posted
I'm a New Zealand high school teacher. My boss is starting to jump up & down about No Child Left Behind. He likes it. Apparently in meetings he's had with the Minister of Education there has been favourable talk about it. I've just come from a staff meeting where we read some articles on NCLB and associated issues. I'm wondering if people with experience with NCLB can give me their thoughts on it? Is it a success? What problems are there? How does test-based accountability of teachers work? What sanctions, if any, result from failure to meet standards? What are the rewards for meeting them? How much pressure is on schools, department heads, teachers to make sure standards are reached? Lots of questions, sorry, just whatever experience anyone has had would be useful. Thanks.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to answer, but I'm swamped with work right now. If you can wait, maybe in a week or so I can add my thoughts.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Same here...I'm in college now working on getting my teaching certification and I have PLENTY to say about NCLB from the perspective of someone trying to get certified, but it's finals time for me. You just asked at a bad time. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In short--no, it does not work. It further accentuates the socieconomic gap between rich schools and poor schools.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Appreciate the difficulty of timing. I'm flying out to the US tomorrow to spend Christmas with our children and grandchildren, so would love to have whatever responses anyone can give me today, but am happy to wait as well so that you can give more considered responses.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Want to know the most screwed up part of NCLB? EVERY child is included. Students with severe disibilities are expected to improve by the same rate as everyone else. Schools with more inclusion, or those with special education programs with more students, are going to have a much harder time keeping pace with other schools.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another problem is that there is no threshold for NCLB. Schools are expected to continue to improve over time, regardless as to varying local conditions, and irrespective of current success rates. If a school is at 99%, it's still expected to show improvement. And watch out if it backslides to, say, 95%...
posted
Thanks for your comments so far guys, appreciate the information. Are the problems a result of the fundamental philosophy, or with the implementation? Are some areas of the country handling it better than others?
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Texas, especially the Dallas or perhaps the Houston school district handled it very well.
They cooked the books.
They cheated,
and had such wonderful results on paper that the Superintendent went on to head the Department of Education under the current President Bush, and enact the policy nationwide.
I'm sorry I can't access news sites to supply proof.
My biggest thought is that the President and several conservatives are attempting to use this as a way to subsidise parochial schools. In other words, there are bits in the law that allow children in poor-performing schools to go to "another school of their choice." This could mean religious schools, and the school districts would be forced to pay such parochial schools to take their children.
posted
Well-intentioned, poorly thought-out and implemented. Typical of bureaucratic solutions to problems that require a mixture of real humanitarianism and good ol' fashioned competition.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Houston school district definetely cheated. The tests were administered to tenth graders at the time. So, they kept everyone back who would fail and then said, well, two years at 9th grade level is good enough to let you be an 11th grader. HISD teachers still talk about the craziness under him. I miss good ole Rod Paige. But that was actually pre-NCLB, though his policies were the basis of NCLB.
Another problem is if a school is doing bad, the principal often goes with a "blame the teacher" philosophy. So, at my husband's last school, the principal said everyone who did not meet the standards would not get new contracts. (This is actually when my husband said enough, I can't take anymore of this crap and left teaching). Now, pretty much none of the new teachers made standards. Also, the worst departments were science and math. So, all those teachers gone, replaced with usually new teachers with no experience. The principal, having failed to make adequate progress, also must go. Lucky for her, she has enough seniority to be made an assistant superintendent with a pay raise. The vice principal is offered the job but refuses because she knows she isn't high enough to survive the school failing with a nice raise. So, the next year, we have 20-50% of the math and science teachers being brand new, with a brand new principal. One school near us has not had the same principal for two years straight in the past 4 years. And the scores still don't rise. Indeed, things seem to be getting worse.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Schools have to count the children there at the time of testing. This means in the school my mom teaches at, where they have an 80% transient rate througout one school year (this is the second highest in our school system) they are held accountable for all students there when the tests are given. This means that students who move in that week from who knows where, possibly never being in public school before are included. The teachers and administration at that school are then held responsible for things that they had no control over.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I wish the federal government would get out of education completely.
public education is still VERY valuable, and I am all for the government funding it. But yes their policies typically suck.
