I am an educator. I teach 8th grade mathematics. I have seen many things during my years. I have had students who needed me very little and who understood all that I taught. I have also had students who spent hours each day trying and struggling to grasp the concepts I taught. I have also taught my students not only the concepts of the subject, but also reasoning and how to survive in the world.
That which I say today will most surely be disputed, but I will say it because few have said it anywhere. Those who fought this issue have not succeeded and have fled the fight altogether.
The idea was simple, that all students should be able to pass the standardized tests regardless of any condition, circumstance, or ability. This is the theory behind "No Child Left Behind". A theory that by 2014 will leave more children behind than any parent would want. The premise is that by 2014 that 100% of students will pass the state assessments regardless of any issue.
IF the school district does not meet the requirements, the parents receive additional room to make changes for their students. This can include additional support at the school's expense, allowing the student to switch schools within the district at the school's expense, and after the required number of years allows the parent to withdraw their student from the school and send them to a private school, again at the school's expense.
Few schools are able to muster 100% of students passing the tests and to expect that of all school districts is absurd. 'No Child Left Behind' is an excellent 'theory'... but then again, so is communism. If we allow this to continue, you will see the end of public education. There is no denying that. Sure some schools may be able to remain standing, but not enough to make an impact. So what then is the alternative?
An immediate end of 'No Child Left Behind'. Allow teachers to teach students freely and stop forcing them to teach to the test. Districts now spend so much effort teaching to the test, that the students are losing out on their education. I have students who have been so corrupted because of the district's idea that it is necessary to teach to the test that my 8th grade students haven't mastered basic operations. This needs to end, and it needs to end now. For the good of the students and the good of the future.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
quote: Allow teachers to teach students freely and stop forcing them to teach to the test. Districts now spend so much effort teaching to the test, that the students are losing out on their education.
This week marks the beginning of spring testing season in my state and it saddens me to see the pressure on both teachers and students to perform well on just one test. In fact, the pressure to pass the test is so high that all non-TAKS classes were placed on hold for the past month so that students could learn the test.
Despite this, I know that there are teachers who still teach students and not tests. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find these teachers in a low-performing or alternative school where students would benefit from superior teaching.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Allow teachers to teach students freely and stop forcing them to teach to the test. Districts now spend so much effort teaching to the test, that the students are losing out on their education. I have students who have been so corrupted because of the district's idea that it is necessary to teach to the test that my 8th grade students haven't mastered basic operations.
I hear that lament all the time, what does teaching to the test mean? Do you have the answers to the test and have the students memorize 1)a 2)c 3)d?
Posted by ctm (Member # 6525) on :
"I have students who have been so corrupted because of the district's idea that it is necessary to teach to the test that my 8th grade students haven't mastered basic operations."
I'm assuming the test are testing basic operations so this seems so odd. Do you feel that the emphasis is too much on getting the right answer for a problem and not enough on the concepts, when and where and why to use a given operation?
Mind you, I'm not disagreeing with your assertion. The school district we used to live in definitely focused on teaching for the test. They did well on the tests, and kids got good grades (in fact, there seemed to be a real Lake Wobegon thing going on, with 30 or 35 students out of 40 being on the honor role. All the children are above average!). But I taught religious ed at our church, and so many of the kids could barely read, and their comprehension was not good either. Writing skills? Not good either.
You aren't the first teacher I've heard say these things. But what can we do? Refuse to let children take the tests? Write to our senators and congresspeople? March in the streets?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I have to say, as a middle school language arts teacher in Texas, I agree.
The TAKS test is the end-all, be-all in some places and even teachers (like me) who don't want to "teach the test" are forced to by principals whose jobs are on the line based on test scores. I teach in a lower income school that is predominately minority. I will be happy if 70% of my students pass that writing test we took this week.
The majority of my students improved their writing skills significantly this year, but there is only so much I can do in the time I am given. Part of the problem is that since writing is only tested at three grade levels, that is the only time it is taught. The lower grades have been told to focus on reading and math only and their test scores are ok so why should they change their curriculum? Never mind that my 7th graders come in without knowing parts of speech, how to write a complete sentence, much less organize a paper, but I have to get them ready for a test asking them to write a complex narrative essay with few errors and revise passages full of errors they can't recognize.
Then in 10th grade, when they take the writing test again, it is a completely different format. Do I have the time to start preparing them for that type of writing though? Not a chance! I am still trying to catch up what they didn't learn in elementary school so I know the 10th grade teachers are feeling the crunch too. You know the 8th and 9th grade teachers are doing little to reinforce what I have taught and the 10th grade teachers have to basically start from scratch. Tenth graders get three chances to pass that test but if they don't, they don't graduate.
Bush did a disservice to Texas schools when he was governor and he is killing the national education system as president.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
If they only had to memorize answers, it would be a breeze!
In Texas, teachers have a list of minimum standards that must be achieved. Excellent teachers use these as the base for what they teach and expand on it. Some teachers teach students the exact skills that they will need to know to pass the test and nothing more. They use practice tests to benchmark the student's progress and once the student passes those benchmarks, they've done their job. Teachers may also focus on test-taking skills.
Let's take English for example. [the following is a hypothetical situation] The graders of the written essay like to see five paragraphs, each with five sentences. Each of the middle paragraphs should begin with a transition. The concluding paragraph should only restate the three points made and then restate the thesis. From fourth grade to high school students in are taught that this is the way to write an essay. Now, you and I both know that an essay can be longer than five paragraphs. Paragraphs can be longer, or shorter than five sentences but since this is the magic formula to pass the test, that is the only way writing is taught. Of course the student has learned to write an essay but if this is all a student learns about writing form, it definitely puts him at a disadvantage.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
DarkKnight, teaching the test involves having the kids do drills of the test that we would not normally do. In my case, the kids write essay after essay that I would not normally have them write. We would focus on more types of writing rather than perfecting a narrative that most kids will not have to do again in real life. The high school essay is even more narrow.
Also in the weeks before the test, I have to give worksheet after worksheet on the revising portion of the test. It is an awkward, unrealistc format and the kids are unprepared for it so we have to practice a lot. That means I can't do more meaningful curriculum with that time.
ctm, the problem is that previous grades have only taught what is on the test and nothing more so there are plenty of skills our kids aren't getting. They are getting skill-and-drill instruction that is not meaningful to them or fulfilling for the teacher, all in the name of passing the test. So while the test does focus on basic skills, some of those skills have never been taught so there is nothing to build on. In math, the whole test is word problems so if the kids have missed out on basic math computation, the word problems are meaningless. In writing, many kids are not taught how to recognize a complete sentence so I have to start a first grade skill in seventh grade.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MandyM, your issues do not sound like they have anything to do with meaningless catchphrase of "teach the test". The problems sounds much more like teachers at lower grades who are unwilling to change their curriculum. That is not a tests' fault, rather it is the Elementary teacher/principal and the Middle school Principal's fault. Seems like there is no communication between the MS and ES on what benefits the students most. You are spending your time correcting the failures of the teachers below you, which has nothing to do with the test.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
The fact is that most students that take tests forget half the things on the test within a month anyway. Tests are boring and stupid. It's hard enough getting jobs based on school certificates from subjects I found boring already. If future generations are going to be judged solely on test scores, then the worth of formal schooling is dead as we know it.
Of course, that doesn't really bother me. I've known lots of great teachers, but great students are rare. And I judge things by their fruits. The students are the fruit; the tree is rotten.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
quote:You are spending your time correcting the failures of the teachers below you, which has nothing to do with the test.
This has everything to do with the test. If students don't have a proper foundation, they cannot pass the test for their grade-level. MandyM's situation is not unique. I've taught in two school districts in Texas and I've seen the same thing happen.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Coccinelle, Every state has standards that they have to teach to, and the standardized tests are designed to reflect knowledge of those standards. Your example of the English 5 paragraph 5 lines shows more of a failure on the teachers part, not the test. The test may be set up that way, but that does not mean the teacher has to follow in the same lock step method. In any case, if the state test is truly that rigid, then your job should be much easier, right? Test scores should be much easier to meet because you know exactly how the English paragraph portion will be
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The students should absolutely have a proper foundation if all the teachers are teaching the stnadards.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
It is not the fault of the principals and the teachers in the lower grades either. They are covering their own butt since there is pressure at every grade level. They have their own tests to prepare for and I have seen their standards and curriculum and it is packed. There is nothing more they could possibly pack in to their days. If there were no standardized tests and less pressure, they would have the time and the flexibility to teach writing and everything else they have to leave out of their curriculum. There is a push for perfection in a particuluar skill set in order to pass the test but that is not how education is supposed to work. You have to understand, lower grades should lay foundations that higher grades can build on. This test limits the ammount of foundation the lower grades can build but he upper grade tests still require that they know that stuff. There is just no time to teach it.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
But DarkKnight the problem is that the way the test is set up is artificial and it is NOT the way teachers would teach writing if we had the chance. At the same time, I have to get them ready to pass this test or it is my job on the line, so I have to throw some "real" writing instruction out the window to focus on the "test" writing that is meaningless or at best limited.
And teachers would be meeting standards and all kids would have the proper foundation in a perfect world. This isn't it. There are many obstacles that prevent kids from learning and this test is one problem that could be fixed.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You have to understand that it's not lack of ability that the majority of failing students have problems with; it's lack of interest. That's one of the reasons I opted out. Preperation for tests are the most boring, repetitious, worthless wastes of time I've ever spent.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So if I understand you correctly, they have too much to teach now and there is no time to teach anything else because of the standards. But if we let teachers decide what to teach, when to teach, and how to teach then all students will learn everything they need to for higher grades? Doesn't that mean that the current standards are wrong? The standards for the lower grades are wrong and that is why students can't learn because we are teaching students too much to fast?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So there is no testing unless it is a standardized test? Teachers don't test their students except for standardized test? A test is a way of showing what the students have learned. So if the students are uninterested in the teacher's presentation, that is the fault of the test?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I was about to answer your 9:46 post, but then you decided to twist my words in the one after, so I won't bother.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Cheiros, slowness in responding can cause these mix ups. I did not respond to your 8:46 (I'm EST here) post. My 8:46 post was in response to ManyM's 8:39 post
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Actually, I was referring to your 8:48 (your time) post. Am I not right in assuming that was aimed at me?
Anyway;
quote:So if the students are uninterested in the teacher's presentation,...
Teachers don't get complete control over how they present things so I don't see your point.
quote:... that is the fault of the test?
No, it's the fault of the people that instill the teach the test system. Why would I, or anyone, blame a piece of paper???
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I sympathize, Johivin. We have something worse in Virginia: a detailed set of testing standards that requires the whole year be spent teaching to the test. These standards are called Standards of Learning -- SOL's!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I have an answer for you.
Vote the jerks out.
No child left behind was the brainchild of a man who cooked the books in the Houston school system. He became GWB's first education secretary. When the story broke that his "miracle" in Houston was faked, he was supported publicly by the President, and then quietly left his post months later.
But the damage is done. Everyone figured the "quick fix" in Houston was a one-size-fits-all solution that would work nationally. They implemented it without any data to back it up (except, of course the faked data in Houston), and now we're stuck with it.
Let's just vote the irresponsible "quick fix" jerks out of office.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Cheiros, OK, I'm with you now, yes that one was for you. Quotes are something I need to include more
quote: Teachers don't get complete control over how they present things so I don't see your point.
I would think teachers do have complete control on how they present things. They do not have complete control on what they present as that comes from standards
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
quote: Let's just vote the irresponsible "quick fix" jerks out of office.
Sounds like a great plan to me!
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
No march? Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
It is great to hear support for this. I have myself contacted the NEA regarding the process that would be necessary to get rid of No Child Left Behind. As well, I have contaced my congressional representatives. As of this point, the NEA has told me that they understand my concern and my representatives have told me that it is 'nice to see people participating in government' (of course they won't say anything else).
The problem is that there needs to be more hasseling of government officials to change it.
I implore anyone willing to contact your representatives and senators in the hope that we can get back to teaching students so they can succeed, not only so the students can pass the standardized tests.
I thank all of you for your time and hope that we can make a difference for the future of the country and public education.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
One other fault that insures NCLB is built to fail: My wife works for The Special School District. It is a school full of children with mental and physical problems, some 15 year olds with the learning capacity of 6 year olds, and they are all supposed to take and pass the same exams as normal students. I think it is 90% of all students, despite handicap, must pass these tests or the whole district fails.
The idea behind this is simple. If you give a pass on kids with special needs, than any failing child will be pushed into special needs. Instead we will have a public school system of special needs kids while other parents will take their children, and government money, and put them in private schools once the public schools fail to meet impossible marks for 6 years running.
DK, one clarification. Concille's orignal example had kids not learning to write English in the earlier grades, so she had to spend all of her time teaching them this one thing in order to pass the test. You suggested that the problem was not with NCLB but with the teachers in the earlier grades. The problem you didn't understand is that those teachers in the earlier grades couldn't teach writing, because they had to prepare the kids in those younger grades for their own tests, which didn't include writing.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
DR, in your clarification, if younger grades do not teach writing that is because writing is not a standard for their grade level and thus should not be taught at that level. I somehow doubt that writing is left out of those standards
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I implore anyone willing to contact your representatives and senators in the hope that we can get back to teaching students so they can succeed, not only so the students can pass the standardized tests.
What is your proof that students were succeeding and doing so much better before NCLB? If everything was working so well, why did anyone try to improve things?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Well of course, Bob, but what do we do until the next election? Besides, we can't control who the president appoints to help him.
DarkKnight, I know you are trying to understand our beef here but there is a lot involved that you don't seem to understand. You are right though that in some ways, the standards are too high. We are pushing more instruction on our kids at an earlier age before they are developmentally ready for it. What we learned in the first grade is now being taught in kindergarten. Six year olds entering first grade without knowing how to read are behind in class, even though developementally many are simply too young to decipher text. Some abstract math concepts are too difficult for students in 8th and 9th grades which accounts for some of the algebra failure rates.
Add to that problem, the fact that parents are not reading at home and do not value education; students come from less than ideal homes both emotionally and economically with behavioral problems, learning disabilities and just plain apathy; teachers are exhausted, underpaid and undertrained and the state requires us to pour as much of the test material in their heads as possible and you have a mess.
