Talk:No Child Left Behind Act/Archive 2

100% compliance

I was under the impression that "100% compliance" had been officially redefined so that it wasn't 100%. Specifically, this regulation appears to exempt the bottom 1% of students (which pretty much means anyone with significant intellectual disabilities, but none of the kids with mild dyslexia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edburke317 (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Actually, the answer to whether ALL students must be tested is, "No," and it is found in current footnotes #s 48 and 49 in the main article. The statutory reference is IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), Sec. 612(a)(16) et ff. Hope this helps! EdBurke317Edburke317 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edburke317" 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ESL programms

Somebody knows if a child from private school can attend ESL program in the public, since we pay same taxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.88.123 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Officially, it depends on the state, because every state has its own rules. Your local school district should be able to tell you the rules for your state. (In Iowa, the answer is yes; I suspect that this is true for most states.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system

The citation to the following quote -- "schools have been shown to exclude minorities or other groups (to enhance apparent school performance; as many as 2 million students)" -- has expired and needs to be updated or should be deleted. I searched Internet Archive and google and only found wiki-related citations to it, not the full text. Jd147703 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be information under pushout that would support this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked up on that - I think the second point in the sentence about reclassification can remain as is, as cited in the NYT referenced from pushout, but I have found no mention of minority exclusion or specific figures like the 2 million quoted now. Can someone use lexis-nexus maybe to audit and update the original citation with author and date? Else, the first point will be deleted.Jd147703 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I have created an archive of the old discussions. I have copied back to this page all recent conversations. In case anyone needs to know in the future, I used the Move Page method. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The recently added information about kids with ADHD and testing is so misleading as to be wrong. Kids with these issues are always entitled to an appropriate testing arrangement. It's routinely specified in IEPs. The results may not be as accurate (in either situation: the ADD kid in the standard setting or in an accomodated setting) for these kids, but the writers of the standardized tests don't (and, in practice, can't) ban variations on the setting any more than they can ban a reader for a blind child. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

References added. From the NEA: "In many cases states have not received final approval due to their lack of valid and reliable accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities. [...] the U.S. Department of Education limits use of proficient scores on assessments based on modified standards to two percent of the school population and the proficient scores on assessments based on alternate standards to one percent of the school population. [...] Alternative formats for grade level assessments and assessments based on modified standards are available in very few states. [...] As a result, students with disabilities are tested in formats that do not allow them to demonstrate their capabilities."

You're right: IDEA says students who need them get IEPs. NCLB says that only 2% of your scores can be from students who took modified assessments. Unless the percentage of students in the school that need modification to the standardized assessments is below 2%, either IDEA or NCLB must take a backseat. NCLB usually wins.

On a personal note, I know for a fact that The New York State 11th-grade Regents English/Language Arts exam (among others) ignores IEPs.

You've (understandably) confused the two kinds of "standard" being used here. Modified curriculum is not the same as a modified testing environment. The 2% rule says that you can change the content that these students need to know: if the typical student is tested on a wide variety of long-division questions, then the 2% rule says you can test this struggling student on the simplest division questions. The 2% rule is about what the student needs to know and be able to do -- it's "standard" as in "measuring stick."

Testing accomodations, on the other hand, mean taking the same test as everyone else, but doing it in a quieter room so you're not distracted (or distracting other kids), or getting an extra ten minutes because your CP makes it harder for you to write at the same speed as the average student, or having your test read aloud to you because you can't see. This is about "standard" as in "normal."

Here are the five permitted types of assessment your source lists. I've added the limits for your convenience:

1. Regular grade level test based on state content standards [no limit];
2. Grade level test with accommodations [no limit];
3. Alternate assessment based on grade level content standards [no limit];
4. Alternate assessment based on modified standards [limited to 2%]; and
5. Alternate assessment based on alternate standards [limited to 1%].

You've written that students with ADHD can't take a normal test in a quiet room, which is an example of #2: a grade-level test with accommodations -- a category for which is there no limit at all. Your assertion is wrong, it is not supported by your source, and it needs to be removed.

