Talk:No Child Left Behind Act/Archive 1

message: The Arguments sections have become markedly out of balance over the months, due presumably to the enthusiasm of those critical of NCLB, casting a shadow on the article's aspiration toward NPOV. -- 66.166.183.7
--------
Both of these sections seem a little strange to me but I'll admit that I'm new to Wikipedia.  My concern is that both sections seem like statements of opinion rather than statements of fact.  For instance this line:  "The schools that need help the most are punished instead of given more funding as additional funding is often denied or at most minimized." is absolutely false.  Schools that are identified as needing improvement actually receive more money then schools who make AYP.  Are these suppose to be opinion sections or do the same neutral point of view and source rules apply?
Answer: I am pretty sure that they are the most common arguments made for or against the act, so they don't have to be true. I'm sure some of the arguments for it are also false. ;) -- 69.132.183.189 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on the Arguments for and against 

message: I'd love to get more help on this topic from teachers and admins --DennisDaniels 02:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding what I can 

message: I'd like to see a more exhaustive and detailed explanation of what the law requires and provides.  Also, the arguments for/against sections need to be more thoroughly explained and documented, so it's clear that the bullet points are statements of positions in the ongoing debate, not facts.  Finally, a section on the political controversy should be added, since the fate of NCLB is perhaps the key education issue in the U.S. presidential race.  I'll be coming back to work on this more when I'm not at my ed-reform job.  :-)  -- Lottelita 22:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes that need to be made here 

message: Here is a link to some of Ron Paul's discussion of the federal control fears deriving from the NCLB voucher provisions:
Here is a quote from that document: "In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test. "
John Kerry, in his 100 day plan to change America, gives reality to these fears of increased federalization, with his mandatory public service for high school graduation proposal.  See [talk:Revival of the draft] for more links to documentation.--Silverback 08:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation of conservative opposition to federalization of education 

message: I was the contributor who originally suggested that content.  In regards to evidence concerning the duplicity of the "Texas Miracle" I included a link in my original suggestion to a CBS article on the questionable drop out statistics reported by the Houston Independent School District (which by the way is where Secretary of Education Rod Paige was Superintendent and where many of the reforms within NCLB sprang from)
The article reports on the findings of Robert Kimball, an assistant principal at Sharpstown High School in Houston, who took a closer look at his schools drop out statistics when he noticed that "his school claimed that no students – not a single one – had dropped out in 2001-2002."
The article further goes on to say:
"Investigators checked half of the city’s regular high schools. They reviewed the records of nearly 5,500 students who left those schools, and checked how the schools explained it. They found that almost 3,000 students should have been, but weren’t, coded as dropouts. The audit substantiated Kimball’s allegations."
Here is a second article from MSNBC that looks at the drop out rates at Austin High School (also in Houston) where the article explains that "during a decade in which, routinely, as many as half of Austin students failed to graduate, the school’s reported dropout rate fell from 14.4 percent to 0.3 percent."
The same article goes on to describe how achievement on the 10th grade math exam skyrocketed from 26 percent passing in 1995 when Paige became superintendent to 99 percent in 2001 when he left the district.  
Weaker students are held back in 9th grade. After two or more years in 9th grade those students are then moved up to 12th grade therefore skipping the test altogether.
So I guess I could have left out the "evidence suggests" and just plain said they lied, but I was trying to be impartial and let the reader decide for themselves the value of the evidence.
I could continue by pointing out similar concerns regarding the reporting of school violence and investigations underway in Houston and Dallas regarding what can only be described as blatant cheating on the TAKS exams.
:Having studied this issue in grad school, I agree with this user's comments on the need to discuss the test-rigging issue. No one has raised any issues that would question this, so I'm going to go ahead and make the change. SlipperyN 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Texas Miracle criticisms 

message: This is listed in the "arguments against":
: # NCLB is designed to set the stage for the eventual privatization of the U.S. public school system: reports about struggling schools sour public opinion and may cause more and more voters to question the viability of public education.
I see this as an NPOV issue, because this point could clearly be an argument for or against; the article as it currently stands displays a bias in opposition to privatization.
~ Booyabazooka 02:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who actually raise the prospect of complete privatization see it as a negative, and we're reporting their position.  If some notable spokesperson has endorsed NCLB because it will be one step on the road to privatization, we can quote that person.  I suspect you're correct that many of them think that way, but they probably consider it politically unwise to admit it.  Our problem, then, is that we don't base our discussion of differing POVs on speculation.  We'd need to find somebody prominent who openly hails the prospect of phasing out public education.  JamesMLane 03:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privatization of schools 