Of course teachers test their students, but every teacher has a different test so how do we know they are all at the same level? The TAKS test knows but it is biased and too heavily emphasized. If teachers just relaxed and taught the curriculum the way we should, and the test actually reflected learning, more kids would probably pass the test. But the pressure starts in kindergarten with benchmarks and if they don't pass those (even if the tests are too demanding) then teachers are pressured to work them harder. The kids are beaten down when they don't do well, since they are not successful on something they (and we as teachers) see no value in. There needs to be more focus on real world application rather than, "you need this for the test." Teachers jump through hoops to make the most boring curriculum interesting. We can't have a dog and pony show all the time. It is not the fault of the teacher that a kid does poorly on a test, either given by the teacher or by the state. I can put a pencil in a kid's hand and hover ove him but I can't MAKE him do the work.
Amen Dan! That is already happening with speacial needs kids. Kids who fail benchmarks are funneled into special ed unless they have a Spanish sirname and then they are sent to ESL, even if Spanish isn't spoken in the home! Then when they get to middle school, they are behind and have run out of exemptions so they have to take a test they are unprepared for.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MandyM, I think you are getting very close to understanding my point as well. The problem here is still not NCLB. NCLB is only shining a bright light on the existing problems. NCLB did make any new standards that schools had to meet. NCLB says that schools have to meet the standards that states set for themselves. The states came up with their own standards and they are now complaining that they are not meeting the standards that they set for themselves. The real issue now is that in the past the states could set challenging standards and then not care if they met them at all. There was no accountability. NCLB came along and said states will meet the standards that they have already said that they are going to meet. That is the biggest difference. States are being held accountable to things that they have said thta they are accountable for. Changing the President will not change your standards. Working to change your standards will, obviously, change your standards. If the standards are too high and that is truly the problem, why are worried about who is elected President? The President does not make your standards.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
You questioning is illogical DarkKnight. Whether or not the schools have improved is not related to the final step. That being 100% of students passing the standarized tests. As well, catering to tests is foolish as it doesn't do anything but temporarily give students knowledge that they afterwards forget. There is no attempt to help them maintain it when one is teaching to the test.
If you'd like to know MY reasoning for NCLB, it is simply a ploy by those with money to be able to take the money they pay which in many states amounts to roughly 70% of their tax and be able to apply it to private school uses and afterward, to keep for themselves. The problem is, without that money, the public schools will close faster. It is simply a way to show that the schools are incapable of providing adequete education and push for private schools which not all can afford. As well, private schools are exempt from public regulations for the most part.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:From fourth grade to high school students in are taught that this is the way to write an essay. Now, you and I both know that an essay can be longer than five paragraphs. Paragraphs can be longer, or shorter than five sentences but since this is the magic formula to pass the test, that is the only way writing is taught. Of course the student has learned to write an essay but if this is all a student learns about writing form, it definitely puts him at a disadvantage.
YES! This is exactly how I was taught to write growing up, even being in advanced/gifted English classes. We spent an absurb amount of time learning to write under timed conditions which meant learning to write very concisely. This was all practice for learning to write and read short written works.
Now I'm in college and I'm struggling when asked to write a paper which is longer than five pages. I can't do it. I'm so used to writing out my viewpoint in the fewest words that I have difficulty using long sentence structure or filling pages. A professor told me that in their day, they were taught how to write long papers from the beginning and then taught how to streamline into shorter ones. So the basis was long, full, detailed examples. They didn't have the current written disease where students have learned to add fluff to meet page requirements.
It makes me ill to think all the other classics I could have been taught in high school without those months of test preparations and test-taking strategy.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Shanna, that is exactly my point. We should be teaching how to write short narrative fiction but also a variety of other types of writing. All that goes by the wayside when we have to master one strategy to pass the test. I would love to have my kids writing research papers and literary analysis and cover letters and letters to the editor; things they might actually need in their real lives later on. I do touch on those things but there is much more emphasis on what is covered on the test.
DarkKnight, you are right that NCLB didn't cause the problem. The problem exsisted before but it is worse now and before, it was just a state problem and now it is becoming a national problem. Since the president is gung-ho for NCLB we absolutely need to start at the top. Get rid of a NCLB president and we can work to change things on a state level. If we have a NCLB supporter as president, what can we do?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
The issue as I see it (addmitedly from a non-teaching perspective) is not so much that the standards are incorrect, as the standardized tests are necessarily limited, and due to the extreme focus being put on them it is limiting the curiculums as well.
Using the Essay mentioned as an example: Say that the only writing section on the test is to write a 5 paragraph essay in a strictly regulated manner. Now it is useful to be able to write such an essay (though Ideally we teach how to write a good essay, and mention that the 5 paragraph, 5 sentance structure is generally what is best recieved on the test format but not the only way to write).
However, with external pressure to be able to pass the tests, teachers will be pushed to concentrate much more time and effort into this essay writing format, which will mean that they don't have the time to teach writing short fiction, poetry, different types of essays/research documents...
the teaching ideal as I see it, should be to create well-rounded individuals to excel where they can and be passable elsewhere, but the extreme focus on just what the tests are requiring distracts, and pulls away from the rest of what needs to be taught as well.
I find it easier to draw comparisons with the higher-level examinations than with lower-level, but the comparisons should still be valid in general:
1) I took an AP English exam in highschool for which I had not taken a class or done any specific preparation for said exam. I did fairly well on the exam, as did everyone who chose to take it in my class even though none of us had taken the course which effectively taught to that exam. The key here is that our eductaion and background in English was broad enough that we could make do with whatever was thrown at us, even if we hadn't read the specific text being discussed, or approached a topic in just such an angle... None of us got 5s (100%), but we did get 4s.
similarly I took a calculus class in highschool which was not taught to the AP test standards, and we were highly discouraged from taking any of the AP calculus exams. Indeed, those who did attempt the exams did not fare well. However, the knowledge I had from this class enabled me to breeze through 2 semesters of college engineering calculus almost entirely on review.
These are just a couple examples of how NOT teaching to the test can be as/more effective than solely concentrating on the topics/forms covered in these standardized tests.
Back to the specific examples of grade-high-school standardized tests. it was mentioned above that writing portions are only included periodically on the exams (I would imagine largely as written sections are much much more time and effort-intensive to create and grade than the scantron-type portions). This would seem to say that the students should only be working on their writing skills (for example) every 3 years, and not in-between. Frankly, this kind of statement is absurd, as we need to be teaching each subject constantly in order to improve gradually to wherever the next standard states we should be. The pressure, however, is so great to pass each level of testing that it seems the writing curriculum in the intermediate years is being subverted in favor of more immediate concerns.
what all this says to me is that it's not necessarily the system (though I'm not a fan of the system either) but the administration's reaction to the system that is causing the problems. It seems that principles, superintendants etc. are more willing in this program to give in to the immediate needs while sacrificing the long-term good of the curriculum because of this strong external pressure to pass everyone. There needs to be a balance of a curriculum that teaches the students well enough to pass the exams, while allowing for flexibility in teaching style, and what is being taught.
I could easily pass all these standardized tests, but if that was all I was taught I would probably still be considered an idiot in real life. We can't just pidgeon-hole the entire education system down into the topics that can be easily standardized.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MandyM, the states (plural) have all had this problem and it was getting much worse before NCLB. Our education system was a national problem long before NCLB, but no one talked about it because there was no accountability for education. I may be misinterperting your response, but this problem did not start in Texas and then spread to the rest of the nation. The President is gung-ho to hold states accountable for what they have said for years and years and years that they were doing, but in reality were completely not doing. You are blaming the President for showing us where the problems are, instead of looking to solve the problems.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:YES! This is exactly how I was taught to write growing up, even being in advanced/gifted English classes. We spent an absurb amount of time learning to write under timed conditions which meant learning to write very concisely. This was all practice for learning to write and read short written works.
I got docked points on an essay in eigth grade because I transitioned in more than one word. Instead of using Next, Then, Second, Also, I made a more elegant transition. I don't think it was the teacher's fault; the rubricks the Language Arts teachers used came from CAPT (Connecticut's standardized test).
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The President is gung-ho to hold states accountable for what they have said for years and years and years that they were doing, but in reality were completely not doing.
Shouldn't it be the people holding the states accountable, and not the President? After all, the state governments are elected by the people of those states, not appointed by the President.
Clearly, there was a problem long before NCLB, and we were well aware of that problem long before NCLB. The question is, is NCLB helping or worsening that problem? My guess is worsening.
Tests improve accountability, but accountability is not the problem of education. Accountability helps you weed out the bad and keep the good. Trouble is, there isn't a long line of good waiting to step in to replace whatever bad we eliminate.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Shouldn't it be the people holding the states accountable, and not the President? After all, the state governments are elected by the people of those states, not appointed by the President.
If this was a single state or a minority of states problem, then I would more inclined to agree with you. This is an issue that is facing the majority of states, which makes it a federal concern as well. Remember that the people did elect the President too. The President is not over ruling the states with NCLB, he is holding them accountable to what they have already said they would do.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
and one from the NEA NEA findings Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
DarkKnight, NCLB has not shown a light on an existing problem, but instead exacerbated that problem to a dangerous extent.
Our schools were struggling before NCLB, to be sure. The quality of education in some states (Mississippi, for example) was exceedingly poor, while the quality in other states (New Jersey, for example) was far better.
With the introduction of NCLB, a system of testing (that already existed) was mandated nationwide. The idea of "accountability" is a farce. While its intention is to make all districts live up to a standard, its practice is to set an unreasonable expectation and then punish everyone. It would be like a teacher saying "Class, everyone must get an A on the next test, or I will take away recess."
The increased import of these standardized tests has caused teachers around the country to change their style of teaching. No longer can you teach standards (as much as the test may be based on standards). Instead, you have to, as has been said, "teach to the test."
Now, this doesn't mean teach exactly what is on the test, because, due to test security, there is no way to know that.
What it does mean is that you have to teach students *how* to take *this particular* test - not teach them how to understand and apply concepts. I could spend a period out in the playground teaching students to measure the yard and playground areas, and then calculate how much sod or woodchips they would need to cover it - concluding with their figuring out costs of materials and comparing purchasing options. But, of course, that would be useless to them on the test if they were unfamiliar with the way the question was being asked, and it became an abstraction to them intsead of a problem to be solved.
Students must learn to read test questions and break down their specific language. They must learn how to skip difficult questions for later, and to manage their time. They must learn how the test is scored, and how to maximize their performance. They must learn how to construct an open ended response along the guidelines of a specific grading rubric.
None of these are helping a student understand a mathematical concept, but all take time.
To this end, my school district, which five years ago was a Blue Ribbon School and a Governor's School of Excellence in NJ, is now in the first stages of warning because of NCLB. Award-winning teachers have retired rather than be forced to teach in line with some standardized test format.
....
There is more to come, but I'm meeting Tante for coffee in twenty minutes and don't want to be late. I'll add more this evening.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
FlyingCow, you've nailed it. The test does not test what a student knows and can apply. It tests them on how well they can take a test. Students with poor test taking skills do poorly on the test so we have to improve their test taking skills rather than teach them high-level, real-world curriculum.
DarkKnight I think you are still missing my point. I never said this originated in Texas or that I am blaming our president. Since our president is from Texas and I teach in Texas, I am familiar with the problem here and from the trenches, I can tell you it is getting worse. I also think that until we have a new non-NCLB president, the problem will only worsen, not improve. Test scores in Texas were actually up several years ago but with the enactment of NCLB and the revamping of the test, scores and morale have plummeted. I am not saying the other test was better; it certainly wasn't. I know this is and has been happening elsewhere and TEACHERS have been talking about it for years. It is just lately that the rest of the nation is aware of it.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Also DarkKnight, you asked a question about what teaching to the test is. We answered it. Now every comment you have made has told us we are wrong. I don’t want to start a war over this but when someone asks my opinion as a professional and then argues about it, I can’t help but comment. **Warning! Long rant ahead**
quote:Seems like there is no communication between the MS and ES on what benefits the students most. You are spending your time correcting the failures of the teachers below you, which has nothing to do with the test.
Already answered this one but yes, we do communicate. Elementary school teachers and principals have their own pressures on these tests. They are doing the best they can do under the circumstances.
quote:Your example of the English 5 paragraph 5 lines shows more of a failure on the teachers part, not the test. The test may be set up that way, but that does not mean the teacher has to follow in the same lock step method. In any case, if the state test is truly that rigid, then your job should be much easier, right? Test scores should be much easier to meet because you know exactly how the English paragraph portion will be
Some tests are rigid like this and it is still hard to teach because there is absolutely no value in writing artificial papers of this kind, except to pass the test. It is not easier to know the standard they will score on; it is easier to teach something the students see value in. This, again, is not the teacher's fault. Like I said before, we do everything we can to make this something interesting for the kids.
quote:The students should absolutely have a proper foundation if all the teachers are teaching the stnadards
Sure! In a perfect world! There are more factors to providing a good education than that. You can have the best teacher in the world teaching all the standards and the kids can still fail the test. Maybe part of the problem is the idea that the test actually shows what the kids have learned. It doesn't!
quote:But if we let teachers decide what to teach, when to teach, and how to teach then all students will learn everything they need to for higher grades? Doesn't that mean that the current standards are wrong? The standards for the lower grades are wrong and that is why students can't learn because we are teaching students too much to fast?
No, there needs to be standards and there needs to be accountability. The system we have in place now is the wrong one. Some of the current standards are wrong and they are adapted on a state and a district level yearly. But as a whole, I believe there is too much and it starts too early for some and there is no time to slow down and reteach for kids who could get it if they just had more time.
quote:What is your proof that students were succeeding and doing so much better before NCLB? If everything was working so well, why did anyone try to improve things?
Read Bob's and Dan's and reread what every other teacher has posted. You ask for proof but when teachers tell you they feel more pressure now, you say it's our fault.
quote:The states came up with their own standards and they are now complaining that they are not meeting the standards that they set for themselves. The real issue now is that in the past the states could set challenging standards and then not care if they met them at all. There was no accountability.
What makes you say that? There were accountability standards galore here in Texas. Schools were threatened with lower funding and even closing if they did not make the grade. Good teachers and administrators lost their jobs based on test scores. How is that not being accountable? And then you ask why there is pressure? If your job were on the line based on a kid's test score, wouldn't you do everything you could to get them to pass, even at the expense of the child's education? Trust me, most teachers are doing the best they can under a flawed system.
quote:Changing the President will not change your standards. Working to change your standards will, obviously, change your standards. If the standards are too high and that is truly the problem, why are worried about who is elected President? The President does not make your standards.
