This is to stupidly easy to fact check - not implemented by democrats - passed in 2002 under GW Bush…
No Child Left Behind Act - Wikipedia
And essentially replaced in 2015 with just as messy of a policy. Education is circling the toilet in the US
The thought of no child left behind had been a political football for decades. The Republicans just got on board. The roots of no child left behind was clearly liberal.
Prior to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965
Going to need a source not just opinion…
While the implementation was absolutely horrible, how is the idea that we should educate all children to the best possible extent not a universal trait?
The fact that we don’t currently leads to things like flat earth morons.
If he’s describing what he observes, how is it vitriolic? I realize that’s upsetting to many liberals who wish he could somehow ignore a life’s worth of experience and not connect it all to liberal politics, but that’s their problem.
I’ll tell you point blank that Maine Democrats are absolutely in the process of importing as many non-citizens as possible, providing for nearly all of their needs with our own tax money and enabling them to vote in Maine elections through a complete lack of ANY meaningful verification at time of registration.
I’ll tell you that the people who support Maine Democrats are either ignorant of what their policies actually mean, or not. The ignorant are vast and many, including many who hold impressive credentials and achievements. They will tell you that crazy old twojar has been radicalized or must be exaggerating. There’s technically some ways in which hundreds and hundreds of US citizens would require translators and multi-language voting guides to exercise their rights on the third round of a school budget vote. They might have all been born here, grown up elsewhere, and decided to move to Lewiston for some reason. Or perhaps their English is good enough to pass the citizenship test, but not to understand a yes or no ballot question about the school budget.
Dumb suckers abound in the USA in 2024, especially in Maine.
Those who understand what is actually meant by rhetoric like “subverting power structures”, “dismantling systemic oppression” and “equity-based outcomes” are some downright evil sonsabitches, if evil sonsabitches have ever existed. These social arsonists are absolutely complicit in the most audacious betrayal of voter trust I’ve ever witnessed, and then have the audacity to lie about their intentions and suggest concerns like mine are borne out of malice.
Seeing it with my own eyes, along with all of other rapid decay that has followed woke governance, has rendered people like me and, presumably, @marine77 completely immune to the sort of broad narrative-weaving and explaining away of bad outcomes that constitutes the cornerstone of American Democrats and their political allies.
I’m also aware of the some on the right being insufferable… you tried though
I added a source. But it is not like everyone with two neurons between their ears didn’t know that the roots of no child left behind was liberal
[quote=“cyclonengineer, post:606, topic:288619, full:true”]Education is circling the toilet in the US
[/quote]
What I find interesting is that everyone says public education is worse than ever, failed, etc. But I know a shitton of kids in kindergarten or younger who know how to read and write, and/or can do basic arithmetic. If I remember correctly, that is like 2-3 yrs before my generation was taught those things in schools.
Seems to closely follow the widening gap between haves and have nots. Haves are doing better than ever, have nots are doing worse.
The liberal conundrum… gleefully kill children in the womb but once born let’s devise the most failure prone narratives imaginable then blame others when the outcomes are awful
Ah… the smooth brained Marxist trope of the “haves” and “have nots”…its a lack of values and morals. Wanting to be educated is a mind-set
Quote from the page
“Johnson proposed a major reform of federal education policy in the aftermath of his landslide victory in the 1964 United States presidential election, and his proposal quickly led to the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The act provides federal funding to primary and secondary education, with funds authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and parental involvement promotion. The act emphasizes equal access to education, aiming to shorten the achievement gaps between students by providing federal funding to support schools with children from impoverished families.”
Again, how is equal access to education not a universal want? Screw liberal or conservative. I don’t agree with holding high achieving acts, but getting behind equal access to education seems like a no brainer.
It’s been incredibly poor in the execution and has been for years (and that’s reflected by where the US ranks globally in math & science), that’s for sure and I don’t know what the fix is for that, but it probably starts with more funding for schools.
A contributor to the equation for sure.
Objectively though, the US is underperforming compared to most other “modern” countries. There is already a skills gap in a lot of STEM areas, because contrary to popular belief, capitalism doesn’t drive innovation, it drives profits and squashes innovative competition.
The topic of public education and how Federal control of it has evolved has essentially been a one-way street of progressive policy enactments, bit by bit, over the decades. GWB was very much an establishment centrist in this regard. His “conservative” position was simply enacting fewer progressive policies than progressives would have liked.
Eliminating public school altogether is probably a fringe belief held by few in 2024. That’s completely different than, say, eliminating the Department of Education, who by my count has educated exactly zero Americans.
You don’t think there is a strong correlation between parents wealth and education level and their child’s scholastic performance?
I kind of agree with you, but I think looking at the discrepancies in education across the US, some larger national control, implemented correctly (this is the key, and won’t happen as long as every president appoints a different head of the department - we need decades of consistent vision and leadership), could close the gap.
In general bureaucracy always slows stuff down and hinders progress. That is abundantly clear.
The problem came through attempting to create equal access, grade promotion became a component of the program. I lived this garbage. My mother was a 5th or 6th grade teacher from 1952 though 1969. (I graduated high school in 1966)
Automatic grade promotion is a rot to “creative tension” to learning. All the kids I went to school with knew that they needed to study enough to enter the next grade level. It was a social disgrace to fail a grade level and have to repeat the grade. There was motivation to learn that was peer driven. There is no greater tension on a kid than that of their peers.
So goodbye to that creative tension. We have devolved to our current education crisis, at least party, due to automatic grade promotion.
I agree with you here, it’s why the implementation was stupid.
The idea should be to bring everybody up, not lower to the least common denominator. The execution failed and created more problems for sure. By “access”, I do not mean giving unearned rewards.
It starts with parents growing up and not demanding their kids feel good and get As. Grade inflation is real and it is a problem even at Ivy League colleges. There is no recognized standard so grading is like gender these days: fluid.
Then you have inner cities which surprise, surprise, produce horrible students whether it’s behavior or academics. Fix the communities and the schools will improve. Schools cannot overcome the issues in the communities. They have failed at this for decades.
Finally, though there is more, the reality is there will always be a percentage of kids who are low IQ. My estimate would be at least 20%. They are not meant for education as we know it. Trying to accommodate them, it’s called mainstreaming, does them no favors and only hurts the kids who are capable of learning. Yet, some schools push the college for all agenda. No. College is not for everyone but it’s hard to tell a parent their kid is an imbecile. It’s even harder for a parent to accept it. And I’m not saying these kids should go into the trades either. The trades require their own types of intelligence which these kids also lack. This 20% is virtually unemployable.
This idea is the problem. Everybody cannot be brought up. Resources get wasted on kids who are destined to fail, unless the standards change to make them appear as if they achieved something.
Obviously I agree with this. Better programs to fix those communities are needed. “Pulling up by the bootstraps” isn’t going to work in the poorest areas.
I have not seen parents act like this, but I don’t doubt it’s out there. I am surrounded by engineers that value education though so I have a small bubble.
I agree with this too. As I mentioned above, bringing it down to the lowest common level is idiotic and part of the failed implementation.
Somebody has to make the Big Macs
Maybe I should have clarified and added “to the best of that individual’s ability”. I do not see the need for homogeneity. Education is not a one size fits all solution and I think most educators know this, but they are hampered by the systems in place. Change the system, let the educators do their jobs and separate kids by ability. Maybe seeing someone ahead of them may push a middle of the road kid to try a bit harder.