message: #Supports early learning, an approach criticized in "Better Late Than Early", by Raymond Moore, et al.
#Indicators of school performance are not accurate or viable.
#Testing is not coupled with plans and funding to remedy problems that might be detected by the testing. Instead, a system of increasing punishments is provided to take away resources from schools (i.e. from the students and employees of schools) which exhibit failing threashold scores.
#Although "local freedom" is advertised as a benefit of NCLB, school districts are free to choose one curriculum package from a federally developed list of about 6 products, and cannot use the funding for any other purpose. Thus, the main immediate effect of NCLB is to provide a lucrative income stream to large corporate curriculum publishers. There is some public accusation of political cronyism in this result.
#NCLB gives future teachers no creativity in the teaching process.
#Students with disabilities do not have the proper learning techniques because the standardized testing is over-stressed.
And this, I believe, is incorrect:
*Students with learning disabilities do not receive extra help when taking the standardized tests, and can jeopardize the assigned rating the entire school is given.
It's proven?
*Students who are learning English as a second language are expected to take the standardized tests and show proficiency equal to their English-speaking peers, when it is proven that English-Language-Learners take between 5 and 10 years to "catch up" to grade-level proficiency.
Also likely incorrect, since the law places an emphasis on special education improvement:
*Focus on improving the average student's education may ignore individual differences between students, and potentially harm both special and gifted education programs.
Does it "remove funding"?
*NCLB focuses on basic educational classes and removes funding from music programs, art programs, etc. This results in schools being forced to remove elective and after school programs.
Thanks for helping me sort this out, in advance. Rkevins82 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against that need clarification 

message: Certainly our President was well aware of the popular series of books and movies when he named this program. Do you think it was an intentional "codeword" to equate educating children with soul-saving? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themeparkphoto (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2006  (UTC)
*Perhaps, but to include such a claim in the article you would need to cite a reliable source for that information. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did George Bush choose the term for its "Revelation" Significance 

message: There are easily twice the number of "cons" as "pros" listed for NCLB.  I don't know what the other pros are, but I'm sure they exist, and we should list them.12.17.189.77 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added several new arguments which I hope will help address this issue. SlipperyN 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced Nature of "Arguments" section 

message: Is there any point to adding a section covering how this might be seen as a violation of the 10th amendment?
Education has been a state/local area of concedrn because it is not mentioned in the constitution.  
--flyingember
:Do you intend to do this for every act which may not be directly provided for by the Constitution? Rkevins82 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperation of powers 

message: As many have noted on this talk page, the pros and cons sections are poorly referenced and often redundant, and fail to distinguish between factual and rhetorical claims.  I'm wondering if people have suggestions as to how to clean this up and get this to quality standards.  I'm gathering references and would like to try to consolidate, but what do others think is the best way to approach this? SlipperyN 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the changes to the opposition section of the act, consolidating and adding references so that all claims are supported.  Any feedback on these changes would be welcome! SlipperyN 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of Pros and Cons sections 

message: I performed the long-suggested merger by redirecting the criticisms page to here.  All the content of that page was redundant with the lengthier criticism page here. SlipperyN 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Performed 

message: In response to Ragnar the Magnificent's neutrality dispute tag, I've added several additional claims made in favor of the act and supporting references.  I think it is appropriate to remove the tag or at least point to specific missing pieces and add them, or point them out for others to add. The mere face that there are more arguments in opposition than in favor does not, in and of itself, constitute a neutrality violation.SlipperyN 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread the article and think your improvements end the npov dispute. I've removed the tag. Benzocane 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: I propose that this section (found under Aguements against NCLB) be removed.  It doesn't pertain to NCLB because nothing in the law directs funds to nonpublic, private, or parochial schools.  Cultofpj 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of separation of church and state 

