News-Record.com

I think there should be sanctions directed at the superintendents. After 2 years of continuing declines in test scores, 1/2 of the super's salary should go directly back to the schools. After 3 years, Get Grier Outta Here!

If this was fully funded it would help. I think that allowing students to transfer to another school is great, but where is the money. I would like to see more tutoring before that sanction.

NCLB is without a doubt the absolute worst piece of legislation to come through Washington in years. Setting uniform standards and raising the bar slowly until everyone eventually fails is not the best way to ensure that all students needs are met. The biggest problem is the premise behind NCLB: Schools are failing because teachers aren't doing their jobs. I beg to differ. Unless your in a wealthy, homogeneous school where two parent families are the norm, there will be problems, and those problems will affect school performance no matter how hard teachers work.

No students should be allowed to transfer to a failing school. No students should be redistricted to failing schools. Only when a school has been considered successful by NCLB standards should more students be allowed to come to that school. There should be smaller classes and qualified teachers and double classes for reading, grammar, math and writing. More pressure should be put on parents' being held accountable for their children's behavior. There should be repercussions for parents whose children continually miss school or are tardy.

Some children choose not to learn or do not have the mental capacity to learn at the same pace as others do. This is not the teachers' fault.

There are many problem areas with the NCLB laws but can you imagine what shape our schools would be in if schools were not being held accountable.

The laws need to be modified with the realization that all children are not going to learn and some will be left behind. If social passing is what "no child left behind" means, then these children have been left behind because eventually they will just drop out when they can.

On the one suggested change that only qualified teachers be put in Title I schools, that is laughable. It is difficult to get any teachers to come to certain schools. There has to be incentives for teachers who choose to work in struggling schools.

I like the idea (read it in the summary) that a school would be considered failing when one subgroup (now 20 not 40) fails two years in a row. That would show that the area's needed to be worked on were getting additional help. I think it is not correct to label a school failing when it is sometimes one or two children. There are issues that some children will never overcome. Limited IQ, disabilities,etc.

Barbara Ann, what sort of repercussions do you suggest for parents of tardy kids? Monetary fines? That seems to aggravate a large part of the problem.

Jim,

That would be one possibility but it would be difficult to enforce and it will never happen. One of the main problems with NCLB is it tries to put all the blame on the teacher. It is a three way partnership - the teacher, the student and the parent. Many times two of the partners are missing: the parent is not involved, the student doesn't care so the partnership will never work.

Where as the teacher has 23 other "partners" affecting her daily output in the classroom which influences the time allowed to teach other students (partners), a parent only has their particular child to deal with. They don't have 23 other "partners", testing, reports, a principal, central office, etc. to answer to. Plus the teacher is limited by the "quality" of partners that come into her classroom which she does not get to choose. She has to work daily with the hand she is dealt.

I too agree with Deborah that a school should not be considered "failing" if a few students can't make it. If a child fails one part of a test but make an 85, it is still a B. Our schools' success rate should be based on the total percentage of positive outcome.

Other major factors that are severely hindering teachers' ability to perform are the "frequent flyers" that continually disrupt other students and the teacher and are just sent back to the classroom;the red tape to suspend a student who constantly breaks the same rules; the low minimum scores to pass end-of-grade tests thus contributing to social passing when children have not actually learned the material; and teachers being strongly discouraged or prevented from suspending certain students because of politics.

On the subject of absolutely no students being allowed to transfer or be redistricted to a failing school.....

If there there is a furniture store that is struggling, say customers lose their deposits and don't receive their furniture as the company files for reorganization and the store gets a poor reputation, no new consumers in their right minds would shop at that store until everything is safely in order and the store is making a profit again. You wouldn't force new customers to shop there to help the store. The store would have to PROVE to the public that it can deliver on their promises.

It's similar with our public schools. Why should any student be forced to go to a struggling school that has a history of not delivering the product, i.e. a successful educated young individual; continually loses new customers, i.e. families wanting to move to that school district; and employees quitting because of low morale and a shaky career future, i.e the teachers.

Until a school is considered successful by NCLB and other measures, no new "customers" should be forced to "shop" at that "store".