The president was governor of my state when these standards were created. He pushed for them and is now pushing everyone to do something similar and hold us accountable using a substandard standardized test.
quote:Remember that the people did elect the President too. The President is not over ruling the states with NCLB, he is holding them accountable to what they have already said they would do.
The Electoral College elects the president, not the people (but don't get me started on that tangent) and not every state had this cumbersome standardization and testing. He thinks that since it worked for Texas (wrong!) it should work for the nation.
I wonder what answer you are looking for. No matter what we say about how bad it is, you want to shift the blame on the schools and teachers. There is no one person to blame. It is a crappy system and education in this country needs a serious overhaul. NCLB is an attempt at that and it will crash and burn. That IS the president’s job.
Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
Another problem with the idea of 'teaching to the test' is that for the children who already understood the basic concepts, instead of learning more, they are being forced to repeat drills of things that are, at times, *beneath* their level.
I wrote so many five paragraph essays in my two years of high school that I could write one in my sleep, but was learning literally no other way of writing. I was lucky in my science teacher, who taught the way he had always taught, with brief breaks before the standardized tests to pass out worksheets and drill us for a few weeks. But English, History, and Math taught me nothing I can remember except the tedious five paragraphs, five sentences, make sure your final paragraph repeats everything said above. I dropped out rather than repeat everything for a third year, and have learned more useful things in the years since than I would have imagined existed.
Teaching to the test caters to the lazy and unintelligent, without teaching any student any skill likely to be useful beyond that standardized test. I'm not saying that our school systems didn't already have some major problems, but NCLB seems to me like a nice way of gaining pleasing statistics without fixing the actual problems at all.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:NCLB, it is simply a ploy by those with money to be able to take the money they pay which in many states amounts to roughly 70% of their tax and be able to apply it to private school uses and afterward, to keep for themselves.
This is the real missing emperor's trousers. I'm not even sure that Bush fully understands this. But, I am sure that his friends do. By forcing the public educational funds into "alternative" schooling systems, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Go back and look at what the Southern States did to themselves with the "Freedom Academies" in the 60's. There will not be funding enough to adequatly support both the "academies" and the public schools. Both will (and are) failing. Mr. Bush's friends will leave our workforce unable to compete with the world.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: So if I understand you correctly, they have too much to teach now and there is no time to teach anything else because of the standards. But if we let teachers decide what to teach, when to teach, and how to teach then all students will learn everything they need to for higher grades? Doesn't that mean that the current standards are wrong? The standards for the lower grades are wrong and that is why students can't learn because we are teaching students too much to fast?
Here's the thing about "teaching to the test." Keep in mind that the test is not something that the teachers have a say in, and often, these tests ask questions in a way that confuses students because, quite honestly, they are largely useless when it comes to assessing actual performance or potential.
When a teacher "teaches to the test," it's like...imagine if your entire high school career was focused on the SAT. Your English classes only concerned themselves with your ability to choose, based on four given options, where a comma should be placed or what the main argument of a very short passage was. Your math classes stopped after basic algebra and geometry and forced you to drill basic question after basic question, giving you little or no background as to what you were learning. Science wouldn't be given much thought because the SAT has no science portion, as I recall. Essentially, "teaching to the test" reduces the ability of teachers to show students how to solve problems on their own or anticipate changes or be creative. It narrows the curriculum immensely. It impedes the process of teaching children critical thinking beyond, "When the author says in line 26, 'The thought made me red in the face,' she is referring to feelings of a) joy, b) jealousy, c) sadness, or d) embarassment.'"
Teaching to the test is a horrible thing, and it keeps students from learning a lot of things.
-pH
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, here's where I chime in with the Sandia Report again.
First: It's politically advantageous for schools to be failing, because politicians can get votes by promising to "fix the system." It doesn't do politicians any good to admit that the system doesn't need fixing.
For that matter, school administrators walk a fine line between claiming their school is doint a good job, and losing funding. After all, if you're doing ok to start with, why do you need more money?
The Reagan administration used a report called "A Nation at Risk" to suggest to the public that American schools were failing in comparison to other developed countries. The report was largely anecdotal, and non-comprehensive.
George H.W. Bush (The education president) commissioned Sandia National Labs to compile a comprehensive and reasonably scientific report detailing the current state of american education. The expectation was that it would reinforce "A Nation at Risk," and provide specific areas that Bush could address to improve education.
However, the Sandia Report showed that the state of education in america is far from failure. The Bush administration didn't allow the report to be released to the public. Under Clinton, a watered down report was finally released.
Basically what the report says is that the perception of the state of education in America is highly distorted. We constantly hear statistics such as: "out of the 16 most industrialized countries, America's education system ranks 14th" (or whatever).
Perhaps, but does this mean we are failing? Not at all. Say the top ranked country gets a "grade" of 98% for educating their children. Well the United states would get a grade of 92%. That's not a failure.
Also, "no child left behind" is a particularly American viewpoint. Other countries make little or no effort to educate their entire population. Both Japan and Germany, for example, weed out the poor students and send them to vocational school at middle school age. We attempt to avoid this "tracking" and instead force weaker students to follow an academic track, rather than giving them life skills and vocational training.
So when the grades are tabulated, the U.S. gets lower marks because we average in the grades of students who are being force fed inappropriate material.
According to Sandia, it simply isn't reasonable to compare different countries success at education, because you're not comparing apples to apples.
Also, we keep hearing that education is being "dumbed down," excpet that now students are expected to come into 1st grade knowing how to read. We expect children to learn more and more complex and abstract subjects at an earlier age, and we keep adding new material to the curriculum. Compare the amount of material in a physics or chemistry course from 30 years ago and you'll find that nowadays students are expected to learn everything they did then, plus quantum mechanics, etc. How is this "Dumbing down education?" Well, since there is more material to cover, you don't cover it as deeply, and you don't expect the retention rate to be as high.
Now as for "teaching to the test."
I teach mathematics, and I see the curriculum as a wish list. Some government administrator decides that all students should know what "order of magnitude" means, and you've got to spend a day explaining it. Now there's nothing wrong with teaching about order of magnitude, but how many pet subjects can you fit into 180 days of schooling? Instead of contnuing to work on integers until the class gets it. The teacher "covers it," and then moves on to tessellations. Why? Because Tessellations are in the curriculum, and they've got to cover the curriculum. You wind up with a curriculum that's wide and shallow.
Now, if I had my druthers, I'd take artistic students who aren't good at math, and create a course that has geometry: tessellations, perspective, the cartesian plane (related to bitmaps for computer generated artwork), symmetry, and so forth. Teach ratios by mixing pigments in paint, and proportions such as length of arms and legs compared to torso, etc.
I'd take kids that like cars and stuff, and teach them math in a machine/auto shop. Measurement, precision (significant digits), XYZ coordinates on a milling machine. How to use a sine bar, threading (which is a tangent function), calculating cylinder displacement and compression ratios, gear ratios, valve and ignition timing, and so forth.
As long as it relates to the kids' interest, you just keep teaching. They'll use formulas that relate to their own interests, and maybe they don't get into the abstract stuff, but they get some serious thinking and problem solving skills.
Students who show a natural aptitude for math would get: MATH CLASS, where you teach them as much as they can absorb, abstract or concrete.
Edit: [/rant]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I have lots more to say, but I wanted to add a small point about NCLB and mathematics before I head out (once again).
Calculators.
Calculators are now required for all standardized tests - not allowed, required.
That means that a school must provide every student with a calculator if they do not have one, starting in grade 4.
Because students use calculators on the exams, naturally, those students who have more experience using calculators will have better scores. This leads to teachers being forced to use calculators from a very early age, and frequently throughout the years of schooling - so that students will be more comfortable with the machines, and score higher.
Of course, this leads to students having far lower ability when it comes to basic computation - as they have not ever been required to learn/memorize things like their times tables, because they always had access to a calculator to do their math for them.
Now you have waves of incoming students who have serious trouble with basic arithmetic, and you have to teach them algebraic and proportional reasoning.
Using a wheelchair every day causes your leg muscles to atrophy. Using a calculator every day causes your mental math abilities to atrophy. However, *not* using calculators puts students at a disadvantage on standardized tests. Lower standardized test scores mean less funding and more sanctions for schools.
Result? Students are taught to use their calculators and not their brains - they do well on their standardized tests, and then can't do simple arithmetic on their own.
This is just one of many examples why a standardized test based model for education is flawed.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I'm meeting Tante for coffee in twenty minutes and don't want to be late.
Newcastle is a kind of coffee?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Yeah, well, by coffee, I meant... um... beer?
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
DarkKnight, I don't get what you're trying to do. You haven't provided a better solution, you've just said that all these teachers (who is more qualified than them?) are wrong. But you don't say how they're wrong, you just keep asking questions. I don't get it.
The whole problem, to use a sports analogy, is that students don't learn fundamentals. It'd be like having a basketball tryout and saying "I will pick every kid that can make 10 free-throws in a row. I don't care how he does it, I just want 10 in a row." So the kids practice at home all summer to just make 10 in a row -- whether it's one-armed shots, granny throws, over-the-heads, what have you -- and then come tryouts, yay! They make 10 in a row. Only, now that the season starts the team can't win a single game. They don't know how to run/pass/play defense....but man they can make free-throws like no other!
At least I hope that applies. In my feeble mind it makes sense.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Of course, this leads to students having far lower ability when it comes to basic computation - as they have not ever been required to learn/memorize things like their times tables, because they always had access to a calculator to do their math for them.
So you cannot teach them how to use a calculator AND teach them to learn/memorize things like their times tables? A teacher can't say this is how you do basic computations, and this is how you use a calculator? That to me is still on the teachers end because students should know how to do both.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I have been saying what the better solution is all along. I will demonstrate with your sports analogy.
quote: It'd be like having a basketball tryout and saying "I will pick every kid that can make 10 free-throws in a row. I don't care how he does it, I just want 10 in a row."
That is the very problem right there. You hit the nail right on the head. To pinpoint it more, here is the exact phrase that shows the problem
quote: I don't care how he does it, I just want 10 in a row
That is not a fault of anyone but the coach who comes right out says I don't care how he does it, I just want this. The standards that the coach set in your case are too low and are not comprehensive enough. In order for the team to be more successful, the coach must change the standards in order to pass the test which in this case I am assuming is the subsequent basketball games. The coah's attitude could probably use a rework as well in your specific example.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
DarkKnight, you have missed the point entirely. The analogy posted was related to what the standards and government have issued. These are not the teachers using substandard methods, but those who dictate the information those who you are repeatedly trying to ignore.
The teachers are now being forced to teach to the test instead of teaching the students to be successful in life. They are expecting an illogical expectation. You continue to ignore the fact that 100% of anything is absurd. Even the human body isn't 100% efficient. If it was, we'd all be dead. 100% of anything is a theory, and a bad one at that.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
No I have not. You are blaming the standards, the test, and NCLB. Taking them one at a time and for one state Texas, the standards were developed and approved by Texas Education Agency which is comprised of educators and teaching professionals from Texas. They are the ones who set the standards for Texas. Not Bush. Not NCLB. Texas educators made them and approved them. That means that if the standards are too hard then the highly educated educators do not know what they are doing. The change that should occur is in TEA, not in the White house. The test is made off of the standards and is approved by TEA, not NCLB or Bush. Texas educators make the test so if the test is wrong or biased or too hard, then change TEA. NCLB did not make TEA, NCLB did not write the tests. TEA is responsible for that. Change TEA or more accurately get TEA to change the standards and improve the tests. I'm not sure if you are in Texas, but that is the state that was mentioned.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The problem DarkKnight, is that there is no way to test at a state or national level some of the things that students should be learning in school. Right now, because of NCLB, all of the emphasis is on the test. This means, if teachers want to keep their jobs, if schools want to keep their funding, they have to spend all of their time teaching the things that will be tested. This means that there is no time for those other things, which cannot be tested, but are equally important.
So part of the problem is with the test, yes, but another part of the problem is with NCLB itself, which uses the test as its only measure of school performance.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
I am not blaming the standards nor the test. But I am blaming NCLB for setting ideals that are unreasonable and illogical. As I said, to assume that 100% of students no matter of their ability, home status, mental state, can pass a standardized test is foolish. Few schools are capable of doing that without the added pressure of having funds cut, people fired, and schools closed due to NCLB. I do blame NCLB for setting an illogical basis.
Your idea that making the test easier if its 'too hard' will just drive the organization to make the test based on a lower educational level, rather than solve any problem. The test is supposed to be an evaluation for use by the states to help improve education. It should not be the basis by which a school remains open or is taken over by the state.
No, I am not in Texas. I am in New Jersey where the tests are more difficult than those in the majority of the other states. NCLB has already had drastic results on school districts because they have attempted to teach towards the test instead of teaching for understanding. My own home town has seen a 15% drop in test scores since NCLB took effect. From 98% proficiency. That is a serious dive. NCLB has also diverted money in economically disadvantaged areas away from education because it forces the school to pay for additional programs that they normally would have gotten additional funding from the state for.
As well, the tests that are made in NJ are NOT made by educators, but rather by companies that sell their tests to the state. Those who make the decisions have little knowledge of what they are doing and few have ever taught. Already we've seen many schools lose administrators and faculty due to state observations, in NJ its call the CAPA organization.
Their 'suggestions' on inproving the school involved:
1) Formation of a school mission statement. 2) More programs afterschool for students. (Something that draws from the resources of the schools themselves, this is NOT additional funding) 3) More posters on the walls.
These were the three 'primary' concerns of CAPA when they last visited my school district.
I am a teacher in a 'suburban' school where the average income is about 1/3 of what the state average is. My students have a hard enough time living their lives that school comes secondary for many of them. We have fallen short of our goal, despite considerable increases because you only need to fail one area out of 40 to be labeled a failing district.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Blacwolve, you realize the test you are referring to is the state's test? There is no NCLB test, the test is the one developed by the educator's in each specific state. The states have determined what they deem necessary to pass, NCLB only says that states will work to have their students pass the test that their state says they should be able to pass. I do think NCLB also had states pick other areas to be monitored, like attendance and such.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Johivin,
quote: As well, the tests that are made in NJ are NOT made by educators, but rather by companies that sell their tests to the state. Those who make the decisions have little knowledge of what they are doing and few have ever taught. Already we've seen many schools lose administrators and faculty due to state observations, in NJ its call the CAPA organization.
