Football version of NLNCLB

[oregonpackfan]

Here is a version of the National Leave No Child Behind act if you applied it to football:

No Child Left Behind: Football Version

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all
MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the
championship, they will be on probation until they are
the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.
If after two years they haven't won the championship
their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL
they do win the championship.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same
football skills at the same time, even if they do not
have the same conditions or opportunities to practice
on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of
interest in football, a desire to perform
athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of
themselves or their parents. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY
FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on
their own, without instruction. This is because the
coaches will be using all their instructional time
with the athletes who aren't interested in football,
have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't
like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics
will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game.
This will create a New Age of Sports where every
school is expected to have the same level of talent
and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If
no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind.
If parents do not like this new law, they are
encouraged to vote for vouchers and support private
schools that can screen out the non-athletes and
prevent their children from having to go to school
with bad football players.

[BallHawk]

Well, when you put it that way.....

[the_idle_threat]

I'm definitely no expert on education, and I'm not for or against NCLB, but there seem to be some flawed analogies in this harsh policy criticism masquerading as a joke.


Here is a version of the National Leave No Child Behind act if you applied it to football:

No Child Left Behind: Football Version

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all
MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the
championship, they will be on probation until they are
the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.
If after two years they haven't won the championship
their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL
they do win the championship.

Ridiculous analogy, and a completely unnecessary exaggeration. NCLB does not require all schools to be the #1 best school, i.e. the champion (where "teams" are assumed to be schools). From what I understand, NCLB does require all kids to be average or better, which is ridiculous enough that exaggeration is completely unnecessary. A more accurate football analogy would be that every team must finish with a .500 record or better.


2. All kids will be expected to have the same
football skills at the same time, even if they do not
have the same conditions or opportunities to practice
on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of
interest in football, a desire to perform
athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of
themselves or their parents. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY
FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.

What do they mean by genetic abilities? Is there some subtle racism built into this critique, given that poorly performing schools are more likely to be full of students who are poor, urban and black? Only one of those attributes is genetic. Is there an alternative explanation for "genetic"?

Also, does NCLB actually make the LD kids meet exactly the same standard as the non-LD kids, or is there a different standard for disabled kids? I'm honestly asking this question b/c I don't know.


3. Talented players will be asked to work out on
their own, without instruction. This is because the
coaches will be using all their instructional time
with the athletes who aren't interested in football,
have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't
like football.

Do gifted and talented kids still get instruction with the rest of the class? Or are they given recess all day long? Surely they are not actually left without any instruction at all. Another example of exaggeration where the reality is bad enough.


4. Games will be played year round, but statistics
will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game.

Schools will still teach in grades 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10 and 12, and those grades will still be important to those kids for graduation. So it's not like those "games" don't count for anything. If anything, those "games" would count more than the rest if the criticism is accurate and the tests in years 4, 8 and 11 are really a waste of time.


This will create a New Age of Sports where every
school is expected to have the same level of talent
and all teams will reach the same minimum goals. If
no child gets ahead, then no child gets left behind.

Kind of redundant to the earlier part of the rant, but the last sentence is a fair criticism---perhaps the most damning criticism from what I understand about NCLB.


If parents do not like this new law, they are
encouraged to vote for vouchers and support private
schools that can screen out the non-athletes and
prevent their children from having to go to school
with bad football players.

Do private schools actually refuse to admit LD kids? Never heard that before. Seems like it would raise discrimination issues.

[MJZiggy]

They do not take into consideration LD kids. My kid's school is a DHOH equipped school and our NCLB scores suffer for it (some kids' hearing problems accompany other difficulties) while the gifted and talented magnet a mile away has much better scores. That said, the kids who are not LD are good enough that we keep our funding.

And yes, you have the main criticism correct. While none get left behind, none soar to their capabilities either. And I'm wondering if this might have something to do with the difficulty they are having finding science-tech students...

[Deputy Nutz]

They do not take into consideration LD kids. My kid's school is a DHOH equipped school and our NCLB scores suffer for it (some kids' hearing problems accompany other difficulties) while the gifted and talented magnet a mile away has much better scores. That said, the kids who are not LD are good enough that we keep our funding.

And yes, you have the main criticism correct. While none get left behind, none soar to their capabilities either. And I'm wondering if this might have something to do with the difficulty they are having finding science-tech students...

Thats not completely true, their are other ways of testing for the Disabled kids. Such as Individual Education Plans, scripted by testing and designed by teachers and administrators. Usually if kids meet their IEP goals then they will be considered to be on pace for graduation and meeting the requirements for NCLB.

Sure there are some bad principles behind NCLB, but to lay blame at students with disabilities isn't completely true

[MJZiggy]

I should have quoted. I was trying to answer Idle's specific question based on what is going on at my kid's school. There has been whining about the inequity of scores, but it is possible that either things have changed or they were whining on a state level.

