Talk:No Child Left Behind Act/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No Child Left Behind Act/Archive 1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Education High‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging with AYP articles

No reason AYP needs to stand alone as separate articles. Its a No Child Left Behind specific metric and term. 05:00,\2006 (UTC)

From Kevin Haefelin 03/01/07 I have never seen such a dumb piece of legislature. I was born in Switzerland, therefore, I speak French, German, and Italian. However since I came to the U.S. I learned English and speak fluently. Because of the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001", my school made me take the same dumb ESL ("ELDA") test three times. It is a test for people with English as a second language and the federal government requires students, in the same case than myslef, to take this test. But I already speak English guys!!!

Hey this program came from my old elementary school No Child Gets Ahead

However, problems occur when 3rd grade children who can only read at 1st grade level are not allowed to read 1st grade level books, or even second grade level books, and are required to read 3rd grade level books. They never get ahead. AND they never will

No Child Left Behind sets expectations and measures students but fails to provide a process to give the best result.

Go to your school district and ask the following questions: 1. When does math class tracking begin? (In my district, it was after 5th grade.) 2. What is the difference in the tracks? (In my district, the difference is that in 6th grade, the top track gets the same curriculum at the same rate as the low track. But, it is taught for conceptual understanding and includes activities that promote higher order thinking. Only top track 6th graders can take the advanced 7th grade math classes. Advanced 7th grade covers 7th and 8th grade topics. Only students who took advanced 7th grade math are eligible for 8th grade algebra. Only students who take 8th grade algebra can take Advanced Placement and Honors math classes in high school. Teachers tell me it is nearly impossible for students to go up a track.) 3. What criteria do teachers use for deciding placement in the top track of math? (In my district, they have no criteria. Every teacher decides based on what they think is the best way to make this decision. Most of the 5th grade teachers making this decision do not like math, didn't take much math, and have no idea that they are deciding who can eventually be prepared for careers that require math and science.) 4. Look at the racial make up of who gets tracked high after 5th grade (or whenever your district begins tracking), compared with who was high scoring and academically successful in math up to that point. (In my district, of the equally highest scoring students, about 98% of the Asian, 70% of the White, 40% of the Black, and 20% of the Hispanic students were tracked high. This was of the equally high scoring students. By high school, very few non-Asian minorities are taking advanced math or science classes. So, are you saying...wait,...who is having to wait while people catch up? What is that about? Go to your school system and ask these questions. We are creating the achievement gap. You are correct. Research shows that once we track these kids low for several years, they won't ever catch up. You're right. They never will.

People can argue otherwise, but anyone familiar with the public school system or who has actually spoken or participated will tell you the problems. Success rarely comes from the Left Behind Program. It comes more frequently from school districts who have innovative principals and teachers blessed with active and involved parents. No Child Left Behind just takes credit for their work. Then it dodges responsibility where schools are failing.

The reality is that most students are taught to pass the test. No Child Left Behind meets test score expectations much like Enron and WorldCom met Wall Street expecations.

What the education system needs is a complete overhaul and reeavuation of the system. It is still being run under a "Leave It To Beaver" fantasy world born out of the Industrial Revolution trying to uniformly indoctrinate children in an assembly line fashion.

Adults are terrified of the potential that todays children are offered through computers and electronic media. Emotion stimulates memory retention and children today can learn through interactive video games and movies a terrifying amount of information that their parents had to extract from tattered textbooks and inaccurate encyclopedias.

Take Wikipedia as an example. Rather than take a one dimensional view of the American Revolution, a student can begin reading a synopsis of the American Revolution and then delve into the biographies and histories of the characters and events simply by clicking the embedded links.

Students can take math tests in video game fashion with instant individual grade feedback.

Through the internet, students can study reading and math, the foundations of every other science, as applied to their current interest.

But No Child Left Behind does not provide for an innovative process. It does not provide tools.

It merely says "We expect A's!" and then takes credit when they occur. But it does nothing.

So when No Child Left Behind is exposed like Enron and Iraq's WMD's, let us not say we were surprised.

Question on the Arguments for and against

The Arguments sections have become markedly out of balance over the months, due presumably to the enthusiasm of those critical of NCLB, casting a shadow on the article's aspiration toward NPOV. -- 66.166.183.7

Both of these sections seem a little strange to me but I'll admit that I'm new to Wikipedia. My concern is that both sections seem like statements of opinion rather than statements of fact. For instance this line: "The schools that need help the most are punished instead of given more funding as additional funding is often denied or at most minimized." is absolutely false. Schools that are identified as needing improvement actually receive more money then schools who make AYP. Are these suppose to be opinion sections or do the same neutral point of view and source rules apply?

Answer: I am pretty sure that they are the most common arguments made for or against the act, so they don't have to be true. I'm sure some of the arguments for it are also false. ;) -- 69.132.183.189 19:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That was a kinda ugly redo of the intro, but it's better. If it's still there later, I'll redo it. -Elliott Shultz 17:56, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the sentence "This law attempts to improve the performance of America's primary and secondary schools by increasing the the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend" should maybe be changed. Some people believe that the law is not attempting to improve the performance of schools, but is an attemt to destroy the public school system, thus destroying vestiges of socialism in socieity which the Republican party has vocally disliked. I'm not saying it should say that, as that's a rather partisan view, but it shouldn't outright state what their motives are when we, of course, do not knows the motives behind the bill, only what the Bush administration says the motives behind the bill are. So maybe it should be changed this "This law claims to attempt to" or something. - Aerothorn 01:18, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I was sitting at a diner discussing this with my friends. I mean, the evidence is in Rod Paige's history that he wished to eliminate the national department of eductation. Same with Ronald Regan. Now, this is a theory, and also an argument for/against, i mean, it depends on your political viewpoint on the desire to eliminate the department of education. According to some of my teacher/administrator friends, because of the good special education programs they have, some of the top schools in the area they work at fail and start losing funding because of their failing. they also told me that within 8 years, every single school in the wealthy western suburbs of chicago will be failing the standard. therefore after a certain period of time, they won't recieve federal funding, and if 80% of schools in the nation go that way (like many suburban communities do i've heard also from friends in new york, wisconsin, and the D.C. Metro area) then, they might as well nix federal funding for all school and abolish the department of education. if you concur that that is a possibility and could be ladled into this entry then, (and just because i word it to sound like it's a bad thing, doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it's a very conservative ideal obviously for states rights and less national control, it's just not my idea), then concur... (statement follows)

NCLB may be a covert flushing mechanism developed by Rod Paige to eliminate the Department of Education by requireing unreachable high standards to fail a disproportionate amount of schools and reduce the amount of federal funding handed out so that eventually the individual states would pay entirely for their school system.

--Evesummernight 22:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

What bothers me about it is it's turned what were once classes about, say, English, into year-long test-coaching sessions. —Casey J. Morris 03:55, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

A few suggestions

I've just discovered wikipedia, so I'm still feeling my way around. I am however, familiar with NCLB, and have a few suggestions.

First, in the main article, I would consider adding to the end of the first paragraph a sentance or two about the basis of NCLB. Such as:

The No Child Left Behind Act is based primarily on the reform strategies instituted by President Bush during his tenure as governor of Texas. These reforms dubbed "The Texas Miracle" have come into question in Texas where allegations have surfaced that schools were manipulating data to improve their results.

I would also suggest that in advance of the arguements for and against, major requirements of the law be listed then list the pro's and con's. Here are some of the major requirements.

- All student's progress will be measured annually in reading/language arts and math in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school. By the end of the 2007-2008 school year, testing will also be conducted in science once during grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12.

- Provides support for parents by requiring that states and school districts issue detailed report cards on the status of schools and districts. Under the law, parents must also be informed when their child is being taught by a teacher who does not meet "highly qualified" status. Schools are also required to include and involve parents in the school planning.

- Schools receiving Title I funds that do not meet "adequate yearly progress" requirements for a two consecutive years will be required to institute school choice allowing eligible children to transfer to higher performing schools. If the school does not meet targets the next year, supplemental educational services such as tutoring and after school programs must also be offered. If the school continues in "in need of improvement" status it will be required to take corrective action uch as removing relevant staff, implementing new curriculum, decreasing management authority, appointing outside experts to advise the school, extending the length of the school day or year or restructuring the school's internal organization.

