Cool, thanks.  (although I wonder if Phis would rather this go by PM instead of taking up board space)Here's the questions I just emailed him:

Not having given him time to answer you on the matter I'll hit it here and if he needs to we can move it later. (not a problem if he thinks it better)

Sorry if this sounds snippy but mostly several more layers of people that really do nothing to educate the kids are put to work; in reality taking $ away from the actual processes of teaching (classroom budgets and salaries).

In the process of implementation all the districts in our state had to certify that their teachers were highly qualified... this means a four year degree with a major in the course(s) they primarily teach (or related field), extra training, demonstrated leadership skills, advanced certifications (national teachers' test etc.)... there are several ways of making the grade and a cynic might think if a bit of a fraud but that's those are the benchmarks.Another negative comes from the fact that not all people gather and process info in the same manner (learning styles) yet all the testing is 4 response M/C, how fair is that? Also the reality is that to continue to improve "#'s" which is the magic bullet we need to teach to the test... not critical thinking or creativity but solely, "...this is on the test you need to know it, here it is; now what's the answer? No, that's incorrect, the answer is 'xyz'... now what's the answer?"An old Ag teacher in my state summed it up best, "You don't make pigs fatter by weighing them... you make 'em fatter by feeding them." we are getting to the point we spend more time testing kids (and prepping for testing) than doing any real teaching.

Not too bad if one is a bit flexible; in the end most of the Standards material is material that the student needs to at least be exposed to (if not learn) eventually. too often the depth that the student is expected to achieve are too high for the majority though. New, younger teachers won't have so much trouble because this is the SOP in education today. Older more experienced teachers (mostly) long for the good ol' days when they had more freedom to go where the particular class discussion or line of questioning lead (teachable moments) them, more's the pity, and some rebel and go that way anyway (hint here, eh?  ;D)

If you gear it to the slower ones you'll loose the others and visa-versa... that's why heterogeneous classes are often harder to manage than homogeneous ones. When you try to mix a group you are dealing with group dynamics as much as skill levels, often to a bad end so one does what one can.

I a word; yes. For many years in my school kids were taken out of science or social studies to get remediation in math and reading/lang arts... with the idea that w/o this help they would fail science and history anyway. This meant when they got to HS (where I used to teach) they hadn't (unknown to me at that time) much (or any) math or science in middle school. Sure they were improved in math and read but how do you think they did in science and history?That has changed; they are pulled out of an elective for this remediation now. Good plan, eh? Kid is failing math so we take him / her out of band (something they're good at) and give them another period of math... that's gonna help motivate them to do better, right?Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

This is tough to answer, for me, since it assumes that there is something logical and consistent about NCLB. When the stated goal is to have all students performing at a "proficient" or above level in all their core classes, by a certain date, is gobbledygook... even the kids know that saying everyone will be "above average" is bunk! The average goes up. Schools in our state are shooting for the magic number of 800... my school is about 770 and gaining... but all sub-groups, low socio-economic, English-learners, minorities, etc. all have to achieve certain levels within that too. given that often kids fall into more than one of those groups this is a loaded proposition, they count twice against us if they do poorly... in the past a high average would help but now the sub-groups have to make the target or the school is penalized... even if these kids (historically behind the curve) made some good progress but missed the contrived goals.

Depends. (See implementation above) I'm close to being out so I pretty much play it by ear; the standards can be manipulated to work for an experienced teacher within their style if they try or they can just teach to the test. I won't (can't) say what most do; my admins were classroom teachers themselves at the level we work at and give us all the latitude they can. I'm fortunate, not everyone has this luxury so I do the best i can for the kids while not making my admins look bad and trying not to sell my soul.Newbies are trained in this system... they know which hoops to jump thru by training, if not inclination... they know no different. A zoo-raised animal never knew the veld so thinks their enclosure is the whole world.

[Wasn't sure where to cut the quote but here goes anyway.]First, the Federal $ is limited for things specific to NCLB, it is basically an un(der)funded mandate. They make the calls and we have to pay for them. So realistically an no here.Second, money that does come from the Feds is usually categorical... meaning that it can only be spent on certain things (that category of uses) which are often (read usually) not what we need to spend more $ on.So a no here too. In answer to the source question in the post that you made while I was typing this rant:A real good read on the situation (more pro NCLB, than I, but generally accurate) is McCluskey's book; Feds In The Classroom (subtitled: "How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, And Compromises American Education")... Rowman and Littlefield, pub.

More in several ways; having to pay for all the testing / reporting; though most states have always done some testing the amount of testing and the extent to which the result have to be published has gotten out of hand; as the requirements have gone up no more money has been provided so the states must spend out of their own coffers to pay the freight, if you will.If the testing is not done (or rules followed or goals met) the Feds will cut funding to the states. While some states have accepted funding cuts my state needs the Federal $ to help defray the costs of so many English learners and low income families; we do not have that luxury.I won't pull any punches here, many districts mine included, have, as far as they legally can, manipulated the categorical funding to maximize it's impact on the bottom line. You saw many of the teachers on categorical programs that were high up on the salary schedule... thus if they are paid from categorical funding sources there is less paid out of "district" funds... therefore more $ that they can use for their own purposes. I cases like this the new young teacher that may be assigned to fill the slot that the "new" categorical teacher had, is lower on the salary schedule and less expensive, plus can be assigned temporary (read not ever gonna be permanent) status  >:( not cool!While this my be more than you wanted, it's my take as a veteran teacher and long time member of the union bargaining team in my district. That said, know too I'm more a poster child for the NRA than the NEA  ;DWally

  The point I'm trying to make here is that if you pick an issue that you're not emotionally tied to you'll learn how to develop arguments and present them in a more convincing way.  If you practice with these sorts of things now you'll be better off in the long run with issues that you actually do care about.  I'm sure that Donnie would back me up with this one.

Me too.

Neither did the people that wrote the legislation. This should be an illuminating topic for you; "you will learn much about the Dark Side of The Force young Jedi".NCLB runs on the Lake Woebegon Principle; that "... all the women are stong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."Good luck and Godspeed.

Mobilization was another.  Once mobilization commenced, it couldn't be undone because it outpaced the diplomatic efforts and communication capabilities.

Indeed; once it commenced, but remember the time frame (assassination to actual fighting) was about a month +/- if I remember right.

It's one of my sources for 8th grade US.

Quite right.

I think the controversy is that he had lost his arm at a point in his life prior to really doing anything important in the settlement.  The argument is therefore that he should be depicted without the arm, but the statue shows him with both arms.

Then they messed up; should have shown him (warts and all) sans arm. IMHO.How about the FDR statue showing him in the wheelchair?

And we were supposed to know that off the top of our heads???  Here I was thinking it was something more evident....I guess I never knew that there were guy numbers and girl numbers.   ;D

I sure didn't; a quick google search (actually a couple to get the right parameters...) sorted it out though. As far as guy and girl #s... it's the ancient Greeks, a pretty sexist lot.Cool question none-the-less.Wally