The regs gave schools a certain amount of latitude and did not prescribe a specific thing that forced disaster.

So, if the locals "screwed up" (whatever that means---I'm guessing low test scores), are the feds prepared to send their people in and take over the local schools? Or will they just force the locals to close schools, have private "takeovers", fire teachers, bus kids, and/or hire tutoring services (some of which NCLB did)? Are the feds prepared to pay for all of that or will the locals have to jack their taxes to do it?

Don't look for too much "love" from the locals. Don't look for their votes either.

One of the huge problems with NCLB and standards based outcome education is that the focus is on a certain bar (what people call the "standards"). Those way under the bar and those way over the bar lose out. The teacher is forced to try to maximize the number of students getting to the bar because the tests are high stakes. Anybody way under or way over is placed in second priority status. If too many are way under, you get the drill and kill, teaching testing strategies, and ultimately cheating in some schools. We need to start teaching kids where they are and moving them ahead. Timetables with associated tests are not useful (especially in K-6).

The regs gave schools a certain amount of latitude and did not prescribe a specific thing that forced disaster. The proof is in the pudding - implementation varied from district to district, some did it well, others screwed it up. Regs didn't force the failed districts to screw up, they did that on their own. Nice try but no cigar.

You are very naive about this. You need to name the districts that did it well and name the ones that screwed up. I have a feeling we will all know why there are differences. Try us.

Anonymous wrote:

Local implementation deserves the lion's share of the blame, but instead everyone wants to just deflect and place all blame on the feds.

Regs come from the feds. Period.

The regs gave schools a certain amount of latitude and did not prescribe a specific thing that forced disaster. The proof is in the pudding - implementation varied from district to district, some did it well, others screwed it up. Regs didn't force the failed districts to screw up, they did that on their own. Nice try but no cigar.

Local implementation deserves the lion's share of the blame, but instead everyone wants to just deflect and place all blame on the feds.

Well then, maybe the feds have learned to keep their hands off the locals so that the locals can implement what they know to be the best methods for their localities (instead of being forced to implement broad and untested schemes that don't work!).

Local implementation deserves the lion's share of the blame, but instead everyone wants to just deflect and place all blame on the feds.

Regs come from the feds. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

So in other words, states and school districts leapt without looking, botched how they implemented it, but we're supposed to point all blame at the feds.

Riiiiiight.

Wrong. There was a two way street. Feds weren't blameless.

Local implementation deserves the lion's share of the blame, but instead everyone wants to just deflect and place all blame on the feds.

So in other words, states and school districts leapt without looking, botched how they implemented it, but we're supposed to point all blame at the feds.

Riiiiiight.

Wrong. There was a two way street. Feds weren't blameless.

Anonymous wrote:

Race to the top criticism = "waaah, we want the money, but we don't want the accountability for it..."

Newsflash: The so called accountability was meaningless and the money was not enough to pay for the headache of the mandates anyway. I don't think anyone is crying over the fact that Race to the Top went away. That's why the Congress voted not to fund it----they knew that nobody would cry too hard.

So in other words, states and school districts leapt without looking, botched how they implemented it, but we're supposed to point all blame at the feds.

Riiiiiight.

Race to the top criticism = "waaah, we want the money, but we don't want the accountability for it..."

Newsflash: The so called accountability was meaningless and the money was not enough to pay for the headache of the mandates anyway. I don't think anyone is crying over the fact that Race to the Top went away. That's why the Congress voted not to fund it----they knew that nobody would cry too hard.

Race to the top criticism = "waaah, we want the money, but we don't want the accountability for it..."

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, the Race to the Top grant program required this. But no school district was required to apply for a Race to the Top grant.

I thought that "Race to the Top" was money given out to states, not to school districts. Am I wrong?

States and school districts.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/race-to-the-top

Yes, the Race to the Top grant program required this. But no school district was required to apply for a Race to the Top grant.

I thought that "Race to the Top" was money given out to states, not to school districts. Am I wrong?

And now Congress has defunded the Race to the Top grant program anyway.

Oh, it's good to hear this. It ranked up there with "Cash for Clunkers" as a really good way to spend money.

^^^this, meaning student test scores as a component of teacher performance evaluation; not merit pay