message: A recent anon addition of all the claims the gov makes in favor of the act seems misplaced to me as they are unsourced. The claims in favor prior to that addition are at least backed up with research, however controversial. But just listing all of the promised advantages of the legislation at length seems unencyclopedic to me. Our focus should be on registering objective and measurable effects of the legislation in question, not just advertising it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. All claims included in this article at least help explain thinking. Furthermore, some of the supposed "sources" backing various claims are themselves little more than opinion pieces masquerading as scientific research. ChulaOne 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I, too, disagree with Benzocane, who I fear prefers a much-weakened "in favor" section that does justice neither to the idea of fair play nor the philosophy of Wikipedia. Let him instead present arguments that buffer his chosen (anti-) side in the NCLB debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.159.137 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Additions to claims in favor 

message: This edit is seriously inconsistent with WP:NPOV.  Indeed, much of the  text is written in a first person style:We should definitely be studying the effects of these practices. But, high income White parents won't let us put their high achieving children into low track non-rigorous courses, so we can't do a randomized experiment. Fortunately, low income and minority parents have not caught on to what is going on, so we can continue to track their children low. If they do catch on, we will have to make getting more quality math and science teachers a priority. Until then, we simply can't do randomized experiments.This material is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. John254 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm User:.V., responding to this RfC request. I agree that the statement above is patently POV. After all, it's even written stylistically from a point of view (the use of the words "us", etc.) It's also original research, as it states none of it's sources. I see no justification at all for calling it neutral. If the passage was made objective and sources were added, perhaps it would make a useful addition to the article... but as it stands, it's basically POV editorializing. .V. 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Child_Left_Behind_Act&diff=next&oldid=94803592 recent addition] to this article 

message: I have added a cleanup tag to this article due to poor quality of prose, large sections that lack wiki formatting and a need for NPOV cleanup. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Can we put more information about the reauthorization of NCLB in 2007, because we need put information on there, and also, can someone expand this article to feature status so we can give attention to people who don't know about NCLB.--Jsalims80 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCLB re-authorization in 2007 

message: Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I apologize in advance if I'm breaking any rules.  Anyway, I thought that another side of the argument needs to be addressed.  It is a common opinion within my area (and others!) that the NCLB act may benefit lower level students, but at the same time it penalizes me and other "honors" students, especially in high school and middle school.  Within my state and probably within many others, upper level classes are being cut in an attempt to finance NCLB.  Higher level language courses, art courses, specialized interest courses, honors courses, and Advanced Placement classes are being cut and less of an effort is being made to challenge and support these children and young adults.  Students are being discouraged from taking these courses in favor of less difficult classes in which they will definitely perform well, rather than being challenged.  Perhaps this will raise the standards for students of low performance but more advanced teenagers are not being provided with the means to succeed, and are being compromised in an attempt to lessen the academic gap.  The NCLB sets expectations and measures students but fails to provide a process to give the best result. Much of the opposition to the NCLB act arises from the fact that it seems to be "dumbing down" advanced students, in addition to the lack of funding (which gives rise to political issues inside the schoolboard which further distracts them from improving our education). 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear New Wikipedian, (and all readers of this talk page), I am glad that you are interested in Wikipedia, but this comment is not appropriate. First, you MUST sign all of your contributions by using four tildes after the post. Second, Wikipedia is committed to using only verifiable content. Your personal experiences, while undoubtedly interesting to yourself, cannot be included in Wikipedia. If you have a point to make, you must provide secondary sources. Your comment is what we call POV (or "not NPOV"). Although, that is not necessarily wrong on a talk page, please restrict yourself to to-the-point discussions of the article. Lufiend 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Criticism 

message: I was trying to figure out where to add the reference to those who criticize the USDOE claims about NAEP, and it seems that *neither* section describing arguments was appropriate. Putting it in the "con" section would distance it from the relevant subject matter earlier, but putting it in "pro" was awkward.  I ended up with the "pro," but I think it would be wiser to identify salient questions raised by either proponents, opponents, or those in the middle and addressing the subjects of each with the various arguments.  --SDorn 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that every comment under each of these sections must be referenced, or be deleted. Given the controversial nature of NCLB, there is a lot of POV and original research in both sections. This might be unavoidable, but requiring citations can only make this article more neutral. - Freechild 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro/Con division may be problematic 