Cashew: I see the NCLB policy as being similar to socialism. Works great if people are honest, but honestly it doesn't work so great.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The NEA did a pretty thorough study of the implications and applications of the NCLB act.
Their conclusion was that it hurts more than it helps. "Unfunded mandate" or "Underfunded mandate" is the best way to describe it. The system is now thought to be essentially a crude wedge for transfer to charter school systems that didn't work out so hot for charter school advocates either. Many states are essentially (via policy) in open revolt against the system,
Really, I was instantly inclined to doubt the system when I discovered that it was giving some schools less federal NCLB money than it would take to do the institutional paperwork required to be a part of the program.
Then, there's the seedy part of the requirements procedure, already touched upon. Student categories are lumped together, and each lump has to pass or fail on percentage merit, regardless of sample size. If your school has three special education students, than they're a 'group' that has to pass the baseline requirements. Even if by some miracle they're all three capable of passing the test at a sufficient level, one of them could be absent on testing day, and the special education group as a whole fails.
And if any group fails, the school fails. Doesn't matter how stellar the rest of the school does! Essentially, it's punishing schools that equip themselves to attract and assist special needs children, punishing the schools who end up with these students.
The federal government really needed to do something to maintain the state of poor and rural schools -- especially in high ESL districts -- which have been crippled by the inadvisable practice of localized funding. Instead, they can just huck them away into an experimental dumping ground. Schools labeled 'in need of improvement' simply lose the funding and are ordered into a bizarre mandate for charter school applicability.
It needs a bit of an overhaul.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i dont know about the new zealand govt, but here its basically not the 'no child left behind' rather, 'every child left behind.' it makes the assumption that every one can improve at the same rate, thus those who would normally ahead are not challenged, cirriculam is dropped to make room for more time spent on simple concepts, advanced courses are abandoned completly because of low class sizes.
basically a pull to get people into private schools, instead of public.it seems as if the republican party is doing everything they can to destroy public education. (thats just my opinion)
Posts: 34 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you'll find many teachers in favor of this program (my father included). I've heard too many negative things about it. Many teachers on Hatrack have expressed their frustration. Basically, it sounds great on paper but isn't practical.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that it strongly equates "standardized test success" with "student learning" - which is not very wise.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
NCLB really means wait until everyone catches up, even those who, because of learning difficulties or other issues, never will.
In Texas, we have been living with this for years. Not much has changed other than we get even less money than before and now we have to hold kids back if they don't pass the test.
Padding was going on before NCLB. In 3rd grade, if a kid wasn't going to pass the test and had a Spanish surname, they went to ESL, even if the household was not Spanish speaking. Heck, sometimes there was no Spanish at all in the home! Students with any other surname went to special ed. By the time they got to junior high, their exemptions had run out and they had to take the test even though they had been shuttled into easier classes that focused on non-tested curriculum.
Now schools are told not to retain kids in 1st grade, even if they can't read. They have to save those retentions for 3rd grade since they are required to keep a student back who doesn't pass the test. But the parent can override that and ask that the kid be moved on. The principal can decide to pass the kid. The teacher can recommend that the kid move on. So now we have a kid in 3rd grade who can't read but everyone pushes him through using loopholes in the law requiring them to hold him back. By the time I get him in 7th grade, he has given up on school and spends his time causing trouble. If he had just been held back in 1st grade, he would be able to read.
NCLB doesn't help teachers, it doesn't help students, and it doesn't help administrators. Who does it help? Politicians?
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks everyone, I've cut and pasted your comments and posted them on our staff noticeboard. Apparently our current government is looking at it... Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just wondering, is there anyone that likes NCLB? Teachers don't, students don't, who does?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband once had to go through all his students old test scores. From them, he picked out three groups- kids who passed easily, kissed who were borderline and kids who failed badly. He was then supposed to ignore the kids who did well, because they would still pass without much help. The kids who failed miserably were not going to pass no matter what he did, so ignore them too. So, the kids who were right in the middle were the only ones he was supposed to spend time helping. Otherwise, he was being unproductive with his time. And I am completely serious- the administrators told him to ignore those students.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your opinion about NCLB depends on the school district you live in. Ours was completely abysmal, we were absolutely failing to educate our students. Before NCLB about 15% our 5th graders were proficent at a 5th grade level. Our district would only lower standards year after year. Because we had so many seniors who attended 12+ years of school that could not read or write we made 2 diplomas. You can now graduate from high school and get an official Diploma even if you cannot read or write at a first grade level. One Diploma says you have met requirements, the other says you have not met requirements. Our district felt it was too unfair that most students could not mark down that they had a high school diploma or that would not be able to graduate. This is just a tiny part of the massive problems we faced. Every year we spent more and more money, and things got worse and worse. Then NCLB came along and in only a few short years we made sweeping changes in every grade level in every school. We set high standards, we made all middle and elementary schools teach the same things in each subjects according to a unified district calendar, plus many other changes and our test scores shot up. In only two years some of lowest performing schools went from 15% proficient to 50% and higher proficient. None of this would have ever occured without NCLB. I know there are flaws with NCLB but holding school districts Like the one I am in accountable for their actions and decisions would never have been possible without NCLB. NCLB is what you make of it. Most schools want to fight it because they don't want to have to produce results. They want to blame everything else for low test scores. Our district is proof that those are just excuses. I still hear all the time that NCLB is so wrong for us because we will never have test scores like our 'rich' neighbors will. To me, that just undermines the simple fact that, due to teachers hard work in setting and meeting goals, we are seeing amazing improvements. If the problem we have is that 85% of our kids are proficient while the 'rich' kids in the other districts are at 98% then I will be much happier. Like I said, this is what happened in my district, I am sure other districts have different stories. In my experience, most schools are run by inexperienced managers who only make decisions when things are a 'crisis', instead of acting and planning ahead of time to solve problems.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dark Knight, that's an awesome story. I knew I had read about cases where great improvement was seen after NCLB came out, but I didn't have specifics.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, on the matter of the standardized testing. Teachers are being forced to spend too much time teaching how to take the tests, rather then actual knowledge that might help the kids do better on them.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an encouraging post, DarkKnight. I can see how the idea did work well for your district.
My only problem (I'm a parent, not a teacher) is the whole idea of using "tests" as the indicator. We all know there are kids who are very bright who don't perform well on standardized tests. I don't like using written tests as an indicator of much of anything.
However, since I have no alternative to propose that I think would be better, or as uniform, as standardized tests, I can't really say much.
quote:Want to know the most screwed up part of NCLB? EVERY child is included. Students with severe disibilities are expected to improve by the same rate as everyone else. Schools with more inclusion, or those with special education programs with more students, are going to have a much harder time keeping pace with other schools.
This was the biggest problem we had at my school. At times a student's difficulties were entirely unrelated to the faculty's ability to teach the material. The tests don't take this into account.
quote:We set high standards, we made all middle and elementary schools teach the same things in each subjects according to a unified district calendar, plus many other changes and our test scores shot up.
You make this sound like a positive, and maybe it is for your school, but in my kids' school this whole "teach the same thing to a unified curriculum" is stifling good teachers. My daughter's first grade teacher told me honestly that she was aghast at the spelling words she had to give my daughter and the rest of her class but her hands are completely tied. Because regulation on what must be taught is so strict now, she - a 20 year veteran with a master's degree and multiple teaching awards - is not considered competent enough to set her own lesson plans. Sure, there should be guidelines so kids are basically learning the same stuff, but they've taken that to the extreme that teachers have no say whatsoever in what they teach and how they teach it. We may as well replace them with automatons since we aren't relying on their expertise and knowledge anymore - they're just spitting out whatever they're told to spit out. I'd much rather put my trust in my daughter's education in the teacher that I know and interact with face to face than I would some beaureaucrat in Washington or Montgomery who does not know my child and doesn't see her and work with her every day. We talk about how teachers are highly trained professionals and should be paid more and given more respect then we implement these programs that don't give them the basic respect of assuming they are competent enough to do the job they were trained for.
At the same time, NCLB has made certification so difficult and confusing that the state can't even figure out what should be in the college curriculum to graduate "highly qualified teachers" so they change it constantly. And every time they change it, a student like me has to change along with them. Unlike other schools in the university system, if the school of education makes a change to your degree requirements, you must meet it even if you're in the final semester. There have been people about to graduate, doing their student teaching, who had to come back and take more college classes before getting their certification because the state said that they couldn't be certified without a course in young adult literature. I myself have had two more classes added to my degree, which I have to take now and my advisor said they were expecting more changes soon and I would have to meet whatever else they come up with.
I'm already in a double major program and they keep adding requirements. I wouldn't be so frustrated if I thought those classes would actually help me to be a better teacher, but they're just ridiculous requirements. I took Music as my core fine art, which in any other school at the university would be considered adequate to fill my fine art requirement except this one. No, I have to take history of Theatre instead. So that's one credit I have to repeat. I can't graduate now without a course in young adult literature. That does make some kind of sense, actually, except they added it to my degree instead of allowing that lit credit to replace one of my many other required lit classes - Young Adult lit would be so much more relevant and helpful than say, British Literature after 1660, but I have to take both. I'm required to have a multi-cultural lit class, which to any other English major means either a World Lit Survey or African-American lit. To an English/Education double major, though, it means both.
The list like that goes on and on. I have to take at least 15 hours of additional English coursework that the English majors don't have to take. Think about that for a second - the requirements for an English degree from the School of Education are stricter than the requirements from the actual English department. I haven't even begun to list all the requirements from the School of Education yet. I could graduate with a bachelor's in English and then get a master's in English in the same amount of hours it's going to take me to get a bachelor's level teaching certificate in English. I can be qualified to teach at the junior college level easier than I can be qualified at the middle or high school level. And that's what many people do, which is why we have a shortage of secondary teachers, especially in the core subjects. They've enacted programs in the state to make it easier for people with degrees in math and science to get certified, but not for English or the social sciences so we're still stuck wading through the mountainous lists of requirements. Even if I graduated with a bachelor's in English and came back to get certified at the master's level I'd be required to take all these classes at the undergrad level, I checked.
And after all that training, I probably won't even be trusted by the govt to actually teach English.
quote:Most schools want to fight it because they don't want to have to produce results. They want to blame everything else for low test scores. Our district is proof that those are just excuses.
Of course I can't comment on what is happening at your school but this is plain insulting. You can't make a blanket statement that school districts who don't like NCLB are just making excuses. For one thing, for every district like yous that wasn't doing its job before, there are plenty who WERE. Yet they're treated the same.
And the cold, hard fact of the matter is this - sometimes there ARE other factors affecting kids performance besides the teacher and the school being lazy and not wanting to do their job. Teachers can only do so much if they don't have the cooperation of the parents at home. NCLB can put all the test score requirements in place it wants to, but it can't follow kids home and make sure their parents read to them or that they're encouraged to do their homework. Yet, the teacher is held accountable for things she cannot possibly control.
And I really do have too much to do to continue ranting about this....
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My knock against NCLB is that there wasn't enough talk about what we were going to test and why before we started making tests and doling them out. I think that's why so many districts are cooking books. The teachers and the administrators don't respect the test which they are being made to teach.
If we want to offer everyone the same education, great. If we want to offer everyone a good education, great. But first, we have to figure out how those two statement relate to one another, including the long national dialogue about what constitutes a well-educated young American. And here is the sticker, I don't think we should go forward until people are on the same page for the right reasons.
I'm a little worried that the series of tests turns school into a credentialing program, where students aren't setting themselves on a path to learn for the rest of their life and become better people, rather, they are learning to pass the next test and make themselves more marketable. And as sad as it when I meet someone who dropped out of high school, I'm just disturbed be people like this guy and still be morally repugnant when he graduates.
I imagine the first question should be how it's possible that we are graduating illiterates, but the second, and equal vital question should concern how it's the case that so many of the people who are metriculating are morally disgusting.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a problem at my mother's school. Because my hometown is an old colonial port city, 2 of the 3 elementary schools are not completely handicap accessible. This means that nearly all special needs kids are sent to my mother's school. On top of that, the special needs program in my hometown/at my mother's school are actually pretty darn good, so you get some amount of school choice transfers. As a result, my mother's school is always in fear of failing the NCLB requirements because they have a larger percentage of at-risk kids, but the tests don't care about that.
I have 3 teachers in my family, ranging in experience from <1 year to >30 years, and none of them have anything nice to say about NCLB. I'm inclined to agree with them.
Which isn't to say NCLB can't be helpful in certain situations. It's just suboptimal, and we shouldn't settle for suboptimal, because some schools are helped. We should find a way that will help those schools, and help others on top of that.
I think reducing federal educational mandates would be a good start. Note, that doesn't mean funding, which I think can be helpful in evening out school budget disparaties, and can help ameliorate certain issues with programs like school lunch administration.
quote:I think reducing federal educational mandates would be a good start. Note, that doesn't mean funding, which I think can be helpful in evening out school budget disparaties, and can help ameliorate certain issues with programs like school lunch administration.
Hmm...I read this as "Give the schools more money but don't ask questions about what they do with it."
I don't think that's a good idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ultimately, whether it comes at the local, state, or federal level, it's what we do. How restrictive do you want to be? I don't mind saying that percentages of general aid must find certain subjects, or that grants have similar restrictions of use, but NCLB's biggest problem is that it hamstrings schools. We need to deal in good faith with schools.
I also assume that overall funding can be lower because we aren't paying people to be watchdogs over the systems. My particular though was that federal founding ought to help counteract funding imbalances so that schools in the same system, or local group of systems can be more equitably funded, therefore allowing us to have a better reason to expect similar results (though we shouldn't go too far with expecting exactly the same results across all schools, since socio-econmic [i.e. home life] realities can skew that).
posted
That's the problem with money - the entity handing out the money expects to have a say. Requesting funds but rejecting oversight isn't going to work.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina, the large majority of funding that schools receive is local and state, not federal. I personally think local control is best, put the power in the hands of the people who actually live there and have kids in those schools and care about them. In other words, let local school boards have control with state oversight.
Of course there should be standards, the state should decide what is necessary for a high school diploma to be granted, but let the schools have some say in how they get the students to that point. Instead, they assign some standardized test and the teachers have to teach to those tests instead of actually teaching.
Take my oldest's math class for example. She's in an accelerated algebra program right now. But for the last two weeks they haven't talked about algebra. Why? Because algebra is not on the standardized test they're about to take, and the school tells her algebra teacher she must spend 3 weeks before the test reviewing what is going to be on it. These are advanced students, who are supposed to be learning algebra and she is drilling them on order of operations and reducing fractions so they can score well on the assessment test. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am aware of how school funding is structured.
The only problem I can see for teaching to the test is if what is on the test is not what students should learn. Is this the case?
I am not talking about the outliers - I mean, if the tests are testing things that don't matter, then teaching to the test is a problem. If the tests are written well, then teaching to the test is less of one.
There are wild variations in results from local control. There are school districts like my high school in Texas which was a model of how things should work, and then there are schools like those I volunteered at in inner city Detroit.
I really like the idea of No Child Left Behind, and I think it is well named. I don't think we should create national policy that benefits the best/luckiest students and let the rest of the students just suck it up when their schools are bad.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My biggest thought is that the President and several conservatives are attempting to use this as a way to subsidise parochial schools. In other words, there are bits in the law that allow children in poor-performing schools to go to "another school of their choice." This could mean religious schools, and the school districts would be forced to pay such parochial schools to take their children.
I absolutely DO NOT believe this is a sneaky attempt to subsidize parochial schools. Most private schools are parochial - that's a byproduct.
I think this is an attempt to introduce a little competition and capitialism into a system that has had neither and could use a healthy dose of it. Competition really can make things better. The problem with competition is that there is a loser - in this case, the schools who are losing funding. The fact that there is a loser in this scenario is not enough to want me to reject the scenario if the student ultimately benefits. The school system is not set up to take of the teachers and administrators but the students.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From an "early childhood education" perspective, NCLB has really harmed what pre-K is all about. And what grade K is all about for that matter. This is especially poignant at a time when most children really do need some sort of counter-balance to the massive amounts of rather innappropriate exposure to both content/quality AND quantity of screen time (TV, videos, videogames, movies, computers, electronic gadgets of all sorts that encourage passivity), junk foods, multiple caregivers, inside time, etc.
Children need play-based learning experiences. What a phrase, eh? Young children need the opportunities to explore their environments, move their bodies, develop gross and fine motor skills that support later cognitive learning, chances to learn the social skills required for a later school-style classroom experience (i.e., taking turns, listening, sharing their thoughts and ideas, sitting still for a period of time, etc.)
Unfortunately, NCLB has continually pushed down the "blame" and the "responsibility" to teachers working with young learners (pre-K through 3rd) so that what used to be standard grade K fare we now find in pre-K. With NO measurable means of showing that this has improved anything at all, and lots of experienced voices sharing the anecdotal evidence of how much worse it is getting.
The unfortunate reality is that many schools are both trying to educate kids on the cognitive gaps as well as pick up the pieces of missed learning opportunities that used to make those early years so rich, and set the stage for later academic or vacational learning.
Apart from my dislike of NCLB, I have just as much a dislike of "state regulated" learning systems, if only because they are so administratively top-heavy and bleed the funding to support all these admin jobs outside of the classroom, where the real work is happening. NCLB is just one piece of the federal funding puzzle, remember. There are federal dollars tied to transportation, school breakfast and lunch, special education, sports programs, teacher training, etc. And unfortunately, the federal government creates massive and unwieldy administrative systems to keep these programs going, which in turn breed state and district behemoths.
All right . . . enough of my soap box. *smile*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, the problem is, the idea, despite your affinity for it, appears to be mediocre at best, and a bureaucratic boondoggle that is harming children at worst.
Some problems with the test only issue include those that naturally don't test well. In the long run, standardized testing is not a very useful life-skill, and yet a disproportionate amount time is used to study up for them. The other issue is that, especially at the early-ed level, kids have wildly varying abilities, and that includes their emotional as well as intellectual abilities. My mom often sees kids that start the year not knowing their alphabet, or numbers, or can even sit still for very long. Should that child be expected to reach at the end of the year the same level as another kid who is more well prepared? Or should the fact that they learned the alphabet, numbers, a little bit of addition, and can now properly grasp a pencil and sit long enough to write two sentences be given some consideration, even if they are supposed to have a solid grasp of addition/subtraction, as well as a simple understanding of what a paragraph is?
Now, ultimately we should expect the less prepared kid to try and catch up, but there are issues outside of the school's control that can be a roadblock (family frequently moves, no decent nutrition at home, no educational reinforcement at home) that would keep these children from meeting the standards eventually. Sure, at some point it should be recommended they stay back to catch up to the grade level, if they are particularly behind, but to create a simple threshold for these kids (especially, as I said, at K-4 levels) is wrongheaded, because you end up with kids who don't get gym, art, music, science, or history, because they need to meet certain language arts and math requirements that take up the bulk of the school year to study up on. Further, every year it is not unreasonable to expect it to get worse, because you are forced to continually get better, even if you are already at a high level.
posted
Bokonon, I am not convinced of the idea's uselessnes despite your calling it such.
I KNOW there are roadblocks and reasons for lower performance in some kids. What I want to hear is this: what you propose that would be different that would help? Better-funded "More of the Same" isn't acceptable.
I know there are problems and I hear the complaints, but I don't nearly as many ideas as to what to do differently beyond "let everyone decide for themselves." The letting-everyone-decide-for-themselves ended with some students getting really screwed over, and that's not okay. I'm open to other suggestions - I'm just not hearing them.
Those who don't like NCLB, what, specifically, are features of the alternative you would prefer?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:introduce a little competition and capitialism
That is what NCLB is. It is bringing market to the educational system.
So what is the first thing you need when you go to market? A good or service to sell.
What are schools selling? Education.
How do you measure education? You can't measure the weight of thoughts put in the minds fo students. You can't measure the ideas, the play time learning, the IQ's of students.
Grades? Yes Grades, but grades are not fair. A great teacher may give a C on one test, while a terrible teach may give an A on a much easier test. No, you can't sell grades unless they are measurable across districts.
The only way to do that, is testing. Hence statewide tests are not created to teach students. They were created to give NCLB a product to sell.
So you have a product to sell, or trade for $ and kids.
The fact that such test scores don't equate exactly to learning is besides the point of many NCLB supporters.
The next thing you need is a nice marketing push. Give this a name. "Captalistic Education" sounds a bit too high brow. "No Child Left Behind" should win the hearts and minds of those who don't want to think to hard.
How does this system insure no child is left behind? You cut funds from schools without the grades and the kids left in that school get, well, left behind. I'm confused so I assume the name is just marketing.
(See the Wikipedia article noted above for other fun marketing tactics used to sell this.)
The big problem of bringing a market based economy to education is that, if you fail in the market, your company closes. Your employees can find other jobs. You can find another job. If a school district fails in the NCLB economy the teachers and the administrators can find jobs elsewhere, but the kids may not be able to find another school.
Say 100 kids from Joe's School decide to move to a school that is getting good test scores. What school would accept them and risk lowering their own test scores.
But the worst thing I find about NCLB is not the "Christian School agenda" that is probably more my own fantasy than reality. Its not the problems that could be worked out.
Its the way it was implemented over the objections of anyone who questioned it. There was no discussion, no debate, no attempt to fix flaws. Anyone who questioned NCLB was marked as a greedy Teachers Union jackal just protecting their own cushy income. Heck, the head of the Department of Education called the head of the Teachers Union a Terrorist for their attempts to slow down and fix NCLB.
I agree this could be fixed into a workable project, but the present administration prefers to order things done their way than risk being shown wrong on details when calm discussions could occur.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You make this sound like a positive, and maybe it is for your school, but in my kids' school this whole "teach the same thing to a unified curriculum" is stifling good teachers.
I think this is a function of the leadership at your schools. I don't think that NCLB is making your school teach the same thing at the same time to all students for a specific grade. For us, with a student body that moves several times within the district every year we could not and did not function without a unified calendar. Your student body could be much more stable and therefore wouldn't need a unified school calendar. However, your school district leadership is the one who decided to unify everything, not a mandate from NCLB. I sympathize with you completely on the ever changing qualification needs of new teachers. They seem to be nonsensical and arbitrary at best sometimes. That too is usually set by your state not NCLB.
quote: Teachers are being forced to spend too much time teaching how to take the tests, rather then actual knowledge that might help the kids do better on them.
If the only reason why students are doing poorly on the tests is because they don't know how to take them, then shouldn't we teach them how? How hard can it be to teach them to properly take a test, especially a standard test that they will be taking many times? I guess to me if they can't learn to fill in a bubble or whatever method is being used then there are bigger issues than simply not knowing how to take a test. Learning how to take a test can be a lifelong skill for a student to learn. My thoughts on school improvement focus mostly on improving the leadership at the schools, and vastly improving leadership at the District levels. Teachers need good leaders to let them do their jobs as best as they can. I know in PA you can get your Principal certification without taking a single 'people' management course. As Belle mentioned earlier, the leadership at her district have set up a 'stifling' enviornment which does not sound necessary at her school. Every district is unique, and each school in each district is unique. I also wonder if many people are confused as to who sets what standards to be taught at each grade level too. Also, Belle, you are correct and I did overgeneralize my statements about schools not wanting to support NCLB. I'm too used to discussing this as a local issue with our surrounding districts and not as a more national issue. I do apologize for making that too general of a statement. I get excited and passionate about school improvement and how to make things better and forget to type out more to keep the proper context.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I have to say that test scores seem to me to the best of a lot of lousy options. Grades are all over the place - you can't compare them.
