NationStates Jolt Archive


Bush and the No Child Left Behind Act

Credonia
30-04-2005, 23:31
First and foremost, this is just a paper I wrote for my Advanced Composition class. It is by no means meant to be taken seriously, even tho its true. It's nothing but satire, which was the original purpose of the assignment. So, lets try to keep the personal attacks on my paper to a minimum. Thanks. Comments are more than welcome though. Enjoy!!!

-K. Sutton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2002, President Bush passed the “No Child Left Behind Act”. This act laid out a plan to better educate America’s children, but if you have ever listened to him give a speech, you can tell that he was a child that was left behind. The legislature passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives states that it’s goal is to help our children to become more literate and educated. It’s a shame that it wasn’t passed 40 years ago, because Bush shows a primitive level of literacy compared to today’s kindergarten and elementary school students. From his horribly bad grammar usage to his stuttering and inability to pronounce simple words and phrases such as successful and allies, Bush is by far one of America’s funniest literacy-challenged Presidents in this country’s history.

The “No Child Left Behind Act” was designed for the purpose of ensuring that all children who are enrolled in school from kindergarten to 12th grade are properly educated and that the learning environments are equal, however, it’s quite interesting how none of America’s learning environments provide equal opportunities for students to learn. Schools that are located in urban cities and areas are not as ‘nice’ as those that are located in areas and school districts that have lots of money flowing into them by upper middle class and upper class tax payers. Often times, when you compare schools located in wealthy cities and towns with schools located in urban cities, one would see that schools in urban areas are more run-down, more dilapidated, and less appealing to schools in wealthy areas and cities. Believe it or not but learning environments contribute a lot to the amount of education the students receive. Students that attend nice looking schools that are nicely maintained and provide after-school programs and activities that interest and engage the students take more pride in their school and their education and are also more inclined to do better and excel in school, putting them in a much better position to receive a higher education.

In order to obtain equalized educational environments where students across the country receive the same top-quality education, billions of dollars would need to be allocated just towards the rejuvenation and beautification of each and every school across the country that is deemed not up to standard. Now, it’s a known fact that the U.S. has a $400 billion budget deficit. Well since Bush and Congress cut funding for education and put a majority of it towards defense, where will the money come from to help fund this project? Duh, it’s going to come from our pockets. That’s right, its time for another increase in taxes. Who’s going to get hit with this round of friendly tax increases? Certainly you don’t think the hard working, backbreaking, 5% of Americans that are more than filthy rich that are struggling to get by on life with just their 5 cars, all of which cost more than $100,000, their numerous multimillion dollar mansions located in exotic places such as on islands and in other countries, and their Swiss bank accounts that have millions and even billions of dollars worth of spending money in them, do you? Oh no! It wouldn’t be fair to tax them more because it wouldn’t be fair to them since they need all of their money and material possessions to survive. Instead, I have an idea. Lets increase taxes for the lazy middle and lower class citizens who aren’t working, who are on welfare, and who are unable to support their families. I mean, come on. Lets face it. Who needs to support their families? They aren’t important anyway. So what if inflation increases, causing the cost of food and groceries to skyrocket. So what if they can’t afford America’s rising cost of living. Who cares if they can’t get a higher-level education so that they can get jobs? Hell, there aren’t any jobs to give away anyway! Who cares if because of all this, they are forced into homelessness? You and I certainly don’t care because we’re part of the middle class, do we? Heck no! I want to be broke all the time. Hey! Maybe if they increase taxes even more, we would go homeless because we’re dirt broke. That would be great. Oh and you know what? We haven’t even increased the taxes enough to fund the educational programs, additional teacher schooling, and to pay for new textbooks, computers, and learning tools. How great is that? HAH! Not in my lifetime.

