9 ms·

This is what happens when no child is left behind. How can EVERYONE graduate from HS without lowering the bar?

bnolsen 11y ago
Absolutely utterly agreed. Trying to pull along students who want to fail pulls down the ones who want to succeed. The American dream used to be about letting those who work hard succeed, and letting those who didn't fail. And anyone could choose to more from the fail to the succeed pool.
- derefr 11y ago
  NCLB deals with very few kids who "want to fail." It mostly deals with kids with learning/communication disabilities. Those kids don't have the choice of just "moving from the fail to the succeed pool"; they have to be given the opportunity to succeed you're talking about by giving them increased assistance. Which takes budget and teacher-time away from other students, which decreases class performance. If you really want to fix education, don't repeal NCLB; amend it to state that special-needs kids get education vouchers with for going to a school specifically enabled to help them, with at least one state-funded school so enabled in each state; and then drop the requirement that any other school handle them in normal classes. This would be better for the student, for the teacher, and for all the other students. The only people it would negatively affect are the parents, who would be forced to either homeschool, or move the family to a place where schooling for their child is available.
  - rankam 11y ago
    This isn't true at at all. I worked at the NYCDOE for 3 years planning, implementing, and executing NCLB. NCLB deals with passing tax dollars to private companies - plain and simple. Superintendents/Schools/Teachers no longer create their own curriculum - it's all purchased and has to be to meet the regulatory requirements of NCLB (amongst other regulations which benefit corporations). To clarify - I think corporations should profit as much as possible. I do have an issue with companies profiting from making shit products that comply with regulations and acting like they are making a positive contribution to society.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > The American dream used to be about letting those who work hard succeed, and letting those who didn't fail. I've never heard the latter. When was this true? According to one history I read, one of the appeals of the New Deal programs in the 1930s is that we would be better than the Old World (i.e., Europe) and not leave our own citizens in the gutter.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
robert_foss 11y ago
Based on which facts have you arrived at that conclusion?
ceejayoz 11y ago
That appears to be an unfounded assertion. The US graduation rate is well under the OECD average. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653 http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653
- cosmie 11y ago
  Appearances can be deceiving. Secondary education is compulsory in the US, whereas it's not in every OECD country. In some countries such as Japan, high school is not only optional but you have to take exams just to get accepted into a particular high school. This effectively stratifies students such that you end up with much more homogenous classrooms and allows for more consistent teaching. Many countries also offer vocational alternatives over academic classes at the secondary education level. While some districts in the US offer vocational "tracks", they still have to abide by the federal and state academic mandates, so they're not usually purely vocational. Not that the structure of the US system isn't a problem in itself, but the fact that we have compulsory, academic-based secondary education that requires public schools to accept all students zoned for it leaves the US in a tight spot. We'll already have a lower graduation rate simply from people dropping out that would otherwise never have started if it wasn't compulsory here. But it's even worse since we don't optimize it to the students (such as the purely vocational options and competitive high school entrance acceptance that allows for a more homogenous student body and more tailored teaching that I mentioned previously)
keithnz 11y ago
Rather than this conclusion, perhaps, look at what other countries are doing? Are they leaving children behind? or do they have better techniques for making sure everyone does well?
- kuschku 11y ago
  Germany, in fact, does leave people behind. But it doesn't leave them without perspective. The tiered school model of Germany sorts you into one of three tiers based on your abilities with the age of 10, which gets even more specific over the years after that. Only people finishing from the highest tier can go to a theoretical university, people from the tier below can at maximum go to a university of applied sciences, and people from the lowest tier can only go to a trade school. Obviously, these tiers have different lengths of education (5 years, 6 years, 8 years), and you can always switch up a tier if you believe you can do it, but most people take what's recommended for them. And this is necessary. We, as a society, have to accept that some people won't be able to study maths. Or computer science. For some people, applied sciences, or even a more technical job might be more ideal. The solution isn't to get everyone into college, but to accept the fact that not everyone can do so, and to also value the job the manual workers are doing. There is this nice advertisement campaign from 2014 from the German association of craftsmen, "What would the world be without craftsmen?": https://youtu.be/YfgqIWwxk2g https://youtu.be/YfgqIWwxk2g
  - spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
    Ah just like the old System the UK had with Grammar schools for the middle class and Secondary modern for the working class kids whose role in life to leave school at 15/16 and work in industry.
    - tremon 11y ago
      It's got nothing to do with "working class kids" and their "role in life". I've had classmates from very affluent parents move into vocational training, and I've had poor friends complete a university degree. That the US and UK fail in this matter doesn't say anything about the rest of the world's ability to provide equal opportunity for all children.
Retra 11y ago
Because education is not a zero-sum activity?
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  The resources allocated to education are not infinite.
  - vacri 11y ago
    They don't need to be infinite; education just needs to be taken more seriously. And the public in general needs to understand that social programs they like need to be funded, and that sometimes means more taxes (education is basically a social program). The US has a very high wealth per capita - if other countries with similar resources can do it, so can the US.
- kuschku 11y ago
  You can say that when your school can provide 2 or more teachers per class of 20 pupils in high school, but as far as I know, in contrast to the schools where I'm from, in the US that doesn't happen. With growing class sizes, and less teachers, US schools don't have the resources to focus on individual students' needs. The best they can do is trying to get some students through. They could adopt the more modern concepts, where small groups of pupils get a task they can't do yet "derive a function", each group gets given some hints in which way to try it (each group in a different one — one going via limits, the next doing it numerically, the next graphically), and then each group presenting their concept to the others, and comparing. Those, more modern teaching concepts, also allow for good teaching for every student with a low amount of teachers (and teach independent understanding, research, etc), but they're rare in most countries.
withdavidli 11y ago
by extending the time one has in school? by not pushing kids through the ranks because too many would stay back otherwise? by better funding schools, and providing safer environments for kids to work/live in? did you want actual suggestions?
mapt 11y ago
Slightly more complex than that: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/12/370057298/big-drop-in-students-being-held-back-but-why http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/12/370057298/big-drop...
hackuser 11y ago
Outcomes vary greatly by school, zip code, and socio-economic class. Are children in the wrong zip code just lazy? Why do the children in poor families perform so much worse than in rich families? It doesn't, by any measure, appear to be a consequence of the children's efforts.
- moultano 11y ago
  >It doesn't, by any measure, appear to be a consequence of the children's efforts. What basis do you have for saying that?
  - ryandrake 11y ago
    The best ranked public schools are consistently in the richest neighborhoods, and the worst ranked ones are consistently in the poorest neighborhoods. I don't think this can be disputed. So, what's more likely? 1. Rich neighborhoods result in well-funded schools with the resources to provide a superior education, better than the not-well-funded schools that are in poor neighborhoods. Or 2. A superior education comes from "children's efforts" and kids that put in a lot of effort coincidentally all live in the same school districts, which also coincidentally are located in the richest neighborhoods?
    - ars 11y ago
      Or 3. The humans who are smarter become richer and have children who are also smarter (and thus do better in school).
    - moultano 11y ago
      Why would you think that similar people living near each other is the result of a coincidence? Abject poverty is likely to have way more impact on kids performance in school than any level of school funding. Whether you want to lump that in with "children's efforts" or not, it's certainly exogenous to the school.
    - sethammons 11y ago
      It has more to do with parent involvement and support, and after that, community support. If the family does not value education, then the likely kids wont. Poverty in and of itself plays a role. Poorer families have other stressors that distract from school, and poorer families tend to not know the benefit of education (they may have been told education is a ticket out of poverty, but few see it happen). And it spreads out of the home. In poverty stricken areas, the majority of peers will shun those who are academically excellent as some kind of sell out. There have been successful schools in poor areas like Harlem when the majority of parents and students care about their education. On the flip side, excellent schools pull in families that value school performance and those families support and push the students. Annecdata: I grew up very poor and made it well into the middle class, it can be done, but the cards are stacked against you.

