Personal tools

Argument: No Child Left Behind offers flexibility at state, local level

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

"Fact Sheet on the Major Provisions of the Conference Report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act". United States Department of Education - Creating Flexibility at the State and Local Levels and Reducing Red Tape

To cut down on federal red tape and bureaucracy and enhance local control, H.R. 1 will reduce the overall number of ESEA programs at the U.S. Department of Education from 55 to 45.

For the first time, H.R. 1 will offer most local school districts in America the freedom to transfer up to 50 percent of the federal dollars they receive among several education programs without separate approval.

For the first time, all 50 states will also have the freedom to transfer up to 50 percent of the non-Title I state activity funds they receive from the federal government among an assortment of ESEA programs without advance approval.

H.R. 1 will allow the creation of up to 150 local flexibility demonstration projects for school districts interested in obtaining the flexibility to consolidate all funds they receive from several programs in exchange for entering into an agreement holding them accountable for higher academic performance.

Up to seven states will have new flexibility in the use of their non-Title I state-level federal funds in a variety of categories in the form of waivers from federal requirements relating to a variety of ESEA programs. States participating in the new demonstration projects will also be able to coordinate their efforts with local school districts through state-local "flexibility partnerships" designed to make sure federal education funds are being used effectively to meet student needs.

H.R. 1 will give local school officials serving rural schools and districts more flexibility and a greater say in how federal funds are used in their schools.

"No Politician Left Behind". Wall Street. February 15, 2004 - State claims that NCLB is intrusive and underfunded are also doubtful. The law requires states to establish their own annual tests aligned with their own state standards to measure how successfully students are learning. Nothing prevents Michigan from requiring its fourth-graders to know multiplication tables that children in Arizona aren't required to know until fifth grade. What the law does demand is that states set adequate yearly progress targets--and then meet them or lose federal money.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits