3 ms·
The problem with No Child Left Behind wasn't the testing. It's that it was an unfunded mandate. The Federal Government was requiring the states to do something,
by quanticle 15y ago
The problem with No Child Left Behind wasn't the testing. It's that it was an unfunded mandate. The Federal Government was requiring the states to do something, but at the same time not providing the resources to do it with. Given that, can we really be surprised that NCLB was a failure?
This criticism, by the way, isn't new. Opponents of NCLB were (correctly) bringing up the "unfunded mandate" charge when the bill was still in consideration.
- skore 15y agoYes, it was underfunded (not 'unfunded' - it's just that there weren't additional funds injected for it), but that still doesn't make the testing part a good idea. What you end up, even if the resources are there, are pupils who pass tests, not necessarily pupils who are fit for a job or even for life. Pupils who pass tests are not necessarily what you want to boost your economy.
- anamax 15y agoThere are bad tests. However, we have a problem. Most of us would like kids to get as much education as possible given the money we spend. Very few of us are willing to spend money on "education" that doesn't actually educate kids. So, how do you propose we figure out how to spend money on education? If your answer is "spend more", my question is "how do I know what I'm getting for said money?"