Not according to NJ's education website, they specificially mention the exact opposite, that they do not use commercial companies NJ website
quote: Some districts ask why their commercial testing programs are not as good as the state assessments. For the purpose of determining progress of students on achieving New Jersey’s standards, it is essential to have tests that are directly aligned with our own state standards. Commercial tests are not aligned with our standards nor are national assessments. There is a federal requirement to test students under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in language arts and math in grades 3-8. The department is preparing to develop the state tests for grades 5, 6, and 7 to satisfy compliance with NCLB.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
What people say, and what people do are two seperate things. Whether or not the state observes it, the tests are commercial tests that the state purchases to use.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I have so much I want to say but I have to get ready for class. DarkKnight let me just say that you are STILL way off. TEA is compromised of teachers but it is not representative of our profession as a whole. These are usually curriculum coordinators who, for whatever reason, are no longer in the classroom everyday and they are out of touch. But whatever we say, it will not persuade you that teachers are not the problem.
The coach is TOLD he has to take only the free throwers, not the well rounded kids who can dribble and pass and do lay-ups.
I wonder, did you just have a string of bad teachers in your life? Do you have kids in public education and you are not happy with their teachers? What is the deal here? I don't mind debating you on this since I really do think I know what I am talking about (and it seems the other teachers here do too) but I think you might be trolling just a little.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The whole problem, to use a sports analogy, is that students don't learn fundamentals. It'd be like having a basketball tryout and saying "I will pick every kid that can make 10 free-throws in a row. I don't care how he does it, I just want 10 in a row." So the kids practice at home all summer to just make 10 in a row -- whether it's one-armed shots, granny throws, over-the-heads, what have you -- and then come tryouts, yay! They make 10 in a row. Only, now that the season starts the team can't win a single game. They don't know how to run/pass/play defense....but man they can make free-throws like no other!
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: Their 'suggestions' on inproving the school involved: [...] 3) More posters on the walls.
*snort* If only a "math is cool" poster that features a scarf-wearing penguin ice skating near some numbers and operation signs was able to improve education.
I think my problem with the "No Child" law is that it puts all of the onus onto the teachers. So what if the parent doesn't read to the kid or want to buy those multiplication table flashcards? All the teacher has to do is teach and the kids learn, right? It must be her faulth if the kid gets a bad score on the standardized test. It certainly isn't the fact that daddy left town and mommy has a drug problem. Let's fire her and take money from the school district because she's a bad teacher.
The problem with 100% (or even 90% in some areas of the country) is that many children with problems at home, language barriers, or disinterested parents will fail the tests no matter how well the teacher teaches. I'm not sure how we implement standards, but so far the No Child Left Behind doesn't seem to be helping.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MandyM,
quote: TEA is compromised of teachers but it is not representative of our profession as a whole. These are usually curriculum coordinators who, for whatever reason, are no longer in the classroom everyday and they are out of touch. But whatever we say, it will not persuade you that teachers are not the problem.
Teachers teach the standards that are set forth by TEA. I have NOT said teachers are the problem. I have said that in some of the examples that we are discussing the standards are the problem and you are backing up my arguement completely. The standards are being made by people who are out of touch, so that is where the problem would lie. NOT the classroom teacher, but with the standard. The classroom teacher should be telling TEA to change the standards as the standards are "out of touch".
quote: The coach is TOLD he has to take only the free throwers, not the well rounded kids who can dribble and pass and do lay-ups.
Again, this is the same issue as above. The coach (classroom teacher) is TOLD he has to take only the free throwers (TEA standards). The coach's attitude of "I don't care" should be addressed, but the main fault would be in the 'only free throwers' requirement. So the coach is not at fault for the standard, but he is in the best position to tell the approriate people (TEA) that the 'only free throw' approach is 'out of touch'.
quote: I wonder, did you just have a string of bad teachers in your life? Do you have kids in public education and you are not happy with their teachers? What is the deal here? I don't mind debating you on this since I really do think I know what I am talking about (and it seems the other teachers here do too) but I think you might be trolling just a little.
I'm glad you asked, and the answer is None of the above. I live in a poor, urban school district and I have worked for the same poor urban school district for about 10 years now. We used to let schools and teachers decide what to teach, how to teach, when to teach. Every school was able to decide what they would teach and when. School based management would be the answer to everything because educators at the schools had total control. So what happened? We ended up the 3rd from the bottom in our state. Conditions were absymal. Teachers blamed parents, Principals blamed lack of money, there was an underlying feeling of 'they are poor, they are minorities, they can't learn'. Many students might be in 4 or 5 different elementary schools in the same year because they were homeless and had to move or relocate every few weeks or months. We were going to be taken over by the state because things were so bad and getting much worse. We kept spending millions and millions of dollars and things kept getting worse. Finally the state said you have to improve or else we will take you over. Hope was lost because nothing would change the fact that we are a poor urban predominately minority school district. We did what we were forced to do....We hired some outside people to come and help us and they made some changes. First, We developed our standards much more thoroughly. They sat with the teachers to take the state standards and break them down into every grade level, every subject, all the way down to the point where you would have each days lesson plan charted out. We aligned all of schools calendars together so every grade was teaching the same things at the same time (more or less, there may be a few days difference). Everyone followed the standards that our school district set forth. The results? Test scores jumped in every school except one. Schools that had 15% proficient in reading were now around 50%. The single school that did not improve was a hold out because they insisted that their idea of a year round school was the best way to teach. They made no improvement. They taught how they wanted, what they wanted, and their students did not improve. Now they are aligned with all the other schools and have seen the same improvements. We changed our results for the positive because old habits were let go, and new habits were made based on best practices and input from all levels, especially the classroom teacher. However, if it were not for federal mandates, we would not have changed. I believe in the concept of NCLB. Yes 100% will never be reached, but NCLB can improve education far more than anything else has. NCLB is showing us where the problems are if we choose to look at them and not knee jerk react to it. I hope this helps you see my position a little better? I'm not a troll. I believe that public education can be vastly improved by changing the the things that need to be changed, and holding schools (to be clear, I mean more of the Admin types) accountable. To be clear about the teachers teaching what they wanted how they wanted statements. I am NOT saying that those teachers were doing anything wrong. Those same teachers are the teachers that helped define the standards and developed the best practices on how to teach each standard most effectively. They are the ones who came up with lesson plans on how to most effectively teach each tiny part of each standard. This plan was a success because of a different vision to address the problems from the outside people, and the hard work of the teachers. A huge benefit to teachers is now if a student is bouncing schools, that student is not left behind, the student is being taught the same things in every school. Yikes, this is one big post....
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stasia: *snort* If only a "math is cool" poster that features a scarf-wearing penguin ice skating near some numbers and operation signs was able to improve education.
Ice-skating penguins in scarves taught me calculus. Don't discriminate against them because of their species. You're clearly a narrow-minded specist.
-pH
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Stasia: *snort* If only a "math is cool" poster that features a scarf-wearing penguin ice skating near some numbers and operation signs was able to improve education.
Ice-skating penguins in scarves taught me calculus. Don't discriminate against them because of their species. You're clearly a narrow-minded specist.
-pH
I'm such a bad person. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I'm glad you asked, and the answer is None of the above. I live in a poor, urban school district and I have worked for the same poor urban school district for about 10 years now. We used to let schools and teachers decide what to teach, how to teach, when to teach. Every school was able to decide what they would teach and when. School based management would be the answer to everything because educators at the schools had total control. So what happened? We ended up the 3rd from the bottom in our state. Conditions were absymal. Teachers blamed parents, Principals blamed lack of money, there was an underlying feeling of 'they are poor, they are minorities, they can't learn'. Many students might be in 4 or 5 different elementary schools in the same year because they were homeless and had to move or relocate every few weeks or months. We were going to be taken over by the state because things were so bad and getting much worse. We kept spending millions and millions of dollars and things kept getting worse. Finally the state said you have to improve or else we will take you over. Hope was lost because nothing would change the fact that we are a poor urban predominately minority school district. We did what we were forced to do....We hired some outside people to come and help us and they made some changes. First, We developed our standards much more thoroughly. They sat with the teachers to take the state standards and break them down into every grade level, every subject, all the way down to the point where you would have each days lesson plan charted out. We aligned all of schools calendars together so every grade was teaching the same things at the same time (more or less, there may be a few days difference). Everyone followed the standards that our school district set forth. The results? Test scores jumped in every school except one. Schools that had 15% proficient in reading were now around 50%. The single school that did not improve was a hold out because they insisted that their idea of a year round school was the best way to teach. They made no improvement. They taught how they wanted, what they wanted, and their students did not improve. Now they are aligned with all the other schools and have seen the same improvements. We changed our results for the positive because old habits were let go, and new habits were made based on best practices and input from all levels, especially the classroom teacher. However, if it were not for federal mandates, we would not have changed. I believe in the concept of NCLB. Yes 100% will never be reached, but NCLB can improve education far more than anything else has. NCLB is showing us where the problems are if we choose to look at them and not knee jerk react to it.
Thank you for this story.
I think that sometimes it is better to give up local control when the local control clearly is not working.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
DarkKnight, I appreciate your post as well. I can see your point that your district needed a huge overhaul and NCLB ideas are working for you. I think a set of standards and ways of monitoring them are good things. I just think that NCLB is not doing that effectively. You think it is effective because of how your district is working right now and I don't knock you for it. But in my school, in my district, it's not working for many reasons and that is the case across the nation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The standards are being made by people who are out of touch, so that is where the problem would lie. NOT the classroom teacher, but with the standard. The classroom teacher should be telling TEA to change the standards as the standards are "out of touch".
Is it even possible to come up with a set of standards that should be taught? I think this may be the greater problem: Education should not be viewed as a factory system that simply outputs a set of graduates who conform to certain standards. For students, this reduces learning to a means rather than an end, and makes it into something boring rather than something they would value for its own sake.
The goal of the education should not be to produce adults that pass a bunch of standards. The goal should be to produce adults capable of thinking and learning on a high level. There is no metric for this, so it is difficult to standardize. Nevertheless, I think it is more important than ensuring that our students know facts X, Y, and Z.
If the question is "What should our standards be?" then I'd ask "Can we even set standards to measure the things we really care most about?"
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Lots of things to respond to, but I'll go with this first.
quote:So you cannot teach them how to use a calculator AND teach them to learn/memorize things like their times tables? A teacher can't say this is how you do basic computations, and this is how you use a calculator? That to me is still on the teachers end because students should know how to do both.
Sure, you can teach them both. But if you are only allowed to *assess* them when they have a calculator, just how much import do students place on arithmetic? There are very few students who will learn for learning's sake all the way through their schooling. I can teach students several mental math strategies (which equates to classroom time), but if there is never any assessment to measure this empirically (enter the call of "is this going to be on the test?") then a great many students simply won't retain it.
"Use it or lose it" applies here. If you are never called upon to use a muscle, it will atrophy. If you always have a crutch (in this case, a calculator) you will have a harder time when you need to walk on your own.
If your experience has been different, that you've managed to teach students topics without ever having them perform on an assessment, and achieve high retention, I'd love to know your secret.
quote:The results? Test scores jumped in every school except one. Schools that had 15% proficient in reading were now around 50%.
Ah, this is the problem. NCLB works great for schools that were at 15% - there's so much room to improve! You can get your Adequate Yearly Progress from here to eternity if you're starting with 15%. And, not to diminish your achievements, but improving 35% from 15% to 50% is not nearly as difficult as improving 35% from 60% to 95%.
Students trying to pull their grade up from a 55% to a 60% really only need one really good A on a test, maybe master one more concept than they had been to get over the hump. Students trying to pull their grade from 85% to 90% face an almost vertical uphill battle - which is often mathematically impossible. They need to achieve near perfection in order to improve their score at all.
This is why NCLB is a problem.
You know where my last school was failing? The area which has put them on their third year of warning? Special education. The students in the building with learning disabilities were not performing highly enough on the standardized tests.
Because students who have been diagnosed with specific learning problems, often having to do with the printed word or long periods of testing, were not scoring proficiently at a high enough rate, the school was in serious trouble.
Because SpEd scores are not high enough, the school started dragging their feet when asked to test poorly performing students for learning problems. Why add more low performing students if your scores are already too low?
Of course, this doesn't help the students, but it helps the school satisfy the NCLB goals for AYP.
Mandating students to hurdle a certain bar only causes the bar to be lowered so that all students can make it across. How is that helping?
[ February 27, 2006, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Of course, the birth of NCLB was in Houston, home of the Texas Miracle...
See, NCLB can be successful! All you have to do is lie!
Another linky. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Blacwolve, you realize the test you are referring to is the state's test? There is no NCLB test, the test is the one developed by the educator's in each specific state. The states have determined what they deem necessary to pass, NCLB only says that states will work to have their students pass the test that their state says they should be able to pass. I do think NCLB also had states pick other areas to be monitored, like attendance and such.
How does this refute my statement? I said that the problem is that some things just can't be tested by a standardized test. It makes no difference who writes the test.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
DarkKnight,
I think it is now clear to near everyone the reasoning that you specifically have for supporting NCLB. Your specific district was clearly in need of an overhaul. But what do you say to those districts that have 95% proficiency rates that, come 2014 will become a district in need of improvment? How can you expect 100% of the students? When it comes closer to the year, perhaps you'll see as many of us see, that unless it is eliminated or at least revised, that many more districts will be taken over.
Another issue is that there is no standard national test. So what right do I have to assume that all studnets in Texas could pass a New Jersey state test, being as New Jersey has one of the hardest state tests in the nation, why shouldn't New Jersey just 'dumb' down their tests so that they can meet their AVP?
Or better yet, as I've seen. Seeing as if their are under 40 students in the catagory those scores are ignored, why not list students as things that they aren't. We'll have 39 other, 39 Native American, and just make it so that their scores are ignored.
The problem with NCLB is that it is an unreasonable pursuit. Leave the problem to the states. Improve those that are in serious need, not force unreasonable ideals on every school.
