There are pros and cons to the no child left behind (NCLB) act. The pros are that it is a great model for many of our children’s communities and the act is now being considered as an option for our nation’s schools. The cons are that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the act, and there is an inherent risk when we rely on the act for our children.
The most common misconception about the NCLB act is that it gives more power to local communities because children automatically get to go home and stay with their parents. This is not true. NCLB only provides federal funding for schools. Schools who do not comply with NCLB requirements lose funding.
The act also has some great potential for education, but there are a couple of things that I think are wrong with it. The first is that the act is unclear about whether schools that don’t comply with the act can receive federal funds, but there is no way to know for sure. The second problem is that the act does not have the same level of clarity about whether children should be counted as “left behind” when a school is forced to close.
I think it is a great tool for school districts to use for planning as it gives them a concrete example of how they can reduce the number of left behind children they have by closing a school. But the act is not clear about how many children should be counted as left behind. One could argue that this is the kind of issue that should be resolved through a state law, but I think the federal act is too vague to make that happen.
If the act does allow schools to count more left behind children as left behind, I think that is the wrong way to go about it. First, the act doesn’t clearly say what the act is meant to accomplish. That would make it a bit hard to enforce, not to mention that it would make it impossible for school districts to enforce the act. I think that part of the act is vague enough that it should be used to do what it was intended to be used for.
The federal act of 1996 makes it a lot easier to enforce a child left behind law. We just need to be a bit more specific. I think that a few things need to be clarified, but I think the act is fine the way it is.
As a parent it’s a bit of a nightmare. I know many children are left behind, but that is a major pain in the ass. And I don’t think it’s going to help that much. The problem with leaving a child behind is that it’s hard to do it when they’re not around. If they were there, you can always ask the parents to check on them. But in the absence of them, it’s hard to do it.
The act is basically a sort of no child left behind. The child is still there, but the parent is not. So if a parent is leaving a child behind, they can tell the child that they won’t be there anymore, and that they will have to look after the child in their absence. It’s a pretty strong way of letting the child know that the parent is not interested in them.
Its pretty much useless, though the act can be used to show the child that theyre not around, and maybe to explain what being a “pro” means.
act is a really bad idea. It is a common way to try to manipulate a child to behave differently than the parent wants. It can be used to show the child that theyre not around, and maybe to explain what being a pro means.