc....

It is time the parents realized that schools are there to prepare their children for the future and that the the more time teachers have to babysit, the less time they can teach. It's that simple. I guarantee that if parent's are held responsible for their kids, test scores, discipline, etc. will all rise.


That being said, no matter how we test as a whole, I would take the best American kids over any other nation's best.

[τδιγλε]

I guess, man. There's a much easier solution to fixing advanced courses in high school, though (e.g., G&T, IB, and AP classes). Teachers simply have to make these courses more lecture-based. In college, a three-credit course entails 2 hours and 30 minutes to 2 hours and 40 minutes of lecture time per week. So, for instance, if a high school has students on an alternating schedule with one daily class (so, for instance, students have one class every weekday for 50 minutes and two sets of three classes every other day, with each class lasting for 1 hour and 30 minutes), then that would give the daily class 8 hours and 20 minutes of class time every two weeks and each of the alternating classes 7 hours and 30 minutes of class time every two weeks. When you factor in morning announcements, this gives the daily class and each of the other classes about the same amount of time.

So, this essentially gives each class more than enough room to have as much lecture time as college courses. Thus, spend 6 hours every two weeks on lectures with the remaining 1 hour and 30 minutes helping out those students who aren't connecting with the material.

[Shadowmancer]

I have always felt that settting standards is a good thing and should happen. All Students should be able to read at a competent level, sure they don't have to read academic articles as a standard daily practice as some do. But the ability to read a competent book like say the Lord of the Rings or a number of other classic books of a similar nature without help or trouble. They need to be able to write in a coherent manner following the rules of Grammar and Spelling. I would go as far as saying that they need to be able to speak English in a manner that is understandable but then I would be labelled racist or something. They need to be able to do basic sums in their head. Not the stuff like Square Root or complicated Calculus, but they should all be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide with little to no trouble, potentially even in their head.

Set those standards to be met, then the other stuff can be built on top of it. I believe that once those three basics are met then the other can come on top. I believe that there should be a standard that is set across an entire country and should come from the top. A standard that is fair should be universally put there for all to go through.

This should be done at the basic schooling level. The ones that fail to meet these standards get more monetary help to raise the standard of the pupils, but it comes with higher supervision from authorities. This System is somewhat in place in New Zealand, the lower decile schools, get more funding than the higher ones because the higher ones are based on Socio-economic regions, a Decile 10 has a large amount of well off families around that send their kids there. But the idea of linking it to the performance of the school in a similar manner seems like a good idea for the basic primary education.

[stingerlegends]

I have some issues with this idea.

1. Many protesting parents may object to paying a stiff fine, and may pull their kids from school to "teach" them at home, causing our dumb kids to become even dumber.
2. Abusive parents will have another reason to beat their kids, who wouldn't care about the stupid tests or fines anyways because their life already sucks.


My solution is this: If you can't get a 2.5 GPA through your entire academic enrollment, you get to go into the Armed Forces. You will get trained by them to do things their way, and your right to freedom is effectively manipulated so these young dumbasses don't grow up into being old dumbasses. (Of course my method means we have strong dumbasses out there. Dammit.)

[HBK-aholic]

Great idea theoretically, but too impractical. Generally, although not always, the children who don't do well are the ones who have parents with a small, or no job. If your parent is a doctor, for the most part they're going to want to push you into a similar profession, and you're going to have grown up with the value of education being a good and necessary thing. If your parent does a dull, repetitive job in a factory that millions could do all day (No offence to anyone who does this), or lives off the government, the odds are you're not going to have sights set to become a doctor or lawyer and possibly won't even care about school.

Now, these are the children who would be failing the tests, the children of the Working Class who in no way would be able to afford thousands of pounds to pay to their childrens school. So what happens? Those parents are imprisoned. How does this benefit a child in any way? In 99% of cases it's going to make the child worse, which seems very counterproductive.