Finally, the Regents' exams do not ignore all IEPs: Even with the Regents, "testing accommodations are provided for students with disabilities"[1] This is not a new policy: "all reasonable accommodations"[2] goes back more than ten years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a wonderfully constructive discussion. Thank you for your contributions. I have no doubt that we can work out something that satisfies both of us.

First, let's make sure we agree on some basic terminology. There are indeed two different ideas of "standard": The curriculum (which would include the content and level of the assessment) and the assessment protocols. Changing the curriculum is a "modification," while changing the assessment protocols (in such a way that does not alter the level or content of the assessment) is an "accommodation." I hope we can agree on that distinction.

Second, IEPs can specify both accommodations and modifications. Therefore, whether we are talking about accommodations or modifications is moot because the claim in question is that the standardized testing policies laid out in NCLB conflict with IDEA. Do you agree?

Third, I never said that an ADHD student "can't" take a standardized test in an alternative environment. I said, "Standardized assessment protocols often do not allow this" (emph. added). However, I can see how what I wrote could be taken as a more absolute than what I intended, so I will soften the language.

This assertion - that many standardized tests do not allow for many accommodations - is directly from the National Education Association document to which I linked:

"Major test makers across the country have been particularly slow to write into test administration protocols the various types of accommodations that can and should be used with many students with disabilities."

I concede that the NEA document does not cite ADHD as an example. I simply thought it a logical extension of the NEA's observations. It's also borrowed from personal experience (despite what the Regents administration manual claims). So, I will replace the ADHD example with one directly from the NEA document:

"For example, scores were invalidated for a group of blind students who scored proficient on an NCLB-mandated test because the test was read aloud to them. This accommodation is allowable and widely used in all other testing scenarios but was not part of the test protocol in this instance. As a result, the students' scores were reported as zeroes in the school's AYP calculation. This illogical consequence could have been avoided with the inclusion of appropriate protocols."

Is that more acceptable to you? I truly enjoy this discussion.

That example is an improvement, although I note that the NEA press release (and every other reference) carefully omits a date, a place, or any other identifying information, so that no one can find out whether this was a simple error that was immediately corrected, or whether "did not specifically allow for test readers" actually meant "Reading the test aloud was specifically disallowed because the whole point of the test was to find out whether the student could actually read words printed (or Brailled) on a piece of paper." Turning a reading test into a listening test, but still trying to pretend that the students were reading for the purpose of statewide reports, is at least illogical and possibly unethical. (If your child could not read, would you want the school to get credit for having supposedly taught him how to read?)

Despite the NEA's assertions, it's not really the job of the test writers to create specific protocols for accommodating disabilities. In general, the rule is that even "If a specific accommodation is not on the list of accommodations in the Examiner’s Manual, the accommodation can still be used."[3] States issue lists of accommodations that are always accepted as valid, accommodations which may be valid with limits (like reading aloud: fine for math, but not usually for reading comprehension), and a method of getting approval for any accommodation that isn't on the list.

Also in Missouri's Division of Special Education manual (since its relevant to the new example) is the unusual permission to convert of the reading test into a listening test. Their list of pre-approved accomodations (table 2) includes reading the test aloud; it is valid for all students except on the reading test, and for the small subset of "children identified as Blind/Visually Impaired who use oral reading as their primary instructional method" it is considered valid even for reading, even though common sense will indicate that no reading is being done that way. Most states, however, including Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, South Dakota and Arkansas (just to name a few), allow reading aloud on everything except the reading comprehension sections, since that is a modification (making the test easier, or at least significantly different) rather than an accommodation (leveling the playing field). Also -- there just aren't that many blind students (especially if you exclude deaf-blind students, who obviously wouldn't benefit from reading out loud either). Even if none of them were learning Braille, that's still only one student in every seven hundred, which is well within the exemption rate. Dealing with these kinds of issues is why that exemption rate exists, after all.

Overall, I'm inclined to make this into a separate section, since this isn't so much a "problem with standardized testing" as a disability-specific concern. After all, a blind student isn't going to be able to read printed text even if it's a non-standardized non-test assessment. There are also NCLB-related issues that have nothing to do with testing: disabled students are learning more academic skills than they did in the past, which takes time away from life skills and job training. What do you think about that idea?

