(no subject)

[lisamoe]

Hahaha! mamaduck sent this to me...


Subject: No Child Left Behind--not what you think it is.


The Federal government has announced that all high school football teams must meet "No Child Left Behind" legislation beginning next season.

1* No team will be declared a winner, as that will leave 50% of participants behind.

2* All high schools will be divided into districts with eight teams per district. Every team must finish at least 3rd place to be proficient.

3* All teams must score at least 21 points, but no defense can allow more than 7 points.

4* No tournaments will be held as this would result in one champion. The BCS experimented with this concept this season in college football.

5* All teams must make the state playoffs, and all will 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. In a recent experiment, the University of Nebraska football program modeled this theory.

6* All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions for interest in football, desire in athletics, genetic abilities or disabilities.... ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL.

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

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

9* 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 minimal goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left behind.

Comments

[willco.livejournal.com]

Bad example. Literacy is not a zero-sum game.

Re:

[lisamoe.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that's entirely true as regards education as a whole. There are limited resources for education. If they're all poured directly into trying to make sure that all students meet a certain cookie cutter basic standard, (and there are many critics who say that NCLB won't achieve this anyway) upon pain of having their funding yanked if they don't, where does it leave the kids who have achieved "literacy" already. Where does it leave Jack? Or your Angel? Rotting in public school "studying" for literacy tests they could do in their sleep while the arts, gifted education and science dry up and blow away? Obviously that isn't good enough for me. Or for you. Perhaps some children in marginal schools win with NCLB, although that's debatable, but schools and children who are already performing above the basic standards lose for sure.

http://www.nagc.org/Policy/tomlinsonarticlenov62002.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-01-28-education-cover-usat_x.htm
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0211lew.htm

Re:

[willco.livejournal.com]

I'll cede that you too have a point, but while the funding game is a zero sum affair, education itself doesn't have to be. A whole class could pass a test (it could happen!). Both teams cannot win the same football game. For that reason, I still contend it's a flawed analogy.

I once heard a comparison of communitarian and libertarian viewpoints that said communitarians work towards equality of results, and libertarians work towards equality of opportunity.

NCLB is deeply flawed, but so are most ideas on education plans out of the Whitehouse since I could vote. NCLB is one of the most ridiculous pieces of communitarian tripe the GOP has been able to pull out of it's ass. Unfortunately, so are most of the other education plans to come out of the Whitehouse since I could vote.

The only other grand plan the GOP has the balls to talk about (and even then only because the big-'L' Libertarians favor it) is on the libertarian side: vouchers and privatization. And while I'd be willing to wager that it would be an improvement for maybe 90% of the kids - including homeschooled children - the other 10% would lose... not exactly "no child left behind".

No politician in either party would dare do what they would need to do for success in a communitarian framework: weaken control of the teacher's unions, and establish salary guidelines based on merit, both competency and results. No amount of funding will have the desired effect as long as a trade union has control. When you let a trade union balance the interests of non-members (children) against that of the members, the non-members will lose ever time, rhetoric notwithstanding. [And yes, my attitude is probably tainted by my bad experiences with unions. I own that.]

Re:

[lisamoe.livejournal.com]

I'm no friend of the NEA either. Fortunately I've limited my personal stake in public education by being responsible for my own kids' education. Speaking of which, Davey knows all the planets now. Jack taught him. He says "Joopter is the big one, but we wive on the Earf!" You should see it. :-)