- Schools are required to use "scientifically based" strategies.

Please note: I have deliberately not used the term "failing" as the 4th argument for does in the article. The U.S. Dept. of Education has been very clear that schools are not deemed "failing" when they do not make AYP and that they do not want that term used. Education Week

adding what I can

I'd love to get more help on this topic from teachers and admins --DennisDaniels 02:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changes that need to be made here

I'd like to see a more exhaustive and detailed explanation of what the law requires and provides. Also, the arguments for/against sections need to be more thoroughly explained and documented, so it's clear that the bullet points are statements of positions in the ongoing debate, not facts. Finally, a section on the political controversy should be added, since the fate of NCLB is perhaps the key education issue in the U.S. presidential race. I'll be coming back to work on this more when I'm not at my ed-reform job. :-) -- Lottelita 22:57, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Documentation of conservative opposition to federalization of education

Here is a link to some of Ron Paul's discussion of the federal control fears deriving from the NCLB voucher provisions:

[1]

Here is a quote from that document: "In other words, parents can choose any school they want as long as the school teaches the government approved curriculum so the students can pass the government approved test. "

John Kerry, in his 100 day plan to change America, gives reality to these fears of increased federalization, with his mandatory public service for high school graduation proposal. See [talk:Revival of the draft] for more links to documentation.--Silverback 08:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Criticisms

I cut this from the article, but it could be repaired and put back:

While governor of Texas, Mr. Bush presided over the "the Texas Miracle" — a series of public school improvements under laws very similar to the current national No Child Left Behind Act.
Evidence suggests that some of the Texas school improvements came about with score tampering.

Is there an article on the Texas Miracle? Did student achievement go up (or even up spectacularly), as the term miracle would imply?

The weasel words "evidence suggests" are no substitute for attributing the POV of the advocates who oppose NCLB for duplicating the 'duplicity' of Texas Miracle. We should identify these advocates, or omit the criticism altogether. Perhaps the unsigned contributor above knows whose POV this is.

Many people have ideas about what is "best" for children's education. And even among those who agree that the focus should be on the "Three R's" there is heated disagreement on HOW children should be taught to read, write, and do arithmetic.

As an engineer who values clear and accurate communication along with honest reporting on problems and attempted solutions, I have a Point of View (POV) in this controversy, but I will try hard to distinguish between "objective reality" and my own POV. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:43, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Equality of results

The idea that any system which produces unequal results must necessarily be "unfair", informs much of the ethical arguments about education (as well as employment). This bleeds over into the affirmative action controversy.

Please help me distinguish between the ideas of Stephen Covey and Sun Myung Moon, who emphasize personal responsibility -- and other ideas such as "equal opportunity should result in equal outcomes". As a Covey fan and Moon follower, I am so wedded to their ideas that it might blind me to my biases. I'll think, "Of course it's true that students who apply themselves will get better grades than dunces who watch TV all afternoon."

I think a good teacher will set strict standards, explain the concepts in a way children can understand, and do their best to make education enjoyable. Bad teachers, i.e., those who cannot or will not do these things, should be paid less or, better, fired.

Parents who complain that their kids "aren't learning" should first examine their own child-rearing methods. Do they require their children to do homework before goofing off? Do they reward diligence and achievement? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

RE: Texas Miracle criticisms

I was the contributor who originally suggested that content. In regards to evidence concerning the duplicity of the "Texas Miracle" I included a link in my original suggestion to a CBS article on the questionable drop out statistics reported by the Houston Independent School District (which by the way is where Secretary of Education Rod Paige was Superintendent and where many of the reforms within NCLB sprang from)

The article reports on the findings of Robert Kimball, an assistant principal at Sharpstown High School in Houston, who took a closer look at his schools drop out statistics when he noticed that "his school claimed that no students – not a single one – had dropped out in 2001-2002."

The article further goes on to say:

"Investigators checked half of the city’s regular high schools. They reviewed the records of nearly 5,500 students who left those schools, and checked how the schools explained it. They found that almost 3,000 students should have been, but weren’t, coded as dropouts. The audit substantiated Kimball’s allegations."

Here is a second article from MSNBC that looks at the drop out rates at Austin High School (also in Houston) where the article explains that "during a decade in which, routinely, as many as half of Austin students failed to graduate, the school’s reported dropout rate fell from 14.4 percent to 0.3 percent."

The same article goes on to describe how achievement on the 10th grade math exam skyrocketed from 26 percent passing in 1995 when Paige became superintendent to 99 percent in 2001 when he left the district.

Weaker students are held back in 9th grade. After two or more years in 9th grade those students are then moved up to 12th grade therefore skipping the test altogether.

So I guess I could have left out the "evidence suggests" and just plain said they lied, but I was trying to be impartial and let the reader decide for themselves the value of the evidence.

I could continue by pointing out similar concerns regarding the reporting of school violence and investigations underway in Houston and Dallas regarding what can only be described as blatant cheating on the TAKS exams.

Having studied this issue in grad school, I agree with this user's comments on the need to discuss the test-rigging issue. No one has raised any issues that would question this, so I'm going to go ahead and make the change. SlipperyN 11:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Privatization of schools

This is listed in the "arguments against":

# NCLB is designed to set the stage for the eventual privatization of the U.S. public school system: reports about struggling schools sour public opinion and may cause more and more voters to question the viability of public education.

I see this as an NPOV issue, because this point could clearly be an argument for or against; the article as it currently stands displays a bias in opposition to privatization.

~ Booyabazooka 02:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The people who actually raise the prospect of complete privatization see it as a negative, and we're reporting their position. If some notable spokesperson has endorsed NCLB because it will be one step on the road to privatization, we can quote that person. I suspect you're correct that many of them think that way, but they probably consider it politically unwise to admit it. Our problem, then, is that we don't base our discussion of differing POVs on speculation. We'd need to find somebody prominent who openly hails the prospect of phasing out public education. JamesMLane 03:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How about a link to a page that describes what "Title I" is?

Military recruiters dispute

There appears to be some disagreement about how the section about access to military recruiters (in "Arguments Against") should be worded. I argue, based upon [2] and my understanding of the law as an educator, that it is misleading to state that schools are required to provide only that access which they provide to other institutions of higher learning, and in fact that many schools do not provide any comprehensive list of their students to colleges and universities. Cultofpj disagrees (and he can probably summarize his reasoning better than I can). Any third-party thoughts? ESkog 2 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Here is the exact wording from the law: [3] SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION. (a) POLICY- (1) ACCESS TO STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION- Notwithstanding section 444(a)(5)(B) of the General Education Provisions Act and except as provided in paragraph (2), each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings. (2) CONSENT- A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the student's name, address, and telephone listing described in paragraph (1) not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request. (3) SAME ACCESS TO STUDENTS- Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.

Thanks for offering to resolve this on the talk page. Cultofpj 4 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Thanks for clarifying. ESkog 6 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Arguments against that need clarification

Supports early learning, an approach criticized in "Better Late Than Early", by Raymond Moore, et al.
Indicators of school performance are not accurate or viable.
Testing is not coupled with plans and funding to remedy problems that might be detected by the testing. Instead, a system of increasing punishments is provided to take away resources from schools (i.e. from the students and employees of schools) which exhibit failing threashold scores.
Although "local freedom" is advertised as a benefit of NCLB, school districts are free to choose one curriculum package from a federally developed list of about 6 products, and cannot use the funding for any other purpose. Thus, the main immediate effect of NCLB is to provide a lucrative income stream to large corporate curriculum publishers. There is some public accusation of political cronyism in this result.
NCLB gives future teachers no creativity in the teaching process.
Students with disabilities do not have the proper learning techniques because the standardized testing is over-stressed.

And this, I believe, is incorrect:

Students with learning disabilities do not receive extra help when taking the standardized tests, and can jeopardize the assigned rating the entire school is given.

It's proven?

Students who are learning English as a second language are expected to take the standardized tests and show proficiency equal to their English-speaking peers, when it is proven that English-Language-Learners take between 5 and 10 years to "catch up" to grade-level proficiency.

