What do you think of the No Child Left Behind act?

It's a joke, I agree. . .nothing but bushy lip service. We should chase them out of the white house with torches. How is it that European countries have better education (they laugh at our SAT tests!!) for half as much money per student, feed the kids good Heath food and still have Phys ed in their curriculum??? Why cant we implement their teaching strategies? OH, My bad. . .I forgot: WE'RE TO BUSY BUILDING MORE PRISONS!!!!! >:^(

It's a bunch of crap! You're right all it does is harm the children!!!

Busing didn't work. Lowering standard test scores didn't help. Reading is fundamental didn't help. No Child Left Behind isn't going to work either.

I think that in spite of the name 'No Child Left Behind', an unacceptable amount of children have been left behind. Their lives are ruined. Without a good education, they have no hope of getting a good job. The entire education system needs to be revamped.

I think it's terrible. My mom was a teacher for 30 years and she and her colleagues say it has ruined education. Teachers do all they can and no matter how good they are, sometimes it's not enough. The majority of my mom's students didn't speak English well or at all, so the school's test scores were very low. No Child Left Behind doesn't account for that and still expects the kids to perform to the same standards. Lack of parental involvement is also a huge problem that teachers can't compensate for. A teacher is only one person and they're very underpaid as well. They work long hours and bring work home. They're often not appreciated as people think their day is only as long as the kids' days. No Child Left Behind has only made teacher's jobs more difficult and leaves many children behind. PS Don't underestimate the importance of parental involvement. I lived in Europe and one major difference was the level of involvement of the parents. Kids do well there, because it's customary to spend a lot of time on your kid's education. Here, there are too many single parents that don't have the time. Here, parents are often selfishly focused on their careers, social lives, themselves. They see their child's education as the school's problem. Not saying everyone is that way, but more than what I saw in Europe.

I think I don't understand it. How can a very poor student NOT be left behind? Do we dumb things down or just push someone who can't handle the current studies on into something more advanced? Or if part of a class is not ready to advance, does the entire class get kept back? How does it work, or does it work?

Nay, I am a teacher, too. Luckily, I am in a private school where No Child Left Behind doesn't apply. I would not teach in a public school because of this policy. It really brings down the whole class to try to catch up kids who have not learned before. Schools need the old fashion "resource" teacher. Also, teachers can't be creative and make learning fun. They have to teach to the test. My husband is a teacher in a public school, so I see both sides.

Some good stuff but I personally think it's a poor idea.

nay, because it holds kids back until the other slow ones Catch up. I was not a fast one when it came to High School and I still think if you are a fast learner then let them excel, and the ones that need a little more time, then give them a little more help and time, so they can excel.