On a last note, you mention that everyone blames everyone else, and essentially that the parents bare no responsibility. At least, that's the feeling I've gotten from you. How can you expect one to teach students who have no homelife? Students who are up until 3-5 o'clock in the morning because nobody tells that to go to bed. Students whose parents have told them that the teachers are the enemy and they don't have to listen to them. Students who are so INCREDIBLY babied or neglected by their parents that either they don't care because nobody cares about them or they have been taught that they can do no wrong.
I have seen eighth grade students' parents who have told me that their child is "uncontrollable and so I just let him/her do what they want" or that the student "doesn't like <fill in subject> and I was never good in <subject> so that's the problem they are having" or even worse....
"...................................." The lack of communication that occurs between teacher and parent because the parent refuses to be involved. I have had to call DYFUS on some parents on the basis of negligence because they refused to deal with their child's school behavior.
A major social issue we have in this age is that parenting has gone out the window. Their are few parents left who actually qualify as parents. When parents tell me its "your problem. I don't want to be bothered while I'm at my job." It is cause for serious concern.
B.T.W., what do you teach DarkKnight?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
No Child Left Behind often leaves the gifted behind. My child's school sends its teachers to learn how to better prepare for ISTEP, but won't allow them to go to any other conferences due to funding. When the test is the focus, smart kids learn that what they can really do doesn't matter. That learning is what you do when you're at home playing on the internet. Most schools are set up to teach you how to be a good employee who does what you're told to do competently. Who wants a thinker, an artist, a potential rebel? Keeping schools and children in their places ensures that the Powers that Be can stay happily in control of what goes on in the world. Heaven forbid that children focus on something other than what the president and Congress think is best for them!
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
I haven't read all the replies, and I mean to, but I want to post this:
I am in Texas, I teach high school history. I have no problem teaching to the state standardized test. I've read over the TEKES (state standards) and they're dead on. Kids should know all the things that TEA had decided they need to learn.
My problem is there are too many students who don't care and who want to be "left behind." At the age of 15 or 16 or older if they want to be left behind, they need to be left behind until they learn they want to follow the rules. The alternative should be a community work program unless they get a job on their own. If that is the case, some may realize that school is a better option and want to come back. To which the schools' arms should be wide open.
The kids who want to be left behind turn out to be a disturbance and lead other students, who would normally be okay, away. Then, to top things off, we as teachers are expected to teach morals (but not any based on religious beliefs), sex ed. (though this is TRULY a parents' job), and the schools are expected to provide 2 meals for students who are financially challenged. We're expected to do all this with little administrative support and we aren't allowed to discipline (and the few times that things were serious, it's been overturned because the parent insisted that their child couldn't have done such a thing.)
I end up watering down my cirriculum for those students who need to pass but don't care enough to pick up a pencil to write their name on a piece of paper.
President Bush was extremely optimistic with this legislation and he didn't take into account the agency or will of the students he was trying to help. The public school system is basically a socialist system operating "for the welfare of all." It's a great theory, but it just doesn't work. If we would concentrate on those who want to learn (or those who are compelled by their parents to learn) and let the others tough it out in the occupations that will take them, maybe they would learn an appreciation for scholastic work.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If we would concentrate on those who want to learn (or those who are compelled by their parents to learn) and let the others tough it out in the occupations that will take them, maybe they would learn an appreciation for scholastic work.
In my experience, those "others" are the kids who find illegal and immoral occupations, pick up bad health habits, then top it off with a kid or two by the time they are 18 or 19. If they do learn an appreciation of scholastic work, they have so much baggage and so little support, that it really doesn't matter.
My solution, toughen up the talk with parents. I don't have a perfect solution about how to do this, and surely, it's going to be unpopular with politicians and parents alike, but lets get rid of this idea that parents always know what's best for their child. And if we are serious about not leaving any children behind, I'd like to see more frank public discussions about the burdens of parenthood and how so many parents are failing.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
They're already doing that any way. We've got at least 15 pregnant girls walking around our school. Some think it is the coolest thing.
Make them sweat it out in the real world. Like I said, the alternative would be a mandatory community service job (cleaning up all the crap they've thrown out of their cars on Friday and Saturday night) or proof that they have a job. We already employ social workers at school, employ a vocational coordinator. That way they can get job skills and some experience. With less discipline problems, we wouldn't need as many Assistant Principals.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
quote: As well, I have contaced my congressional representatives.
My congressman in Ron Paul. I must say that I believe this man is awesome. He is a strict constitutionalist. He even came to speak to my AP US History kids. (It was that presentation that actually won me over.)
I think I'll contact him.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm not averse to mandatory community service. I am a little worried about the idea that if you can get a job without school, then you don't need school.
Parents are the last frontier in this war on crime, drugs, and degradation. The problem is that even being a bad parent is so hard that politicians, and even decent people, give bad parents special passes.
He is a strict constitutionalist.
I still don't know what that means. ________
Poor kids and minorities need to morally mature faster than Bush. It took him 28 years, and these kids have 11. It took the Bush daughters 23 or 24, and these kids have 11. A lot of times, sadly enough, it means coping with the understanding that your parents are ignorant or otherwise incompetent. That is not an easy pill to swallow or prescribe. And even once that dose is administered, you have an 11 year-old with a whole lot of needs and impulses and without guidance or resources.
Nobody always knows what is best, not parents, not teachers, not the government, and not yourself, but some people know better than others, and discerning who to listen to when is ticklish business. __________
Jenny, , I'm glad someone is looking out for "gifted" students because I care very little.
[ February 27, 2006, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I still don't know what that means.
Do you really not know? Because I can tell you.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
quote: He is a strict constitutionalist.
I still don't know what that means.
If it's not listed in the Constitution, then the Fedral government can't do it.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian that runs on the Republican ticket...and he keeps getting elected. He's got my vote.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I know, abiding by the strict intentions of the framers, but they neither agreed nor were consistant.
I think it's the Euthyphro where Socrates discusses piety, and the Euthyphro says that piety is doing what pleases the Gods, then Socrates says that you can't do what pleases the Gods because the Gods were plural and warring.
It's the same for the framers.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
I have no response to that.
Darn it, Irami! I have too much to think about right now and then you go and add that! Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:No Child Left Behind often leaves the gifted behind.
As the mother of a gifted child, I completely agree. There isn't even a program anymore in our middle school, the teacher left and they replaced her with someone who was only "highly qualified" in K-6. After sixth grade, no more gifted program. They say that instead, they will put the kids on an "advanced" track which means she is taking algebra this year.
It's not enough to just give gifted kids more work or more advanced work. They need to develop creatively, and instead what they learn is "if you do well, we just pile more work on you." It's not even challenging work, it's just a bigger quantity of it. Very frustrating for kids and parents alike.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Agreed about the gifted kids. But, our district has a gifted program and doesn't do diddly after 5th grade. My step-daughter's "gifted" class got to watch "The Ring" as well as "Orange County" and let's not forget a civil rights movie THREE TIMES because they had time at the end of the week.
I am furious because I get these kids 3 and 4 years later in Pre-AP and AP classes and I have to reteach things they were taught wrong. I'm sorry, the US does not have a democracy like the one they had in ancient Greece. That's what my step-daughter was told and was reprimanded when she stepped up and said we live in a representative Republic. (Imagine that coming from a 6th grader's mouth.) THIS IS THE GIFTED PROGRAM.
Ours is actually funded pretty well, we just have idiots teaching in the program.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I only have about 3 minutes here, so I wish I could respond more but for a quick posting...
quote:No Child Left Behind often leaves the gifted behind. My child's school sends its teachers to learn how to better prepare for ISTEP, but won't allow them to go to any other conferences due to funding.
quote: As the mother of a gifted child, I completely agree. There isn't even a program anymore in our middle school, the teacher left and they replaced her with someone who was only "highly qualified" in K-6. After sixth grade, no more gifted program. They say that instead, they will put the kids on an "advanced" track which means she is taking algebra this year.
It's not enough to just give gifted kids more work or more advanced work. They need to develop creatively, and instead what they learn is "if you do well, we just pile more work on you." It's not even challenging work, it's just a bigger quantity of it. Very frustrating for kids and parents alike.
I think both of these are similar enough to give the same answer. With limited funds, schools have to make hard choices. Gifted children are already far better off than children who are far behind. With limited funds, it makes sense to help those who need it most. Gifted kids are already ahead of the curve. Extra help, bearing in mind the limited funds, going to people who truly need the extra help learning to read, write and do arithmetic is much more important. And No, I did not say that gifted kids are not important or that there is no benefit in helping gifted kids realize their full potential. There absolutely is, but the problem is two-fold, one is funding, the second is presented by aretee
quote:Ours is actually funded pretty well, we just have idiots teaching in the program
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Belle's post brings up an interesting point. I didn't learn algebra until 8th grade; this was when the "advance track" kids took it. Everyone else had to wait until 9th grade. This was the late-80s in a town that was up-and-coming. Now it appears everyone learns it in 8th grade, and some places fast track smart math kids in 7th grade.
This isn't a bad thing, but now I wonder how well would my 8th grade class done on these tests...
And then there are those like my mother who either didn't care or couldn't learn algebra (it took her _3 tries_ to pass the class, and I think she did, but only just barely). My mom, she's smart, but not in math. She graduated back in the "good old days" (the 60s; but her elementary education was in the heralded 50s) when education was presumed to be better, according to all those that say our educational system is slipping.
-Bok
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:That's what my step-daughter was told and was reprimanded when she stepped up and said we live in a representative Republic.
It's a representative republic, kind of, but voter initiatives in the last 40 years have had an enormous impact on the political process. These voter initiatives are darn close to direct democracy. And the reason we don't clamp down on the sway of these ballot propositions is because a representative republic is understood as third best, a necessary infelicity, due to the size of our government. The US isn't an Athenian democracy, but it's not for want of trying, and democratic principles still undergird our government.
The distinction between representative republic and democracy made more sense before infomation technology and the proposition system got their legs. California's Prop 13 is an exemplary model of direct democracy on a large scale with pervasive effects.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Irami, I had this really long response written then realized it was really off topic.
Essentially I agree with what you said. When I teach US History I talk about the shift to more democratic policies, especially during and after the Progressive Era. But, at that level, they are talking about Revolutionary America and this teacher's statement is just wrong. The founders (contentious as they were) were very conscious NOT to create a democracy. They understood the dangers and set in place safeguards...that are increasingly removed.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Completely bypassing most of the thread to respond to one comment by Dan_Raven:
quote:One other fault that insures NCLB is built to fail: My wife works for The Special School District. It is a school full of children with mental and physical problems, some 15 year olds with the learning capacity of 6 year olds, and they are all supposed to take and pass the same exams as normal students. I think it is 90% of all students, despite handicap, must pass these tests or the whole district fails.
This is something that's apparently different with various districts. My younger daughter is also special needs, physical age 9 but cognitive about 4. During our most recent IEP meeting, I was specifically informed that because next year she'll be age-wise considered a third grader and therefore expected to be taking the standardized testing, they are starting now to build a sort of progress book that has to be provided to the State in lieu of the tests. And the kids that go through this alternate program are excluded from the NCLB quotas, as well.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I just love the fact that severe special ed children are expected to have reading and math goals while trying to learn to tie their shoes...
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:I'm not averse to mandatory community service. I am a little worried about the idea that if you can get a job without school, then you don't need school.
That's a bit cruel to people who don't finish school for personal reasons that keep them back until it's just too late to bother, or people who can't finish school because of their financial situation, don't you think?
There are other means, I believe, of earning your way to a professional job besides school. It's a matter of earning it, not just learning it.
[ February 28, 2006, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I just love the fact that severe special ed children are expected to have reading and math goals while trying to learn to tie their shoes...
This is the key issue that is of serious important. That it is expected that students with these issues need to pass the standardized tests. Not all students have the same capacities for learning, and yet we are telling them they need to pass these tests. Even with extended time, it is still on their own merit.
This is similar for ESL students. Even if the student has only been in the country for a matter of months, they are still expected to pass. This is why we need to contact our representatives and tell them to, at the very least, revise NCLB.
Expecting 100% is too much and unreasonable. 80% would be more logical and understandable, but not 100%.
I urge all to please contact your national representatives and tell them that it needs to be changed. Because otherwise, we will see the end of public education.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Let's also not forget what else is missed when the focus lies on standardized testing. I just got a job teaching a band at a middle school in Oregon that used to be among the best middle school bands in the state, even ranking higher than some of the top HIGH school bands at festivals and competitions. Music used to be a high priority for this middle school, but because of the pressures of meeting Annual Yearly Progress, the traditional 7-period schedule has been reformed to something that gives an inordinate amount of time to math and reading, but cuts science, social studies, and all electives down to a pretty ridiculous amount.
Students complain that the 78 daily minutes of reading and math are not used to their fullest ability. SOME teachers complain that they are not as far along in their curriculum as they would be in the old schedule. Meanwhile, test scores fail to improve at an acceptable rate, and we have taken from the kids the kind of classes that make coming to school worthwhile for many of them.
Experience from decades of school reform shows that throwing money at or increasing instruction time related to a subject does NOT increase student performance. The three most important factors in student success (in order) are 1)parental involvement, 2) Socio-economic status, and 3) teacher effectiveness.
The first one is difficult in today's society, since parents regard education as being the job solely of the teachers. Also, more and more families have both parents working, which makes it difficult for the parents to be actively involved in their child's education, let alone their life. The second factor, SES, is highly related to the first, as families with a high SES are more likely to be able to operate from a single income, thereby allowing one parent to work with their children.
The last factor is hard to evaluate. Is a teacher effective because their students pass tests? Because the students "like" their teacher? Because the students all get A grades? No, no and no!
In order for a teacher to be effective, they must a) be familiar with the subject material, b) have a variety of methods of relating this material to the students that appeals to a variety of learning styles, c) have skills that allow the teacher to manage a classes social behavior such that the students are attentive and receptive to the subject material, and d) perform all of this in an environment that the students look forward to coming to, day after day.
And they say teacher's have it easy.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Perhaps a more accurate thread title would Public Education's Ending. As many have said, all too often parents are not involved in their children's learning.
This is completely backwards!! Parents have the sole responsibility to educate their children. If they choose to do so by sending their children to public schools, that's great, but schools alone will not produce a well-adjusted, educated individual.
Parents must do their duty, leaving much of the academic development to the schools if they choose (aware of the risk they will acquire skills for standardized testing rather than life skills). I believe one of the best things I can do for my children is instill in them a love of learning. I further believe one way to do this is by being willing to answer questions children have.