Also likely incorrect, since the law places an emphasis on special education improvement:

Focus on improving the average student's education may ignore individual differences between students, and potentially harm both special and gifted education programs.

Does it "remove funding"?

NCLB focuses on basic educational classes and removes funding from music programs, art programs, etc. This results in schools being forced to remove elective and after school programs.

Thanks for helping me sort this out, in advance. Rkevins82 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was a special education teacher in Texas whoe retired in 2004 and am somewhat familiar with to provisions of NCLB re special education. Prior to NCLB, speced students could taken a State Developed Alternative Assessment in lieu of the TAKS test the regular students took. SDAA is available in a variety of grade levels and a speced student could take the test at whatever level was deemed appropriate. When NCLB is fully implemented, they will have to take the same test as regular students, at the same grade level. Also, students could, if part of the Individual Education Plan, receive various types of assistance, such as having the test read to them, which will not be allowed under NCLB. There was a lot of discussion at the time of the conflict between existing laws/regulations regarding speced modifications and NCLB, which basically says that all students will acheive the same results.

To be fair, I should point out that there has been the preception, at least, that schools were guilty of placing students in special ed inappropriately in order to make apparent gains in test results.Wschart 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Did George Bush choose the term for its "Revelation" Significance

Certainly our President was well aware of the popular series of books and movies when he named this program. Do you think it was an intentional "codeword" to equate educating children with soul-saving? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themeparkphoto (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but to include such a claim in the article you would need to cite a reliable source for that information. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced Nature of "Arguments" section

There are easily twice the number of "cons" as "pros" listed for NCLB. I don't know what the other pros are, but I'm sure they exist, and we should list them.12.17.189.77 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It would also help to attribute all of the pros and cons to the people who have advanced these arguments. I'll see what I can find. Lottelita 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I added several new arguments which I hope will help address this issue. SlipperyN 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I had never thought of it that way, but since you mention it, that is almost certainly the case. It would be nice to imagine that there might be some way to assure that ALL school children actually "EVOLVE" from school year to school year, becoming more and more intellectually and academically superior, without limit, until finally, after 10 years of NCLB, we finally obtain the perfection of the ULTIMATE SOVIET üBERMAN. I wonder how many morons in this administration, actually believe this is going to happen? What NCLB really is for, just to penalize teachers for the shortcomings of their students, to provide an excuse to take federal money out of education and transfer funding to the military. 70.106.60.44

Criteria

There should be something in the article about how a school can be doing overall very well, but if a very small number of students in a particular group are not improving every year, then the whole school can be labeled as failing. Also, how the act creates incentives not to count students as being "dropouts". AnonMoos 15:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Each ethnic group, with those recieving free lunch counted as an additional ethnic group, must show ayp which means, amoung other things, 95% showing up to take the test. If a school as 10 native americans out of a population of, say, 2000 students, and one native american doesn't show up, that school could get a demerit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beowulfen (talk • contribs) .

This is not usually the case. To start, a minimum number of students have to be present in a school for it to count for accountability reasons. States were allowed to set the size (10 is used in some states). However, in the American Indian example, the one student would have to be out of school for the entire test window (generally, two weeks) for an unexcused reason. This is fairly rare. Also, there are safeharbors that protect against this by averaging across years. See "Policy Letter to Chief State School Officers on Flexibility in Calculating Participation Rates Under No Child Left Behind" (Press release). United States Department of Education. 2004-05-19. Retrieved 2006-09-11. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Rkevins82 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Those receiving free lunch...or subgroups such as "Hispanic females" or "black males"...are not called (accurately or erroneously) "ethnic groups" but "cohorts." MJFiorello 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proponents vs Opponents

NCLB does not have the effect of "restricting collective bargaining rights" in most districts. Rather, it allows for creation of charter schools--which tend not to be unionized due to the free choice of staffers who vote to remain out of the unions. So let's be fair in stating proponents' case and not use opponent-type arguments for both sides. (ChulaOne 14 July 2006)

Seperation of powers

Is there any point to adding a section covering how this might be seen as a violation of the 10th amendment?

Education has been a state/local area of concedrn because it is not mentioned in the constitution.

--flyingember

Do you intend to do this for every act which may not be directly provided for by the Constitution? Rkevins82 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of Pros and Cons sections

As many have noted on this talk page, the pros and cons sections are poorly referenced and often redundant, and fail to distinguish between factual and rhetorical claims. I'm wondering if people have suggestions as to how to clean this up and get this to quality standards. I'm gathering references and would like to try to consolidate, but what do others think is the best way to approach this? SlipperyN 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes to the opposition section of the act, consolidating and adding references so that all claims are supported. Any feedback on these changes would be welcome! SlipperyN 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger Performed

I performed the long-suggested merger by redirecting the criticisms page to here. All the content of that page was redundant with the lengthier criticism page here. SlipperyN 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

In response to Ragnar the Magnificent's neutrality dispute tag, I've added several additional claims made in favor of the act and supporting references. I think it is appropriate to remove the tag or at least point to specific missing pieces and add them, or point them out for others to add. The mere face that there are more arguments in opposition than in favor does not, in and of itself, constitute a neutrality violation.SlipperyN 13:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I reread the article and think your improvements end the npov dispute. I've removed the tag. Benzocane 17:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Violation of separation of church and state

I propose that this section (found under Aguements against NCLB) be removed. It doesn't pertain to NCLB because nothing in the law directs funds to nonpublic, private, or parochial schools. Cultofpj 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A simple Google search finds that it has been implemented in some ways that do violate this tenet: http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&CID=1046&DID=32444 Philadelphia wants to use the Catholic archdiocese schools as a school district to send poor-performing children when they must be given a choice of another school. I'll re-add this.--Gloriamarie 16:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Additions to claims in favor

A recent anon addition of all the claims the gov makes in favor of the act seems misplaced to me as they are unsourced. The claims in favor prior to that addition are at least backed up with research, however controversial. But just listing all of the promised advantages of the legislation at length seems unencyclopedic to me. Our focus should be on registering objective and measurable effects of the legislation in question, not just advertising it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benzocane (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I disagree. All claims included in this article at least help explain thinking. Furthermore, some of the supposed "sources" backing various claims are themselves little more than opinion pieces masquerading as scientific research. ChulaOne 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with Benzocane, who I fear prefers a much-weakened "in favor" section that does justice neither to the idea of fair play nor the philosophy of Wikipedia. Let him instead present arguments that buffer his chosen (anti-) side in the NCLB debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.183.159.137 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

A recent addition to this article

This edit is seriously inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Indeed, much of the text is written in a first person style:

We should definitely be studying the effects of these practices. But, high income White parents won't let us put their high achieving children into low track non-rigorous courses, so we can't do a randomized experiment. Fortunately, low income and minority parents have not caught on to what is going on, so we can continue to track their children low. If they do catch on, we will have to make getting more quality math and science teachers a priority. Until then, we simply can't do randomized experiments.

This material is clearly not written from a neutral point of view. John254 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm User:.V., responding to this RfC request. I agree that the statement above is patently POV. After all, it's even written stylistically from a point of view (the use of the words "us", etc.) It's also original research, as it states none of it's sources. I see no justification at all for calling it neutral. If the passage was made objective and sources were added, perhaps it would make a useful addition to the article... but as it stands, it's basically POV editorializing. .V. 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have added a cleanup tag to this article due to poor quality of prose, large sections that lack wiki formatting and a need for NPOV cleanup. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NCLB re-authorization in 2007

Can we put more information about the reauthorization of NCLB in 2007, because we need put information on there, and also, can someone expand this article to feature status so we can give attention to people who don't know about NCLB.--Jsalims80 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Another Criticism

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and I apologize in advance if I'm breaking any rules. Anyway, I thought that another side of the argument needs to be addressed. It is a common opinion within my area (and others!) that the NCLB act may benefit lower level students, but at the same time it penalizes me and other "honors" students, especially in high school and middle school. Within my state and probably within many others, upper level classes are being cut in an attempt to finance NCLB. Higher level language courses, art courses, specialized interest courses, honors courses, and Advanced Placement classes are being cut and less of an effort is being made to challenge and support these children and young adults. Students are being discouraged from taking these courses in favor of less difficult classes in which they will definitely perform well, rather than being challenged. Perhaps this will raise the standards for students of low performance but more advanced teenagers are not being provided with the means to succeed, and are being compromised in an attempt to lessen the academic gap. The NCLB sets expectations and measures students but fails to provide a process to give the best result. Much of the opposition to the NCLB act arises from the fact that it seems to be "dumbing down" advanced students, in addition to the lack of funding (which gives rise to political issues inside the schoolboard which further distracts them from improving our education). 01:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear New Wikipedian, (and all readers of this talk page), I am glad that you are interested in Wikipedia, but this comment is not appropriate. First, you MUST sign all of your contributions by using four tildes after the post. Second, Wikipedia is committed to using only verifiable content. Your personal experiences, while undoubtedly interesting to yourself, cannot be included in Wikipedia. If you have a point to make, you must provide secondary sources. Your comment is what we call POV (or "not NPOV"). Although, that is not necessarily wrong on a talk page, please restrict yourself to to-the-point discussions of the article. Lufiend 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pro/Con division may be problematic

I was trying to figure out where to add the reference to those who criticize the USDOE claims about NAEP, and it seems that *neither* section describing arguments was appropriate. Putting it in the "con" section would distance it from the relevant subject matter earlier, but putting it in "pro" was awkward. I ended up with the "pro," but I think it would be wiser to identify salient questions raised by either proponents, opponents, or those in the middle and addressing the subjects of each with the various arguments. --SDorn 19:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that every comment under each of these sections must be referenced, or be deleted. Given the controversial nature of NCLB, there is a lot of POV and original research in both sections. This might be unavoidable, but requiring citations can only make this article more neutral. - Freechild 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

References

The majority of this article has POV issues, and the references are poorly syntaxed. Lots of work here for the near future... Also, apologies for not summarizing my edits - bad habit. I added a link to SEAs and created a Reference section for all those homeless citations. - Freechild 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

NCLB is not closing the achievement gap

According to an article in the New York Times, from 11/26/2006 ("What It Takes to Make a Student"), between 2000 to 2005, poor fourth grade math results moved from 8% to 19% proficient, while black students moved from 5% to 13%, yet white students are at 47%. I find it interesting that the department of education has no self-criticism evident in its NCLB web site. The same NYTimes article observes that while some data was positive in the 2005 batch, other data was disappointing. The Wikipedia article doesn't address the latter. Between 2000 and 2005, black eighth graders proficiency in reading dropped from 13% to 12%, and poor eighth graders proficiency in reading dropped from 17% to 15%. Is this the kind of data that suggests we're on track to eliminate the achievement gap by the deadline proposed by NCLB? Notaslavetofashion 10:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Schoolhouse Caption is Incorrect, suggested caption included, please comment

A reference for the reason for the schoolhouses is found in the fifth paragraph of this press release: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/04/04112002a.html

The structures are temporary and their primary purpose is to protect people coming in and out of the building from falling debris. Factician 15:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The following caption with citation of source is recommended:

A construction project to repair and update the building facade at the Department of Education Headquarters building in 2002 resulted in the installation of structures at all of the entrances to protect employees and visitors from falling debris. ED redesigned these protective structures to promote the "No Child Left Behind Act." The structures are temporary and will be removed in 2007. Source: U.S. Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/04/04112002a.html]]

If no disagreement, I will update the caption in a week or so. Factician 18:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Students Left Behind"

Please discuss here of any changes or proposals of deleting this section. Thank you.Coolguy1368 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The section you added is imprecise, uses loaded language, and expresses a clear POV without explaining the reasoning. There are other areas in the criticism section where these claims are hashed-out. Rkevins 07:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Why is it a president's job to make up new programs? That seems like a committee's job.

Not the place, bring it up in a different article. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This phrasing needs changing: "Because schools, districts, and states view the escalating assistance provided to students as a "punishment" if the school fails to make adequate progress according to the goals they themselves establish, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher." That "escalating assistance" part doesn't ring true when we think about firing teachers and restructuring administration. I'd have changed it myself, but I'm a teacher and therefore strongly biased. Thought I'd bring it up here. Eceresa 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody responded, so I changed it. Eceresa 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing Criticism

Somebody deleted the "criticism" section, and as I saw no discussion here, I reverted. Seems to me that there are a LOT of very valid criticisms of the law, though as I already mentioned I'm coming from a particular point of view on that. Hopefully there'll be discussion here before anybody else decides to get rid of the criticism. Eceresa 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ESL Concerns

I'm very new here at Wikipedia, so please be kind. I'm likely to mess up somehow in this post. I hope you can bear in mind that at least I went to the discussion section instead of trying to alter the entry directly! :^)

I teach English and ESL at a school that is currently in great danger of being forced to restructure. My school has a large ESL population and about 80% of our students speak a language other than English at home.

I have three criticisms of NCLB that I think are valid and have not appeared in the criticism section of this entry. Two of them have to do with how the law deals with ESL students, and the other with how the law can create difficulties between faculty and in-school administration and downtown administrations.

I realize that my criticisms are probably not written here in a format that would be useable on the official wikipedia entry for NCLB. Maybe someone here can help me with that.

1 -- Lack of differentiation between L1 literate and L1 illiterate ESL students. NCLB looks at "ESL" students as one category without distinguishing between ESL students who are literate in their native language and ESL students who are illiterate in their native language. There is a profound gulf between these two groups in level of ability and what one can expect from them. For example, a 15-year-old student from Colombia who attended school and learned to read and write in Spanish will be able to transfer literacy knowledge to reading and writing in English, whereas a 15-year-old student from Haiti or Cape Verde who never went to school before arrival in the USA will not be able to do so and will not realistically be able to catch up to an L1 literate classmate before his/her high school years are over (one way or another). This is important for school being judged on the performance of their ESL students because a school with a sudden influx of L1 illiterate students will see its ESL students' average scores go down regardless of what methodologies are in place.

2 -- Declassification of ESL students once they leave the program. I teach honors English at my school as well as ESL and this year 7 out of 15 of my 10th grade honors students claimed to have been in the ESL program at one point in their school careers. These students were "declassified" as ESL once they exited the program, along with many others in the mid to low level mainstream classes. What this means is that when ESL students rise above a certain level of ability and are mainstreamed, they cease to count as ESL students for the purposes of NCLB testing. Thus, ESL students' scores cannot rise above what one would expect from ESL students who were just about (almost) ready to be mainstreamed. An analogy would be if NCLB were to judge schools based on the average performance of Black students, but after Black students achieved above a certain level of ability they would no longer be classified as "Black". Then, schools would be taken to task when the numbers showed that their Black students never got above a certain level of ability. I find it very difficult to describe this madness in anything approaching "neutral" terms. Suffice to say that the result is that it is impossible for schools that are judged in part on the performance of their ESL students to succeed in meeting NCLB improvement standards without using harmful policies such as preventing high-performing ESL students from mainstreaming after they have proven themselves ready to exit the program.

3 -- In-school and Downtown conflicts. Teachers and administration in schools that are at high risk of being restructured can run into problems with the imbalance of power that is created between them and downtown administration such as school superintendents. Downtown administration need not fear the loss of employment that can go along with restructuring, and in fact they may get to decide to keeps and who loses their jobs in the coming years without needing to justify why. This can lead to situations such as abuse of power or breach of contract in connection with intimidating maneuvers to the effect of, "Yes, you could challenge this move, but do you really want to be noticed for doing that when you know we could fire you next year without needing to justify why?" This can lead to destructive decisions from downtown going unchallenged by faculty and staff who fear loss of employment.

I'm curious which of these criticisms people here might think worthy of addition to the official entry. Personally I feel that #2 is the most damning criticism of NCLB.

Thank you, - Ron ^*^

WerebatRon 00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a citation, Nos. 1 and 2 are probably best - but remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so avoid using loaded language. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with you that 1 and 2 are the strongest criticisms. I'm curious how one can criticize anything and remain neutral, but I get the bit about avoiding loaded language. It's difficult to do regarding #2 though. It is the most asinine thing about NCLB that I have yet encountered.