The “No Child Left Behind Act” is a good idea, in theory; however, it would be unrealistically possible to ensure that no child gets left behind. Unfortunately, there would have to be a drastic overhaul of America’s educational system in order to bring in more positive results. It is commendable that school districts around the nation are changing to comply with the act, however, until America comes out of its economic deficit, a great many of America’s children will undoubtedly be left behind.
Mexibainia
30-04-2005, 23:35
I sooo dig this... you're my favorite author! :)
Credonia
30-04-2005, 23:40
*GRIN* Thanks :-D
Achtung 45
30-04-2005, 23:45
lol. all i can say is lol. rock on, man
Underemployed Pirates
01-05-2005, 01:02
"ALL CHILDREN CAN LEARN"

As a feel good statement, that really shows how we care for children and value each one of them. As a foundation for policy, it's dangerous and expensive.

1. not all children can learn. Some children are so brain damaged that they cannot learn. For those who say they are learning but we just can't measure it, I say pffftt. NCLB says ALL schools will have ALL kids passing at 100% -- ain't never gonna happen unless God performs a miracle.

2. not all children can learn enough to make the expenditure of tax money worthwhile. For those who say that these really severely (plug in the word (retarded, autistic, medically fragile, ..whatever) kids deserve their fair share of the tax money and that the quality of a society is measured by how we treat the most needy, I say pffftt. "see above comment about 100% and God's miracle"

3. not all children who can learn can learn at the same rate with the same amount of expenditures. The research data clearly supports the idea that it takes a significantly larger amount of money to bring most poverty kids up to the educational level of the middle class kids. "see above comment about 100% and God's miracle"

Now, all that said, ...if a state wants the federal money, then they have to dance to the federal tune.
Katganistan
01-05-2005, 01:40
"ALL CHILDREN CAN LEARN"

As a feel good statement, that really shows how we care for children and value each one of them. As a foundation for policy, it's dangerous and expensive.

1. not all children can learn. Some children are so brain damaged that they cannot learn. For those who say they are learning but we just can't measure it, I say pffftt. NCLB says ALL schools will have ALL kids passing at 100% -- ain't never gonna happen unless God performs a miracle.
Incorrect. All children CAN learn. NOT all children can learn the same things at the same level or pace. I will NEVER be a mathematician, but that does not mean I did not learn basic maths and that I cannot excel at something -- even if that something might be assembling widgets for the Great Widget Company.

2. not all children can learn enough to make the expenditure of tax money worthwhile. For those who say that these really severely (plug in the word (retarded, autistic, medically fragile, ..whatever) kids deserve their fair share of the tax money and that the quality of a society is measured by how we treat the most needy, I say pffftt. "see above comment about 100% and God's miracle"
I cannot agree with this attitude. No one is so worthless that they deserve NO education at all. Even if the education is merely life skills (how to feed, dress, and clean oneself) and whatever may be appropriate for a child's medical and or mental condition (even if that is nothing more complex than learning one's colors) a child is entitled to it and indeed, it would be barbaric not to provide it.

3. not all children who can learn can learn at the same rate with the same amount of expenditures. The research data clearly supports the idea that it takes a significantly larger amount of money to bring most poverty kids up to the educational level of the middle class kids. "see above comment about 100% and God's miracle" And? The answer is not to deprive these children of an education, any more than it is to state that the children of wealthy do not deserve to be educated on public money since their parents can afford to do it privately. Moreover, if you DON'T educate the children of the poor, they are destined to become even MORE of a drain on society. With education, most are at least able to support themselves with little if any subsidies from the state. Without education, you are perpetuating the cycle of welfare -- more tax dollars.

Now, all that said, ...if a state wants the federal money, then they have to dance to the federal tune.
Well, if an employee wants to get paid, they have to do as their boss says, right? They don't HAVE to work there, but if they choose not to, then no one is going to force the boss to pay them, correct?
Underemployed Pirates
01-05-2005, 01:46
pppffttt

NO, not all children can learn. Haven't you seen a person who simply has a brain stem?

The idea that 100% of all children will pass all the tests is simply lunacy...that's the NCLB goal for about 2015..totally unattainable.

You're missing my point. I'm not talking about sticking autiztic kids in the basement. I'm talking about the idiocy of the federal requirement that ALL children pass ALL tests by 2015.


