Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because all NCLB bases its judgements of a school's performance on is meeting minimum standards. "How many below average students can you get to pass this simple standardized test?" That's really all it is. The average and above average students have no trouble with these tests. The emphasis is all on getting the low performers to get to the bottom rung of the ladder. And that's where the analysis stops. That's where the state/federal scrutiny stops. That's what the school's (and the teachers') accountability is based on. Get enough of the bottom third of your student body to barely pass and your school is doing A-OK, according to NCLB.
I understand why a lot of focus has to be on struggling students, and rightly so. But, why aren't average and above average students placed in a different class so their education isn't hamstrung by the minimum standards?
Quote:
Accordingly, the approach to teaching has been to institute cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all curricula. The classes have been modified to meet the tests. If it isn't on the test, don't worry about teaching it. If it's on the test, you're going to be evaluated on how your students performed.
Stifling? No. It's strangling our schools.
But if schools know certain students will perform well on the tests, why force them into the one-size-fits-all focus on only what's on the test?
There is nothing in NCLB that requires everyone to be at the minimum standard. Why do schools educate all students as if that were the case?
Just an example of the failings of NCLB and our school districts' disastrous response to it; My grandson has ADHD his class NEVER goes outside to recess, they NEVER have P.E. ART is his doodling, or something incorporated into a lesson at the whim of his exaspperated teacher. When I questioned why, she responded "we're just cramming all day for these tests!" No child should be abused in this manner, to sit for 7.5 hours attending, reading, writing, and calculating, esp. one with ADHD. It is sad and undoutedly we will see the fallout in the years to come. NCLB is a bad, bad, bad thing. We need to overall it and fast.
Yes, we do as NCLB has now managed to leave all our children behind and public education (no, private schools do not have to adhere to this baloney) is sinking faster than the economy
In a nutshell, NCLB has our teachers "teaching to the test". What's that? Here's a classroom example ~~~ TEACHER: "Today we are going to practice some math that I believe is on the state test next week and if you don't show your work, you will not get credit (so much for visualizing an answer in your mind!!!!!)
I absolutely cringe when I hear this and can only speculate on what this means for American students if they all begin basing the importance of what they learn on A) whether the information/concepts are building blocks to future educational lessons or B) because it's going to be on the state test!!!!!!!
And don't even get me started on the expense each school district has to absorb to cover teacher correcting time and training that is necessary in preparation for each test. Meanwhile, our school taxes skyrocket and our programs are being whittled away to meet these requirements and expenses....it just gets uglier and uglier.......
Is it any wonder we are slipping rapidly on the international report card??????
signed,
a public school employee
Last edited by Fallingwater79; 02-29-2008 at 07:36 PM..
I understand why a lot of focus has to be on struggling students, and rightly so. But, why aren't average and above average students placed in a different class so their education isn't hamstrung by the minimum standards?
That's a practice known as tracking. I don't know the legal details, but I do know that in Texas it's no longer "allowed."
Quote:
But if schools know certain students will perform well on the tests, why force them into the one-size-fits-all focus on only what's on the test?
It's the cheapest way to handle mass quantities of students.
Quote:
There is nothing in NCLB that requires everyone to be at the minimum standard. Why do schools educate all students as if that were the case?
True, NCLB doesn't have any prohibitions against excellence. They just set it up so that excellence is discouraged. Again, you're rated only on how many students (broken down into ethnic and economic categories) pass the minimum standards test. If some excel, that's fine. But it isn't deemed significant. Passing the mninimum standard by the skin of your teeth counts exactly the same as acing the test. Funding is tied to how many pass, also. Accountability is based on passing. Passing by one point is considered magnificent. Failing by one point is considered an unforgivable sin.
Passing the minimum standard is the only criterion that is scrutinized.
NCLB establishes benchmarks and consequences for failure to address state determined benchmarks. The many shortcomings mentioned are state and local decisions on how to implement. There are numerous diverse school systems that manage to succeed in NCLB and to maintain strong differentiated programs/instruction for all levels including strong Gifted Programs. The shortcomings you mention are a reflection of shortcomings by those implementing it a district and in some cases state level.
Hi pennquaker,
Ya know maybe it's not these tests that are the problem. Maybe we should start looking at ACADEMIC TEACHERS. Oh wait, I forgot, they are the lowest on the totem pole, seeins how sports,coach/teachers, and administration comes before them.
Are you an educator? IF so what subject and age do you teach?
Do you have k-12 age children in school?
Do you realize that a child still has to get their grades to get a scholarship to a college. Just because they are good in community sports does not automatically make them college material.
"Alot of the time,kids need something to look forward to and sports fill that void."
"But I don't believe we should use sports to get kids to college."
These are your words. Hmmmmmm.
(I am being incredibly short, but maybe some of you smarter people will get my overall point) I can't believe I just lowered myself to this level.
Ok, so do you or nova have any suggestions as to how to get this program out of schools? What program would you suggest?
Thanks for listening
I get the feeling that you cannot see the big picture. Even in the worst school system, athletics have a place. And in terms of funding, a lot of programs are somewhat self-sufficient. To answer your questions though . . .
I'm in graduate school getting my teaching credentials. Right now, I'm currently student teaching in Philadelphia. When I enter the classroom, I'll be qualified to teach any of the science course and any math course. Specifically, my undergraduate focus was chemistry and mathematics, but I took enough science courses to be able to pretty much teach anything. I highly prefer chemistry.
No, I do not have children in school. However, I have twins that are due in May.
It doesn't take a whole lot to get an athletic scholarship. You can have a 2.3 and a 19 ACT and still get a scholarship. A FULL scholarship actually.
And I stand by what I said.
Last edited by pennquaker09; 02-29-2008 at 10:14 PM..
That's a practice known as tracking. I don't know the legal details, but I do know that in Texas it's no longer "allowed."
No - it doesn't have to be tracking, which is a permanent placement. Flexible skill/performance level grouping by subject provides targeted instruction that does a much better job of educating students because it meets them where they are and all of them move forward from there.
"Roberson and the Rock View faculty are having remarkable success lifting children out of that gap, the achievement gap that separates poor and minority children from other students and represents one of public education's most intractable problems.
They have done it with an unusual approach. The Kensington's school's 497 students are grouped into classrooms according to reading and math ability for more than half of the instructional day.
Test scores rose dramatically in 2004 and 2005. But official discomfort persisted. In the 2005-06 academic year, Roberson was instructed to halt performance-based grouping, for at least one year, "to see if it really had an impact on student performance." Students returned to mixed-ability classrooms. Test scores fell.
The next fall, performance-based grouping resumed. Scores rebounded to all-time highs."
Quote:
It's the cheapest way to handle mass quantities of students.
Not true. From the article linked above...
"When you have all the students who are academically alike for 90 minutes and you don't have to split them up and give 30 minutes to each group, you get more bang for your buck," she (the principal) said."
Quote:
True, NCLB doesn't have any prohibitions against excellence. They just set it up so that excellence is discouraged. Again, you're rated only on how many students (broken down into ethnic and economic categories) pass the minimum standards test. If some excel, that's fine. But it isn't deemed significant. Passing the mninimum standard by the skin of your teeth counts exactly the same as acing the test. Funding is tied to how many pass, also. Accountability is based on passing. Passing by one point is considered magnificent. Failing by one point is considered an unforgivable sin.
Passing the minimum standard is the only criterion that is scrutinized.
Schools don't have to dumb everyone else down to accomplish this. The linked article demonstrates a better way to move all students forward academically.
There sure has been a lot of excuses bandied about in this thread, and very few willing to think outside the box.
NCLB establishes benchmarks and consequences for failure to address state determined benchmarks. The many shortcomings mentioned are state and local decisions on how to implement. There are numerous diverse school systems that manage to succeed in NCLB and to maintain strong differentiated programs/instruction for all levels including strong Gifted Programs. The shortcomings you mention are a reflection of shortcomings by those implementing it a district and in some cases state level.
No - it doesn't have to be tracking, which is a permanent placement. Flexible skill/performance level grouping by subject provides targeted instruction that does a much better job of educating students because it meets them where they are and all of them move forward from there.
"Roberson and the Rock View faculty are having remarkable success lifting children out of that gap, the achievement gap that separates poor and minority children from other students and represents one of public education's most intractable problems.
They have done it with an unusual approach. The Kensington's school's 497 students are grouped into classrooms according to reading and math ability for more than half of the instructional day.
Test scores rose dramatically in 2004 and 2005. But official discomfort persisted. In the 2005-06 academic year, Roberson was instructed to halt performance-based grouping, for at least one year, "to see if it really had an impact on student performance." Students returned to mixed-ability classrooms. Test scores fell.
The next fall, performance-based grouping resumed. Scores rebounded to all-time highs."