I also think that the first sentence about conflicting with IDEA is entirely inaccurate and should be removed. The student can be accommodated under IDEA, even if that invalidates the test. Validity here only matters to the extent that the school wants to get credit for the student's achievements; students can refuse to participate in the test if they are dissatisfied with the accommodations (just like they can refuse to use accommodations that they don't want). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I like where this is heading. The NEA comments are quite applicable, and in ethnographic research, such as the NEA's case studies, revealing specific date and place information would violate the data-gathering protocols on anonymity. However, I am inclined to give NEA the benefit of the doubt. If not, I'm wondering what authoritative source you could not dispute using your method.

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that it's not the test-developers responsibility to write accommodations into their test protocols. Besides NEA, AERA, APA, and NCME note that test-makers share the responsibility of how their tests are used (see Chapter 2 of the Standards for Psychological and Educational Testing, 1999). Given that the test-makers are the ones most versed in the assessment's target construct, they are best-situated to stipulate which/how accommodations affect the validity of the test's use and interpretations of the test's scores.

I think you are correct that this deserves its own section. I felt that the testing section was where the special education/inclusive issues fit best because that is where NEA felt the need to comment, but you are correct that there are a host of NCLB-special education problems that could be addressed in a new section. Would you like to start the new section or shall I?

Again, thank you for this constructive conversation.

Your first question is what couldn't be attacked like the NEA's statement. My answer is: anything that doesn't have the same primary flaw, which is the assertion of an injustice without enough information to let the reader decide whether the decision was actually unjust. Additionally, anything that provided even partial details. Right now, we have a paragraph that meets all the standard requirements for being declared an urban legend: a morally outrageous but plausible situation, a sympathetic group of people portrayed as the innocent victims [although you and I note that the students didn't get penalized at all for this: it was the school that got its score dinged], and absolutely no way to check the facts, despite this being exactly the sort of thing that would have been run on page one of every local and regional newspaper, complete with strongly worded quotes attributed to the outraged superintendent.

The reason that the test-writers shouldn't have to create specific protocols for accommodating disabilities is this: every child with special needs is entitled to individualized accommodation. It's really not possible for CTB (or other test-writing companies) to figure out the specific protocol for testing each student. We're talking about one out of nine students across every state. Through state agencies, they already provide significant information, but it's the local IEP team's job to create the specific arrangements. Given that information, any normally trained teacher can figure out what's being tested (the construct or "content") and make a pretty good guess at whether the accommodation for this student is "leveling the playing field" or just "making the test easier." Most states provide additional training on this specific issue to the special ed teachers. Blaming the test company is a good political move, but the test company has never seen this child.

If you don't mind, I'd be happy to have you create the new section. You might look through the rest of the article and see if there's anything else that needs to be moved to the new section as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

There were twenty (20) external links here this morning. Several of them appear to be duplicates (how many links do we need to the text of the law itself?) or links to groups that are kind of about education reform, but not about NCLB in particular. How about we clean them out? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, considering WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM. Relevant links can appear in the References section as cited supporting sources. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've broken them down into a couple of sections. Honestly, I think all but the second link (a .gov page with links to all the text in various formats) could be profitably chucked overboard. Do you have a feel for what might be a reasonable number of links to have left at the end? Or should we first go through each link and determine whether (for example) any of the news articles/press releases/etc contain anything that isn't already in the article (to check for compliance with WP:ELNO #1)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The external link labelled "Anti-NCLB" goes to a site which opposes NCLB because it allows military recruiters access to student records. I recognize the validity of the site's point of view, but it is an inferior resource to learn about NCLB because much of the content is not widely accessible (video content with a proprietary format), and is not organized in a fashion to facilitate improved knowledge of the Act. I recommend removing the link. 75.14.216.49 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When I looked at the list of articles and press releases listed yesterday, they seemed heavily tilted and biased in favor of the law. They were mostly releases from the Ed Secretary and the White House claiming good things. I added a critical article and a cartoon, but they were swiftly deleted by someone who evidently liked the previous balance better. I undid the deletion because I think the list is biased for the law without them. (Questiontveracity (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