What exactly do you think I should provide citations for? #1 basically concerns something NCLB does NOT address, would a link to the law itself be a reasonable citation or not enough? Would it be better to provide a link to something about L1 literate vs. illiterate learners and the differences between them?

Regarding #2, again this is just something about how the law is written. Maybe an article that mentions this phenomenon?

Thanks, - Ron ^*^

WerebatRon 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I know the law is already linked in "External Links" (and therefore easy to get to), the law itself is a reasonable cite. As for number 2, I would recommend a news article or professional journal that directly talks about it. As for how one can criticize something and still remain neutral, I'm not sure if Dungeons & Dragons controversies would work as an example. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

References

I cleaned the references in this article in order to develop the section at the end. In doing so, I have identified a number of out-dated links, which I noted, removed, or added citation needed links to. Also, the entire article is poorly referenced. The section of external links at the end should be integrated throughout the article to make the references stronger. - Freechild 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

constitution

I have removed an uncited referance to the act being unconstitutional. An accusation of that magnitude demands a citation from a credible source and should not be left in the article uncited. (RookZERO 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Questioning the legitimacy of Educational Underwriters organization

was: Educational Underwriters and before that was: External link to highly questionable organization

Hi.

There is an external link to an organization called Educational Underwriters. I spent some time on the Educational Underwriters website, and there are several things that that seem highly questionable for an organization that claims to be independent and non-profit:

Although they claim to be a non-profit organization, they have advertisements for commercial educational products on their site (advertisements for products called "frontrow," "e-Instruction," "Click.and.Learn.Software", and "ChalkMonkey.")

They claim to be independent, but they seem to have a clear political agenda. Here's a quote taken directly from their site:

"Educational Underwriters is a nonprofit organization whose goal is to prevent further governmental oversight of schools and educators. The intent of NCLB is noble, but we do not believe another level of educational bureaucracy is necessary."

Finally, they claim to provide information about the research base of educational products, and to verify research, but they provide no information about the standards they use to evaluate said research, and they provide no information about any products they have evaluated.

They are advertising for contract reviewers on their website: "CALL FOR REVIEWERS: EdU is seeking qualified PhD's and EdD's to perform research reviews. Very competitive rates for contracted reviewers."

So, they hire a few random PhDs to look over some product's research to rubber stamp it?

I propose that we remove the link to this organization.

Best, Rosmoran 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "nonprofit" does not imply "gaping money pit of society". So they run some ads to help cover costs. I certainly see a possibility for a conflict of interests with that. But then, that does not make them irrelevant by itself.

You complain that their approval process is not transparent and that they do not publish lists of approved materials. Try writing them and asking? I don't see how that matters here, anyway. The term "nonprofit" also does not imply "Open Source" or any such ideology.

You also complain that "they hire a few random PhDs to look over some product's research to rubber stamp it". That approval process is exactly what NCLB requires. Educational Underwriters provides that service. They are (to my knowledge) the only independent activity doing so.

The link should stay, and they should probably have some mention in the body of the article.

-- Bigwyrm 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Followup!

There was previously a mention of both Educational Underwriters and What Works Clearinghouse in the article, but it was deleted by an anonymous IP back in April. [4] While an en masse deletion was probably excessive, that section needed pruning and copyediting. There was a good chunk of unsupported innuendo in the deleted portion as well, so I did not feel that simply restoring and cleaning the old one was a good idea. I added a short-short mention of the two organizations and their function. If anybody thinks that they need more treatment than a two-sentence blurb (and have references to back it up, naturally), feel free to expand.

-- Bigwyrm 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bigwyrm.

Perhaps you misunderstand my intent, which is not to complain. Rather, I am looking for some indication that this is a legitimate organization.

On their website, there are lots of claims, but little real information. No information about their founders, no list of executives or board members, no list of researchers on staff. There is no indication of any work they have done, any programs they have reviewed, and nothing about what standards they use to verify program research. Nothing but marketing copy. Heck, the website doesn't even say when they were founded.

They do say that they are "partnering" with K20 from the University of Oklahoma, but the University of Oklahoma has no mention of them on the K20 website.

I would not take any one of the things I mention as indicative of anything. Taken altogether, I think it is perfectly reasonable to question the legitimacy of this organization.

I have tried contacting them, but they have not yet responded to my inquiries. Google searches have turned up just a few things:

A couple of websites they have advertised their services on.

An April 6, 2007 posting on a website called edtecher.com. The post states that the founders are two public school administrators in a small town in Oklahoma, and that the organization is just getting off the ground. Oh, the poster also mentions that he knows the two founders personally. So, there's no objective endorsement there!

A conference session summary, dated June 26, 2007, and written by the session moderators who self-identify as the two founders, one a school principal and one a superintendent of schools. The summary includes the statement, "If we can imagine it, it can become reality." Which I take to mean, "We're still imagining it; it has not yet become reality."

You correctly point out that NCLB needs an independent program approval process. I absolutely agree. It would be terrific if there were a truly independent, disinterested organization that could do this type of program assessment.

I'm not looking for an argument, but from what I've been able to find, Educational Underwriters is not such an organization. It was founded and is run by 2 public school administrators, which means that it cannot be a truly independent, objective organization ---- in fact, I would consider it indicative of a significant conflict of interest. And, they don't seem to have done any program assessments yet.

However, it is certainly possible that there is information out there that I just haven't been able to find. Do you have knowledge of or information about this organization? If so, please do share it.

Best,

Rosmoran 04:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You present a valid question as to their legitimacy. I could chime in with my opinions of their flaky website, but that would expose my own biases. I do, however, notice that their website was updated on May 10, for whatever that's worth.

There does seem to be little known about them. I would expect that they would have received more media coverage since their inception if they were enjoying any success in their endeavor.

As for the "...imagine it..." comment, that sounds like more of an inspirational statement. I think you're reading something into it that isn't really there.

Also, please note that I never asserted or implied that they were a disinterested party. I wouldn't dare make that claim about anybody involved with NCLB. All I said of them was that they were "independent".

For the record, I don't endorse them, decry them, personally know them, indirectly know them, or know much about them. I remember reading more about them some time ago, but it seems that time and tide have removed whatever I read. If I were able to say more about them, I would have. At present, I have little means to either support or deny their significance.

So, I have throw the question back to you. Do you really think they're a sham, or do they just have a lousy website and PR department?

-- Bigwyrm 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bigwyrm.

I don't think they're a sham, exactly. I do think they are, in fact, trying to get something off the ground with program publishers and school adminitrators in the NCLB world. I certainly have suspicions about what they are trying to do, but as you say, that would expose *my* personal biases, and my personal opinion isn't relevent here. (I'm certainly willing to discuss it on my personal page.)

In terms of Wikipedia, I think the real question is notability. If they had been around longer, were actually reviewing products, etc, they might merit mention in an encyclopedic article. At this point, though, they have plans but have not yet established themselves as being able to accomplish anything.

I recognize that using the full Wiki "notability" standard isn't the ideal standard to apply because we're not talking about creating an article *about* EU. Still, there ought to be some minimum bar for including the group in any way, for example, some kind objective evidence that they are being used by any program publisher or SEA. Since there is no evidence that they've done anything other than put up a website, it would be like including an external reference to a program publisher that hasn't published a program yet.

Best,

Rosmoran 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a nonprofit myself, and nonprofits are allowed to sell things and that sort of thing to help raise money and cover costs. Nothing against that. I would say having the mission to have "less government oversight" while seemingly political, could just be straightforward, wanting less government oversight into education. Many people want that and they could have formed a nonprofit to accomplish it. What kind of nonprofit is it? 501c3 or 501c4?

"So, they hire a few random PhDs to look over some product's research to rubber stamp it?"

Calling for those who have achieved the highest degree possible in education seems to me that they're trying to go about things in a legitimate way; taking this to the conclusion that they're "rubber stamping" is not warranted, IMO. Beyond that, I don't know about your concerns. I have worked with some nonprofits that have been around for quite awhile and don't even have websites; many older grants and foundations operate this way and that doesn't mean they're not notable. Third party mentions, however, would be an indication of notability.--Gloriamarie 16:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gloriamarie.

