Journal Community

Explore Group

Should states develop an alternative to the federal No Child Left Behind education law?

loading...

Tired of waiting for a federal overhaul, state governors, including embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, are challenging No Child Left Behind by ignoring key aspects of the federal law. Do you think states should override the federal education law with their own?

(See more polls, discussions and hot topics.)

Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon
  • if they choose to. The federal government should not be involved in the direct funding of such local matters as education

    3 Recommendations

  • The word education does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution, thus the 9th and 10th Amendments grant this power to the States exclusively, should they chose to exercise it. Not only should No Child Left Behind, and its cousins like Race to the Top, be repealed, the entire Department of Education needs to shut down. The fact that we have dozens of Nobel Prize winners in real fields (not that Peace thing) that graduated from US schools before the Department of Education formed (in fact, most people alive today graduated high school before a Department of Education existed, it wasn't formed until 1979), we did better without one, so the arguments of being "against education" is only usable against those that support Federal involvement in education.

    6 Recommendations

    • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

      I thought President Reagan was going to do that. Then it came up again during Pres. Bush I's term. Pres. George W Bush then used his office to pass the mother of all federal education boondoggles. I'm not sure I trust any future Republicans to do all you suggest - although I'd sure like them to.

      Recommend

    • Agreed. The US Constitution also does not say anything about charity spending or most of what our politicians do.

      So, why are neither the federal police nor the states enforcing its terms? Didn't they take an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? We ought to see a few politicians in prison, don't you think? Every time one deliberately tries to usurp power not delegated.

      There seems to be no downside to violating our "highest law".

      Recommend

  • Education levels will NOT improve unless parents become involved and insiust that their children STUDY instead of watching TV or playin ball.

    Recommend

  • Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have the power to provide schooling and education. It is positive that each state cares for the education of the children.

    Recommend

  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    Private School better Public Schools, State Public Education better than Federal Government. In fact never Federal Government.

    What is the real issue? There are indeed many Public School systems run by the States are really really very good (e.g. Wisconsin). Some, like NYC, are really really bad. Where the public schools are really bad there are serious attempts on the part of parents to send their kids to private schools. This helps those kids enormously. But it does not help all kids. And another serious problem is that in places where the public schools are poor, many of the students in them are better than the schools. And they are being wasted.

    There is an obvious answer. Jettison the failing students, concentrate on the good ones. The good one's are from all economic classes, and ethnic groups. This is no discrimination issue. Nor is it cruel as in survival of the fittest. It is merely an acknowledge of apparent and obvious facts.

    To sacrifice good students in public schools, because of bad students that you can do nothing for no matter what you do, is a cruelty to the good students and a truly missed opportunity of building up the life situations of economically poor children who are good students.

    No doubt each state has the right to determine what grade performance equates with no advancement in grade.

    Recommend

    • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

      Courts all over the country have stringently disagreed with you. It used to be that superintendents had the power to excuse students for pretty much any reason - mostly in practicality it was for bad behavior or mental inabilities to cope with the schoolwork. Then in the early 1970s came federal legislation which mandated that every school district MUST identify and provide special education services for all students who needed them, from age 3 up to 19 (or something like that.) Since this was federal law, it trumped the state constitutions. No longer could school districts blithely dismiss "failing" students.

      With the advent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, students who were severely behaviorally disturbed HAD to be accommodated in classrooms, if their disability was the cause of the disturbed behavior. To remove them would be discrimination.

      I don't know what the alternative is - we're not going to return to the days of the boy in the story "My Left Foot," who was isolated for years at home because of his cerebral palsy. On the other hand, accommodating special ed students is a significant legal, economic, and behavioral challenge for a lot of schools. These kids can't just be "dumped." And the schools can't violate the court requirements.

      Recommend

  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    What would Bill Gates say?

    Recommend

  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    Upon reflection over the life of this administration what is readily apparent is that it has chosen on every issue a position of non-action. Secure borders: non-action; economic solutions: non-action; ineffective and destructive NCLB legislation: non-action. We have a pretty-boy president that is unable to make decisions. It has been said that "Not to decide is to decide" but that is in a non-restrictive environment. Here he has not only chosen not to decide, but when others attempt to decide he becomes an impediment.

    Pertaining to NCLB, the most beneficial solution is to let it expire and initiate the Common Core Standards for all of the states. Nationalize teacher certification so that if a teacher is certified in one state, they would be certified in any state. That would produce market competition in the attainment and retention of teachers. It would also assure that the minimally acceptable standards standards for all students would be the Core Curriculum Standards which would meet the educational efficacy for the minimum college entrance requirement. States could certainly go beyond that if they chose. States could still tailor it stylistically according to their individual preferences.

    Recommend

Add a Comment

We welcome your thoughtful comments. Please comply with our Community rules. All comments will display your real name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Or log in or become a subscriber now for complete Journal access.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.

Your profile gives you access to personal messages, connections, and Group invitations.

Your Groups Here…

Participate in engaging dialogue on topics that matter to you and other members of your group.

When you join groups you'll find them for easy access here. Learn new perspectives and educate each other.....