The editorial cartoon, however, does not increase one's knowledge of the law beyond what is already known; thus it's unusable. I'm removing it again. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly stale info

"Up for possible reauthorization in 2007, ..." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Act authors, sponsors

I may just be missing it, but I couldn't find any place in this article which discussed who originally introduced and/or sponsored the original bill. Any help here? WDavis1911 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There were 84 sponsors,[4] which is a bit much to list in this kind of article. Ted Kennedy was the major player, which is why he's identified as "Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor..." when he's mentioned in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just made some edits to address this. President Bush proposed a blueprint, the House took up the legislation first (which is why it is known as HR 1) and the Committee Chairman John Boehner and Ranking Member George Miller, then it went to the Senate (Gregg and Kennedy). I also added a link to the press release for the original blueprint. Vatwinmom (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Student motivation to succeed?

Can someone Please ad One more part to this article (see below)

One thing I think that is a must to add, is that students quite commonly don't care to much for the test. Theres no major or frankly any incentive to do well as they don't determine college eligibility and don't determine grades in the classroom. So there purpose would not be served to students. I know some people arrived to take these tests just because our school gave a free breakfast. They didn't care about getting a 0. Then I had a very intellectual friend who told me he just filed in the dots randomly and played on his calculator (during the math section). Is that what where funding, free breakfast's and a free period to play on your calculator. Honestly I can't tell you how I could of 100% tried on this test. I certainly did not feel the same burden when taking the Sat which I knew If i screwed up could lead to many problems, now this test I just did what I did (guess based on mood). So if someone felt like taking the test (seriously taking it) then they would try (maybe even a little) on it. However if you had a major Chemistry test after this standardized test you bet that I would ignore this and actually stress over the chemistry grade. Does anybody see what I'm saying. Please incorporate this into the article. Students usually don't care about these tests, teachers sometimes even tell use that the state wants us to show up just to get aid (WOW teachers telling use to just show up). Which makes aid absolutely pointless. What are we even funding. Students showing up. Politics really need to enter a school once in a while and see what really happens. Theory is theory and its good but reality is reality and you can't just put a number dollar amount on it and expect to fix anything (or make it worse teachers telling students to just show up)

Any input would be great (but please add this to the article). It's really important because it is what is happening across the nation (probably in all 50 states) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment encouraged me to do a search and I found these rather revealing instructions from the US Department of State. It includes ways to almost bribe children to try hard on the tests. I have a hurricane heading for my house, so i can't add the info now, but I think you've raised a worthy question. http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/c21998.htm Grumpy otter (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Some students may not learn as well"

The criticism of "some students may not learn as well" could definitely use some expansion. It fails to reflect the potential absurdity of blanket testing even amongst students who are grossly incapable of taking any sort of standardized test.

I've heard of numerous instances where students with very low functional levels were required to be tested. In several cases these were students who were unable to read the test questions. Even if appropriate modifications were made (they weren't), I also know of instances where the child's functional level was low enough that they would struggle even to repeat the questions back if they were read aloud. In some cases, I've heard of teachers struggling to get a child to put anything at all on an answer sheet.

I'm not aware of any criteria for immunity from testing, but I would be interested in knowing if any exists. Is such determination be made at a federal level as well, or does NCLB allow any sort of state or local determination? If a child lacked proper motor and verbal skills to communicate any sort of answers, does NCLB address this in any way? It's not unheard of for such students to remain in a public school environment, especially in larger districts that have the resources to institute programs specifically for them. While this may be more extreme instances than usual, what about the significant number of students for which appropriate modifications to standardized testing simply aren't possible or feasible?

I have no idea as to any citable sources in relation to this. If anyone knows any, I think it would be good to see this addressed.

Jbrownos (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See #100% compliance higher up on this page. Severely disabled students do not have to be tested under NCLB. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Too many lists in the article, not enough paragraphs

Especially in the sections "Criticisms of the Act" and Claims made in favor of the act", there are just way too many unconnected lists. "Narrow curriculum" is basically 4 unconnected sentences. They clearly have one thing in common, so why not make them into paragraphs with connectors and such?LedRush (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When going into a new article I usually just announce my concerns to ensure that there currently isn't some kind of edit war or such going on. That way when I do make my edits there is less of a chance of hard feeling, reverts, and flaming.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Article from NYTimes

Here's a great resource which should be incorporated into the article:

Under ‘No Child’ Law, Even Solid Schools Falter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Comlish (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

State Education Budgets

I was just reading through this page to get an understanding of what NCLB is, given I am not American, and noticed this under criticisms of NCLB: The comment about state education budgets is not actually a criticism in this context, as it does not say anything critical about NCLB, just that falling state tax revenue has lowered state education expenditure. In fact, this paragraph is probably better under "claims made in favour of the act" or "funding". I have moved it to be under funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 17:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 58.96.112.85

Why didn't the method "obviously" work?

The second paragraph states that:

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. Obviously, this method did not work.

The bold text seems very strange to me. Didn't it work? If so, why is it "obvious"? I'd say it needs a clear reference, and the "obvious" word is just POV noise, but I do not know much about NCLB. What do you think is needed to do? --Brandizzi (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. The statement was added recently with no discussion and (as you note) no supporting evidence. I've removed the statement and I invite further discussion, particularly if someone can offer evidence supporting the statement. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

10th Ammendment

This is a total interpretation: "...in order to comply with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifies that powers not granted to the federal government nor forbidden to state governments are reserved powers of the individual states." It shouldn't be stated as fact by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

The list about what happens during each year that a school misses AYP was a blatant copyright violation. I have therefore deleted it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Why is a criticism of NCLB listed in the header instead of in the body where favorability and criticisms are listed? --75.82.70.58 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Section was reverted without discussion posted. Should the benefits of NCLB also be posted in the header summary? This would be consistent. --75.82.70.58 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) For example; see NCLB Found to Raise Scores Across Spectrum

Source Do exerpts from this article also belong in the header? Giving space to only a critical data in the header gives the NPOV impression that the NCLB is conclusively ineffective across the board, not just in the narrow area addressed by the citation. --75.82.70.58 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The bias in this article against No Child Left Behind is quite distasteful. The Criticisms section is half the article. Wikipedia cheapens itself by having articles this biased. What a sad statement about the state of Wikipedia. --71.131.19.160 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

More facts and less "Support" and "Criticism", please

I understand this is a controversial subject, but how about leading the article with a discussion of the facts first, before we jump into support and criticism opinions? For example, there is a lot of talk about "standards" in all sections, but there is nothing that says what those standards are. As a template, maybe look at how the article on IEP (which is referenced here) handles it. If someone is looking for some idea about what all the bruhaha is over NCLB, they are certainly not going to get it here. I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.199.122 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. This article should be titled "No Child Left Behind Controversy." The article on the bill should discuss the contents of the bill, and there should be another article describing the history of the legislative process that led to passage of the bill. This has to be done by experts on the subject. Really, it's one of the most relevant laws in recent US history, so the article should be improved. BishopOcelot (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There are some great articles on Wikipedia. This is not one of them. It's understandably difficult to generate collaborative, objective articles on controversial subjects, but it has been done successfully on other Wikipedia topics. Hopefully this article will see "continuous improvement" to borrow an NCLB phrase. ShelbyBell (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree in part. I came here for a quick refresher on NCLB, after reading about it in the New York Times and Science magazine over the years. It gave me what I wanted.

I would like to see a better summary of the goals of the program, and the arguments on both sides. Is the NAEP the test used to judge whether the schools meet the NCLB standards? That wasn't clear.

NCLB is controversial, but so are a lot of WP articles. There's no way to avoid the criticisms. Even Diane Ravitch came out against it. I'm a big believer in the idea that tests should be validated for the particular purpose that you use them for. I haven't seen any evidence that they're validated. That would be a fatal flaw. Ravitch said the main factor that predicts school performance is family income. How does the DOE correct the raw test scores for family income? Or do they?

There are some sections like Impact on Arts that could use some NPOV editing.

But I wouldn't like to see that used as an excuse for POV editing -- to "trim" the arguments on one side or the other. -- Nbauman (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, NAEP is not used to determine whether NCLB is met. Each state sets its own standards. If a state chooses to say "Students are proficient in mathematics if they can fog a mirror two times out of three", then that's the standard NCLB uses (for students in the given state).

There's a lot about this article that needs some neutrality-related improvements. If you're willing to help out with that, I'd be happy to have you do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification about NAEP.

I don't know enough about NCLB to do it. I was intrigued by the question of whether it's possible to create a test that would tell whether students were learning language and math skills, with the accuracy and validity that's required to use it for something as consequential as comparing the abilities of teachers and firing teachers whose students don't progress. The variation associated with family income alone might be greater than the variation in teaching ability. How would they correct a teacher's raw average score for income? Can they even identify family income accurately? I don't see how, but the back-and-forth debates in the literature get over my head pretty quickly.

There's a similar debate in evaluating outcomes of doctors (where I think they have better data). A lot of articles argue that the data is good enough for quality improvement, but if they base reimbursement (or firing) decisions on it, they won't be able to get reliable data any more. Doctors won't cooperate. They'll find high risk factors for every patient. -- Nbauman (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A Possible Addition to the NCLB page

I would like for you (whom it may concern) to consider my thuoghts on adding a writing education portion to the No Child Left Behind Act page here on Wikipedia. I would like to discuss why the addition of a topic based on how writing education under NCLB could be a positive contribution to the act itself. I have done my research and will be happy to cite my sources and welcome any input on the subject. Alex Marie (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Alex Marie

This page article is supposed to describe what has already been done, not advocate for changes that we (editors) personally believe would be valuable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So would you suggest I start a new page to discuss this? Alex Marie (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Alex Marie

"supposed to describe what has already been done, not advocate for changes" - not true, please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages

But, neutral point of view would indicate that only reasonably prominent proposals for changes to NCLB programs should be included in this article, not wishes of individual Wikipedia authors / editors. If there have been such proposals.

Here's an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html

Mydogtrouble (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. I have corrected my statement above to reflect my meaning more precisely.

Alex, if you want to include information about one proposal out of (literally) thousands of proposals, that you prove that this is a really, really, really important proposal—according to lots of other people (not counting you, me, or any other Wikipedia editor). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the proposal I am thinking of is kind of a new idea, not yet mentioned in any information I have found relating to NCLB. Therefore, it may not be the most important proposal to everyone else. However, because it is a new idea/concept, I feel it could be beneficial information. I understand what you were saying about this particular article's goals, which is why I ask if perhaps it would be a better idea to create a new article or page about Writing Education in the United States instead and then linking it to NCLB, as it relates, rather than adding the topic to this article?Alex Marie (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Alex_Marie

If it's your own idea, then it can't be put into Wikipedia in any form, because that would be WP:Original research by an editor.

You could start an article on Writing education. Let me suggest that you start off with one about the subject generally, not restricted to the US, and see what other countries are doing as well. There may be useful ideas at some of the related articles, like Writing, Composition (language), and Language education. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great! Thanks, I'll definately start looking into that. Alex Marie (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The main provisions of the act are nowhere described.

I looked up this article to find out what were the main provisions of the act, and all I found were assessments of its consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.9.220 (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That information was the victim of a bored high schooler. I've fixed it now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias in "Problems with standardized tests"

In this section the following was added:

"Teaching to the test" does not raise student test scores. Teachers who engage in it are typically below-average teachers.

however the source material referenced, a preliminary MET report funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is not peer-reviewed and all verbiage is couched in the tentative nature of the analysis presented. As such any definitive statement made based on this report is clearly a biased reading of the results as not even the authors are confident enough to make such a claim. The report does not conclude that teachers who engage in teaching to the test are typically below-average teachers. JSB73 (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). You will want to consider the newspaper article given in the source, which says (page 2):

Teachers unions and some education experts have argued that value-added is an unreliable measure that encourages rote learning and "teaching to the test."

But the study found that teachers whose students said they "taught to the test" were, on average, lower performers on value-added measures than their peers, not higher.

