Little-known requirement of Leave no Child Behind law

People join for many reasons. Patriotic, college, financial, adventure, discipline and structure, and yes traveling the globe.

I joined and served 12 years. my mom and dad were both nam vets. I put my husband through school and he got his Masters degree in Education, then joined the service himself as a green beret. A dream of his since 5th grade Smile

he is still in. It wasnt about the money that we joined.... it was the pride and honor to serve. Everyone on both sides of our families served at least 6 years each in different services. It is a great family tradition. We have family members with their PHD's, some that own their own businesses and some that are retired from the military and civil service jobs.

In my 12 years I can honestly say most the people serving were from middle class families, not poor families.

0 Replies

The " Leave no child behind" law is in effect here in austin.
I believe 3 schools were placed on the 'probation' because of the law.

What I have learned is that the law allows parents/students to MOVE to another school if the one they are attending doesnt reach the standard the law implicates.
Upon moving the school looses MORE funding since the attendance is the basis fr the funding of that particular school.
YES armed forces are in schools... armed like they are ready to attack. I dont care what news, newspaper, lawmen, or politician says. THESE armed foreces are ARMED in our schools. They carry thier guns, knives and other small weapons on thier person . Im sure that people defend ( people meaning politicians ) this action with " if we want them to join, we have t appeal to them ".
Yes , in these schools these armed forces ARE recruiting. They ARE in the ROTC classes, math classes, hallways etc.. all trying to trump up the military. Not necessarily a bad thing.. but funny, the only schools who will get these visits will be primarily the poor schools? Confused

After seeing this ''''no child behind''' law first hand I fell like my opinion sof Bush are just validated once more. ( i think he is an idiot)
BUT..... that is completely my opinion.
I can see how this law MAY help a school. But giving children the option to ' follow thier friends' to another school because a politician says thier school isnt up to par isnt going to help the school financialy in the least. It seems like most of the other laws George has set up... it is a Catch 22 at its finest. >sigh< Confused

0 Replies

YES armed forces are in schools... armed like they are ready to attack. I dont care what news, newspaper, lawmen, or politician says. THESE armed foreces are ARMED in our schools. They carry thier guns, knives and other small weapons on thier person . Im sure that people defend ( people meaning politicians ) this action with " if we want them to join, we have t appeal to them ".
Yes , in these schools these armed forces ARE recruiting. They ARE in the ROTC classes, math classes, hallways etc.. all trying to trump up the military.

That is a totally incorrect statement and blantant mis truth.

Recruiters and ROTC cadets do not carry weapons and arm themselves on recruiting missions. They are not allowed to carry those weapons on post let alone in schools, unless on a specific training missions like an FTX or Range qualification. If weapons are used for training back in the rear with the gear, lifve rounds are not issued and blank adaptors are put on weapons. you arent even allowed to carry a wepon in a civilian vehicle or bring into sleeping quarters (barracks)

I dont know where you got that information. Buit wow that is really off base.

0 Replies

If you want to be really scared read the article on Bush in last Sunday's New York Times Magaziene

0 Replies

Armyvet35 wrote:

YES armed forces are in schools... armed like they are ready to attack. I dont care what news, newspaper, lawmen, or politician says. THESE armed foreces are ARMED in our schools. They carry thier guns, knives and other small weapons on thier person . Im sure that people defend ( people meaning politicians ) this action with " if we want them to join, we have t appeal to them ".
Yes , in these schools these armed forces ARE recruiting. They ARE in the ROTC classes, math classes, hallways etc.. all trying to trump up the military.

That is a totally incorrect statement and blantant mis truth.

Recruiters and ROTC cadets do not carry weapons and arm themselves on recruiting missions. They are not allowed to carry those weapons on post let alone in schools, unless on a specific training missions like an FTX or Range qualification. If weapons are used for training back in the rear with the gear, lifve rounds are not issued and blank adaptors are put on weapons. you arent even allowed to carry a wepon in a civilian vehicle or bring into sleeping quarters (barracks)

I dont know where you got that information. Buit wow that is really off base.

To quote a post hit the quote button in the upper right corner of the post instead of the post reply button. Or you could write:

[b][/b]Whoever you wish to quote wrote:

text[/[b][/b]QUOTE]

Which results in:

Whoever you wish to quote wrote:
text

I'm glad recruiters don't carry weapons in schools. I was starting to think you had completely lost it over in the US.

0 Replies

Oh and another point. I do not have a problem with allowing parents the right to change schools because the school isnt up to par. My daughter is in 6th grade and in those 6 years I have gotten 3 teachers fired for behavior and school lessons in the class room that were politically motivated and down right wrong. As time went by we found those teachers in question were not qualified to teach more than preschool.

I had one teacher that told my 4th grader that her dad was a hired thug for the government that was killing innocent children in different countries. That was her "lesson plan" for the day in her class room. Her dad is a US soldier.

I had another teacher in 3rd grade that told the classroom if Bush got elected we would revert back to the days of slavery and chaos.

