Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NYTimes.com: Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in 'No Child' Law

Expand Messages
  • catherine@mercuriodentalarts.com
    This page was sent to you by: catherine@mercuriodentalarts.com. Interesting information about possible changes to No Child Left Behind EDUCATION | February
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      This page was sent to you by: catherine@....

      Interesting information about possible changes to "No Child Left Behind"


      EDUCATION | February 01, 2010
      Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in 'No Child' Law
      By SAM DILLON
      The changes would affect how schools are judged to be passing or failing, and would eliminate a deadline for academic proficiency.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html?emc=eta1




      ----------------------------------------------------------

      ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
      This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@....

      NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

      Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Charles Cowens
      To me, a particularly interesting part of this is the idea of switching more Title 1 funding from a stable formula basis to an unstable grants basis. The
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        To me, a particularly "interesting" part of this is the idea of
        switching more Title 1 funding from a stable formula basis to an
        unstable grants basis. The response of school districts would be to hire
        fewer staff under Title 1 and use even more consultants to maintain
        flexibility in case of changes in their grant level.

        What is the most interesting feature to you?

        Charley Cowens

        catherine@... wrote:
        > This page was sent to you by: catherine@....
        >
        > Interesting information about possible changes to "No Child Left Behind"
        >
        >
        > EDUCATION | February 01, 2010
        > Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in 'No Child' Law
        > By SAM DILLON
        > The changes would affect how schools are judged to be passing or failing, and would eliminate a deadline for academic proficiency.
        >
        > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html?emc=eta1
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
        > This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@....
        >
        > NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
        >
        > Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • reducingandreusing
        The most interesting thing to me about education in the U.S. is how much money is spent on students who don t give a darn. Why is it that in extremely poor
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          The most interesting thing to me about education in the U.S. is how much money is spent on students who don't give a darn.

          Why is it that in extremely poor countries, people value education and make sacrifices to obtain it? Here, we throw money on programs, "experts," consultants, and new textbooks every few years to conform with the latest fad.


          --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Cowens <charley.cowens@...> wrote:
          >
          > To me, a particularly "interesting" part of this is the idea of
          > switching more Title 1 funding from a stable formula basis to an
          > unstable grants basis. The response of school districts would be to hire
          > fewer staff under Title 1 and use even more consultants to maintain
          > flexibility in case of changes in their grant level.
          >
          > What is the most interesting feature to you?
          >
          > Charley Cowens
          >
          > catherine@... wrote:
          > > This page was sent to you by: catherine@...
          > >
          > > Interesting information about possible changes to "No Child Left Behind"
          > >
          > >
          > > EDUCATION | February 01, 2010
          > > Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in 'No Child' Law
          > > By SAM DILLON
          > > The changes would affect how schools are judged to be passing or failing, and would eliminate a deadline for academic proficiency.
          > >
          > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html?emc=eta1
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ----------------------------------------------------------
          > >
          > > ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
          > > This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@...
          > >
          > > NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
          > >
          > > Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------------
          > >
          > > Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • annpalmer8
          In the way our district currently work, I can understand why you see it playing out this way. Depending on the detail of what is guaranteed funding and what s
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 11, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            In the way our district currently work, I can understand why you see it playing out this way. Depending on the detail of what is guaranteed funding and what's discretionary funding based on performance, I'd like to see some leadership to go after more dollars. Why surrender our district to be victims? I hope this spurs more coordinated effort to go after the extra money.

            Entitlement attitude is a possibility. Why rock the boat if you're guaranteed an existence, even if one where you're just scraping by? Clearly, no amount of parental input is getting our district to want to rock the boat. Maybe federal money would.

            And I personally don't understand the big fear in measuring teacher performance. Unless the law is just prescriptive and rigid, with no input from parents, educators and researchers; I think we can come up with something that measures how well our education system serves our children.

            At the end of the day, if we have teachers who are not "meeting the mark". To allow them continued protection from no measurement is an atrocity to our children. The measurement could ensure more candid discussion about best fit for our teachers (afterall, just because you can't teach 6th grade may not mean you can't be a good 2nd grade teacher; as an example), as well as training needs to ensure teachers are living to their fullest potential - so that they can help our children reach theirs.

            If we all share the common goal - to prepare each and every child for a successful future, whatever professional that may be in - we can develop measurements to achieve that rather than feeling like it's just penalizing our teachers.


            Ann

            --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Cowens <charley.cowens@...> wrote:
            >
            > To me, a particularly "interesting" part of this is the idea of
            > switching more Title 1 funding from a stable formula basis to an
            > unstable grants basis. The response of school districts would be to hire
            > fewer staff under Title 1 and use even more consultants to maintain
            > flexibility in case of changes in their grant level.
            >
            > What is the most interesting feature to you?
            >
            > Charley Cowens
            >
            > catherine@... wrote:
            > > This page was sent to you by: catherine@...
            > >
            > > Interesting information about possible changes to "No Child Left Behind"
            > >
            > >
            > > EDUCATION | February 01, 2010
            > > Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in 'No Child' Law
            > > By SAM DILLON
            > > The changes would affect how schools are judged to be passing or failing, and would eliminate a deadline for academic proficiency.
            > >
            > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/education/01child.html?emc=eta1
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ----------------------------------------------------------
            > >
            > > ABOUT THIS E-MAIL
            > > This e-mail was sent to you by a friend through NYTimes.com's E-mail This Article service. For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@...
            > >
            > > NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
            > >
            > > Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.