According to the Bush/Obama education policy, 100% of all students must be proficient by 2014.

[Karmadillo]

If, as many posters here said, the goal of NCLB was to destroy public education, what does the continued Obama embrace of NCLB's most ridiculous requirement suggest? How much dumbing down focus on the test teaching has been inspired by this already? How much more will be inspired over the next three years as public schools struggle to reach an unreachable goal?

http://www.rrstar.com/carousel/x294033894/No-Child-Left-Behind-stakes-grow-higher-for-school-districts

ROCKFORD — Seventy-six Rock River Valley schools failed to boost student achievement to levels demanded by the federal government this year — 16 more than the pool of failing schools in 2009.

The dismal trend is expected to worsen across the nation as the demands of the federal No Child Left Behind Act increase.

Doomsday comes in 2014. That’s when 100 percent of public school students taking state tests must meet learning standards as required by No Child Left Behind. School districts face increasingly painful and costly penalties for not making the grade.

“It’s a moving target,” said Harlem School Board President Heather Kelley. “It’s frustrating for us. Once you think you’re almost there, everything readjusts.”

more...

[Karmadillo]

1. Kick.

nt

[LWolf]

2. The target IS constantly moving.

This summer they "adjusted" the scores needed to "meet" state benchmarks in math enough that my state will show a sudden, drastic drop in math scores this year. It's highly improbable that our students will make up that difference in one or two years.

Add that to the movement to use those scores to determine teacher competency and pay, and we're not headed anywhere good.

[Karmadillo]

3. Do you think Obama is retaining this unreachable goal in order to encourage a transition to charter

schools? There's no way most schools can reach 100% proficiency.

http://www.lefave.net/uncategorized/181/

<edit>

Penalties include, in addition to loss of federal funding, transferring students to other schools, closure, or reorganization as a charter school, and following the original provisions of NCLB, perhaps fomenting popular support for voucher programs (Granger, 2008, p. 220).

[LWolf]

5. I think it's part of the overall goal to privatize education.

And yes, I think Obama is clearly supporting that goal.

[Karmadillo]

4. Because this policy seems so bizarre to me, I'd appreciate it if an Unreccer could

explain why they support it. Thanks.

[senseandsensibility]

6. k an r

Thanks for posting about this.

[Karmadillo]

7. You're welcome. Sad that this survived a Dem White House & Congress.

nt

[Karmadillo]

8. Kick

nt

[Reader Rabbit]

9. K&R

Good article about bad stuff. Thanks.