It seems that I have not expressed myself very clearly. Since this conversation goes beyond the content of this article, I'd like to suggest that we take the conversation to one of our personal pages. Anyone interested in the conversation could follow us, of course. Let me know if you'd like to continue it --- I find NCLB a complex statute with lots of ambiguity. It's a great intellectual exercise!

The issue for our current discussion is whether the organization is notable enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia.

One guideline I find myself going back to again and again is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There's a section titled When you wonder what to do, which states:

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

So, the question is, would a reader expect this organization to be mentioned in Encyclopedia Brittanica or World Book?

Even if Educational Underwriters were up and going full steam, which it isn't, but even if it were, I don't think we'd see a reference to it in a standard encyclopedia. I'm not sure we'd see a reference to the International Dyslexia Association, and they've been around and well respected for 60 years.

Best,

Rosmoran 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you would link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Rosmoran. The first paragraph on that page is a summary of the the philosophy Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which is a general rebuttal to the idea that only topics of great pitch and moment may be mentioned here. Encyclopedias are collections of arcane knowledge. I think that they are at least sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the article, on the grounds that they are significant in the context of the subject. In response to your example, I most certainly would expect to see mentions of the International Dyslexia Association where appropriate in relevant articles. -- Bigwyrm 08:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

BigWyrm,

Are you sincerely asserting that the following two sentences, that appear in the same Wikipedia guideline article, are contradictory?

Statement 1:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content.

Note: This statement refers to the size of an article, not the content.

Statement 2, later in the same article:

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia.

Note: This statement refers is the content of the article, what is and is not appropriate to include.

Do you really submit, as you suggest above, that Statement 1 rebuts Statement 2?

Rosmoran 18:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To the individual who asked a question

Someone posted the following question:

my grandson goes to a public pa school which has flunked for the past 2 years. at what point can i remove him to a better school? 2 years 3? i cannot find an answer. tks for your help.

If you would like to contact me on my personal talk page, I can help point you in the right direction. Click here User talk:Rosmoran. When you get to the page, click the tab labed with a + (plus sign) to add a new message. I will respond as soon as I receive the message.

Best, Rosmoran 05:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Most teachers opposed?

I didn't see a mention in the Critics' arguments section that most teachers are vehemently opposed to this legislation, as are national and state teachers' unions. This is definitely worth inclusion in the article. (I apologize if I missed this mentioned somewhere else in the article, but it needs to be in that section as well.) I have not yet met a teacher who likes this legislation, for varying reasons.--Gloriamarie 16:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Most people in the educational establishment hate it. You need only find a reliable source (which should be very easy to do), and add it to the section you think appropriate.

Best,

Rosmoran 18:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious tag regarding reference to Educational Underwriters

I am tagging this content as dubious because the organization "Educational Underwriters" lacks notability. The organization is not notable because:

The organization is not yet operational. It is not yet doing the the work that it claims it will do. Their intended purpose, should they be successful in getting the organization running, is relevent to No Child Left Behind.

There are no significant secondary sources.

When Educational Underwriters actually begins doing the work their website advertises, and are recognized for doing the work, they may merit mention in Wikipedia.

The following criterion section is taken from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

Best, Rosmoran 18:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What Works Clearinghouse does not "certify" educational methods or programs

I have removed the sentence regarding the WWC being a "sole means of review and certification ..." because the WWC does not certify, endorse, or recommend any educational programs or methods.

Here is what the What Works Clearinghouse has to say about this on their website at http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/faq/how_ensure_reports.html:

The WWC does not endorse programs, products, practices, or policies. Rather, the WWC evaluates the quality of existing evidence of the effectiveness of educational interventions. This message is articulated in all WWC published materials and WWC Reports.

To further clarify its role, the WWC clearly states that if an evaluation study gets favorable results from the WWC Evidence Standards, or if a body of studies gets a favorable review, it does not mean that the WWC "approves" or "endorses" the intervention being studied. It simply means that the study or studies on a particular intervention were designed and implemented in a way that allows the WWC to have some confidence in the results.

Deleted text follows:

Initially, vendors were limited to What Works Clearinghouse^[1], a division of the U.S. Department of Education, as a sole means of review

Best, Rosmoran 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Who's job? to educate

Some parents are failing, so the federal government steps in to control more of our lives. Why are the feds doing this? How about states' rights, sovereignty & self-determination? Each state has an education system. Are some doing lousy jobs? Shouldn't those respective voters be able to make the necessary changes? Schools are even more of a local level thing, for each school district.

Scottit 68.180.38.41 06:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't intended for discussing or asking questions about the topic, but to discuss the article itself (what should and should not be included, best wordings, etc).

If you are seriously asking this question, feel free to contact me on my User talk:Rosmoran page.

Rosmoran 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a section addressing that critique in the article, the Return to Local Control section; feel free to expand it if you wish to do so.--Gloriamarie 05:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Failure to Fund: Criticism of the act?

Rosmoran recently moved the funding section out of the criticism sections, claiming that it was not a criticism of the act, but rather of the implementation. I see the point but didn't immediately agree with the change. Before I changed it back, however, it occurred to me that it might be better to leave it as a separate section as it seems to give the lack of funding more importance, and while it's still a criticism, it's hard to talk about this subject intelligently without getting critical. Or perhaps it should be folded back into "criticism." I don't know. That's why I'm asking for discussion here. Eceresa 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that what's written there was intended as criticism, but it would be reasonable to have a neutral section which simply outlines the funding: what the money is for, how much it is, how much the states claim they need (as if none of them tested students anyway), why the feds fund it at all (that pesky little Constitutional argument), why no states have opted out of the requirements (and the funding) if it's all such a miserable idea, and so forth. Perhaps some re-drafting is in order. If we can get a reasonably neutral account of the funding, then perhaps it would move up to the top instead of staying at the bottom of the page. WhatamIdoing 22:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to explain why I moved the "failure to fund" paragraphs out of the section titled "Claims made in criticism of the act."

Of course, there are many, many criticisms that have been raised about the requirements, procedures and sanctions written into NCLB, and this subtopic needs to be given due weight in the article. However, the section heading advertises that the content of the section will be criticisms of the act itself. The funding issue as written was not a criticism about the content or results of the act.

In the version I revised, the funding paragraphs stated that early supporters of the act (such as Ted Kennedy) had since "repudiated" the act because it had not been funded. Not only is this statement factually incorrect, but it isn't a "claim made in criticism of the act." These NCLB supporters criticized the administration for not allocating the funds for the states to implement the act. The difference between these two statements is huge.

The problem could be fixed in numerous ways (including revising section headings), and I don't have a strong preference for how this piece of information is handled. I do want the information to be factually accurate, and I do want it to be presented in a way that isn't misleading, such as creating confusion about what is being criticized by whom.

Incidentally, I think it would be a good idea to create a section that addresses the overall funding of the act.

Best,

Rosmoran 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Placement of ToC

Looking at the flow of text on the page, moving the ToC to the right allows the text to continue on the left side of the page, removing the huge gap between the lead section and the next section.

I wouldn't say that the ToC *has* to be on the right. But I like the flow of the article better with the ToC on the right.

Rosmoran 04:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Change neccesary for criticism: "Facilitates Military Recruitment?"

Hi all,

I happened to cross-check one of the criticisms with the source offered (the source being the actual text of the NCLB Act) and I think there is a mistake on our entry: Under the criticism entitled "Facilitates Military Recruitment," the article states that parents do NOT need to be notified when schools release their information to college or military recruiters.

However, in section 9528(a)2. of the NCLB act (entitled "Consent" and linked as source 46 from our entry) it clearly states that parents may request that their children's names not be released, and that the educational agency must notify them of the option to make this request, and they must comply with this request if made.

Doesn't this amount to notification of release of information? Seems to me that if parents must be notified of the choice and schools must abide by that choice, then schools are not authorized and certainly not required to provide any of the information to any recruiters without parental consent. Either way, the section should be amended to include this delineation because as it is worded now I think it is a bit of a misrepresentation of the actual text of the law.

