[NonValueAdded]

I disagree because I’ve seen the exact opposite in practice. Without NCLB, schools could concentrate on the middle, assuming the good students would offest the bad and the school-wide average result was what mattered. Under NCLB, each measurable group must make progress, so even the gifted students must be taught, not be allowed to skate by and provide cover for another group. There may well be other troubling aspects to NCLB, but from the perspective of applying business-style metrics to all aspects of the “product line,” it is a success IMHO.

[bannie]

Before NCLB, the successes of each, individual child was the goal...not AVERAGES. NOW schools have to look at which kids will get the school “more bang for the buck” in the progress of averages.

[bannie]

If, every year, a 7th grade teacher gets over 50% of his students from Mexico, how can she improve from year to year? These students may improve individually, but next-year’s 7th graders will start all over again.

YET...each year, the averages have to IMPROVE. HOW? These kids are not the same kids you had last year.

This is just a way for the federal/state governments to take the schools away from the local government—the school boards (you, the parents!).