Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Apparently it did work
Topic Started: Dec 17 2008, 03:14 AM (394 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Apparently, the so-call No Child Left Behind program did work...
Quote:
 
Bush's Education Policy Bears Fruit

By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
Published: Sunday, December 14, 2008

The 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) found that U.S. fourth-graders jumped 11 points in math between 2003 and 2007.

The latest TIMSS report, the ongoing evaluation of education in 36 to 48 countries revealed that in 2007 the U.S. consistently rated at least in the top one-third and in some cases the top one-fourth of participating nations. The average U.S. fourth-grade math score was higher than those of students in 23 of 35 other countries and among eighth-graders was higher than students in 37 of 47 other countries.

“Today’s TIMSS results reconfirm what we have long known — if we set high expectations, our children will rise to the challenge,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings. “I am encouraged that U.S. students are improving, and particularly that many children who were once left behind are now making some of the greatest gains in math.”

Ms. Spellings credited the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind Act” as the reason for the improvement.

“[It] has focused our national conversation on objective results, and thanks to this law, we now have data to show how all of our students are performing,” she said. “In addition, we know from the National Assessment of Educational Progress that nearly one million more students have learned basic math skills since the law was passed.”

Since 1995, the TIMSS test has been conducted every four years among students in grades four and eight to evaluate their math and science skills. The project is coordinated by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement and the International Study Center at Boston College. A total of 36 countries participated in grade four and 48 countries at grade eight.

The findings of the TIMSS 2007 generally track those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as “The Nation’s Report Card.”

In the U.S., the TIMSS was conducted in the Spring of 2007 among a representative sample of 10,350 fourth-graders in 257 public and private schools and 9,723 eighth-graders attending 239 public and private schools.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at mtremoglie@thebulletin.us

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2008/12/14/top_stories/doc4941f4f8cbc70008686389.txt

Keep in mind the leftists have, along with all things Bush, vilified the No Child Left Behind Act as a boondoggle, but I think history will say differently.
Edited by Dwayne, Dec 17 2008, 03:19 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Dwayne
Dec 17 2008, 03:14 AM
Keep in mind the leftists have, along with all things Bush, vilified the No Child Left Behind Act as a boondoggle, but I think history will say differently.
One of the things I never understood was the proliferation of the myth that the administration never funded 'No Child Left Behind'; which can so easily be debunked by looking at Department of Education budgeting over the last decade.

Over the years of the Bush administration the Department of Education budget almost doubled

Over the years that the republicans controlled congress under President bush the Department of Education budget almost tripled

NCLB's (one program among many) average budget since its adoption was more than half the entire Department of Education budget in the out going year of the Clinton administration.

Under Clinton the Department of educations budget increased only by 18%. I don’t know if this is good or bad, that’s not my point, the point is between the two the Bush admin and his congress well out paced Clinton in education spending.

Here is the data.

Year - Department of ED budget (Thousands)

1992 - $32,169,741

Clinton takes office:

1993 - $32,462,458
---*
1999 - $38,313,686
2000 - $38,447,366

Bush takes office:

2001 - $42,061,403
2002 - $56,177,032
2003 - $63,256,811
2004 - $67,212,116
2005 - $71,478,441
2006 - $100,047,663 - Spike due to congress not the president; his buget called for 69b.

Democrats take congres:

2007 - $67,124,090
2008 - $68,574,592


Year - NCLB budget (Thousands)

2001 - $17,382,464
2002 - $22,012,676
2003 - $23,625,232
2004 - $24,309,277
2005 - $24,350,254
2006 - $23,333,176
2007 - $23,487,401
2008 - $24,299,059


http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html

* it was not exactly easy to reformat the date in the above form so I did not spend the time on Clinton's budget by year because it was besides the point. If you follow the link however you will see there was not much change between the Clinton budget by year it hovered around the mid 30s through out his terms.
Edited by Dandandat, Dec 17 2008, 10:39 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Leftists... Never let facts get in the way of good agitprop.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Unbelievable.

I don't recall seeing Dwayne's opinion on No Child Left Behind before, so I will not be making generalizations about rightwingers and assume all fall in.

However I can think of at least two prominent right wing Sistertrekkers who have consistently lambasted No Child Left Behind as the one thing Bush did that they really hated. Why? Because it is a LEFTWING style program, that's why. :doh:

I wait to see if those people heap praise on Bush for this program now. ;)

I don't recall seeing the leftwingers on Sistertrek lambasting Bush for this particular program, but I could be wrong. Maybe they could enlighten us instead of everyone jumping on the bandwagon and assuming what they thought.
Edited by Minuet, Dec 17 2008, 01:32 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Shock could it be that when you put more money into public services you get better results?

Check these equally shocking graphs out. Apparently it did work in this case as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
As I recall Sen. Ted Kennedy was one of the people that was instrumental in getting the Democrats to sign on to this proposal originally. I wonder if, having tried to distance himself from it a bit later, he will now be inclined to lay claim to these results?

To me the idea that results were not instantaneous on this program should not be at all surprising. It was bound to take some time. Especially when one considers that some of the first children it applied to were having to catch up. You're now starting to get children that were in the very earliest stages of their academic career and experienced the full context of the program.

Overall I, for one, am delighted to see there are signs of improvement in the kids. I hope it continues to improve and I hope we see a continued emphasis on math and science curricula.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
STC
Member Avatar
Commodore
ds9074
Dec 17 2008, 06:26 PM
Shock could it be that when you put more money into public services you get better results?

Check these equally shocking graphs out. Apparently it did work in this case as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image
What is this :o ? Evidence-based arguments! This is heresy ds9074 ;)
Edited by STC, Dec 17 2008, 07:00 PM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
STC
Dec 17 2008, 06:59 PM
ds9074
Dec 17 2008, 06:26 PM
Shock could it be that when you put more money into public services you get better results?

Check these equally shocking graphs out. Apparently it did work in this case as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image
What is this :o ? Evidence-based arguments! This is heresy ds9074 ;)
Actually, one does not support the other.

I can talk about the amount of money spent on bullets versus the number of reduced dragon sightings and it would be as meaningful. In addition, the second chart lacked a scale.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Dec 17 2008, 01:29 PM
Unbelievable.

I don't recall seeing Dwayne's opinion on No Child Left Behind before, so I will not be making generalizations about rightwingers and assume all fall in.

However I can think of at least two prominent right wing Sistertrekkers who have consistently lambasted No Child Left Behind as the one thing Bush did that they really hated. Why? Because it is a LEFTWING style program, that's why. :doh:

I wait to see if those people heap praise on Bush for this program now.

I don't recall seeing the leftwingers on Sistertrek lambasting Bush for this particular program, but I could be wrong. Maybe they could enlighten us instead of everyone jumping on the bandwagon and assuming what they thought.
I'm one of those.

I think "No Child Left Behind" means "All Children Become Mediocre."

People have this "Lake Woebegon" view of their children that is reflected in (and supported through) misguided policies such as this one.

We could have done far better.
Edited by Admiralbill_gomec, Dec 18 2008, 07:23 AM.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Minuet
Dec 17 2008, 01:29 PM
I don't recall seeing the leftwingers on Sistertrek lambasting Bush for this particular program, but I could be wrong. Maybe they could enlighten us instead of everyone jumping on the bandwagon and assuming what they thought.
Why would leftwingers on Sistertrek need to have lambasted Bush for this particular program for a :spank: to be called on the left for this turn of events? NCLB has been a perceivable thorn in the Bush administrations side since its inception. It was a popular attack point from the left from a domestic stand point; mostly due to funding issues and the riggers it placed on teachers. One need only do a Google search to see that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Dec 18 2008, 07:20 AM
STC
Dec 17 2008, 06:59 PM
ds9074
Dec 17 2008, 06:26 PM
Shock could it be that when you put more money into public services you get better results?

Check these equally shocking graphs out. Apparently it did work in this case as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image
What is this :o ? Evidence-based arguments! This is heresy ds9074 ;)
Actually, one does not support the other.

I can talk about the amount of money spent on bullets versus the number of reduced dragon sightings and it would be as meaningful. In addition, the second chart lacked a scale.

So you think that in the period when NHS spending more than doubled it was coincidental than the number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment fell from nearly 1/2 million to none. Would have happened anyway, nothing whatsoever to do with the extra resources that employed more health professionals and increased capacity? :chin:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
DS9 I don’t understand the NHS vs Education comparison you are trying to make.

It would stand to reason that in a NHS that increases capacity through spending will logically result in shorter wait times.

Education however is a different animal; "wait times" are not the issue most children already attend schools – the question than becomes how best to serve them. Which may or may not require more money; but does certainly require better tactics?

A better comparison to NHS would be to look at doctors effectiveness in treating the average patient that they saw pre and post the sending increase. Did the spending increase lead to better doctors and better health for the individual who got to see a doctor pre and post spending.

That wouldn’t be a perfect comparison either as, medicine is technologic driven (ie more money better technology) but it would be better than looking at outpatient wait times.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Dec 18 2008, 09:18 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Dec 18 2008, 07:20 AM
STC
Dec 17 2008, 06:59 PM
ds9074
Dec 17 2008, 06:26 PM
Shock could it be that when you put more money into public services you get better results?

Check these equally shocking graphs out. Apparently it did work in this case as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image
What is this :o ? Evidence-based arguments! This is heresy ds9074 ;)
Actually, one does not support the other.

I can talk about the amount of money spent on bullets versus the number of reduced dragon sightings and it would be as meaningful. In addition, the second chart lacked a scale.

So you think that in the period when NHS spending more than doubled it was coincidental than the number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment fell from nearly 1/2 million to none. Would have happened anyway, nothing whatsoever to do with the extra resources that employed more health professionals and increased capacity? :chin:
Wait a minute.

You had people waiting THIRTEEN WEEKS for an outpatient procedure? You're proud of the fact that you've gone from HALF A MILLION people down to FORTY THOUSAND? You're proud that people actually still have to wait THIRTEEN WEEKS? Holy ^&%(^%!!! I'd be ashamed at that.

I had an outpatient procedure last Friday (pre-procedure for surgery I'm having on December 30th). I made the appointment the day I found out I needed surgery. I was asked, "When would you like to have the colonoscopy done, Mr. AdmiralBill_GOMEC?" followed by, morning or afternoon. I stress the, "WHEN WOULD YOU" part of it.

Admittedly my upcoming surgery isn't quite as easy. The surgeon I chose only operates on Tuesdays. I had the choice of four of five Tuesdays this month (or I could have waited until next month... but I wanted to use up the rest of my medical deductible).

But, I digress from the topic.

SIDE NOTE: I'm having my sigmoid colon removed in 12 days. I've been having bad diverticular attacks for the past two years, and they're getting more frequent despite my lack of seed consumption. I'll be in the hospital for three days followed by about ten days of at-home recovery. Believe it or not, I'm going to take a lot of my time off (my contracts, too) to start a book I've been outlining.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
ABG
 
You had people waiting THIRTEEN WEEKS for an outpatient procedure? You're proud of the fact that you've gone from HALF A MILLION people down to FORTY THOUSAND? You're proud that people actually still have to wait THIRTEEN WEEKS? Holy ^&%(^%!!! I'd be ashamed at that.

I think you need to look again at that graph. We have gone from half a million people waiting over 13 weeks in 1998 to almost none having to wait that long (I believe it was around 500). I agree that the 500,000 figure was shameful and you can blame the previous Conservative government for that. The reduction is something to be proud of and it is also, I believe, an example of where extra public spending can make a big difference.

Dandandat
 
DS9 I don’t understand the NHS vs Education comparison you are trying to make.

It would stand to reason that in a NHS that increases capacity through spending will logically result in shorter wait times.

Education however is a different animal; "wait times" are not the issue most children already attend schools – the question than becomes how best to serve them. Which may or may not require more money; but does certainly require better tactics?

I agree with you up to a point in that what you describe as the 'tactics' are crucial. That said extra money in education can do things like employ more teachers and build better facilities - thereby allowing for reduced class sizes. It can also allow for the purchase of new learning tools like IT facilities. A good syllabus needs to be supported by the infrastructure and staff numbers that require money to be spent to be really effective.

My arguement though is that far from what some will imply (you see it in the right wing press here) extra spending on public services can and has improved those services. I would suspect a strong element of the improvements now being seen in US schools is the fruit of that extra spending you posted about early in the thread.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
DS9 if you gave every one $50 million and tell them to provide for their own health care and education; they'll be able to do a good job of it. The question really comes down to is that the most efficient and best approach to the problem.

I doubt any sane person form the left or right would deign that the more money you put into a problem the better the results will be. However some might believe that simply improving the tactics themselves will yield a better return than simply increasing in funds.

Also I wouldn't over state the role of technology in education; education is an exercising of the mind, which sure can be had through technology, but it need not be. A good education can come from the lost levels of technology. That’s where we got the technology we take for granted in the first place.


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus