|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 30, 2008 14:05:37 GMT -5
Now don't be bringing up the previous Administration. We have to blame Bush for this law that no one followed. Well actually the current President Bush did sign No Child Left Behind. However the bill's author and chief sponsor was the senior senator from Massachussetts, Edward Moore Kennedy. Astute readers will recall that about five minutes after the president signed the bill Senator Kennedy threw Bush under the bus... protesting that while the bill was good, it didn't go far enough so hence Bush was to blame. But I do so enjoy puncturing holes in the left's attempts at revisionist history. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 30, 2008 14:42:11 GMT -5
Yes, it was Mr. Kennedy's Bill, signed into law in May 2001, less then five months after Bush took office.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 30, 2008 15:08:48 GMT -5
Don't forget that Rep. George Miller was the bill's sponsor in the House. Miller has fiddled with more education bills than any other representative.
I'm sure that, if the NCLB programs had been a success, it would be lauded as "Kennedy's education bill." However, since the law is generally reviled by the education community, it becomes "Bush's education bill."
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 30, 2008 16:50:03 GMT -5
Which is par for the course jgaffney.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 22, 2008 9:58:11 GMT -5
One thing that has significantly changed over the last 4-5 decades is that both parents work outside the home, and many are single parents. I think one good place to spend more money is after school programs and daycare compensation for parents that cannot afford safe/educational daycare for their children.
I also happen to know that public schools cannot afford to help children effectively that have learning disabilities/difficulties, or mental health issues. The monies have been cut, and if the schools do offer any help it is mediocre. I know this from my personal experiences.
I'd posted this before:
As for throwing money at a particular school, or district that doesn't perform, sometimes money isn't the issue.
I know of a school district that invests a lot of money into it with poor results. Unfortunately, the kids are surrounded by families and peers that don't believe that education is important, it's a cultural problem. Even if a child wants to succeed they don't have the support from family and peers. I don't know what the solution is, but it is very sad that so many will not rise above the low standard set by their environment.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 22, 2008 15:30:20 GMT -5
I was a 'latch key kid' starting in 3rd grade. No afterschool programs. All my older brothers were working at their after school jobs (a BIG gap between me and the next one up). Had guns and ammo avail able. Didn't get into trouble. Didn't go on shootin sprees.
Maybe if the schools went back to teaching instead of being a a big social program there would be enough money to make a difference. Maybe if the schools didn't have to teach in 80 different languages, there would be enough money to make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 22, 2008 15:46:28 GMT -5
I was a 'latch key kid' starting in 3rd grade. No afterschool programs. All my older brothers were working at their after school jobs (a BIG gap between me and the next one up). Had guns and ammo avail able. Didn't get into trouble. Didn't go on shootin sprees. Maybe if the schools went back to teaching instead of being a a big social program there would be enough money to make a difference. Maybe if the schools didn't have to teach in 80 different languages, there would be enough money to make a difference. subdjoe, I am not trying to insult you, we are close in age, but times were very different. A "latch-key" kid then was still pretty naive. The cat is out of the bag, and he's not going back in! Just so I'm clear, can you expound on this: "Maybe if the schools went back to teaching instead of being a a big social program there would be enough money to make a difference." Like what for example? |
|
|
|
Post by anonymousperson on Jul 23, 2008 1:17:08 GMT -5
Public schools are dangerous, and they are only catering to Spanish speakers and Chinese speakers, including the Principals and administrators.
Most kids in CA public schools in cities do not speak English. Either homeschool your child or send them to a good private school.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 23, 2008 21:36:30 GMT -5
Anonymousperson, do you mind if I ask you where you attended school?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Jul 27, 2008 13:11:31 GMT -5
And to add, do you all know how much private schools cost these days?  In some cases college is cheaper then elementary school! |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 27, 2008 13:53:04 GMT -5
all the more reason i'm for vouchers! give me back my property tax money that goes for schools and let me worry about my kids' schooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 27, 2008 15:21:25 GMT -5
TNG, it is nice to be able to school your own children, be it home schooling or private school. The majority of people, however are not in such a unique position to be able to make those choices. Do you actually get your taxes back for not having your children in public school??
My sister decided to place her only child in private school. Personally, I don't see any difference comparing her to her cousins in public school. Of course, that is just one comparison.
|
|
In some cases college is cheaper then elementary school! 