PS. I'm new to contributing so if there's something I should have done better please let me know. LGDubs 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can just make the appropriate changes yourself. The policies support you being able to make changes, even if you're new and uncertain. Be bold! If you make a mistake, it can get fixed later. WhatamIdoing 04:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok! I'm going for it ;) LGDubs 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding comment about FAPE being only for the disabled

Hi,

I didn't add this sentence. I don't know if specific states have done this and I don't have sources for the material. But, I do want to point out that states can add more requirements on top of those specified in the federal IDEA legislation. For example, states could require schools to maximize a disabled student's potential, which is not mandated at the federal level. Similarly, there is nothing I know of that would prohibit a state from requiring schools to provide FAPE also to gifted students.

It does seem like they would have to define what FAPE means for these students, though .....

Best, Rosmoran 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section titled "Benefits to certain companies"

The citation given is not the journal listed (No Child Left Behind as an Anti-Poverty Measure. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved 3 October 2007). The link is to a personal website: http://susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=473.

Rosmoran 13:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I removed this: , including:

Best Evidence Encyclopedia ^[2]

Campbell Collaboration (C2) ^[3]

Center on Instruction. ^[4]

Florida Center for Reading Research. ^[5]

National Institute for Literacy ^[6]

National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices ^[7]

NICHY Research to Practice Database ^[8]

Promising Practices Network. ^[9]

Results for Kids Resources ^[10]

What works Clearinghouse. ^[11]

A nonprofit organization Educational Underwriters^[12] was founded to provide an avenue for vendors seeking to have material reviewed. ^{[dubious – discuss]}

because a list of external links looks really odd in the middle of an encyclopedia article. My preference is to delete it entirely: it's basically a linkfarm. If you really think that the article needs a list of businesses which sell "scientifically based research" studies, then perhaps it could be put at the very end of the article, in a section labeled "External links." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Actually, the organizations listed are not businesses that sell research studies, or anything else, for that matter. If you take a look at the URLs for these links, they are all links to .org and .gov sites.

Although I would not expect to see references to commercial organizations in an encyclopedia article, I would expect to see references of government and government-funded organizations if they are directly related to the topic.

The availability and location of research related to NCLB is relevant to the meat of the article -- would you prefer to see a list of organizations, without external links to their websites? Then the links to the external sites could be in the External Links section.

Or perhaps you could suggest an alternative method of including such information?

Rosmoran (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely lose the list-of-links approach. Include a few names as examples in a sentence? Maybe. Include every name? Definitely not. But why include them at all? The names don't really communicate any useful information. Unless the agencies are notable enough to deserve their own Wikipedia pages, then the typical reader would get just as much useful information out of reading that "organizations such as Foo, Bar, Spoo, and Fam provide services to school districts trying to make sense out of this provision" as they would if we mentioned Campbell Collaboration and Results for Kids by name.

On the broader point, I have a friend who worked for a government-funded non-profit in this field (although not one on this list, if I remember the name correctly). They considered themselves to be very clearly in the business of selling information on effective education practices. The fact that the money came from one place, and the users were in another place, didn't change anything in their minds, because how much money they got from the government -- and therefore their ability to make payroll -- depended on how many people they convinced to sign up for their service.

I'm not convinced that making a handful of agencies easy to find is actually important to the NCLB article. I can't imagine that a Wikipedia reader would be unable to perform an internet search -- and googling "scientifically based education research" is all it takes to find these resources. Can you explain the unique value that you believe this list contributes to the article? WhatamIdoing 18:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's very difficult to find the results of real research (that is, research conducted by an objective 3rd party) that evaluates the efficacy of specific educational programs and methods.

Try googling the term you just mentioned and see what you get. Lots of links, many of which are from .gov domains. Now, follow some of the links, and most of what you find is general discussions of the references to scientific research in the law, descriptions of what constitutes scientific research (there are countless education studies using unscientific methods and comparatively few conducted using accepted scientific methods), checklists for determining whether a particular study meets the criteria of "scientific," lists of current education buzzwords (such as response to intervention, peer assisted learning, yada yada). It is extremely difficult to find any kind of specific research on individual programs and how well they work compared to other programs, research that is validated using control groups, etc etc.

I will consider where it would make the most sense to include this information and place it accordingly. Perhaps the organizations should have their own Wiki pages ---- there are certainly wiki pages about organizations that are far less "notable" than any of these. Including the links in the External Links section does not address the material issue the section was trying to address, which is that NCLB demands that we use programs and methods that are based in science, but it's nearly impossible to find programs and methods that have been shown by research to work for real kids in classrooms. I think that this information could be reframed so that its relevance to NCLB is more obvious, or it could be placed in a "child" article.

In the meantime, I am replacing the links and will put some kind of "disputed" tag under the section heading.

Again, I invite you to share specific suggestions for how else to present this information (aside from just deleting it). Rosmoran 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have not shared specific suggestions for presenting this information is because I do not believe that this information should be presented in the first place. I believe this list is not much more than advertising opportunities for favored agencies.

However, if we were going to present it -- a decision that I do not support, but could live with -- then I'd put them in the Scientifically based research stub instead of NCLB, under a section called "External links" with a subheading labeled something like "Sources of scientifically based research." No matter how convenient this list of links seems for certain readers, these links do not really tell you anything about NCLB itself. I therefore believe that they do not belong in the main NCLB article. WhatamIdoing 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely favor having the links, and here's why. I am researching NCLB and educational methods for meeting its goals. Those links were extremely convenient and helpful for me. Today I returned to this article to use those links, and... they were gone! Awful, because I really wanted them. Fortunately I know how to find them in this discussion page.

So, if it does no harm, and they help people like me, why not leave them in. They help fulfill the purpose of the article (for me), which is to find methods that work.

I understand why having a link to many sources is convenient for your work. Having a link to every possible source could be convenient for that purpose, and I suspect that there are many webpages with much more comprehensive lists. However, I don't understand how these links help you learn about NCLB. IMO, information in an encyclopedia article should actually tell you something about the topic of the article. WhatamIdoing 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Military Free Zone

The link to the Military Free Zone site that says "reveals some of the darker sides of NCLB" is a POV violation, in my opinion. StaticElectric (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I only count 48 instances of the exact phrase "scientifically based research," using the cited reference. Just "scientifically based" gives us 97 instances. These counts include all text, including section heads. Do we have a source for the 111 number? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I counted 69 instances of the phrase "scientifically based research" using the Find function of Adobe Reader. This method was used on the most recent version of NCLB as made available by the Department of Education located at URL ( htttp://www.ed.gov ). The actual URL of the NCLB text is ( http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadehults (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured out the issue. Apple Preview doesn't seem to count hyphenated words ("scientifi- cally based research" when the phrase doesn't fit neatly on one line). Adobe Acrobat Pro gives me the same count that you found in Reader. Thanks for fixing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we archive this talk page?

This page seems to be getting pretty long, and some of the comments are more than three years old. There aren't very many active discussions at the moment. Should we figure out how to archive the oldest comments in a few days? (Must be the end of the calendar year -- I feel like cleaning house.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with this and other controversial subjects

Being on Wiki for a long time and reading articles and talk pages I see the same problem over and over again with subjects that are controversial. Of course first the NPOV gets thrown away and the talk page turns into a discussion of who's right and who's wrong. This is, imho, ruining wiki of what it could be.

Okay I could be wrong but when I or anyone looking for information on any given subject come to a page, wanting to read the facts, not someone's opinions. I'm starting to wonder, just like trivia, if a criticism sections needs to go on all wiki pages. Same thing with pro or for pages. What does this have to do with information on any given subject? I think a better way to do it, in cases like this page laying out what the act is, what it has accomplished, what it hasn't and be done with it. And all those sections be sourced.

I don't get how people think using a wiki page for an agenda will work, especially if you are opinionating and not making factual statements. When the truth comes out it's going to hinder those with agenda specific mindsets.

I know I'm probably talking to the wall. Specifically on this page I think it would be good to get rid of the claims sections and replace them with info that shows where it works or where it doesn't with sourced information. Seperate the organization against to a brief paragraph with link to the wiki article on that group.