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, what was described was NOT No Child Left Behind at all, but the very liberal concept known as OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION--no competition, no objective standards, etc.--basically making sure NOT that everybody has an equal opportunity, but that everyone ends up equally successful even if you have to defy all rational thought to get to that conclusion.

No Child Left Behind is characterized by standardized testing of students to make sure they are learning what they are supposed to and judging of teachers according to an objective standard of how well the students they teach are learning--the standardized tests.

The REAL description of No Child Left Behind, therefore, sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

If you applied NCLB to football, you would judge the coach and GM according to an objective standard of how the players perform--wins and losses. Hey, that's exactly what we do!

[MJZiggy]

Maybe in theory, but in practice it sucks. The teachers spend so much time making sure that the curriculum is dumbed down enough to make sure that the challenged kids can read that the advanced kids are not challenged and they languish. Not to mention that they spend so much time teaching to the test that they forget the arts and athletics and that doesn't add up to a well-rounded education.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not wholeheartedly supporting all aspects of No Child Left Behind either, especially the "dumbing down" process you describe. The primary aspects which I described, however, ARE good.

The point I was making was that you weren't describing NCLB; You were describing OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION--a concept which has basically no redeeming qualities.

No Child Left Behind, of course, is a Bush program--the reason, I suspect, you are hateful of it. Outcome Based Education, however--the thing you actually were describing--is a very liberal concept.

[MJZiggy]

I didn't describe anything. That was OPF's post...I described the situation that I see actually happening in the local school.

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, then I guess my responses are directed at OPF, since it was his post that incorrectly labeled Outcome Based Education as NCLB.

[oregonpackfan]

In order for effective learning to occur in the classroom there has to be a threefold effort from: 1. The teachers and the schools; 2. effort from the student, and 3. support for the student and valuing of education from the parents.

One major flaw of NLNCB is that all the emphasis for the student's learning is placed on the teachers/schools. If the student is unwilling to learn or places minimal effort in learning, the blame is placed on the schools. If the parents do not support their students in providing a suitable home environment or support schools by helping with homework, attending conferences, academic school functions, the blame is placed on the schools.

For the three legged stool of learning to function, all three legs are to fit together. NLNCB focuses only on holding the school/teacher leg accountable.

Another major flaw of NLNCB is the almost exlcusive reliance upon standardized testing to measure learning. A number of states do not even use statistically normed standardized tests which meet measures of validity and reliability. Validity measures appropriate subject content level for a particular age group. Reliability accurately measures the subject content for a particular age group.

Even standardized tests which are both valid and reliable do not measure crucial academic skills such as: creativity, problem-solving, analysis, synthesis, public-speaking, and the ability to effectively work in small groups. So much of success in the "real world" workplace depends on one's skills in working in small groups with fellow colleagues.

Many people are not aware that NLNCB requires the students with learning disorders and English as a Second Language students(now called English Language Learners) to pass the same levels as the regular students.

The ELL students are placed at a particular disadvantage in meeting the academic benchmarks. In past years, ELL students new to the country could be exempted from the standardized tests. If they were here only 2-3 years they could be given a modified exam.

Linguists point out it takes the ELL students from 5-7 years to fully assimilate the English language to meet standard benchmarks for speaking, reading and writing. Under the NLNCB, a foreign student new to the country is not granted any exemptions and must pass the same benchmarks as American-born children. As a third grade teacher, I have had children who came into the country in August and in the following March were expected to pass the same standardized tests as American-born children! It sets those children up for academic failure. The NLNCB then comes in, looks at the ELL's student scores and interprets the school/teacher as"failing" that child.

Here in Oregon, we have a high rate of ELL students, many of them the children of illegal immigrants. Many of them fail the NLNCB benchmarks simply because they have not been in the country long enough to assimilate the language to pass the benchmarks. Whether or not the illegal parents and their children should be allowed to stay in the country is a whole other can of worms.

I will not get into Texas' interpretation of "Outcome-Based Education." There are about 100 interpretations of that learning philosophy.

Ironically, George W. Bush and many Republicans have long advocated that the Federal government should not be making national policies for areas like education but should instead leave it up to individual states. With respect to education, it has done the exact opposite! It has created a more federalism, not less.

I will hardly be the first to state the public education needs to improve in America. With NLNCB's many shortcomings, such as relying almost exclusively on standardized testing, NLNCB impedes the improvement process more than it helps.

[texaspackerbacker]

It still sounds like you are lumping several things together and calling it No Child Left Behind. What I said--and still say about Outcome Based Education is that most of the stuff you were parodying was that rather than NCLB.

You make a good point about parenting being a factor that shouldn't be ignored. That aspect, too, though, characterizes the liberal approach to education a lot more than traditional conservative methods.