Not true. From the article linked above...
"When you have all the students who are academically alike for 90 minutes and you don't have to split them up and give 30 minutes to each group, you get more bang for your buck," she (the principal) said."
Schools don't have to dumb everyone else down to accomplish this. The linked article demonstrates a better way to move all students forward academically.
There sure has been a lot of excuses bandied about in this thread, and very few willing to think outside the box.
I'm not arguing in favor of the way things are in education. Having worked in the field for 14 years, I'm just trying to lay out a notion of what it is today and why it is the way it is. I agree that it could be and should be much better. But I'm not a decisionmaker. I'm just a worker bee at the bottom of the totem pole. The administrators who slice up the budget pie will continue to take the thickest slice for themselves. Despite idealistic pronouncements to the contrary, administrators and legislators will spend the public's education tax dollars on all sorts of things that educate no one. The favorite scheme over the past decade has been to establish more layers of midlevel bureaucracy. Campuses and classrooms receive a lot of lip service, but little in the way of repairs and practically none in the way of improvements.
America spends a very considerable amount per student for its public schools. Far too much of that cost is absorbed by administration, extra curricular activities and special ed. I am firmly convinced that the US could have an education system that would be the envy of the world at current levels of spending. But I have no hope that it will ever happen. Far too much of the public is satisfied with our current C- system. And there are loud voices who want to see the public school system dismantled altogether in favor of pie-in-the-sky "privatization" schemes that have been tried and failed repeatedly in various locations around the country.
The bottom line is this: education in America is a political football that gets kicked around a lot. But learning and teaching take a backseat to bureaucracy at all levels; local, state, and federal.
That strong of a focus on the tests is superficial and won't work. Have they caught on to that yet?
I don't know why a school would be doing that unless they can't make the connection: rigorous curriculum + sound, proven pedagogy = high levels of achievement. If the school had those elements in place, the high test results would naturally follow without very much thought put towards the tests.
The only reason a school would stoop to so much focus on test prep is if they knew their curriculum and pedagogy were too weak to show good results on the tests... that's kind of telling in itself.
A significant part of the problem is administrative and district weakness in the face of parental complaint over students' failures. Time and again, I've seen teachers with high standards (and excellent teaching methods) bruised, battered, and belittled by administration when parents complain that their child finds XYZ class "too hard" or is failing. Clearly, the easiest quick-fix of the problem is to pressure teachers to inflate grades, and most teachers will capitulate because they have no choice. I believe wholeheartedly in your equation of rigorous curriculum + sound, proven pedagogy = high levels of achievement, but it has to be backed up by administrators who are willing to support that rigor and good pedagogy.
NCLB establishes benchmarks and consequences for failure to address state determined benchmarks. The many shortcomings mentioned are state and local decisions on how to implement. There are numerous diverse school systems that manage to succeed in NCLB and to maintain strong differentiated programs/instruction for all levels including strong Gifted Programs. The shortcomings you mention are a reflection of shortcomings by those implementing it a district and in some cases state level.
I would truly like to see a district that enforces the NCLB expectations and is meeting the educational needs of all students. Gifted programs? Ours were phased out when mainstreaming took hold. NCLB assured their demise.
The original NCLB concept and what it has sunk to are two entirely different animals. It was not intended to discredit school districts capacity to teach their students but ultimately, that's what it does. If students perform poorly, it points straight back at the school district when the test results are posted in newspapers for all to see and compare. Their only alternative is to teach to the test. There is no two ways around this and is exactly why NCLB has to be thrown to the curb. We have strangled our educational system with it.
If you have children, ask them how many times they are told by their teachers: We need to learn this, BECAUSE it will be on the state test. Is this how WE learned? Based only on "it'll be on a test"? OMG!!!!! The fluency is gone as the teachers hopscotch around, trying to cover everything they think their students will come across!!!
And again, I have witnessed it myself as recently as this week as we prepare for the NYS Math test. The teacher is randomly tossing in different math concepts based on what she assumes will be on the upcoming test. Sooooo, within the week, we are jumping from negative/positives numbers problems to distributive property equations and multiplying/dividing fractions!!!!!! The struggling students have developed the "deer in the headlights" look, and the middle/above average students are confused as well. Me? I'm sick to my stomach at the insanity of it all.
Personally, I have vowed to my kids I will either homeschool my grandchildren or finance their education at a private school.....
Last edited by Fallingwater79; 03-01-2008 at 07:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