Absolutely utterly agreed. Trying to pull along students who want to fail pulls down the ones who want to succeed. The American dream used to be about letting those who work hard succeed, and letting those who didn't fail. And anyone could choose to more from the fail to the succeed pool.

derefr 11y ago
NCLB deals with very few kids who "want to fail." It mostly deals with kids with learning/communication disabilities. Those kids don't have the choice of just "moving from the fail to the succeed pool"; they have to be given the opportunity to succeed you're talking about by giving them increased assistance. Which takes budget and teacher-time away from other students, which decreases class performance. If you really want to fix education, don't repeal NCLB; amend it to state that special-needs kids get education vouchers with for going to a school specifically enabled to help them, with at least one state-funded school so enabled in each state; and then drop the requirement that any other school handle them in normal classes. This would be better for the student, for the teacher, and for all the other students. The only people it would negatively affect are the parents, who would be forced to either homeschool, or move the family to a place where schooling for their child is available.
- rankam 11y ago
  This isn't true at at all. I worked at the NYCDOE for 3 years planning, implementing, and executing NCLB. NCLB deals with passing tax dollars to private companies - plain and simple. Superintendents/Schools/Teachers no longer create their own curriculum - it's all purchased and has to be to meet the regulatory requirements of NCLB (amongst other regulations which benefit corporations). To clarify - I think corporations should profit as much as possible. I do have an issue with companies profiting from making shit products that comply with regulations and acting like they are making a positive contribution to society.
hackuser 11y ago
> The American dream used to be about letting those who work hard succeed, and letting those who didn't fail. I've never heard the latter. When was this true? According to one history I read, one of the appeals of the New Deal programs in the 1930s is that we would be better than the Old World (i.e., Europe) and not leave our own citizens in the gutter.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

robert_foss 11y ago

Based on which facts have you arrived at that conclusion?

ceejayoz 11y ago

That appears to be an unfounded assertion. The US graduation rate is well under the OECD average. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653 http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1653

cosmie 11y ago
Appearances can be deceiving. Secondary education is compulsory in the US, whereas it's not in every OECD country. In some countries such as Japan, high school is not only optional but you have to take exams just to get accepted into a particular high school. This effectively stratifies students such that you end up with much more homogenous classrooms and allows for more consistent teaching. Many countries also offer vocational alternatives over academic classes at the secondary education level. While some districts in the US offer vocational "tracks", they still have to abide by the federal and state academic mandates, so they're not usually purely vocational. Not that the structure of the US system isn't a problem in itself, but the fact that we have compulsory, academic-based secondary education that requires public schools to accept all students zoned for it leaves the US in a tight spot. We'll already have a lower graduation rate simply from people dropping out that would otherwise never have started if it wasn't compulsory here. But it's even worse since we don't optimize it to the students (such as the purely vocational options and competitive high school entrance acceptance that allows for a more homogenous student body and more tailored teaching that I mentioned previously)

keithnz 11y ago

Rather than this conclusion, perhaps, look at what other countries are doing? Are they leaving children behind? or do they have better techniques for making sure everyone does well?

kuschku 11y ago
Germany, in fact, does leave people behind. But it doesn't leave them without perspective. The tiered school model of Germany sorts you into one of three tiers based on your abilities with the age of 10, which gets even more specific over the years after that. Only people finishing from the highest tier can go to a theoretical university, people from the tier below can at maximum go to a university of applied sciences, and people from the lowest tier can only go to a trade school. Obviously, these tiers have different lengths of education (5 years, 6 years, 8 years), and you can always switch up a tier if you believe you can do it, but most people take what's recommended for them. And this is necessary. We, as a society, have to accept that some people won't be able to study maths. Or computer science. For some people, applied sciences, or even a more technical job might be more ideal. The solution isn't to get everyone into college, but to accept the fact that not everyone can do so, and to also value the job the manual workers are doing. There is this nice advertisement campaign from 2014 from the German association of craftsmen, "What would the world be without craftsmen?": https://youtu.be/YfgqIWwxk2g https://youtu.be/YfgqIWwxk2g
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Ah just like the old System the UK had with Grammar schools for the middle class and Secondary modern for the working class kids whose role in life to leave school at 15/16 and work in industry.
  - tremon 11y ago
    It's got nothing to do with "working class kids" and their "role in life". I've had classmates from very affluent parents move into vocational training, and I've had poor friends complete a university degree. That the US and UK fail in this matter doesn't say anything about the rest of the world's ability to provide equal opportunity for all children.

Retra 11y ago

Because education is not a zero-sum activity?

enraged_camel 11y ago
The resources allocated to education are not infinite.
- vacri 11y ago
  They don't need to be infinite; education just needs to be taken more seriously. And the public in general needs to understand that social programs they like need to be funded, and that sometimes means more taxes (education is basically a social program). The US has a very high wealth per capita - if other countries with similar resources can do it, so can the US.
kuschku 11y ago
You can say that when your school can provide 2 or more teachers per class of 20 pupils in high school, but as far as I know, in contrast to the schools where I'm from, in the US that doesn't happen. With growing class sizes, and less teachers, US schools don't have the resources to focus on individual students' needs. The best they can do is trying to get some students through. They could adopt the more modern concepts, where small groups of pupils get a task they can't do yet "derive a function", each group gets given some hints in which way to try it (each group in a different one — one going via limits, the next doing it numerically, the next graphically), and then each group presenting their concept to the others, and comparing. Those, more modern teaching concepts, also allow for good teaching for every student with a low amount of teachers (and teach independent understanding, research, etc), but they're rare in most countries.

withdavidli 11y ago

by extending the time one has in school? by not pushing kids through the ranks because too many would stay back otherwise? by better funding schools, and providing safer environments for kids to work/live in? did you want actual suggestions?

mapt 11y ago

Slightly more complex than that: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/12/370057298/big-drop-in-students-being-held-back-but-why http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/12/12/370057298/big-drop...

hackuser 11y ago

Outcomes vary greatly by school, zip code, and socio-economic class. Are children in the wrong zip code just lazy? Why do the children in poor families perform so much worse than in rich families? It doesn't, by any measure, appear to be a consequence of the children's efforts.

moultano 11y ago
>It doesn't, by any measure, appear to be a consequence of the children's efforts. What basis do you have for saying that?
- ryandrake 11y ago
  The best ranked public schools are consistently in the richest neighborhoods, and the worst ranked ones are consistently in the poorest neighborhoods. I don't think this can be disputed. So, what's more likely? 1. Rich neighborhoods result in well-funded schools with the resources to provide a superior education, better than the not-well-funded schools that are in poor neighborhoods. Or 2. A superior education comes from "children's efforts" and kids that put in a lot of effort coincidentally all live in the same school districts, which also coincidentally are located in the richest neighborhoods?
  - ars 11y ago
    Or 3. The humans who are smarter become richer and have children who are also smarter (and thus do better in school).
  - moultano 11y ago
    Why would you think that similar people living near each other is the result of a coincidence? Abject poverty is likely to have way more impact on kids performance in school than any level of school funding. Whether you want to lump that in with "children's efforts" or not, it's certainly exogenous to the school.
  - sethammons 11y ago
    It has more to do with parent involvement and support, and after that, community support. If the family does not value education, then the likely kids wont. Poverty in and of itself plays a role. Poorer families have other stressors that distract from school, and poorer families tend to not know the benefit of education (they may have been told education is a ticket out of poverty, but few see it happen). And it spreads out of the home. In poverty stricken areas, the majority of peers will shun those who are academically excellent as some kind of sell out. There have been successful schools in poor areas like Harlem when the majority of parents and students care about their education. On the flip side, excellent schools pull in families that value school performance and those families support and push the students. Annecdata: I grew up very poor and made it well into the middle class, it can be done, but the cards are stacked against you.