If you can improve on it, please do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The article was updated (Page 1) to correct the statement you are referring to:

A Dec. 11 article in the LATExtra section reported that a preliminary study by education experts had found that teachers whose students said they "taught to the test" scored lower than average on value-added analysis. In fact, the study found that test preparation was positively correlated with a teacher's value-added scores, but not as strongly as other indicators, such as effective classroom management or efficient use of class time.

I have changed those two sentences to be inline with the current state of the article which states that "teaching to the test" is positively correlated with value-added scores. JSB73 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Rearranged (less of a praise-criticism style)

I have just rearranged the article so that it better complies with WP:STRUCTURE. I did not change the meanings/sentences/content of anything here (although a couple of sentences like "here's the list of common criticisms" were deleted). Most of this material still requires significant attention and improvements, but perhaps now we can do that in an integrated, topical fashion rather than as a list divided by political views.

The order of the items was determined by what required the least amount of cutting and pasting. If you want to rearrange it according to (for example) importance, please feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Increases segregation in public schools...but how?

This lengthy section does nothing to explain how NCLB might be affecting racial segregation until the last three sentences, which although they sound reasonable point to a source dated from 1996. This is a call for anyone who wants to keep this section to add in some journals or quotes that back up the claim that NCLB is effecting race ratios...Masebrock (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the deleted section:

Increases segregation in public schools Many people believe that No Child Left Behind has played a role in the increase of segregated public schools. Studies have shown that many African American students attend the lowest performing schools in the country, and African Americans score considerably lower on almost every indicator of academic well-being than do children of a Caucasian descent. For example, high minority and high poverty schools score much lower on standardized tests than low minority and low poverty schools, but 71% of African Americans attend high minority schools and 72% of African Americans attend high-poverty schools. Standardized assessment scores reflect these disparities: the percentage of African Americans meeting proficiency in national assessments in reading and math is less than one fourth of that of White students. NCLB controls the portion of federal Title I funding based upon each school meeting annual set standards. Any participating school that does not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years must offer parents the choice to send their child to a non-failing school in the district, and after three years, must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance. After five years of not meeting AYP, the school must make dramatic changes to how the school is run, which could entail state-takeover. One recent study has shown that schools in California and Illinois that have not met AYP serve 75–85% minority students while schools meeting AYP have less than 40% minority students. Also, even though schools that do not meet AYP are required to offer their students' parents the opportunity to transfer their students to a non-failing school within the district, it is not required that the other school accepts the student. The parents with more education and resources are most likely to leave high-poverty schools. They are more likely to research the schools and make an informed decision on where to transfer their child. This often leads to segregated schools by both race and class.

That's a lot of sourced material to be deleting just because you think that it mostly provides necessary background information rather than explaining a specific mechanism ("how NCLB might be affecting racial segregation"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it because the background information is building up to a conclusion not supported by the source it is citing. Since the final source is from 1996, using it to back up a claim about NCLB is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Under the heading "Increases segregation in public schools" I would expect at least these three basic pieces of information: 1. What is claimed? 2. Who claimed it? 3. What is the rationale for this claim? The background information is fluff dancing around these three points without ever answering them.Masebrock (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely want someone with knowledge on this subject to rewrite it in a way that is informative, concise, and backed up by relevant sources. Perhaps I should tag this heading instead of deleting it?Masebrock (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I also want someone to re-write that section! Actually, I think that all of the "Effects" sections need to be re-written, and in some cases, to have the sub-sections combined. Some of the deficiencies are due to the old "Supporters say—Critics say" style of the article. In other cases, it may well be stuff that was just made up by some passing person, or that is such an unimportant point that we shouldn't bother keeping it. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between "new person didn't know how to cite a reference" and "new person thought that Wikipedia was a great place to write his (or her) own personal opinion."

I think tagging it is an appropriate first step. Have you considered looking for some sources that might address this? I've seen a few news articles in the past that make claims sort of like this, but nothing really strong. (It's usually something like "This person worries that this might happen," and I think it would be preferable to know whether it did happen.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unattributed quote -- remove?

