no child left behind act of 2001

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a controversial United States federal law (Act of Congress) that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading.

NCLB is based on the belief that setting high expectations and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state, in line with the principle of local control of schools.

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated.
the effectiveness can be in terms of measured results and in other ways like teaching methods. benefits include providing data which improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programmes, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college. it has also narrowed class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all. The Department of Education points to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math.

However, this could mean that teachers would manipulate the results or records to make it seem like there was an improvment.The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to employ creative reclassification of drop-outs. Also, NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test."

I feel that this act is beneficial to a certain extent. It makes sures that students walk out of school, a better, and smarter person. However, this will only happen with the co-operation of teachers. Teachers should still teach the whole syllabus and not only a certain part that is coming our for the test. Also, this act does not develop individuality but conformity. Maybe, the government could adapt singapore's style of syllabus, like project work which spur students to have a mind of their own and not conform to the masses.

Is formal education overvalued?

“Formal,” implies structure, organization, or a systemized approach that drives towards established objectives, whereas “informal” would imply the exact opposite, where matters are left entirely perhaps to the course of nature or lasse faire.

‘Education” is a process whereby an individual from childhood to adulthood undergo a developmental process within his or her society or environment, acquire the necessary skills and knowledge that will transform him or her into positive contributors, both socially and economically in his sphere of influence and existence.

There is value in formal education as it provides foundational literacy and numeracy skills and knowledge that is critical for intellectual development. These are the tools or the keys needed to open up, access and unlock the vast and limitless world of knowledge.

Few would and should dispute this point.

The question is therefore at what point and in what form of manifestations, does formal education become overvalued? In general, it is said to overvalued if
there are excessive pressure on the young causing a negative impact cited in first article
and when there are insufficient avenues to cater to “late developers”. The creative, the artistic who may not have any academic inclinations, but excel in sports, music or art.
. Rote learning and pure memorization power does not work in the new economy and this must be recognised by the relevant authorities to prepare our students towards a more diversed economy in the future.


Singapore has since been trying to change in many instances for the better. The Ministry of Education has been constantly luring people to turn to teaching as a profession with attractive incentives. The purpose of this is to increase the number of teachers to cope with the ever increasing amount of students and also to increase the teacher-student ratio and increase the quality of the education provided for the younger generation. The Ministry has also been developing the current curriculum and modifying it to include more broad-based activities. The focus is no longer entirely on academic-based programs but on an all round development of the student. This is a step to prepare the students for the future where they have to handle interpersonal relations on a day by day basis. From this two points above, it can be easily seen that formal education has got the needed basis for intellectual development and whether this can be fully utilised would be dependent upon the student and the amount of self effort that the individuals put in.

Singapore is a good example of diversified learning. It has a variety of schools catering to the different needs of the students. There is the Singapore Sports School, Nayang Academy for the Fine Arts , ITE, Polytechnics which provides a very diverse options for those who have different needs.

A simple study would be all it takes to identify the sky rocketing pressure present among students as young as 7 or as old as 24 in our current curriculum. Facing such extensive and excessive pressure in their studies, it is no wonder that many would crack. This is when the race for the degree comes in. Most entry level jobs now requires at least a Bachelor's degree. A career in performing arts or sports is not likely to be feasible in a market as small as Singapore. Most of us would be hired employees and would require that basic degree and would have to study hard and withstand the pressure put upon the students. With such heavy pressure on such young shoulders, formal education is said to be overvalued as skills are often overlooked and replaced by that wanted degree which may not teach the relevant skills for the job.

the current hype over environmental issues is unecassary. do you agree?

i disagree. from article one, "climate change is upon us, and it has arrived welll ahead of schedule. scientist's projections that seem dire a decade ago tuen out to have been unduly optimistic: the warming and the melting is occuring much faster than the model predicted. now truly terrifying feedback loops threaten to boost the rate of change exponentially, as the shift from white ice to blue water in the artic absorbs more sunlight and warming soils everywhere becme more biologically active, causing them to release their vast stores of Carbon into the air ." thus it shows that the hype over environmentall issues are necessary. Our earth is dying, with ice caps melting at top speed, countires staring to be submerged, like the recent mynmmar cyclone, temperature rising way above normal temperatures. what climate scientists have predicted for the future are more optimistic than it really is. it is NECESSARY to have this hype, or maybe an even bigger hype to save OUR earth.

in the fifth article, they mentioned that "yet a false perception of risk may be about to lead to errors more expensive even than controlling the emission of benzene at tyre plants. carbon-dioxide emissions are causing the planet to warm. the bet estimates are that the temperature will rise by 2-3 degress celsius in this century, causing considerable problems, almose exclusively in the developing world , at a total cost of 5000 billion dollars. getting rid of gloabal warming would thus seem to be a good idea. the question is whether the cure will actaully cost more than the ailment" i disagree with the author. the current hype over these environmental issues pushes us to help save the world and not like what the author have stated, waste money saving earth. it doesnt mean that if the solution is expnsive we should not continue with it. even if the solution cannot change much, like a few degrees celcius, it doesnt mean we should not continue with the solution. what we have are funds, if we are not even willing to pump in the funds to help save the earth, who is going to?

the authors raise several reasons why they think people today need exercise.do you agree with them?

The authors have raised several reasons to why people need exercise and have reduced exercising. The reasons include having a diet that is high in animal fat, cholesterol, sugar and salt, our home and working environments and an over reliance on medical technologies. I agree with the authors but I believe that are also emotional reasons too.

People need to exercise regardless of their diet and even more so if they have a very unhealthy diet. Diseases or sickness are often a result of an unhealthy lifestyle. Examples would include cancer and coronary heart diseases. These diseases could prove fatal or take a long time to treat. Medical expenses will be high and it brings additional unneeded stress on an individual and his or her family.

A person cannot remain healthy if he or she does not try thus people should also exercise regardless of his or her age. Vigorous physical activity helps in a child’s overall development so he or she reaches optimal size and necessary capacities when he or she reaches adulthood. Recent research shows that exercise can decrease the gathering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and cholesterol on artery walls of children and adults. Although there is no proof that exercise can make a person live longer, the elderly are still encouraged to exercise because exercise keeps them mentally alert, increases their speed of recuperation from illness or injury, strengthen their immune system just to name a few.

People living in today’s high tech world have begun living sedentary lifestyles that are very unhealthy because they usually exclude any form of physical activity. Adults and children alike spend most of their time in front of a computer either working or playing computer games. There’s still the television set in the living room, which constitutes yet another few hours of little or no physical activity. Prevention is better then cure and these people should start taking their health more seriously and understand the importance of exercising. Strenuous exercise is not needed but fun forms of exercise such as swimming and taking up a sport is encouraged. It is through exercise that people can develop and keep a strong self-image and a sense of emotional balance.

why has sport become globalized and more dominant?

the author mentioned that "the change in our attitude is symbolized by a profound change in the nature of the sport. Until about 20 years ago most people's experience of it was a team activity. Just like the individual, discipline rather than creativity, men rather than woman, compulsion rather than choice." this shows how sports has become more globalized over the years. It is able to change in this way because, "most cultural forms are limited in their ability to travel, most obvioulsy by the language, but sport has an extraordinary ability to communicate." thus through this special way where sports can communicate, it has become more globalized over the years. i agree with the author because it can communicate as there are many different kinds of sports events that require countries to go overseas to compete, in this way they are able to cross national frontiers and become more globalized by always improving from learning from other countries.

according to the author it has become more dominant because, people are putting more attention to sports. in terms of doing it and in terms of watching it. people are doing more sports to maintain healthy and "longer lifespans will increase people's desire to pursue a healthy lifestyle . the new physicality of looking good as well of feeling good" i agree with the author, in this era where everyone is more superficial where people go for brands, models wearing size zero with many wanting to look like them, people would want to do sports to get that kind of figure. Also, the author mentioned "many enjoy watching sports, because we like to see the supreme skill of those who act as the benchmark for the rest of us, combined with the excitement of not knowing who;s going to win, and no play, no rock concert can beat that." i agree with the author for example, during world cup, many like to it around and watch, just to crticise their playing to be amazed by their playing and especially from the sudden rush of excitment when someone scores a goal.

thus i agree with the aurthor that sports has become more globalized and more domainant.

AQ question 4: Morally right or wrong??

Harsh methods include torture and capital punishment. And for all the atrocities they have done, i believe it will always be morally right to mete out harsh methods on those criminals. After all, i believe in an eye for an eye.



Many will argue that the benefits derived through capital punishment is meagre and serve no purpose. Anti-capital punishment fools argues that the dead cannot be resurrected even if the culprit pay for his price with his life, so why cost another life? Some argue about the possibility of executing the wrong suspect and most absurdly, human rights organisations fighting for the criminals' rights to live. The commited a henious crime and if the judiciary deem their crime to be punishable only by death, i feel it is only fair. If they jeopardise others' rights to live, why should we spare a thought for these criminals' right to live? I strongly support the use of capital punishment. it will serve as a strong deterrent to discourage people from commiting a particular crime. An example will be drug trafficking. In Singapore, trafficking drugs in or out of Singapore is punishable by the death penalty. There has been a signicant fall in the number of drug trafficking cases in Singapore. Moreover, the value of human life is that of another's huamn life, no less. Thus, i strongly feel that capital punishment is morally right and should be encouraged in all countries.

is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

i feel that whether it can be justified depends on the situation.
in the case when the criminal has very important information that could save many lives but he refuses to say, torture can then be justified.
in the case when the criminal really has no clue about what we want to know, toture would then be unjustified.
however, when would we know whether the criminal has any clue at all?

for example the 9/11 incident. from the article, they mentioned, "but then think of 9/11, of the awful carnage and a nation's broken heart, and as your slide down the slippery slope, their screams(screams from the terrorists) may start to sound more like justice." torture is something that is inhumane, but if it is able to save lives, we may have secound thoughts whether it is really inhumane. another example would be the German case of September 2002, involving the kidnapping and murder of 11-year-old Jakob von Metzler, and the threatening by the police of his kidnapper with torture. (Three days after Metzler's kidnapping, police watched a man collect the ransom and arrested him. The suspect toyed with his interrogators about the location of the boy and the police chief allowed his officers, in a written order, to torture. After he was threatened with pain, it took only 10 minutes for the suspect to reveal the location of the boy, who was already dead.) thus torture can be justifiable in this extreme cases.

according to the article, "it is morally prohibited, and it is also against international laws. when they pull out his fingernail and he doesnt say anything, do they find his child and start torturing the child?" It's very rare when you have this perfect situation where you know that a particular prisoner has information that's immediately useful. Torture turns out to be routinely unproductive. In domestic laws, we forbid confessions under duress in part because they almost never get to the truth. That same knowledge should be applied to our international conflicts. It demonstrates a huge lack of creativity and imagination in our intelligence agencies when they resort to torture. It goes very quickly to the abuse that was seen at Abu Ghraib. The interrogators wanted the prison guards to "soften up" the detainees, whether or not they knew anything. It's a very dangerous process.

thus torture CAN be justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists ONLY in certain cases.