You also make a good point that No Child Left Behind goes against the conservative grain by promoting more Federal control--which makes it ironic that liberals tend to bad-mouth the concept mainly out of Bush-hate. Remember back when Ted Kennedy was partnered with Bush in pushing the idea?

[MJZiggy]

Can a policy never be wrong for reasons other than Bush hate? More than one person has clearly expressed the obvious and overreaching flaws in this particular program and yet you attribute the criticism to Bush hate. Believe me, if Bush had come up with a program that had met the goals he intended for NCLB, I'd be the program's biggest supporter. But in practice it failed and burned because as OPF said, it is extremely rare to be able to force a successful education on a child whose parents don't value and support that education

[swede]

Bush is no conservative. That is what is so funny about all the Bush hate that's out there. America hasn't had a conservative President since Reagan.

NCLB sucks all the way around--and conservatives ought to be first in line to condemn this political football that grew up to be a big stinking blimp.

The big lie politicians want you to believe is that schools across the nation are doing terribly and you need them--whether Dem or Repub--to fix the problem.

Iowa and Wisconsin took turns for decades in leading the nation in ACT scores, and yet our states are doing poorly keeping up with NCLB benchmarks. Why? Because our scores aren't compared to the scores of low-performing states. Our benchmarks were set using our own baseline scores. Since we were already performing at high levels it is difficult to make gains against our own high standards.

NCLB is like Ponzi scheme in that it sounds good to start but will inevitably end badly. Unless we bend rules or lower standards it must all fall apart in the end. Since school districts across the nation have had to increase their administrative staffs in order to handle the NCLB red tape, (ours is up by 20% since NCLB took effect) the coming tidal wave of reforms as Democrats regain power will swiftly fill the vaccuum with new groovy government plans.

I need a button that says "NCLB: Bush SHOULD have known!"

[Deputy Nutz]

Actually, what was described was NOT No Child Left Behind at all, but the very liberal concept known as OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION--no competition, no objective standards, etc.--basically making sure NOT that everybody has an equal opportunity, but that everyone ends up equally successful even if you have to defy all rational thought to get to that conclusion.

No Child Left Behind is characterized by standardized testing of students to make sure they are learning what they are supposed to and judging of teachers according to an objective standard of how well the students they teach are learning--the standardized tests.

The REAL description of No Child Left Behind, therefore, sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

If you applied NCLB to football, you would judge the coach and GM according to an objective standard of how the players perform--wins and losses. Hey, that's exactly what we do!

Here is the problem with this and I will use an analogy, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."

Failing school systems are not the direct results of bad teachers. No teacher goes into the profession to loaf on the job to bring home a check. College education courses are very demanding and in most cases the school of ED in Wisconsin colleges have very high standards. Teachers go through a lot to become teachers, and not once have I ever heard one state that the became a teacher for the big pay check.

The problem with failing school systems is the overall care of the children. Urban school districts are suffering due to the lack of commitment from parents, relatives, and the community. Things that are not tested for. Teachers are on the hook for keeping kids grade current, while nobody else is held accountable, should they fine the parents for not giving enough of an effort to keep their kids grade current? Teachers are only a small part of the problem in most of these cases, but yet there jobs can be at stake.

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think you ever see a completely "failed school system". It's case by case with individual teachers--some districts, of course, having a much bigger percentage of bad teachers than others.

It is also a very valid point that some classrooms, schools, and districts are basically "mission impossible" due to large numbers of pretty much incorrigible kids. A helluva lot of big city teachers would say "Amen to that".

Ziggy, it doesn't have to be because of irrational Bush-hate, but in a solid majority of cases, it certainly is. As for NCLB, it is more good than bad--the most important elements being standardized curriculum and testing, and reviewing the status of teachers based on objective criteria. As I said, liberals originally were in lock-step with Bush on those things, but for the most part, jumped ship rather than praise anything identified with the object of their fanatical hate. I think you know that's true if you look at it objectively.

Swede, you are correct about Bush not being all that conservative. When he ran in 2000, he was probably more liberal than any Republican in the race other than McCain. It's a fact of life in the context of American politics these day, however, that a degree of compromise is needed rather than have the country ruined by the hard core badness of the other side. That context being a severely left-biased mainstream media and a large majority of the population being fairly disconnected from interest in politics and being very susceptible to the steady diet of left wing propaganda. You don't need to look any farther than most of the sort of benignly leftist posters in this forum to see examples of that.

[MJZiggy]

NCLB is not more good than bad. When it was first introduced, I thought it might actually be a decent program, you know they actually DID something about it.

I was wrong. And if you want to see a failed school system, look no further than the DC public schools.

Do you have kids in school? Do you see the day-to-day workings of this program? Or are you going by what you read in the leftist newspapers?

[texaspackerbacker]

Ziggy, my kids were out of high school before NCLB came along. I do, however, have grandkids in the system, and I have both been a teacher and a substitute teacher during the NCLB scenario.

I say again, the three most important elements of NCLB are standardized curriculum, standardized testing, and judging of teachers by objective standards--the performance of their students. Do you have anything against any of those things?

Sure, there are lesser elements of the program that people could oppose--the leaving out of parents, the control passing to the Federal government.

What exactly do you have against the program?

As for the DC schools, no, I'm not even going to get into that except to say one word: demographics. Talk about mission impossible, I doubt anything could make that school district successful, and it has nothing to do with teachers or NCLB.

[Deputy Nutz]

Milwaukee Public Schools, that all I need to say, horrible, sad, and horrible. The sad thing is they get teachers, but the end up leaving the turn over is sad, but expected and understood.

[GrnBay007]

If NCLB has standardized curriculum how they can label kids in honors classes?

[texaspackerbacker]

Milwaukee Public Schools, that all I need to say, horrible, sad, and horrible. The sad thing is they get teachers, but the end up leaving the turn over is sad, but expected and understood.

Demographics there too--you could say the same for almost any big city, almost mission impossible.

007, here in Texas, and I would think elsewhere, the curriculum is standardized for the minimum to be taught/learned. They have TEKS--Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. Honors and AP in high school and TAG in elementary and middle school is over and above that. When I was a teacher, I had no problem teaching the TEKS--what some disparagingly call "teaching to the test"--and still having plenty of time for creativity and fun stuff, etc.--using the more interesting extras as incentive for them to learn the required stuff.

Thus, IMO, there's plenty of flexibility in NCLB--if the teacher is good, and if the students are not too horrible for whatever reason.

[MJZiggy]

Ziggy, my kids were out of high school before NCLB came along. I do, however, have grandkids in the system, and I have both been a teacher and a substitute teacher during the NCLB scenario.

I say again, the three most important elements of NCLB are standardized curriculum, standardized testing, and judging of teachers by objective standards--the performance of their students. Do you have anything against any of those things?

Sure, there are lesser elements of the program that people could oppose--the leaving out of parents, the control passing to the Federal government.

What exactly do you have against the program?

As for the DC schools, no, I'm not even going to get into that except to say one word: demographics. Talk about mission impossible, I doubt anything could make that school district successful, and it has nothing to do with teachers or NCLB.

My problem with NCLB is that my kid is not at the bottom of the barrel. He's swimming at the top and because he's not being left behind because he's one of the bright ones, he's not allowed to soar. The NCLB curriculum does not offer an adequate amount of differentiated learning--it panders to the kids at the bottom and fails to challenge the kids at the top.

It also fails to give kids a well-rounded education. Art and music education has suffered. You've heard of teaching to the test, well, kids are learning rote math and reading without being taught adequate problem solving skills and they're not being taught how to learn on their own. You haven't noticed how incurious children have been lately? great they'll be able to read and answer multiple choice questions, but how do they figure out life when that's an essay question to say the least? They've finally come to realize that they need to add physical education back into the curriculum because kids weren't moving all day and simply can't concentrate that long.

Parental involvement has been entirely discounted as if it counts for nothing and your problem with the DC school system is not demographics. There are some seriously rich folks that live inside the beltway. They just have a failed school system (which you said there are none, or is it only certain demographics who deserve a decent education?). You simply cannot hold teachers accountable for things that are beyond their control--and the punishment is to cut their funding? That'll make it easier for them to bring their performance up.

[texaspackerbacker]

I sympathize with your situation, but I still say, it isn't because of NCLB. Lots of places, including where I am here, it isn't like that. There is easily enough flexibility in the system that a good teacher can find time and resources to do justice to the better students. Not to rub it in, but those of us who were/are more conservative teachers (there are a lot here in Texas, probably not many there) tend to try harder in that area.

When I taught 4th grade, I had no problem incorporating art, music, etc. into teaching core subjects. That really didn't apply when I taught charter high school, but as a substitute teacher, I know that here, at least, the non-core stuff--art, music, etc. is flourishing as much as ever on the high school level too.

As for "rote math", have you seen the tests they are teaching to? In the Texas tests, at least, there is an abundance of problem solving.

As for taking the parents out of the equation, it ain't that way down here, but to the extent that it is up there, I say again, it isn't NCLB, but the fact that you have a whole lot of liberal thinkers in education who tend to prefer government to family. If you are objective at all, you know that's true.

And the problem indeed IS demographics in DC. Anyone who has ever been a teacher knows, it doesn't take very many rotten apples at all to spoil the barrel--and you have a LOT of rotten apples in DC. I would think it is an extremely tiny percentage of those rich folks inside the beltway who actually send their kids to public school--and the ones that do stand a strong probability of being dominated by the bad ones. Here again, if you are objective at all, you know this a a problem completely disconnected from NCLB.