If you want to whistle through the grave yard, go ahead.
Holy Sheep
01-05-2005, 01:54
All their standardized tests? Ot jsut any old test?
Standard tests only make people learn the answers to whats on the test. The only true test is one you haven't studied for - do you study each morning before going to work? Hell no.
Underemployed Pirates
01-05-2005, 02:39
All their standardized tests? Ot jsut any old test?
Standard tests only make people learn the answers to whats on the test. The only true test is one you haven't studied for - do you study each morning before going to work? Hell no.

Well, I hope that before you went to work you already had learned the skills you needed for work tht day.

Surely, you're not suggesting that people don't go to school at all and then go off to work without having been taught specific academic skills...

If we decide what kids need to know and then we test them to see if they learned it, then if they don't we can re-teach them. If they know it, we can then enrich and broaden their knowledge.
Italian Korea
01-05-2005, 03:04
Incorrect. All children CAN learn. NOT all children can learn the same things at the same level or pace. I will NEVER be a mathematician, but that does not mean I did not learn basic maths and that I cannot excel at something -- even if that something might be assembling widgets for the Great Widget Company.?

What about students like me that COULD be mathematicians, but are only taught basic math at (relatively) excruciatingly slow rates, as to impede with their potential complete mental development?
I've had a lot of issues with my education. Lots of built-up anger and rage.
Super-power
01-05-2005, 03:09
*throws a curveball*
What about children who *refuse* to learn? What should NCLB do with them then?

However, there is one thing that I like about it - if you have your child enrolled in private school you can obtain some sort of voucher for a tax break that roughly gives you back the money the Feds would take from you if your child was enrolled in public schooling.
Lochiel
01-05-2005, 03:18
Being a president doesn't mean you have to know rhetoric devices, Mr. Marc Antony. Sure, he's not as robotic as Al Gore or as good a liar as Clinton, but we all have our flaws.

I'd rather have a born and bred country president than a sophisticated, lying orator.
Underemployed Pirates
01-05-2005, 05:06
*throws a curveball*
What about children who *refuse* to learn? What should NCLB do with them then?

However, there is one thing that I like about it - if you have your child enrolled in private school you can obtain some sort of voucher for a tax break that roughly gives you back the money the Feds would take from you if your child was enrolled in public schooling.


Here's my beef with "vouchers"...

If the private school that accepts the voucher would take all kids and be under the same accountability systems as the public schools in that state, then I'd be all for it.

But, private schools can turn away the trouble-makers, those that are well below grade level, those that can't speak English, those that are handicapped and need specialized services, those whose parents don't participate, etc etc etc.

What will happen is that the private schools will take the on-grade level or higher kids who are not severe discipline problems and who have no specialized needs that are very expensive...leaving an over- concentration of the rest inthe public school system.
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 05:20
You weren't writing an essay on "No Child Left Behind." You were writing an essay on why you don't like Bush.
Karas
01-05-2005, 06:15
Here's my beef with "vouchers"...

If the private school that accepts the voucher would take all kids and be under the same accountability systems as the public schools in that state, then I'd be all for it.

But, private schools can turn away the trouble-makers, those that are well below grade level, those that can't speak English, those that are handicapped and need specialized services, those whose parents don't participate, etc etc etc.

What will happen is that the private schools will take the on-grade level or higher kids who are not severe discipline problems and who have no specialized needs that are very expensive...leaving an over- concentration of the rest inthe public school system.

Its about money.
If a private school dosent already have remedial and special needs programs then it will perform a cost benefit analysis and determine if it should or shoud not impliment such programs.
If a private school already has such programs then it will accept accept students because it is more profitable to do so.
Credonia
01-05-2005, 07:04
You weren't writing an essay on "No Child Left Behind." You were writing an essay on why you don't like Bush.


No, I was writing an essay on the NCLB act, thank you very much. Like I said, keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

On a further note, if I were writing an essay on why I dont like Bush, I would have torn him to pieces.
Reticuli
01-05-2005, 07:08
Bravo, that paper was brilliant.

(Check out my signature :D )
Italian Korea
01-05-2005, 07:12
That looks remarkably similar to my old sig...

:confused: - - - :sniper:
george bush - me