Also, what if that parent has more that one child, only one of whom is failing? If the parent still can't afford to pay the fine, all their other children will also be left without parents, through no fault of their own, their education could possibly be ruined and their emotions would almost definitely be all over the place. There are a lot of prolems with NCLB from what I've heard, but this solution would never work.

[Razor]

I can see one glaring problem with your idea. Not everyone is smart enough to make those guidelines.

Now, I know. Every child should be able to meet those guidelines, right? Every child should be smart enough to read on their level, right? I mean, I was reading at a 10th grade level when I was in what, 6th grade? 7th? But, I'm not every kid. I'm not trying to be high and mighty, or suck my own dick. I'm serious. Out of everyone in my high school, I was easily smarter than 95% of them. Sure, most of them were retarded bumfuck rednecks, but you get my point.

What are we to do with a child who can't meet guidelines, but obviously tries? Obviously has a mother/father who really puts an effort into their schooling? Do we still fine the parents a thousand dollars because their child isn't as fast as the others?

I understand the idea that FTS brings up, the idea of fining parents based off of disciplinary action. THAT can be solved by a parent that actually raises their child and doesn't let the TV do the parenting when he's not trying to slap the teacher during the day. I know I never went to the office when I was a kid, because I was fucking afraid of my mom. I acted right specifically because if I didn't, the teachers would tell my mom, and I would get an ass chewing. That's all these kids need for the disciplinary side. A nice smack upside the head or a stern "You're grounded. Don't pass Go, don't collect your allowance. But you can collect a belt to your ass."

And, as far as test scores, go, I'm sorta torn. Based off of my test scores, I got a full ride to the University of Arkansas. However, friends that are worlds smarter than me are having to pay their entire way. I regularly look at them, then look at me, and wonder why I'm not the one paying with student loans. Because I scored a 32 instead of a 31 on the ACT? That's the difference between paying $7,000 a semester out of pocket and getting all that paid for, plus a $1,000 stipend? It's never made sense to me.

But then, when I think about it, what else is there to judge us by? GPA doesn't matter, because high schoolers blow their GPA up higher than when they stuff their pants (or bras, ladies) with socks or tissues. It's all a big mess.

[Slyfox696]

Originally Posted by Razor

I can see one glaring problem with your idea. Not everyone is smart enough to make those guidelines.

Yes, I know that, but right now, parents and the state don't seem to. So when those children don't pass, the only people who are being punished are the schools.

What are we to do with a child who can't meet guidelines, but obviously tries? Obviously has a mother/father who really puts an effort into their schooling? Do we still fine the parents a thousand dollars because their child isn't as fast as the others?

Yes. And if not, then why are we going to punish the schools?

I see what you're saying, but right now, that doesn't matter. According to No Child Left Behind, EVERY child should be able to do those things. And if even one child can't, then the school and it's teachers get punished. So, by fining parents, it is assuring that EVERY opportunity for the child to get the education the government thinks it should have.

And if the child still isn't able to get that education, then obviously we need to look to our government to change its philosophy.

And, as far as test scores, go, I'm sorta torn. Based off of my test scores, I got a full ride to the University of Arkansas. However, friends that are worlds smarter than me are having to pay their entire way. I regularly look at them, then look at me, and wonder why I'm not the one paying with student loans. Because I scored a 32 instead of a 31 on the ACT? That's the difference between paying $7,000 a semester out of pocket and getting all that paid for, plus a $1,000 stipend? It's never made sense to me.

But then, when I think about it, what else is there to judge us by? GPA doesn't matter, because high schoolers blow their GPA up higher than when they stuff their pants (or bras, ladies) with socks or tissues. It's all a big mess.

I have a better idea. How about instead of wasting the millions of dollars in scholarship money on athletes, we take that money away, and use it to push tuition costs down by half? Or we use it to give more scholarships based on academic prowess?

But that's a Cigar Lounge topic for another day.