MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851753151

The 2004 Charles H. Thompson Lecture-Colloquium Presentation: No Child Left Behind-- Opportunities and Threats.

2005· article· en· W1851753151 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
LaRuth H. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Negro Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceAccountabilityLegislationEquity (law)Political scienceAcademic standardsSociologyPublic administrationPedagogyPsychologyPublic relationsLawHigher education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Child Left Behind (NCLB) moves toward proficiency in basic-skills development and in some ways represents progress toward equity, the plan ultimately shrinks the notion of educational excellence for all children, occasioning fallacies but not addressing compelling matters that relate to quality, equity, and academic achievement for all students. The plan potentially victimizes minority parents and students and sets a negative set of goals. It does not take into account the much lower educational resources that poor African American and other minority students start out nor does it propose to remedy the discrepancy. Ultimately, the plan sets up public schools as examples of failure that will aid the administration's drive toward privatization. INTRODUCTION Recently, Dr. Christopher Dede stated to a group, No Child Left Behind's heart is in the right place but its head is in someplace else (Urban Superintendents Association of America, 2004). The law's harshest critics would agree its basic philosophy: accountability for the teaching and learning of all children is as American as apple pie. In several ways, NCLB as a piece of federal legislation is meritorious progress toward equity-a framework that embraces standards, accountability, and the guarantee of a high quality education for all children. The devil, then, is in the detail. The legislation moves toward proficiency in basic-skills development, but in many ways, it shirks at the notion of educational excellence for all children. The article outlines how we got there, and what in the law might be considered as dangers or threats in achieving that excellence. Moreover, it takes a look at considerable opportunities to achieve the best education for all children. BUT How DID WE GET THERE? Education for all children did not begin NCLB. In fact, by the time George Walker Bush came to office, the pieces toward educational excellence were underway. Although, the first public school in America was created by residents of Denham, Massachusetts in 1649; the Child Left Behind Act is only the latest in a series of efforts to address inequalities in public education that became entrenched for Black children the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). While the decision established the principal of separate but equal, the Supreme Court and the other two federal branches did not uphold this standard despite a series of legal suits brought before the Court between 1896 and 1935 that challenged extreme disparities in the public education afforded to Blacks and Whites in the South. In the late 1930s and 1940s, legal suits brought by NAACP lawyers Charles Houston, Thurgood Marshall, and others, prompted the Courts grudging acknowledgment that the legitimacy of segregated institutions rests wholly upon the equality of offering. In Gaines ν. Canada (1938), the Court orders Missouri's all-White school to grant admission to an African American student, yet the Court declined to enforce its rulings. Only in 1950 did the Court find that a hastily converted law school for Blacks in Texas was unconstitutionally inferior and ordered the White law school to admit the Black plaintiff (Sweatt v. Painter, 1950). A new era began when the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson in its landmark ruling of Brown v. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954), declaring that racial segregation of public school students was inherently unequal, violating Black children's constitutional right to equal protection of the law. The second phase of the efforts began immediately after the Brown II (1955) decision. The language of the Brown II ruling, with all deliberate speed, is believed to have prompted the evolution of deliberate stalling because much of the decision making was left in the hands of local school officials. It was 1964 before there was a federal mandate to desegregate schools along other public venues (Civil Rights Act of 1964). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Negro EducationSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207