I can't think of a better metric than test scores. I'd love to know of one.
I hear all the complaints. I believe they should be listened to and considered. I also believe that something had to change and that competition, shakeups, high standards for teachers, and the use of a metric to measure education are all useful things.
If not NCLB, then what should take its place? If NCLB is okay but badly administered, how should it be administered differently?
There's the complaint of disabled kids being required to progress as much as the rest of the school. Okay - would excepting the disabled kids from the tests make it better? What should those kids be measured by instead, or should they not be part of it at all? (I don't like that second option.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
1. As a nation, we figure out how to honor, encourage, support children being raised and nurtured by one primary caregiver -- particularly in the early years. I could give a rat's patootey if it's the mother, father, grandparent . . . as long as that child has the chance to bond with a caring adult. Of course, this means changing our nation's economic structure to one friendly to one working parent supporting a family, or two working parents earning enough to afford stable, quality care for their child. It would also mean changing the nation's idea that more is better. I.e., bigger homes, more cars, bigger cars, more expensive TVs, sound systems, shows, clothes, etc. It means as a nation we provide basic medical and dental to all. Etc.
2. Local communities should be in charge of designing their local educational systems (with some basic standards). Want smaller neighborhood schools? Great? Want one huge inter-urban highschool? Peachy. Want close links to local private schools? Fine. Different states, different regions, differnt communities have different tech, social, economic needs. It makes sense that if your region houses, say Microsoft, you would want to ensure that the local workforce can both meet the demands and expectations of Microsoft as well as the "support" needs of that business and community (this is where the agriculturalists, skilled trades, day laborers, food services, caregivers, etc.) We can't all be computer programmers. Hell, some of us *gasp* don't wanna be -- we need more flexibility to provide the education and training that a diverse and economically sound community need to keep thriving. Local design, local control, and a respectful oversight by state or other entity.
3. Recognize that not all learners are the same, nor will they learn the same ways, test the same ways, respond to teaching techniques the same ways -- and give teachers the right, the responsibility, and the incentive to teach the student, not teach to a mandatory test. With mandatory, standardized testing (and mind you, those tests are designed by individualized states -- and not necessarily means-tested) tied to financial gain or loss for the school, a system has been put in place that flies in the face of the idea of the individual learner and capacity, strengths, weaknesses, goals, dreams, etc.
4. Recognize that not all people need or want to be a high-paid corporate executive. There's both room and need for folks of all stripes in our nation -- and we need folks interested in all these different options. We also need an economic system in place that honors and values the contributions of the custodian as much as the bank teller, the artist, the construction worker, the accountant, the stay-at-home caregiver, the teacher, the waitress, our armed forces, etc. . .
5. Teach the basics first. Babies generally learn to roll over before sitting, crawl and stand before walking. Children need the chance to learn the basic 3R's -- and these are not learned through testing. These are learned by DOING. Repeatedly. Over and over again. Competent teachers know this and offer the same material in the early ed years many times using many different approaches. Children also learn best when they have plenty of opportunity for fresh air and gross motor movement (we used to call that recess), plenty of down time (we used to call that nap time, quiet reading time, head on the desk time), healthy foods (that used to mean things like tuna casserole and vegetables, milk, and a small cookie as opposed to pizza, hot dogs, chips, fries, soda). Children used to get exposure to "making" things with their hands (we called that art class), learning to use their voices together in a group (we called that music), and Figuring out how to play a physical game according to rules and sportsmanship (that would be gym).
Hmmm. I could offer a few more ideas, but that's enough to go on. Sadly, I really doubt any of these ideas would ever come to fruition. But, hey! I always console myself that when I'm empress, all these things will come to pass. Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If you can wait, maybe in a week or so I can add my thoughts.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