We have this -- "This program has failed. It blames the people who study because they have to stay behind to catch people up. This means that children who skip the halls all day will have to pass. That spells trouble. They will cheat to pass. But one thing is certain, the government should stay out of education." -- with no attribution. I couldn't find the souce in a ten-minute web search. I plan to take the quote out. Objections? --Jo3sampl (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just your basic unverifiable junk, added by an unregistered user a couple of days ago. I removed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link

The 48th reference had a dead link. I googled it and found it here @ http://users.rcn.com/crawj/langpol/misguided.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.35.74 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to Race

Umm, "children of a Caucasian descent"? Are you kidding me?! Clearly some white person wrote this. This ethnifying, deracializing of language in typical white liberal PC manner is not okay. Call a white kid "a white kid", Jesus H. Christ. Anyazelie (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Intended effects on curriculum and standards

Under "Effects on curriculum and standards", we have:

Quality of education

• Increases the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance
• Improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "scientifically-based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college.
• Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
• Emphasizes reading, language arts, mathematics and science achievement as "core academic subjects."[28]

The reference takes you only to the text of the legislation.

I propose to change the section title to "Intended effects on curriculum and standards". Any objections? -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Made the change. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

10 states freed from some 'No Child Left Behind' requirements

Reported on CNN--Nickvet419 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

== Едва лишь транссексуалы

==

Одна из первых обязанностей дружбы состоит в том, чтобы предупреждать просьбы друзей. Исократ. Никогда не говорите дурно о себе; ваши друзья сами достаточно наговорят о вас. Ш. Талейран. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.4.199.238 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bipartisan Support

I removed the "limited" qualifier on "bipartisan support." If you follow the cited source, it's clear this passed with broad, and almost univeral, bipartisan support in both houses. I'm inclined to change "limited" to "broad" - but simply deleted the qualifier for now. John2510 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Math

In particular, at Houston’s Sharpstown High School, 463 of its 1,700 students left during the 2001-2002 school year but not one was reported as a dropout, which makes Houston’s dropout rate somewhere between 33 and 50 percent rather than the reported 1.5 percent. I don't know how dropout rates are calculated, apparently it isn't as simple as number of dropouts divided by number of students, but how can zero reported dropouts result in a dropout rate of 1.5 percent? --88.73.24.184 (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page?

NCLB redirects to this page, and I'm sure this is the primary use of that initialism, but I think that a disambiguation page that also points to the ACLU predecessor, the National Civil Liberties Bureau would be nice. I just have no idea how to make it work. :/   99.238.239.254 (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Date

Is it the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 or 2002? The page refers to one in the first paragraph and the other in the info box.--205.178.36.171 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on No Child Left Behind Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101120172356/http://cgcs.org/images/Legislative/Feb06.pdf to http://www.cgcs.org/images/Legislative/Feb06.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Repealed

This law has been repealed (Source), so should the Proposals for reform section be replaced with a section about this law being repealed? A condensed version of the contents of Proposals for reform section could be included in such a new section. SMP0328. (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on No Child Left Behind Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110622083616/http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.htm to http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No Child Left Behind Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509143713/http://www.oms.nysed.gov/legcoord/fedleg05/body.html to http://www.oms.nysed.gov/legcoord/fedleg05/body.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Previous date and roll call results of final vote was incorrect.

Before I edited it, I notice that the previous version said that the House of Representatives and the Senate each passed the bill in May 2001 and that President Bush signed it in January 2001. Anyone familiar with how legislation is passed should have caught the fact that something is very wrong if the President doesn't sign a bill for several months after it passes both houses of Congress, because if he doesn't sing it within ten business days it either becomes law if Congress is in session or it is a pocket veto if Congress is not in session. It was presented to him on January 4, 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlineAdjunct (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer-Reviewed Articles and Books that Can be Used in the Future

Hello. Below are a few peer-reviewed articles and books that I will be using when editing the page in the future. I have posted them here for safe-keeping. Thank you all so much!

DeBray-Pelot, E., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328524

Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586

Nichols, S. L., Berliner, D. C., & Noddings, N. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Harvard Education Press. -Nemerson4970 (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

- Nemerson4970 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)