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.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

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]

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.

 

[FromTheSouth]

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.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

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 ******ed 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]

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.

 

[Razor]

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.

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.

It sounds like you're arguing that the schools don't have the money to give the children the education that the government thinks the school should be able to offer. Well, that's a simple fix. Take away the absurd billions spent on military, NASA, and other superfluous programs and give them to the public schools. You know, the schools that are funded by American tax dollars.

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.

That could work. Or we could have the NCAA eat some costs of the scholarships. If they institute a playoff system, that will have to bring in extra money. Take the playoff money and use that to give out scholarships to athletes. It's like Arkansas instituting a state lottery and using the money to fund scholarships (500 a semester I think, but it's still $500 you didn't have before) for hundreds and hundreds of college bound Arkansans.

Or the NFL can give out scholarships themselves, instituting a program the state uses for teachers, the military uses for soldiers, and the hospitals use for nurses/doctors. The NFL will pay your college education if you agree to play in the NFL for a set amount of years. Hell, individual teams can do it. I don't give a shit. The career ending injury risk comes into play, but that's a whole other topic.

We could, also, raise school funding to college schools. You know those wonderful public colleges that everyone loves? Raise the federal funding for them. But that would get in the way of superfluous NASA trips to the moon or military funding for experimental programs that won't ever be used. And we can't have that.

 

[FromTheSouth]

It sounds like you're arguing that the schools don't have the money to give the children the education that the government thinks the school should be able to offer. Well, that's a simple fix. Take away the absurd billions spent on military, NASA, and other superfluous programs and give them to the public schools.

We should definitely take money from superfluous programs like the worthless military. I mean, what could the military ever do for us?

In all seriousness, Sly is completely right here. It pains me to say this, but parents need to be punished when their children fail tests or act up in school. If kids don't know how to act, it is their parents fault, plain and simple. If kids can't pass simple aptitude exams on basic English and math skills, it is the parent's fault. These parents need to be punished. I would have no problem sending parent's to jail for an equal amount of time that their no good child is suspended. School is a place where kids go to get prepared for adulthood. It is not a fucking daycare where bad parents send their fuck up children to distract other people who are trying to prepare for their lives.

You know, the schools that are funded by American tax dollars.

Tell me when you find one of those, because schools are funded by local property taxes. The American tax dollars go to grants for special programs and underfunded areas. This is not a problem at which the government can just throw more money. The problem is that discipline is not instilled in the kids. Parents need to take responsibility for their bratty ass kids.

That could work. Or we could have the NCAA eat some costs of the scholarships. If they institute a playoff system, that will have to bring in extra money. Take the playoff money and use that to give out scholarships to athletes. It's like Arkansas instituting a state lottery and using the money to fund scholarships (500 a semester I think, but it's still $500 you didn't have before) for hundreds and hundreds of college bound Arkansans.

Nope, the athletes make millions of dollars for the school that they use for maintenance of buildings, funding things no one cares about like women's sports, and filling up the general scholarship fund. Plus, those scholarships are the only way a bunch of kids even get to go go school. Third, it's not like academic scholarships wouldn't be given to people with a 2.0 in the classroom and 4.1 in the forty.

Or the NFL can give out scholarships themselves, instituting a program the state uses for teachers, the military uses for soldiers, and the hospitals use for nurses/doctors. The NFL will pay your college education if you agree to play in the NFL for a set amount of years. Hell, individual teams can do it. I don't give a shit. The career ending injury risk comes into play, but that's a whole other topic.

Sign me up.

We could, also, raise school funding to college schools. You know those wonderful public colleges that everyone loves? Raise the federal funding for them. But that would get in the way of superfluous NASA trips to the moon or military funding for experimental programs that won't ever be used. And we can't have that.

Experimental military programs gave us X-Rays, microwaves, run flat tires, etc. While experimental program may never get used, DARPA provides us with technology that can be used in an array of ways.

 

[Razor]

We should definitely take money from superfluous programs like the worthless military. I mean, what could the military ever do for us?

Now, now FTS. Are you really going to believe I would cut funding to the entire military? More like I would cut funding from billion dollar programs that were supposed to produce years ago, at a fraction of the cost we spend now.

In all seriousness, Sly is completely right here. It pains me to say this, but parents need to be punished when their children fail tests or act up in school. If kids don't know how to act, it is their parents fault, plain and simple. If kids can't pass simple aptitude exams on basic English and math skills, it is the parent's fault. These parents need to be punished. I would have no problem sending parent's to jail for an equal amount of time that their no good child is suspended. School is a place where kids go to get prepared for adulthood. It is not a fucking daycare where bad parents send their fuck up children to distract other people who are trying to prepare for their lives.

But what about the students who are seriously trying, and the parents who are really trying to push their children along in their studies? What if the student simply can't read on a 5th grade when he's in the 5th grade? Are we going to treat him like the 10th graders who are reading on the 3rd grade level because they simply don't care?

Tell me when you find one of those, because schools are funded by local property taxes. The American tax dollars go to grants for special programs and underfunded areas. This is not a problem at which the government can just throw more money. The problem is that discipline is not instilled in the kids. Parents need to take responsibility for their bratty ass kids.

Hmmm. Then those broken down schools in Harlem that have a humongous drop out rate have low scores because their parents can't raise their children? Or is it more of both? Federal funding to schools to help raise their overall quality should be the first and foremost step in this process. Then, when schools are at least close to the same level as the other schools in the nation, we can start fining children for not reaching test scores.

The disciplinary fines, however, I agree with entirely. You'll run the risk over 5 year olds being funneled past psychiatrists to get ADD meds so that their parents don't get fined, but the idea is there.

Nope, the athletes make millions of dollars for the school that they use for maintenance of buildings, funding things no one cares about like women's sports, and filling up the general scholarship fund. Plus, those scholarships are the only way a bunch of kids even get to go go school. Third, it's not like academic scholarships wouldn't be given to people with a 2.0 in the classroom and 4.1 in the forty.

Or we can have the NCAA come away from some of its enormous profits and fund the schools that are actually competing in the NCAA. The money that goes towards the athletes can then be funneled into general scholarships and the money the athletes generate can still be used toward the school. It just means that the NCAA has to part with a few million per NCAA school. I'm sure they can afford that.

Sign me up.

I don't see the problem with that plan, at all.

Experimental military programs gave us X-Rays, microwaves, run flat tires, etc. While experimental program may never get used, DARPA provides us with technology that can be used in an array of ways.

For every x-ray or microwave we get, we also have billions wasted in space programs that we don't absolutely need. Do we really have to know if Mars has water? Did we really have to slam probes (or whatever) into the Moon? Do we really have to spend billions on a fighter plane project that was supposed to cost 500 million dollars and be finished 5 years ago? That's the kind of waste I'm speaking of.