message: The majority of this article has POV issues, and the references are poorly syntaxed. Lots of work here for the near future... Also, apologies for not summarizing my edits - bad habit. I added a link to SEAs and created a Reference section for all those homeless citations. - Freechild 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: According to an article in the New York Times, from 11/26/2006 ("What It Takes to Make a Student"), between 2000 to 2005, poor fourth grade math results moved from 8% to 19% proficient, while black students moved from 5% to 13%, yet white students are at 47%. I find it interesting that the department of education has no self-criticism evident in its NCLB web site. The same NYTimes article observes that while some data was positive in the 2005 batch, other data was disappointing. The Wikipedia article doesn't address the latter. Between 2000 and 2005, black eighth graders proficiency in reading dropped from 13% to 12%, and poor eighth graders proficiency in reading dropped from 17% to 15%. Is this the kind of data that suggests we're on track to eliminate the achievement gap by the deadline proposed by NCLB?
Notaslavetofashion 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NCLB is not closing the achievement gap 

message: A reference for the reason for the schoolhouses is found in the fifth paragraph of this press release: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/04/04112002a.html
The structures are temporary and their primary purpose is to protect people coming in and out of the building from falling debris.
Factician 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schoolhouse Caption is Incorrect, suggested caption included, please comment 

message: Please discuss here of any changes or proposals of deleting this section. Thank you.Coolguy1368 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section you added is imprecise, uses loaded language, and expresses a clear POV without explaining the reasoning. There are other areas in the criticism section where these claims are hashed-out. Rkevins 07:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Students Left Behind" 

message: Why is it a president's job to make up new programs? That seems like a committee's job.
:Not the place, bring it up in a different article. -Jeske (v^_^v) 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, what? 

message: Somebody deleted the "criticism" section, and as I saw no discussion here, I reverted.  Seems to me that there are a LOT of very valid criticisms of the law, though as I already mentioned I'm coming from a particular point of view on that.  Hopefully there'll be discussion here before anybody else decides to get rid of the criticism. Eceresa 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing Criticism 

message: I'm very new here at Wikipedia, so please be kind.  I'm likely to mess up somehow in this post.  I hope you can bear in mind that at least I went to the discussion section instead of trying to alter the entry directly!  :^)
I teach English and ESL at a school that is currently in great danger of being forced to restructure.  My school has a large ESL population and about 80% of our students speak a language other than English at home.
I have three criticisms of NCLB that I think are valid and have not appeared in the criticism section of this entry.  Two of them have to do with how the law deals with ESL students, and the other with how the law can create difficulties between faculty and in-school administration and downtown administrations.
I realize that my criticisms are probably not written here in a format that would be useable on the official wikipedia entry for NCLB.  Maybe someone here can help me with that.
#1 -- Lack of differentiation between L1 literate and L1 illiterate ESL students.  NCLB looks at "ESL" students as one category without distinguishing between ESL students who are literate in their native language and ESL students who are illiterate in their native language.  There is a profound gulf between these two groups in level of ability and what one can expect from them.  For example, a 15-year-old student from Colombia who attended school and learned to read and write in Spanish will be able to transfer literacy knowledge to reading and writing in English, whereas a 15-year-old student from Haiti or Cape Verde who never went to school before arrival in the USA will not be able to do so and will not realistically be able to catch up to an L1 literate classmate before his/her high school years are over (one way or another).  This is important for school being judged on the performance of their ESL students because a school with a sudden influx of L1 illiterate students will see its ESL students' average scores go down regardless of what methodologies are in place.
#2 -- Declassification of ESL students once they leave the program.  I teach honors English at my school as well as ESL and this year 7 out of 15 of my 10th grade honors students claimed to have been in the ESL program at one point in their school careers.  These students were "declassified" as ESL once they exited the program, along with many others in the mid to low level mainstream classes.  What this means is that when ESL students rise above a certain level of ability and are mainstreamed, they cease to count as ESL students for the purposes of NCLB testing.  Thus, ESL students' scores cannot rise above what one would expect from ESL students who were just about (almost) ready to be mainstreamed.  An analogy would be if NCLB were to judge schools based on the average performance of Black students, but after Black students achieved above a certain level of ability they would no longer be classified as "Black".  Then, schools would be taken to task when the numbers showed that their Black students never got above a certain level of ability.  I find it very difficult to describe this madness in anything approaching "neutral" terms.  Suffice to say that the result is that it is impossible for schools that are judged in part on the performance of their ESL students to succeed in meeting NCLB improvement standards without using harmful policies such as preventing high-performing ESL students from mainstreaming after they have proven themselves ready to exit the program.
#3 -- In-school and Downtown conflicts.  Teachers and administration in schools that are at high risk of being restructured can run into problems with the imbalance of power that is created between them and downtown administration such as school superintendents.  Downtown administration need not fear the loss of employment that can go along with restructuring, and in fact they may get to decide to keeps and who loses their jobs in the coming years without needing to justify why.  This can lead to situations such as abuse of power or breach of contract in connection with intimidating maneuvers to the effect of, "Yes, you could challenge this move, but do you really want to be noticed for doing that when you know we could fire you next year without needing to justify why?"  This can lead to destructive decisions from downtown going unchallenged by faculty and staff who fear loss of employment.
I'm curious which of these criticisms people here might think worthy of addition to the official entry.  Personally I feel that #2 is the most damning criticism of NCLB.
Thank you, - Ron   ^*^
WerebatRon 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a citation, Nos. 1 and 2 are probably best - but remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so avoid using loaded language. -Jeske (v^_^v) 02:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I know the law is already linked in "External Links" (and therefore easy to get to), the law itself is a reasonable cite.  As for number 2, I would recommend a news article or professional journal that directly talks about it.  As for how one can criticize something and still remain neutral, I'm not sure if Dungeons & Dragons controversies would work as an example. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESL Concerns 