My wife and I spend a great deal of time answering our inquisitive 3-year-old's neverending questions to her satisfaction. It's wonderful and beautiful to watch her face as she understands something more about her world. We are trying to do the same for our 1-year-old. If we were always too busy to respond, what message would that send about questioning, curiosity, and learning?
Many people take this a step further and homeschool, but not everyone can do this.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Parents have the sole responsibility to educate their children.
I'm not sure that's true. For better or for worse, every child is unleashed upon the world, so there is a sense in which the world has a stake in that child's education, which is one of the reasons Americans rightfully get a little nervous about the teachings of a madras half way across the planet.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Perhaps a more accurate thread title would Public Education's Ending.
Like I said (much) earlier. NCLB is a not so subtle attack on the institution of Free Public Education, by providing for public support of alternative systems. If it is allowed to continue to the likely conclusion, we will find the Nation in the same fix as the deep south did in the early sixties. Officials, whose childeren were educated in inadequately funded private "freedom academies", were unwilling to provide the needed funding for public schools. Consequently all schools were inadequate and we lost the best contributions of an entire generation.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
quote: Parents have the sole responsibility to educate their children. If they choose to do so by sending their children to public schools, that's great, but schools alone will not produce a well-adjusted, educated individual.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
We in the public school system should augment and broaden what is being done in the home. I don't know much about chemistry, so I will send my child to someone who does. It is my job to ensure that my children do their work and behave while in someone else's classroom. Too many parents now a days think every thing is up to the school. That is what I am fighting against.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
While I'm not an educator, and I don't have a professional opinion, as a student, in terms of NCLB/testing, this is what I have seen:
I hail from a suburb where we always were the top of the state in standardized tests. However, the catch is that we would spend 2 WEEKS TAKING PRACTICE EXAMS. Seriously, all education, except that which is specifically on the tests, was halted in order for us to once again, get great scores. And, of course, because we were a good school district, what we were learning in class was more advanced than the tests and then, come 3 weeks after testing, we would have forgotten the previous lessons and have ot be retaught. I really felt that at some point, the value of education was completely skewed. At what point are these teachers just teaching to an exam rather than teaching well in general? It's a lot easier to teach people how to take tests than to actually teach.
Aretee: I am so jealous that Rep. Paul is your congressman! He's awesome.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We in the public school system should augment and broaden what is being done in the home.
Have you seen what goes on in some of these homes?
quote:It is my job to ensure that my children do their work and behave while in someone else's classroom.
Your job is bigger than that. Good luck, though.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Of course I know that, Irami. But it is not the school's job nor the Federal goverment's job to parent. I know there are crappy parents out there; it is heart breaking to me...but it is still NOT the governments job to deal with it through the school system.
[ February 28, 2006, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: aretee ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Well, according to the Massachusett's state constitution, as you seem to be partial to the constitutionalists, it is the government's job:
Chapter Five, section II
quote:Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
I think Sam Adams, John Adams, and James Bowdoin are clear. I also think that better the school and library systems than social services, welfare, emergency healthcare, and the penal system.
[ February 28, 2006, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Did you miss the part where I said FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S job?
And, I don't live in Massachusetts.
One reason that may be included is that the Founders believed that our government could not survive without a moral and educated people.
If schools are to teach all those things, give us the power to discipline and back us up. But I really rue this brand of socialism in our republic.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Did you miss the part where I said FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S job?
I did catch the part where you said it isn't the school's job. As to the breadth of the Adams men's statement,
quote:Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people
it seems they were making a statement about the dictates of democracy, not were narrowly talking about Massachusetts.
quote:One reason that may be included is that the Founders believed that our government could not survive without a moral and educated people.
I agree. Hop to it.
quote:If schools are to teach all those things, give us the power to discipline and back us up.
Well, you don't get to paddle anymore, but short of corporal punishment-- which I'm not sure is the appropriate way to cultivate social affections and generous sentiments-- what kind of power do you want?
quote:But I really rue this brand of socialism in our republic.
Hey, that's not my problem. You've got a job to do, and I'm in support of giving you anything you need to do it, short of a baseball bat or a hickory switch.
[ February 28, 2006, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Discipline is very often a problem when students don't feel invested in their education. If a student does not see the relevance or use of the topics being covered, then that child will have less interest in sitting through a class period without finding other outlets for his or her amusement.
We do a poor job of getting students invested in education.
The fault of this, however, I do not place on the teacher, but on the system of education we currently abide by.
We expect students to learn standards, which more often than not are not things they use yet in their day to day lives. For instance, multiplication of fractions is wonderful (both in method and concept), but a 12 year old just doesn't find much call for it in their lives.
Those students who value school, and have placed their interest in doing well and achieving academic goals, are the darlings of the classroom. Those students who don't value school as a thing in itself, and have goals that are not academic, tend to be the students lacking in discipline.
I have had a student with a terrible, terrible home life be totally motivated because I was teaching him not to get ripped off by salespeople giving him the wrong change. He could do addition and subtraction of decimals in his sleep.
I have also had students with wonderfully academic parents (teachers, doctors, etc) who didn't give a rat's patootie what went on in the classroom (and, my favorite, didn't care if they got shortchanged, because their parents would give them more money).
We need to increase relevance. If we can accomplish this for all students, then the problems of parental involvement and discipline would lessen tremendously.
Of course, this would take radical school reform, in my opinion. This goal of college preparation is not shared by a great many of our nation's students, so why do we force them through a standard high school regimen of courses?
Why are we closing trade schools and doing away with elective creative arts programs? We should be embracing them.
Students with affinity and interest in music should be taught math, science, literature and social studies using that as a medium. Math could be covered in the music itself, costs of various pieces of equipment, comparison shopping, ticket costs to overhead ratios, personal finance, etc. The science of sound and rhythm, from biological production of voice, to the chemistry and physics of different materials used for instruments. Reading the biographies of great musicians, writing reviews and personal statements, analyzing the works of different composers.
It would all tie back to the subject of interest, and the skills learned would be put into immediate practice.
The same could be done for any of the creative arts or trades, and there could be college preparatory schools right alongside for those students whose interests lie in fields that require advanced degrees.
Why push all students to get a generic high school diploma (which is meaning less and less) when they could learn the same requisite skills and "standards" as applied to a specific field or craft.
Students would be more invested in their education, and would learn more in the long (and short) run.
Of course, the students would go to schools based on field of interest/aptitude rather than on which city/town they lived in. Which would require an entirely new way of funding education (not property taxes). And teachers would need to be trained in entirely different ways, as well.
All the changes of NCLB and the last decade have been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as far as I'm concerned. The ship is slowly (rapidly?) sinking, and we're really only making cosmetic changes.
Of course, such drastic change would never happen. [/pipedream]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We need to increase relevance. If we can accomplish this for all students, then the problems of parental involvement and discipline would lessen tremendously.
Agreed.
But I'll clarify, increasing relevance doesn't necessarily mean teaching them trade skills, although practical skills are part of the bundle. A relevant curriculum includes a curriculum that helps students develop a sense of dignity, then gives them the tools to realize the dictates of their sense of dignity, self-respect, and humanity.
The problem is that creating a standardized test that compliments this curriculum is not a mean issue. If students have a deep sense of dignity, self-respect, humanity, teaching them fractions and the periodic table is much, much easier. In addition, while knowledge of either of those is handy sometimes, a sense of dignity, self-respect, and humanity is appropriate all of the time.
[ March 02, 2006, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm all for that, to be sure.
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
Okay, so I've missed this conversation, but I'm just popping in to say I'm a member of the class of 2008 and NCLB officially sucks, in my opinion.
I would say more, but I have to prepare for the test that begins in two weeks.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:A relevant curriculum includes a curriculum that helps students develop a sense of dignity, then gives them the tools to realize the dictates of their sense of dignity, self-respect, and humanity.
My cadet unit teaches all those things, though I can't quite pinpoint how, except that the fact that if you don't mature you don't acheieve the next rank. It's almost completely practical, except for about three to five tests per rank. I joined it after having given up on the school system, and thought if school had been like this I would easily have finished.
Of course, it seems the whole system comes down to the fact that rank has its priviliges, and is the perfect incentive to get better. It even puts you into a position of maturity, confidence and leadership (BandoCommando seems to have something a lot like this), because if you don't have those things you lose your rank.
The question is though, could schools use a ranking system for incentives? Or better yet, do military schools use a ranking system for incentives?
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
It seems to me that this discussion has begun to branched out into the more general reasoning for education. Perhaps we are seeing the demise of free and public education. The results of NCLB may seem good now, to those who have shown moderate improvement.
Perhaps in 4 years, they'll feel differently. When the % passing becomes too high to manage. I understand the purpose of the belief in accountability, I use it in my classroom on a daily basis. If anything, my 8th grade students will leave with a feeling of responsibility for the actions they take.
The issue is not whether or not the parents should be involved, because education has made their choice that it can be done without them. I for one disagree with this, but I am only one voice.
Too often people in our country sit on our hands because the daily grind interferes. That is something that needs to change. We who speak here are speaking out against a grave mistake, but it takes more than words on a forum.
Someone mentioned early on " But what can we do? Refuse to let children take the tests? Write to our senators and congresspeople? March in the streets? " and my answer is Yes to the last two. Writing congressional representatives may not make a difference if only a few do, but there are millions of teachers in this country. I doubt that the majority of teachers agree with this. As for marching in the streets, perhaps not to that extent, but we can rally our fellow teachers and try to explain to our towns why this is a problem. We can get the word out as people used to do when they saw a problem.
Our society has fallen into the opinion that nothing can be changed because that's how it always has been. We have become distrusting and fearful of making a scene. We sink into television shows to ignore what is going on, and worst of all... We do nothing to change what is thrown at us. We do not fight for what's necessary, because we believe that no one will stand with us. With that, we fail ourselves and those we teach.
Many of us who speak here are educators, we know what it is like to see the enlightening of a student's mind. If we allow NCLB to continue, we won't see that anymore. This is an issue that needs to be stood up to. This is for the future of public education. Without a fight against it, public education will fail, and many will go without the wisdom that they used to receive.
The first step is to get the parents to understand how it is a problem. To remind them that it was the public schools that raised them and gave them their education, and show them that the consequences of not doing this is the failure for their children.
I know this is a long post, but I need it to be understood that we can do things to start the ball rolling, but without a push, we'll just be spectators.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Perhaps we are seeing the demise of free and public education.
Perhaps we need to see the demise of the current free and public education? Education has not been improving, it has been declining for decades. Public education is far from free. Total federal, state, and local spending for education, both public and private, climbed to $745 billion for the 2001-2002 school year. Sixty-one percent, or $454 billion, was spent on K-12 education.
quote: Perhaps in 4 years, they'll feel differently. When the % passing becomes too high to manage.
I would be insanely happy if the problem we were facing is that our schools across the board had this problem. If our public schools were having great difficulty raising the overall test scores from 92% to 95% then we could say what a success public education is. This is not, and will not be a problem if we remove NCLB. Extremely few schools in our nation are suffering from having too high of a % of children passing their tests. Maybe we need to break the monopoly of public education and rebuild a better public educational system.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
Tell me what has changed from the education system of old? Education has been the same, society has changed.
As well you misinterpreted the quote that you took. The % I was speaking of was the % required by NCLB. If your district is able to get to that point, it will be excessively difficult to increase this percentage to 100%. What then? Should your district be closed because you cannot get 100%? Should your district be restructured despite a 99% passing rate? Those districts that are struggling as it is, due to circumstances that you have chosen to ignore, will fail not due to ineptness of the educational system, but by the demise of the family structure in the United States.
Monopoly you say? No one forces people to attend public school, they can by all means send their children to private school. For the right amount of money. WITHOUT public education the masses would go uneducated and unraised as our society ignores to take responsibility for their youth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DK: perhaps you could provide some evidence education has been declining? I've only seen an increase in the percentage of students taking advanced classes, and that normalized tests have had to be continually renormed upwards (one of the most common, false, assertions is that spending has been increasing but students haven't been doing better on standardized tests -- they have, generally, but those standardized tests are renormalized, so the same score a few years later represents more learning, meaning the average score stays about the same despite improvement).
I am at least heartened you're willing to consider a new public educational system as a replacement for this one, which does have significant problems.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
DarkKnight, do you even know what a monopoly is? Seriously, you guys...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Tell me what has changed from the education system of old? Education has been the same, society has changed.
That is one of my points. Why hasn't education changed?
quote: As well you misinterpreted the quote that you took. The % I was speaking of was the % required by NCLB.
Nope I got it. I know what you are talking about. So far that is NOT a problem. The overwhelming majority of schools are not close to 100%. If the problem was as I stated that schools were struggling to improve in the 90% range then we can look at other things. But now, right now and for the next several years, worrying about what will happen if your school can't reach 100% is not an issue. Statewide in PA, we are at 49% for 11th grade math, and 61% for 11th grade reading. We have a long long way to go before worrying what will happen when we reach 95%. Yes, Monopoly I do say. All children are forced to attend school and if they can't afford a private school, they are forced to go to a public school. I did not say in any way to do away with public education. I said in my last line 'rebuild a better public education system'. Just like you said in your opening line, society has changed but public education has not. Public education should change, and change for the better. You are taking that to mean the total destruction of any public school which I am not saying. I am saying that we can do a lot better, especially for the children who need it the most. (edited slightly because I kept doubling words?)
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
If about 90% of students attend public school isn't that a monopoly? I would argue that public education is a government funded monopoly. Since we are paying for that monopoly shouldn't we be getting a better public education than we currently have?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Monopoly is an odd word. Colloquially, 90% would typically be considered a monopoly. Economically, it would not. However, the economic definition is not particularly applicable in this case. It isn't necessarily inappropriate to fall back on the colloquial definition, but as the colloquial definition has really no explanatory or prescriptive power (that is, it doesn't tell us anything about why or what, if anything should be done in response), there's not much point.
Regarding whether we should be getting a better public education than we currently have, I suspect that our public educational system is doing just about as well as is possible given other systemic factors. For instance, one can hardly expect a wildly successful public education system in the inner cities given how common extreme inner city poverty is.
And of course, we really aren't paying very much for our public education system, its a remarkably small expenditure for its scope.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
$745 billion is remarkably small?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It is as a percentage of our GDP, DarkKnight. Plus to compare 2 eras, it helps to use a common year currency to compare the two expenditures.
After all, 40 years ago $1million was worth more than it is now. So it's nonsensical to just bring up one dollar amount.
40 years ago we also had higher drop out rates, so the system culled itself of the people who would have brought down those test scores. Also, kids are simply learning more, earlier, than before.
You are just throwing out some numbers and opinions without thinking it through, IMO. The educational system in the USA isn't perfect, but it's very likely the best one in the history of mankind, as far as it's depth AND breadth is concerned. We can do better, but lets not just trash it because it doesn't meet our current expectations.
-Bok
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
quote: Perhaps in 4 years, they'll feel differently. When the % passing becomes too high to manage.
I would be insanely happy if the problem we were facing is that our schools across the board had this problem. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Quoting you, quoting me.... IN 4 YEARS, as I said, when the % have increased by another large percentage. Perhaps you forgot.
Education has changed. The majority of the material has not changed. DarkKnight, you agree with NCLB because you have seen improvments. When the percentages increase to the point that it becomes unreasonable, what then? I say as I've said since the beginning, a lower percent is reasonable, 80% perhaps, but not 100%. 100% is illogical and it needs to be altered. Better to get rid of NCLB and put something in place that makes a little more sense.
As far as the cost that you represent, the problem is that we are increasing it to include more technology instead of teaching conceptually as it was done of old. Concepts get students much farther than being able to avoid learning the idea as calculators and computers allow them to do.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note the qualifier: for its scope. Consider that its a program that encompasses at some point or another nearly every person in the entire United States, by far most of them for thirteen years, and quite a few of them for seventeen years.
Consider that its a program turning out some of the most successful students in the world (note: I'm not talking about how they test compared to other students in the world, I'm talking about how they do after finishing school).
Consider that even were the system to just provide daycare for the twenty million children (as of 2000) in the US ages 5 to 9, at a rate of just $100 per week, it would cost fifty billion dollars.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
I hate to see this thread die, because I think more needs to be said.
I am looking for ideas that anyone can give to alter NCLB to something that is more logical that I can take to my representatives and to use to promote the change to the masses.
Anything that you can offer will be acknowledged. It must be brought to the attention of the government that NCLB is unreasonable. It must be brought with force by the people, because it needs to stop. The citizens of the United States now feel disillusioned by the government and don't believe that they can make a difference. Help rid our schools of outrageous idealism and help take back something that means everything for our society.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The difficulty, Johivin, is not NCLB - that's just one large and visible problem within a host of other issues. The best metaphor I can use is that the patient is sick, NCLB was incorrectly prescribed as a treatment, and the medication is doing more harm to the patient than good.
Instead of trying to use NCLB to solve the nation's educational ills, there needs to be whole system change. The patient's entire lifestyle/diet/environment/habits/routine must be altered to correctly address the problem.
People sometimes say that the educational system used to work great, and now it doesn't. While there is some debate as to how great the educational system was in the past (especially with regards to race/gender equality), there have been some major changes on both sides of the desk since then.
First and foremost, the goal of the system used to be to buff and polish the classroom gems, give the majority of students adequate skills to find a job, and ignore the students who would "never get it" or pull them from the classroom in one way or another.
Now the goal is to buff and polish every student the same way, be they diamonds (those students who could easily skip a grade or two and still succeed) or granite (those highly resistant, disruptive, don't-care-if-they-pass-or-fail students who may have already stayed back a grade). The unrealistic expectation is that every student can come out glistening the same way, regardless of all the thousands of other factors in their life.
(Just so it doesn't sound too callous, granite is far more useful than diamonds in a great many areas, but not for shining and polishing. Yet all students are expected to achieve academic success, when many would find far greater success training for a career/job rather than studying for college. If we sent every child off to the academy throughout the history of the world, civilization would have collapsed for lack of craftsmen, merchants, farmers, artisans, soldiers, etc. Not all niches of society require advanced academic training.)
The second major change that must be dealt with is in the student and the parents. Parents today are far more leary of authority figures than they were fifty years ago, and most of the parents of today grew up in an era of political corruption and police abuse in the media. There is less trust for teachers than there once was for many segments of our society, and this is reflected in the students.
Further, children have a lot more freedom for self distraction today than they once did. Between the instant ability to communicate via cell phones and the internet, the instant mindless entertainment at their fingertips on their computers or gaming systems, and the infinite mindless viewing options on the internet and television, many students are getting lost in the bright lights.
Sixty years ago, none of this was present in a child's life - and entertainment was limited to a few stations on a television most families didn't own, radio broadcasts (that, quite frankly, built listening skills far more than anything today), physical interaction with their peers outside the house, and reading.
Moreover, the entertainment the students are exposed to validates a defiant attitude towards adults or authority figures, shortens attention spans and tolerance for long periods of sameness, and reduces the acquisition of reading skills.
In short, the student of today is a far different animal than the student of the past.
BUT, does this mean they are inherently less teachable? NO. It just means that the system we've relied upon for generations needs to be altered as drastically as the students it is expected to educate.
To use another analogy, it's as if we're eating at a restaurant that has totally changed its cuisine from soups to steaks, and we're still trying to eat with spoons. The education system needs to adapt by a complete changing of its methods, rather than by trying to sharpen its spoons.
My concern is whether this sort of drastic change is possible. At this point in time, I don't think it is. The politicians are too invested in their current plans, the teachers associations are too entrenched to allow major structural changes, and the system of funding schools is seriously flawed. All three would need to change in order to effect true school reform.
Here's my pipedream.
First step, toss NCLB and the idiotic focus on testing-instead-of-educating to stop the bleeding.
Second step, pay teachers an attractive wage that represents the responsibility they have for educating the next generation of our society (teachers should be able to comfortably afford a house in the town/city they teach in, or a nearby suburb, for instance - which is difficult in many places).
Third step, toss tenure and find a fair way of assessing teacher performance that *does not* include the people they may politically influence in the loop (independent auditors, more frequent observations - i.e. no more one-a-year observations with 24 hour notice that burn-outs can easily wake up for, replace them with random several-times-a-year observations by outside auditors a teacher doesn't know and can't influence).
Fourth step, do away with property tax funding and find an alternate method (tax the people benefiting most from the product of education, maybe those who hire our graduates rather than those who just happen to own property).
Fifth step, drastically overhaul our goals for our students and do away with the unrealistic expectation that all students need to go to college (bring back trade and art schools and develop more career-training/ apprentice programs).
I know, I know. Pipedream. And I'm sure it's got plenty of flaws I haven't seen (I've found many and have ways of accommodating for them, but there are definitely problems I can't foresee).
I'm just tired of all the cosmetic changes we're making to a structurally troubled system.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
"Free Public Education" (note the capital letters) is as much a pillar of our society as the Constitution (the only one we have. Does that make THAT a monopoly.) or our diverse economy. It needs to be cherished. It is not a failed system. It can be improved, but using it as a political red flag is just wrong on so many levels.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Fifth step, drastically overhaul our goals for our students and do away with the unrealistic expectation that all students need to go to college (bring back trade and art schools and develop more career-training/ apprentice programs).
I'm wary of these programs, but if I were convinced that elementary and junior high school reading and writing courses were made rigorous, and reading and writing literature were encouraged, even at these trade schools, I could find myself supporting such a plan.
I can support a plan that did not focus on moving every student to college, but I will not support a plan for education that even insinuates that a person in this state is fully mature without the ability or drive to read and write.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm with you on that Irami. Every person should be able to read, write, and calculate - and not just at a simplistic level.
But what we ask our students to read and write is often considered "boring" to them because they have no interest in the material.
Back to the standardized test stuff, we have them read passages about some random topic, then answer questions and write response essays. How is that really helping? Other than drilling them and making reading even less interesting then they found it before?
If a young person decided that they really wanted a career in music, they could attend an art school that specialized in that. But along with the training in their specific talent area, they would also have math, science and literature - but themed to their focus. For instance, a reading list with musicians in mind, that could be used to teach all the same concepts of plot, character, etc... but would have more direct ties to the students lives.
Fractions could be handled with practical application to writing and reading music, and ratios could be covered with chords and instrument pitches - tying the subjects together, with decimals and percentages covered in finance and economics classes for personal investment and planning.
Within this framework, you could also teach students the elements of other parts of the music industry, from being agents to managers to sound technicians to lawyers to producers. And those students who wanted to go to college would still have those requisite skills - but with a musical flavor.
Such schools could be set up for a variety of arts and trades, tailoring curriculum to the interests of that special interest school - rather than teaching a generic curriculum to a broad range of students.
It could work... at least it could in my mind.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
In this thread it seems that cultural aspect is being overlooked, especially concerning minorities. Some of the most struggling schools that have been mentioned here are filled with minority students.
We've been talking in this thread as if education is a common, homogenous value shared by all Americans. This is not the case. I personally know several Latin parents that have discouraged their children from finishing high school so they can get a job. This was not to help the family out for money, this was because they honestly thought it was the best for their kids or younger siblings. I don't know near as many African-Americans as I do Latin-Americans, but from those few I have talked to and from my attempts to be aware there seems to be an anti-educational cultural pressure present-'going white.'
On the other hand, I saw a statistic about 6 months ago that Asian-Americans outperform their white peers. The Asians I know have always enshrined education with an almost relegious fervor.
My point is, besides economic barriers there are some root cultural issues that need to be addressed. Without support of the parents and the desire of the students to learn, I don't see how we can expect the teachers to succeed, NCLB act or no NCLB act. I just wish I had some good ideas how to approach this.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
BaoQingTian, That is an issue that I think many of us are well aware of. The cultural issues. However, that is an issue that is not helped by NCLB. That is an issue that schools have always shied away from. However, the point is that NCLB forces these issues away from discussion and forces the schools to deal with test scores. Once NCLB is no more, maybe we can finally have it out with the parents to show them the value.
Flying Cow,
I agree with many of the things that you say. I agree that education needs to be reformed, however there are some issues I have with your suggestions.
1) With all the money that is being spent in foreign lands on wars and the like, the people will not want to pay more to pay teachers what they deserve. As well, with NCLB still in effect it makes the teachers look less deserving.
2)Without tenure, many districts would simply toss older teachers in favor of new teachers who they can pay less. There is no incentive and its makes the teachers expendible in the minds of school boards and administrators.
3)Companies and people who benefit from people being educated will just find ways to reduce their taxes by hiding their income levels.
4)The biggest problem with bringing back trade schools and apprenticeships is that it allows those who qualify under the 'bad teacher' mentality to simply fail students and attempt to push people into alternatives and away from college. As well personal biases come into place on many levels. I do think that schools need to have a larger variety of "electives" that is larger than is currently applied. As well, make them necessary classes. It allows the students to get a glimpse of different fields without force.
Bring back trade schools, but it has to be on the student's desire, not on the schools. I think that many schools would put undue pressure on students they may dislike to go into these schools to get them away.
Johivin Ryson.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'll address your points one by one.
quote:1) With all the money that is being spent in foreign lands on wars and the like, the people will not want to pay more to pay teachers what they deserve. As well, with NCLB still in effect it makes the teachers look less deserving.
One, NCLB would have been gone in the first step. Two, with a shift in funding, property taxes would drop significantly, and the money would be coming from other areas. Would the cost of certain products go up? Probably, as the companies tried to offset the education tax.
But, you're right, that it would be more expensive, and people don't like expensive things. This is why Walmart is successful - lower quality for lower price. It's become the American Way.
quote:2)Without tenure, many districts would simply toss older teachers in favor of new teachers who they can pay less. There is no incentive and its makes the teachers expendible in the minds of school boards and administrators.
First of all, there would be no more "districts" in the old sense... because property taxes would not be funding education, the idea of a regional district would be gone. There would be overarching administration for like-themed schools, but not on a town by town basis.
Second, take the firing of teachers out of the hands of the building supervisors. Set up an independent system of auditors who observe teachers frequently throughout the year without notice, with short post-interviews of teachers after each observation.
The auditors would be given a rubric of things to look for and an evaluation form to fill out. They would see several teachers every day, so that by the end of even just one year, you have auditors who have seen thousands of different teachers.
Moreover, these auditors would rotate regionally, not returning to the same school in the same year. This way, the auditors have a reduced amount of contact with building politics, and would even be evaluating the administration while in-building.
The way observations stand now, even the worst teacher in the world can whip up a "one day only" lesson plan given notice and execute it to the letter. To burnout teachers, observations are a joke - just a show to be put on once a year.
With ten or more unannounced observations in a year on record, you can see a trend. Gone would be the teachers whose lesson plans consist of "what video while I show today" and gone would be the teachers who never have any control over their classrooms.
The independent auditors would make determinations after every year based on reviews, and would put teachers on warning after a year of bad observations. The second year's observations would be decisive as to whether that teacher continued on in that capacity.
With higher salaries all around, there would be more candidates to choose from to replace the poor teachers.
But, again, this is still all pipe dreaming, because the associations would never on their best day allow this to happen. It would mean dropping their favorite weapon and shield, no matter how inefficient and obsolete they are.
quote: 3)Companies and people who benefit from people being educated will just find ways to reduce their taxes by hiding their income levels.
I'm not an economist, so I don't know how this part would be handled, quite honestly. One method would be to give them an easy way of avoiding this tax - sponsor a school. If a corporation sponsors a school (or schools), they could defer this cost from their taxes.
Microsoft and Intel could easily sponsor technical schools and provide them with all manner of resources, money, training and equipment. Ford, Chevy and Jeep could sponser mechanical schools in much the same way. Music production companies could sponsor music schools, and huge finance firms could sponser college mathematics prep schools.
This is the stickiest wicket I've got, since I know very little about economics. I'd imagine that as good as the economists the corporations have to hide money, there could be economists just as good to close the loopholes. But I'm in the dark in this area for now.
quote: 4)The biggest problem with bringing back trade schools and apprenticeships is that it allows those who qualify under the 'bad teacher' mentality to simply fail students and attempt to push people into alternatives and away from college. As well personal biases come into place on many levels.
The "simply failing" students would all be handled by the independent auditors, obviously, and teachers who "just fail" students would be weeded out by that process.
The hope is that this "you must go to college or you'll never amount to anything" mentality would change or go away, and the "you should find a field you will enjoy and succeed in and work towards that goal" mentality would reign supreme.
Real counselors at the middle and high school level would be needed to help students assess their goals and choose the themed schools they wish to *apply* to. Obviously, some poeple might want to be musicians but have no musical talent whatsoever (watch American Idol), so such a school would have an audition process. Each of the various schools would have some minimum requirement for entry.
This would also call for shorter term remediated schools that could help catch up those students who fell far behind in early grades. Two year schools to give them the requisite reading and mathematics skills they missed, and to help them choose a four year secondary program that suits them best.
Again, pipe dream.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Here's another pipedream I wanted to throw out while I was on the issue of fantasy education.
I came to a few understandings while I taught these past four years.
The first was that students learn at different levels - we already do this, breaking these levels into grades - and some schools breaking them further into accelerated programs and remedial programs.
The second was that we need to teach students at different levels to maximize their performance. Teaching students concepts that are either above or beneath them does not help their progress.
The third was more a realization than an understanding, but, and this is important, *student learning level does not correspond to biological age*. So, this forced me to ask the question, why do we force fit students into age group learning levels when their ability clearly is not at the level of their same-age peers?
Sure, some students skip a grade, and some are left back. But these are extreme cases. There are plenty of sixth grade students operating on a fifth or fourth grade level, and plenty more operating on a seventh or eighth grade level. But they aren't so far ahead or behind to warrant a full year move into a goup of students at a socially different age - they would be the odd one out.
Here's my next pipedreamish proposal.
Instead of having eight grades of primary/middle school that promote their students each June, why not have twenty grades with flexible promotion at any point during the year?
Traditional first grade material would be covered in levels 1-3, lets say - but many students could easily enter the school at level 3 based on preliminary testing and kindergarten performance. Similarly, sixth grade students may be anywhere from 13-15, with low performing students maybe around 12 and higher performing students up around 16.
Students could learn at their own pace, and have intermediate goals set where they could push forward without waiting until the following September.
Even more, there could be varying levels for differing subjects. A student could be a level 12 math, but a level 8 language. Or a student could be a level 15 language but a level 9 math. The standard would be that every student would need to hit, say, level 16 in both areas before moving on to their choice of secondary school.
I know, I know, before you say it, this would be a logistical nightmare, and would require a whole host of teachers to accomplish. Plus, it would drastically change socialization of students - though I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.
Just wanted to throw it out there.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: 1) With all the money that is being spent in foreign lands on wars and the like, the people will not want to pay more to pay teachers what they deserve. As well, with NCLB still in effect it makes the teachers look less deserving.
Money being spent anywhere else in the world is not the problem, never has been. There is no lack of money in education. Education is absolutely swimming in money. The problem is where the money is being spent. I know most of you won't believe me, but take a look at your schools spending, I mean it's actual spending. You should be able to see the School Board books or reports or whatever you call them, it's a Public school so I think in most states it will all be Public knowledge. Ask them to see the financial part of it, or really the whole thing as you can learn quite a bit. My first guess is that you will meet with great opposition because they do not want you to know where and how that money is being spent, nor how much they are truly spending. The people have NO say in how much teachers are paid. That is the between the teachers union and the school board. The public is not asked to give the teachers a raise or not. It is not voted on by the public. So the teacher pay issue is a union/management issue and not a people are tired of paying for things issue.
quote: 2)Without tenure, many districts would simply toss older teachers in favor of new teachers who they can pay less. There is no incentive and its makes the teachers expendible in the minds of school boards and administrators.
I don't think you have any proof of this? This is just what you think might happen. It is very naive to think that just because they can pay new teachers less they will fire all the veteran teachers. Removing tenure will allow Principals to take more action against the few (please note I said few, as in not many at all) teachers who are not cut out to be teachers. The teachers already have unions to protect them, they do not also need tenure. You cannot just up and fire a teacher because they have been there for 10 years or 20 years. This is why there is a Teachers Union, that is more than enough protection against unjust firings. Tenure should be immediately removed. Granted, this is my opinion, but it seems like a rational one. Removing tenure will do no harm to the below average, average and above average teachers. It may make things simpler to remove the small minority of teachers who are simply not working out.
quote: 3)Companies and people who benefit from people being educated will just find ways to reduce their taxes by hiding their income levels.
I'm unsure of what you are trying to say for this one...
quote: 4)The biggest problem with bringing back trade schools and apprenticeships is that it allows those who qualify under the 'bad teacher' mentality to simply fail students and attempt to push people into alternatives and away from college. As well personal biases come into place on many levels. I do think that schools need to have a larger variety of "electives" that is larger than is currently applied. As well, make them necessary classes. It allows the students to get a glimpse of different fields without force.
I think public trade schools would be a great thing. College is overrated and specialized courses can benefit many students more than college. Of course, this could be because I never went to college, and have had many family memebers who went to trade schools instead of college. But then again, I do have siblings who attended college and are also doing very well. NCLB is the only thing that has ever attempted to ensure that all children are receiving an adequate education. Completely doing away with NCLB would do more harm than good. At least with standards based education you know exactly what your children are learning, as opposed to the "Trust us, they are learning" mentality that exists out there
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Johivin, I agree with you. Perhaps my post did not come off as clear as I would have liked, but I was attempting to point out that lack of acknowledgement of cultural factors is a major blindspot of the NCLB act and that ignoring this one factor alone could doom it to failure (or if it is to survive it would need to be so drastically altered as to not even be the same bit of legislation).
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
I am impressed by your ideas. Very innovative and intriguing. Your new educational system is very interesting to me.
A small issue regarding your new grades. What do you do with those students who are not capable of passing the level no matter what.
As it stands now, there are students up to the age of 21 who are allowed to continue in a school district. The issue is that these students are below the requirements but are pushed ahead because of their grades. How would you be able to balance student level with age?
Johivin Ryson
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
BaoQingTian,
Its a major blindspot because people refuse to acknowledge that which is of significance. Why pay attention to the cultural and economic issues that plague the students and rather focus on why the students aren't passing tests? Its sickening.
I find a bigger problem is the decline of the family structure and the fact that our society has focused more on the Me, Myself, and I mentality.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Johivin, we have that problem now, with students who can't keep up or learn the material, but they are pushed on because of the fear of the social concerns. Having a lone fifteen year old in a class of 13 or 12 year olds makes that student a social abnormality.
If levels are not equated to age, every level would have a mixing of several students in it. The exceptionally bright student would not seem so out of place among an entire class of older students, because each micrograde would have a spattering of students over several age years.
If a student can't grasp the idea of division or parts of a greater whole, they will never be able to understand fractions or decimals, let alone basic algebra. Unfortunately, those students who have a very poor grasp of this concept are socially promoted to the point where you have seventh and eighth graders who haven't the faintest idea how to divide.
And these students may score proficient on their fourth, fifth and sixth grade standardized assessments, but then drop below to partially proficient in seventh and eighth grades. But by then, it's almost too long ago to go back and address the problem - because they will then miss out on all the new topics needed for the ninth grade assessment.
Topics that they won't understand, either.
Holding a student in a micrograde until they master the concept helps address this, as the student is not pressured to learn by a certain deadline. If they start micrograde 9 in May, they'll continue in micrograde 9 in September - it's not a matter of squeezing in curriculum for all students so you can move on.
Of course, the whole two months off for summer break is a little wonky, too, and I've heard coworkers of mine come up with very viable trimester systems of three months on, one month off. This could also help lessen the stigma of students only having to learn from Sept-June... it would be an ongoing thing with a regular cycle.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Its a major blindspot because people refuse to acknowledge that which is of significance
This isn't so much of a blindspot, but a spot education can't easily reach. It's not ignored, but it's not something schools can properly address.
You get to see students, on average, about 40 minutes per day after primary school is over. The remaining 1420 minutes, they aren't in your classroom. Students are in school, on average, 400 minutes per day. The remaining 1040 hours, they are at home.
The culture of school impacts them less than one third of their average day, and less than 15% of their time over the course of a year. (based on 400 minutes per day over a 180 day school year)
The culture of their homes impacts them more than 85% of the time, and is one of the most important determiners of academic success.
Now, a large part of this home culture is racial/ethnic, but an equally large part is economic. Other factors include family dysfunction, number of parents at home each day, number of children in the house, interaction with other relatives and the neighborhood, etc.
Students come into school with emotional matched luggage on a forklift, and teachers are expected to somehow get around this massive wall of home-life and impart academic knowledge and understanding.
If the home baggage encourages students to embrace what a teacher is providing, there is a higher chance of success. If the home baggage does not encourage students to embrace education or actively ignores or works against it, then there is a lower chance of student success.
In 40 minutes, it's exceedingly difficult to surmount home based cultural obstacles.
Over the course of a year, you can develop relationships with your students and start to undo any damage that may have been done to their academic potential at home - but that takes a lot of time both inside and outside of the classroom, and it's on an individual basis.
When I had 80 students for a year, and taught the *same* 80 students the following year in the next grade, I developed very strong relationships and found ways to get students over these obstacles. I knew them, I knew their parents, we worked together.
When I had 130 students for a single year that I would never teach again, the forging of those relationships with each student was exceedingly difficult. I may have successfully reached 5 or 10 students who were blocked by their home lives, and I considered that a success.
So many of the remaining 130 I knew only superficially. I didn't even know what was going on at home, let alone had the ability to help the students past it.
While it is a factor that must be kept in mind, Johivin, it's not something that is easily addressed or corrected. Maybe I should throw on another step to my pipedream of community outreach and parent education, and home visitation by professionals who can help teach parents to better facilitate their children's growth.
Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :
Your pipedream is one that is logical. I think that your first step after NCLB should be the community outreach/parent education.
It may not be an easy reach, but it is a necessary one. It is a key one if one hopes to be able to educate the students. Their day begins and ends at home, yet little is done to extend our reach to the parents. It is a societal problem.
Few make the attempt, so it is being ignored. It is being seen as something beyond school control, but its impact is felt severely in the schools. Something must be done and done soon.
As for your first response. The issue for me is that you must also throw in the students beliefs of where they should be. If a student is 15 in a class of 13 year olds, they will have a serious time coping with that. To know that your peers are 2 'levels' ahead of you is a great detriment to a student's mental state in the same regards as if a students is two grades behind their peers age level. There will always be some relationship between grade or level and the student's age.
Johivin Ryson
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Why are we closing trade schools and doing away with elective creative arts programs? We should be embracing them.
Students with affinity and interest in music should be taught math, science, literature and social studies using that as a medium. Math could be covered in the music itself, costs of various pieces of equipment, comparison shopping, ticket costs to overhead ratios, personal finance, etc. The science of sound and rhythm, from biological production of voice, to the chemistry and physics of different materials used for instruments. Reading the biographies of great musicians, writing reviews and personal statements, analyzing the works of different composers.
It would all tie back to the subject of interest, and the skills learned would be put into immediate practice.
The same could be done for any of the creative arts or trades, and there could be college preparatory schools right alongside for those students whose interests lie in fields that require advanced degrees.
Why push all students to get a generic high school diploma (which is meaning less and less) when they could learn the same requisite skills and "standards" as applied to a specific field or craft.
Students would be more invested in their education, and would learn more in the long (and short) run.
Of course, the students would go to schools based on field of interest/aptitude rather than on which city/town they lived in. Which would require an entirely new way of funding education (not property taxes). And teachers would need to be trained in entirely different ways, as well.
All the changes of NCLB and the last decade have been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as far as I'm concerned. The ship is slowly (rapidly?) sinking, and we're really only making cosmetic changes.
I agree with what you are saying. I think a more feasible way of dealing with these issues is if schools can change the way teachers and students relate to one another, particularly in secondary schools.
Right now, the normal secondary school student has about 7 different classes with 7 different teachers. They have each teacher for an hour and classes may or may not relate to eachother in any way. After the year is over they move on and have a whole new set of teachers and classes. Correspondingly, each teacher may have over 100 students, and will have a new set each year.
As a result, I think it is difficult for any teacher to get to know any student very well, and vice versa. Teacher's often do get to know student well as they relate to the subject that teacher is teaching, but they do not really see the big picture of a student. Similarly, while students can look to each subject teacher to help in that particular subject, there is normally no teacher that a student can relate to and rely upon in a more general way. Some students develop such relationships, but I suspect most do not.
I think this causes students to be largely isolated in figuring out what they are supposed to do with their education. For those whose parents are not helpful enough to them, or who are not on good terms with their parents, or who have parents who do not share their interests, I think these students are probably a bit adrift. There is often no single person who shares their interests who can be a model for them. At best they have a counselor or advisor (normally randomly assigned) who takes a few hours (or less) a semester to help guide their path. Given this, I think it is no surprise that many students are unmotivated - without someone helping them tie their interests to their education, and without people modeling how education can help them achieve what they hope to achieve, they should not all be expected to see that connection between education and their own individual goals.
My idea would be to drasticly alter the teacher-student relationship, more towards the elementary school model, in which students have a single teacher. Each student should have a teacher that is their primary teacher, much more so than the sort of in-name-only advisor I had when I was in high school, whom I saw very rarely. The goal should be to match them up by interest areas, rather than random assignments. Students who have a strong interest in music should be assigned to a similar teacher. And then a program of study should be built around those interests. The trouble is that a music teacher is not normally qualified to also teach every other subject, so it would still be necessary to have multiple teacher teaching multiple subjects. But, once students are grouped by interest and organized by one primary teacher, they could be moved from class to class as a group, rather than having each individual go separately to entirely different schedules. This would allow subject teachers to know the interest areas of the group they are teaching. If the history teacher knew that period 2 consists of students focused on music, he or she could work to develop an appropriate way of teaching to kids with that particular interest. It should be viewed more as similar to the football coach sending the football team to a weight training coach, with football as the focus of the wieght training.
These are just some thoughts... I'm not sure how well such an idea could be implemented, but I think it would be at least feasible within the current infrastructure. It would definitely entail teachers completely altering the way they approach things, however. If you don't do that, you are just making cosmetic changes to the school. The idea is to ultimately change the focus of a student, from viewing school as series of often unrelated hoops to jump through, to viewing school as a means of furthering their own interests - and to do so by having teachers that share their interests work more closely with them to unify their education and show students how that education does further those interests. The goal should be to provide students with at least one mentor with shared interests within the school to guide them through the tools that schools provides them, rather than drop them in a factory-like system and hope the student figure out on his own how to apply education to his own interests.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)