Chocolate chip cookie Party

Education

No child left behind

No child left behind (NCLB) program improves the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing the parents with being able to choose the school their child will attend.


Pros

  • Test scores have been improving since 2001
  • Nearly 450,000 eligible students have received free supplemental educational services or public school choice
  • Emphasizes reading, writing, and math
  • Measures educational status and growth by ethnicity, and helps to close the achievement gap between white and minority students
  • schools require focusing on providing quality education to students who are often undeserved such as, children with disabilities, low-come families, non-English speakers, as well as African Americans and Latinos
  • Parents are provided annually with a detailed report of student’s achievement, and explanations are provided of achievement levels


Cons

  • Bush Administration has significantly underfunded it at the state level, but has required states to comply with all provisions or risk losing federal funds
  • It teaches children to score well on the test, rather than teaching them with a primary goal of learning. Teachers must teacher a narrow set of test-taking skills and a test-limited range of knowledge
  • States write their own standardize tests, so they can make very low standards and make the test easy so everyone passes
  • NCLB sets very high teacher qualifications, which makes it hard to obtain qualified teachers in many fields


Party's stance

We believe we should have No Child Left Behind because their are more pros and they are better than how worse the cons are.


Expanding school choice to include Public, private, parochial, and home-schooling

Pros

  • It will motivate public school systems by introducing competition, this forcing public schools to increase student achievement or risk closure
  • It can level the playing field by giving low-income and/or minority student’s access to a high-quality education otherwise unobtainable
  • It helps parents make a more active role in shaping their children’s education


Cons

  • It forces the public schools to compete in the open marketplace which makes parents attempt to consume the best education possible in the form of high-quality schools
  • Resources will be taken away from public schools
  • Tax payers will have to pay more for the children that end up leaving public school and going somewhere else


Party's stance

We believe that expanding school choice is the right thing to do. Parents should have the choice to give their kid the best education possible, even if tax payers have to pay a little more.