message: I cleaned the references in this article in order to develop the section at the end. In doing so, I have identified a number of out-dated links, which I noted, removed, or added citation needed links to. Also, the entire article is poorly referenced. The section of external links at the end should be integrated throughout the article to make the references stronger. - Freechild 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I have removed an uncited referance to the act being unconstitutional.  An accusation of that magnitude demands a citation from a credible source and should not be left in the article uncited.  (RookZERO 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  constitution 

message: Someone posted the following question:  
::my grandson goes to a public pa school which has flunked for the past 2 years. at what point can i remove him to a better school? 2 years 3? i cannot find an answer. tks for your help.
If you would like to contact me on my personal talk page, I can help point you in the right direction.  Click here User talk:Rosmoran. When you get to the page, click the tab labed with a + (plus sign) to add a new message.  I will respond as soon as I receive the message. 
Best,
Rosmoran 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the individual who asked a question 

message: I am tagging this content as dubious because the organization "Educational Underwriters" lacks notability.  The organization is not notable because: 
* The organization is not yet operational. It is not yet doing the the work that it claims it will do.  Their intended purpose, should they be successful in getting the organization running, is relevent to No Child Left Behind.  
* There are no significant secondary sources.
When Educational Underwriters actually begins doing the work their website advertises, and are recognized for doing the work, they may merit mention in Wikipedia.  
The following criterion section is taken from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): 
 A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
Best,
Rosmoran 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tag regarding reference to Educational Underwriters 

message: I have removed the sentence regarding the WWC being a "sole means of review and certification ..."  because the WWC does not certify, endorse, or recommend any educational programs or methods.  
Here is what the What Works Clearinghouse has to say about this on their website at http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/faq/how_ensure_reports.html:  
:
:The WWC does not endorse programs, products, practices, or policies. Rather, the WWC evaluates the quality of existing evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions. This message is articulated in all WWC published materials and WWC Reports. 
:To further clarify its role, the WWC clearly states that if an evaluation study gets favorable results from the WWC Evidence Standards, or if a body of studies gets a favorable review, it does not mean that the WWC "approves" or "endorses" the intervention being studied. It simply means that the study or studies on a particular intervention were designed and implemented in a way that allows the WWC to have some confidence in the results. 
Deleted text follows: 
Initially, vendors were limited to What Works Clearinghouse{Citation
 | title = What Works Clearinghouse
 | publisher = U.S. Department of Education
 | url = http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/
 | accessdate = 2007 June 27
}, a division of the U.S. Department of Education, as a sole means of review
Best,
Rosmoran 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Works Clearinghouse does not "certify" educational methods or programs 