I had yet another teacher fail my daughter because she personally disliked me. I would visit her classroom constantly because my daughter would cry begging not to go to school. I wanted to know what was going on. Come to find out the teacher was calling her names and encouraging others to do so. We had to go pay 160.00 to have our daughter tested to find out she was actually one grade ahead of her peers not failing like the teacher said.

I expect more from an educated person of higher learning. And just because someone is a teacher and in the education system doesnt mean they give a care in the world about their students or their educations.

Parents should have that right to take their child to another school. It took me a year to get those teachers to answer for their actions because it sure was hard fighting a school system that saw my child as a free paycheck for the school. Not only in public funding for the school its self but the impact aid that public school systems get for military children attending public schools to the tune of 1500 extra a semester per child. The bused her past 2 other elementary schools so she could go to a school that had more minorities 4 miles away vs the one right down my street.

When I marched in to take her from that school the police were called and the school found there was nothing they could do to keep her there because my husband and I had to move to a town 15 miles away to get her out of that education system, now parents dont have to do that...

As manager who hires people for jobs, seeing a HS Sr or HS graduate come in with an application where the days of the week are misspelled, I will not hire them period. Some cant even do basic math like 7+8=15.

Its about time parents had a chioce and schools are held accountable... I do not pity those schools losing money....

0 Replies

YES armed forces are in schools... armed like they are ready to attack. I dont care what news, newspaper, lawmen, or politician says. THESE armed foreces are ARMED in our schools. They carry thier guns, knives and other small weapons on thier person . Im sure that people defend ( people meaning politicians ) this action with " if we want them to join, we have t appeal to them ".
Yes , in these schools these armed forces ARE recruiting. They ARE in the ROTC classes, math classes, hallways etc.. all trying to trump up the military.

That is a totally incorrect statement and blantant mis truth.

Recruiters and ROTC cadets do not carry weapons and arm themselves on recruiting missions. They are not allowed to carry those weapons on post let alone in schools, unless on a specific training missions like an FTX or Range qualification. If weapons are used for training back in the rear with the gear, lifve rounds are not issued and blank adaptors are put on weapons. you arent even allowed to carry a wepon in a civilian vehicle or bring into sleeping quarters (barracks)

I dont know where you got that information. Buit wow that is really off base.

0 Replies

YES armed forces are in schools... armed like they are ready to attack. I dont care what news, newspaper, lawmen, or politician says. THESE armed foreces are ARMED in our schools. They carry thier guns, knives and other small weapons on thier person . Im sure that people defend ( people meaning politicians ) this action with " if we want them to join, we have t appeal to them ".
Yes , in these schools these armed forces ARE recruiting. They ARE in the ROTC classes, math classes, hallways etc.. all trying to trump up the military.

That is a totally incorrect statement and blantant mis truth.

Recruiters and ROTC cadets do not carry weapons and arm themselves on recruiting missions. They are not allowed to carry those weapons on post let alone in schools, unless on a specific training missions like an FTX or Range qualification. If weapons are used for training back in the rear with the gear, lifve rounds are not issued and blank adaptors are put on weapons. you arent even allowed to carry a wepon in a civilian vehicle or bring into sleeping quarters (barracks)

I dont know where you got that information. Buit wow that is really off base.

0 Replies

sorry I dont know how that has reposted... didnt mean to spam Sad

0 Replies

The problem with (I assume we are talking about vouchers?) vouchers is really very simple if somebody thinks it all the way through.

There is not enough money to provide vouchers for every single student that would like to transfer to another school so some student are going to be left behind in the schools that have had their money taken away.

Staticis show that more people that are in the military are in it for economic reasons than just because they want to be there. That is just a fact, I know there are people who are there because they want to be but there are more people there for economic reasons. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I guess is the thing up for debate.

0 Replies

When recruiters go to schools for career days, they go in their Class B's or Class A's. These are the dress uniforms with ties and or jackets. They do not go to schools armed.

I don't see an issue with the military being able to go to schools and recruit students. The federal govt provides money to the schools and should be allowed equal access to the schools. If the schools don't want the military to have access to the schools, then don't take money from the govt. It is that easy, nothing in this world is free.

0 Replies

I just have a problem with conditions being set for public schools recieving money no matter what the condition is. In the end the children suffer for it is the bottom line.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

The federal govt provides money to the schools and should be allowed equal access to the schools. If the schools don't want the military to have access to the schools, then don't take money from the govt. It is that easy, nothing in this world is free.

<ahem>

The Federal Gov't provides some money for schools... not most and certainly not all. Yes, they do pay what seems to me to be a relatively small amount for each military dependent going there. That's to make up for the lack of a tax-base since it is, in fact, tax-paying property-owners like me who pay the lion's share of school funding.

If only the Congress would quit passing unfunded school mandates we'd all be lots happier. So there is, in fact, a free lunch.... and it is given to the Congress who can willy-nilly decide on a law and not fund it. If only we could as easily disregard their rules and their itty-bitty funding.

I don't get access to those schools and nobody should be "roaming the halls" unless they have real school business there, imho. I am not against military recruiters making contact with seniors as long as they are not lying to them, as they sometimes do, or becoming pests, as they sometimes are. I've seen it first-hand as both my kids were hit hard by recruiters while they were in school.

0 Replies

Most military live off bases and pay those same taxes you speak of. On top of the schools collecting those taxes from the military service member they get an added extra bonuses of 3000 per military dependents attending their schools. DO you personally pay that 3000 extra on top of school property taxes? I highly doubt that .

So really it is profitable to have military students in your classrooms. A military family that has 3 kids in the school system not only pays the same taxes as you, their kids provide the schools with 3 times the funding considering school taxes, money per student per year on a regular basis, and impact aid... problem is are parents and citizens holding their school officials responsible for proper spending? Are parents involved in their childrens educations, and are teachers being responsible educators?

Please remeber military members do not have many choices on where they are stationed or what schools their kids will attend.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
The federal govt provides money to the schools and should be allowed equal access to the schools. If the schools don't want the military to have access to the schools, then don't take money from the govt. It is that easy, nothing in this world is free.

<ahem>

The Federal Gov't provides some money for schools... not most and certainly not all. Yes, they do pay what seems to me to be a relatively small amount for each military dependent going there. That's to make up for the lack of a tax-base since it is, in fact, tax-paying property-owners like me who pay the lion's share of school funding.

If only the Congress would quit passing unfunded school mandates we'd all be lots happier. So there is, in fact, a free lunch.... and it is given to the Congress who can willy-nilly decide on a law and not fund it. If only we could as easily disregard their rules and their itty-bitty funding.

I don't get access to those schools and nobody should be "roaming the halls" unless they have real school business there, imho. I am not against military recruiters making contact with seniors as long as they are not lying to them, as they sometimes do, or becoming pests, as they sometimes are. I've seen it first-hand as both my kids were hit hard by recruiters while they were in school.

From factcheck.org:

Underfunded by $28 Billion?

Kerry claimed the "the president has underfunded [the No Child Left Behind law] by $28 billion," but that's an opinion and not a fact.

Actually, as we reported last March, funding for the federal Department of Education grew a whopping 58% under Bush during his first three years, and Bush proposed another 5% increase for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, including sizeable increases in spending for children from low-income families and for special education for disabled children. Even the Kerry campaign's own data -- which they provided to FactCheck.org at our request -- shows funding for programs specific to the No Child Left Behind law have increased by $2.7 billion, or 12%, since the new law was enacted.

What Kerry is referring to is an often-repeated Democratic charge that Bush broke a "promise" to fund the law at the maximum Congress allowed, or authorized. Though Kerry said Bush's funding falls short of that maximum by $28 billion the figure usually given by Bush critics is $27 billion. And actually, Bush made no such promise. What he did promise was to "provide the resources necessary." Many state officials and education experts do argue that even more funds are needed to provide resources necessary to meet the ambitious goals and standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act. Still, what's "necessary" is a matter of opinion.

0 Replies

Armyvet35 wrote:

That is a totally incorrect statement and blantant mis truth.

Recruiters and ROTC cadets do not carry weapons and arm themselves on recruiting missions.
I dont know where you got that information. Buit wow that is really off base.

One school in particular is just up the street from me. I have been in this school. I saw withmy own two eyes. I am not off base at all.
They may not be LOADED.. that i dont know for sure.. but I know a M-16, Service9MM when I see one.
Part of the REASON for me and a few other people in my community for walking into this school is because of the ''rumor'' and outrage about having this sort of stuff in the school. I personaly didnt believe it. Then i walked in the high school and wha'ddya know.. there they are.

0 Replies

The recruiters in my high school had guns some days, some days they didn't. I do remember one of them showing off how fast they could strip a rifle down.

This was 96-97.

And yes, they preyed on the dumb kids, or the poor ones. You could see it happening....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Maybe the guns were for a demonstration? Could be. I dont know the situation surrounding it.
But the fact is that they were there.

The fact is that the people in uniform had guns.

They were in a high school.

And they showed up AFTER this particular high school was ' flagged' according to the leave no child behind law.
Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not. I am not saying that , that particular law allowd this to happen it just seems a little fishy to me.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Many state officials and education experts do argue that even more funds are needed to provide resources necessary to meet the ambitious goals and standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act. Still, what's "necessary" is a matter of opinion.

Just Wonders -- I was not trying to make election comments as you so obviously are. What I was saying is that the feds don't pay much of the total cost of education. For example, my local school district has a budget of $12,686,626... of that, $12 million comes from state and local taxes and about 1/25th comes from the Feds. And we have a large and very welcome military population.

I must admit, I was extremely annoyed to see that the Republican Administration is even using the Budget website of the Department of Education to try and make Bush look good.

Quote:

Welcome to the Budget home page of the United States Department of Education (ED). Here you'll find a wealth of information about the President's FY 2005 Budget Request for ED, including a program-by-program description of the request and highlights of what the President's request means for your State.

How rude that partisan politics has become so bad as to try and make points in what should be plainly non-partisan information. No wonder Bush is going to lose... he's obviously getting desperate.

0 Replies

Piffka - sorry, I thought your post said that there was a law passed by Congress and then not funded.

Guess I need a reading lesson.

0 Replies

Little-known requirement of Leave no Child Behind law

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know