But I know this is a lot to ask for because then we would just have the facts laid out and no one would be able to push a for or against agenda.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have two objections to your proposal to eliminate criticism of this law from the article. One is fundamental: NCLB is a political football. "Just the facts" about this law must include the fact that all kinds of (founded and unfounded) claims are made by all sides in the political debate. Wikipedia does not promote any of these claims; it merely documents their existence.

My other objection is that all the facts aren't really available at this time. There are very few universal statements that can be made. Does it work? Depends on what you mean by "work." Does it hurt schools? Depends on what you mean by "hurt." Does this help students? Depends on which students you're looking at. Reading skills seem to be improving, but there's no good reason to believe that this is due to NCLB -- and also no reason to think that NCLB is completely unrelated to the improvement. There are very few proven results, pro or con, for this law. If we stripped the "claims" from the article and relied solely on the proven facts, this article would be much, much shorter, and its importance would be totally non-apparent to the reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's political football, but it's still a written law that is written. There are the facts the writing that the law is composed of. That's the facts I'm talking about. Can't I read a basic overview of the law and make up my own mind, why do we need a back and forth opinion on whether it works or not? Is that what wiki is really about, or should the NPOV be thrown out for everything?

And okay if the facts for the claims aren't there then why post them? Again the claim are opinions. I'm sure I could find an article that says frogs are going to fall from the sky because of NCLB but does that mean I should edit the article to include it? Yeah I'm going way off, but the point is when you start digging apart the claims section you find them sourced from each side of the debate which is their opinion. I looked at one of the sources, clicked the link, and got a teacher saying she has data that proves it doesn't work. She doesn't provide data at hand in the form of a link and even if she has it on her site I'm not going to go digging further. Again this is just opinions that don't mean anything to the facts of the article. The article is about NCLB, not whether it works or not. That's like me asking you what the word Fat means and you go on to tell me that the US is the most obese country in the world. I cam here to find out about the law, not why it's good or bad.

And I'm not saying the wiki shouldn't show disagreement on a subject but do it right. This article is on the law NCLB, put a see also or a paragraph that leads to the page on the people who do and don't support the law. Why is that horrible, because then no one can try to influence opinion?

And your last point - Shorter article meaning non-importance, doesn't make any sense what so ever. Want to make it important by adding length? Then read the hundreds of pages the law is and add to the page from that. There's plenty of source material there. And doing the little research I did there is a movement to opose the bill and it's future. Make a page about that and link it from here. That gets the point across of importance and opposition. Same thing for the people who support it.

Again this just isn't this page, I see it all over the wiki.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, your problem is easily solved -- by having you decide to quit reading when you get to the "Claims made..." headline. The first couple of screenfuls provide a reasonably clear, NPOV summary of what the law says. If you don't want to know about the various issues in the political debate, then just don't read those sections. I happen to think these issues are important, because these unfounded opinions are likely to have a significant impact on how NCLB is amended (or even on whether or not NCLB continues to exist) -- but if you think that opinions are unimportant in a political debate, then I certainly don't want to force you to read about them. I ask, however, that we accomplish this by having you stop reading halfway down the page, instead of hiding the information from everyone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well good then I won't use this page to get info on the subject. And notice I'm not editing it. I was bringing it up to see if the people editing this page wanted to do anything about it.

And one other thing a page pushing one agenda I can't see ever working. What happens when people find out the truth? Just dealing with facts and not opinion is the best way to go.

And my final thought on this. I came to the page because I actually support the law. I just don't want to be mindless and support something I don't understand. There are things I didn't understand about the law and I always question things. I always check to see if I'm wrong, that's what I was trying to do when coming to this page. I wanted to read an overview of the law without the opinions of people who have agendas. I'm not going to listen to people screaming back and forth about whether it's right or wrong.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You said, "I wanted to read an overview of the law without the opinions of people who have agendas." I'm saying: What you want to read already exists. Click here to read the overview of the law that's currently in the article. A perfectly reasonable, NPOV overview of the law already exists on this page. Just stop when you get to the part that's clearly labeled "Here there be political opinions, instead of facts." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there really a significant number of people who pronounce "NCLB" as "Nickelby"? Because that's what the pronuncisation note in the first line of this article says. 69.7.203.153 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

100% compliance

I was under the impression that "100% compliance" had been officially redefined so that it wasn't 100%. Specifically, this regulation appears to exempt the bottom 1% of students (which pretty much means anyone with significant intellectual disabilities, but none of the kids with mild dyslexia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ESL programms

Somebody knows if a child from private school can attend ESL program in the public, since we pay same taxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.88.123 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Officially, it depends on the state, because every state has its own rules. Your local school district should be able to tell you the rules for your state. (In Iowa, the answer is yes; I suspect that this is true for most states.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system

The citation to the following quote -- "schools have been shown to exclude minorities or other groups (to enhance apparent school performance; as many as 2 million students)" -- has expired and needs to be updated or should be deleted. I searched Internet Archive and google and only found wiki-related citations to it, not the full text. Jd147703 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be information under pushout that would support this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked up on that - I think the second point in the sentence about reclassification can remain as is, as cited in the NYT referenced from pushout, but I have found no mention of minority exclusion or specific figures like the 2 million quoted now. Can someone use lexis-nexus maybe to audit and update the original citation with author and date? Else, the first point will be deleted.Jd147703 (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ESL/LEP

Re: Virginia ESL students taking a different test than others -- I don't know what they're doing in Virginia, but as an ESL/LEP teacher in Rhode Island I can assure you that there is no "special test" here than the ESL/LEP students are allowed to take. They have to take the NECAP, the same as everyone else. Don't get me started on the population redefinition and mathematical games they play in order to make it look like our ESL population is making Adequate Yearly Progress, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.46.151 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit

I removed the second sentence from the "incentives against low-performing students" section, as the cited source was invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.112.82 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there really a significant number of people who pronounce "NCLB" as "Nickelby"? Because that's what the pronuncisation note in the first line of this article says. 69.7.203.153 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As a member of the education industry, I can tell you from personal experience that I have heard it pronounced that way. Of course this is only anecdotal evidence, but, you asked. :) Macduffman (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're sharing anecdotes, I'm sitting here in a classroom at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and nobody in the room has ever heard the term despite having researching (and publishing) on the policy extensively. They brought this to my attention because they knew I was an active editor and thought the information was incorrect. The reference provided seem real but are also slightly suspect and don't lead me to believe that the terminology is widespread. For example, the first is to nicklebee.org which obviously has an interest in promoting the term. The second (including both listed above) seem to be to blog posts. None seem like either a particularly reliable or unbiased source. I'm going to leave the phrase in the article but I'm going move it down a trivia section in the end, and keep in in the very first sentence of the article. This does not seem to be widespread enough to merit inclusion in the lead. If somebody can come up with a set of more reliable source that establish that this is widespread, please feel free to move it back. —mako ๛ 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

^ {Citation | title = What Works Clearinghouse | publisher = U.S. Department of Education | url = http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/ | accessdate = 2007 June 27 }
^ Best Evidence Encyclopedia, see [5]. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Center on Instruction, see on Instruction. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/8/07.
^ Florida Center for Reading Research, see [6]. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ National Institute for Literacy, see Institute for Literacy. U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, see [7]. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ NICHY Research to Practice Database, see Letter from Secretary. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Promising Practices Network, see Practices Network. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Results for Kids Resources, see [8], IDEA Partnership. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ What Works Clearinghouse, see works Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Educational Underwriters, Inc., retrieved 2007 June 27 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[wwc-1] {Citation | title = What Works Clearinghouse | publisher = U.S. Department of Education | url = http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/ | accessdate = 2007 June 27 }

[2] Best Evidence Encyclopedia, see [5]. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[3] Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[4] Center on Instruction, see on Instruction. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/8/07.

[5] Florida Center for Reading Research, see [6]. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[6] National Institute for Literacy, see Institute for Literacy. U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[7] National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, see [7]. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Retrieved 7/22/07.

[8] NICHY Research to Practice Database, see Letter from Secretary. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[9] Promising Practices Network, see Practices Network. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[10] Results for Kids Resources, see [8], IDEA Partnership. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[11] What Works Clearinghouse, see works Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[EdU-12] Educational Underwriters, Inc., retrieved 2007 June 27 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]