message: Looking at the flow of text on the page, moving the ToC to the right allows the text to continue on the left side of the page, removing the huge gap between the lead section and the next section.  
I wouldn't say that the ToC *has* to be on the right.  But I like the flow of the article better with the ToC on the right.  
Rosmoran 04:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of ToC 

message: Hi all,
I happened to cross-check one of the criticisms with the source offered (the source being the actual text of the NCLB Act) and I think there is a mistake on our entry:  Under the criticism entitled "Facilitates Military Recruitment," the article states that parents do NOT need to be notified when schools release their information to college or military recruiters.
However, in section 9528(a)2. of the NCLB act (entitled "Consent" and linked as source 46 from our entry) it clearly states that parents may request that their children's names not be released, and that the educational agency must notify them of the option to make this request, and they must comply with this request if made.
Doesn't this amount to notification of release of information?  Seems to me that if parents must be notified of the choice and schools must abide by that choice, then schools are not authorized and certainly not required to provide any of the information to any recruiters without parental consent.  Either way, the section should be amended to include this delineation because as it is worded now I think it is a bit of a misrepresentation of the actual text of the law.
PS. I'm new to contributing so if there's something I should have done better please let me know. LGDubs 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can just make the appropriate changes yourself.  The policies support you being able to make changes, even if you're new and uncertain.  Be bold!  If you make a mistake, it can get fixed later.  WhatamIdoing 04:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok! I'm going for it ;) LGDubs 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change neccesary for criticism: "Facilitates Military Recruitment?" 

message: Hi,
I didn't add this sentence.  I don't know if specific states have done this and I don't have sources for the material.  But, I do want to point out that states can add more requirements on top of  those specified in the federal IDEA legislation.  For example, states could require  schools to maximize a disabled student's potential, which is not mandated at the federal level. Similarly, there is nothing I know of that would prohibit a state from requiring schools to provide FAPE also to gifted students.  
It does seem like they would have to define what FAPE means for these students, though ..... 
Best, Rosmoran 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding comment about FAPE being only for the disabled 

message: The citation given is not the journal listed (No Child Left Behind as an Anti-Poverty Measure. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved 3 October 2007).  The link is to a personal website: http://susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=473. 
Rosmoran 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of section titled "Benefits to certain companies" 

message: The link to the Military Free Zone site that says "reveals some of the darker sides of NCLB" is a POV violation, in my opinion. StaticElectric (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Free Zone 

message: I only count 48 instances of the exact phrase "scientifically based research," using the cited reference.  Just "scientifically based" gives us 97 instances.  These counts include all text, including section heads.  Do we have a source for the 111 number?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured out the issue.  Apple Preview doesn't seem to count hyphenated words ("scientifi- cally based research" when the phrase doesn't fit neatly on one line).  Adobe Acrobat Pro gives me the same count that you found in Reader.  Thanks for fixing that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: This page seems to be getting pretty long, and some of the comments are more than three years old.  There aren't very many active discussions at the moment.  Should we figure out how to archive the oldest comments in a few days?  (Must be the end of the calendar year -- I feel like cleaning house.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we archive this talk page? 

message: Is there really a significant number of people who pronounce "NCLB" as "Nickelby"?  Because that's what the pronuncisation note in the first line of this article says. 69.7.203.153 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  100% compliance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ESL programms 

message: 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)
replies: text: There might be information under pushout that would support this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gaming the system 

message: Re: Virginia ESL students taking a different test than others -- I don't know what they're doing in Virginia, but as an ESL/LEP teacher in Rhode Island I can assure you that there is no "special test" here than the ESL/LEP students are allowed to take.  They have to take the NECAP, the same as everyone else.  Don't get me started on the population redefinition and mathematical games they play in order to make it look like our ESL population is making Adequate Yearly Progress, either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.46.151 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESL/LEP 

message: I removed the second sentence from the "incentives against low-performing students" section, as the cited source was invalid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.112.82 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit