NCLB isn't "going to improve public education" -Diane Ravitch, former supporter (high school, paying)

[StarlaJane]

Originally Posted by Minethatbird

As I said earlier, many people knew how poorly the schools that kids other than theirs attended. It was when the low test scores of the schools MY kids go to came out that got people riled. High test scores are not a valid assessment? How exactly do you define "tangible skills?" What is a tangible skill, is it what I declare it to be or what you say it is?

We used to be tested a lot while I was in the Army, and yes we wanted to know what weaknesses people in the unit had. This was because it was rather pointless to go around bragging of our great strengths as runners if we were such poor marksmen we didn't possess even a minimal ability to use a rifle to defend ourselves against an attacking enemy (just an example.)

Can you define a culturally biased test?

I think that Diogenes did a great job illustrating a culturally biased test.

I define a tangible skill as you so eloquently have done yourself above: a skill that enables you to carry out an action b/c of instruction and training rather than a test that is measuring a particular kind of reasoning.

I never criticized (or, at least, intended to criticize) the testing that occurs in the course of a class. I criticize standardized testing, which takes away from regular class time and forces schools to place so much emphasis on the testing that students are not learning anything but how to take those tests.

So, rather than learn math and how to apply it, or Spanish and how to apply it, they are learning how to take a standardized test, which can't really be applied to anything.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson

Just to add some more input on this topic, for one who studies Educational History, I've discovered that in our national history, the public has routinely tended to "distrust" teachers. There have been continual movements to "reform" public ed in this country and most reform efforts focus on curtailing the power of teachers over their classes. In the 1920s to the 1960s, most public initiatives to "reform" education focused on which teachers promoted communism or socialism (this coincided with the rise in social science disciplines at higher learning institutions). Really the public could give two turds about "reform" and instead focused on blackballing teachers, who they really feared.

I've also discovered that the public, historically speaking, resents taxation to support public schools, even the poor parents and especially senior or other adults who have no children in the school system. This combined with distrust for teachers leads to these so-called "reform" initiatives. These efforts are entirely misguided. Reform must be conducted at the top: how schools are funded and the curriculum standards teachers are held to and taught at their respective schools of education. Further, the aforementioned cartel explained earlier on this thread needs to be busted up.

I noticed that you give a lot of credit to the Bush administration for the Every Child Left Behind Act, yet this was a democratic-inspired initiative in the state of texas. Taking a page from his predecessor, the Bush team co-opted this plan, added funding penalties to it, as well as anti-teacher prerogatives (student testing reflects on teachers, not the students), and then championed it as their own. This is ironic because traditionally the GOP position is states rights and local control of edu, not to mention personal responsibility. Nowadays, after too many years of ECLB, commentators view the Bush role as one of curtailing the efficacy of public education because his kids will not suffer from it. His constituency's kids, for the most part, won't suffer from it because they're in fancy pants private or magnet schools. A dumbed-down public school system only benefits the wealthy who can afford myriad choices in regard to educating their kids.

Among my grad student colleagues here, some of whom defected from secondary education, most claim they did so because of their disagreements with ECLB. One former Tennessee teacher claimed that after ECLB became law, he was not at liberty to teach his 9th and 11th grade history classes effective writing strategies through the use of historical examples. Instead he was told to put students in groups nearly every day of the week, give them a simple question to work on for an hour, and then present their answers to the class. He said one kid in each group came up with the answer while the others watched the clock or gossipped. A former middle school teacher from Louisiana said after ECLB, her school district changed curricula drastically, cutting out what the politicians considered "extraneous" teaching techniques such as diagramming sentences (often considered standard for 5th graders).

We see the effects of ECLB on college campuses. Roughly only 10% of incoming freshmen are prepared for college work, in our collective estimation. I've noticed that students who have been exposed to ECLB for longer periods of time are worse than those who finished high school when the law was new.

As a group of grad students, we oftentimes commisserate with each other on what our lives will be like when these kids, who have been corrupted by ECLB, are running the country, big corporations, or the assisted living facilities that we'll soon be living in. The United States' roles as a superpower is nearly over. No wonder why corporations want to export jobs overseas (although I realize this isn't a new phenomenon, but nothing happening in edu today will encourage them to invest in this nation or its people. Indians are just smarter, better employees while Americans gripe about how Suzy or Tom is paid more than they are).

Thanks for the reply. It was very insightful. I will clarify something. I may have not been clear enough. I was not trying to give credit to Bush or any political party. I simply brought up another angle as I have read on the subject, no more no less. I do not care where the credit and blame goes to because it is irrelevant to me becuase it is a done deal so I just comment on things that I have seen due to the program. Bush is mentioned becuase he is given the blame so whateve credit to the program may go to him to, not that I see him as my hero or anything like that.

It is interesting because I believe YOUR message expresed political inclinations by talking about corporations and other social issues. I simply allude to NCLB program and addressed another angle as others have expressed as I said. As subject is boring to me those involved in the discussion all talk the same and how bad it is. Well, I have read some positive comment from others in other sources and I simply mention them. It is good to try to be as objective and look at the opposing side of issues. I do that all the time.

You have great day.
El Amigo

[DiogenesofJackson]

I didn't mean to say it was all Bush's fault and Ted Kennedy deserves blame too.

My perspective comes from essentially four sources: 1. the current and former teachers who comment on it, 2.) my own research in educational issues, 3.) the downward slide I see among those students who recently graduated from high school and are now fumbling their way around university-level classes, 4.) the most vocal supporters tend toward the conservative side of the political spectrum because they resent the whole idea of public education (in general).

My comments regarding corporations constitute my predictions (which ultimately mean nothing because no one knows the future). It's my general belief that Americans are getting dumber and a direct cause of this, in my view, is the ECLB and general distrust of education by the public. I'm well aware that I could be wrong about all of this, and for the sake of all our futures, I hope I am.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by DiogenesofJackson

I didn't mean to say it was all Bush's fault and Ted Kennedy deserves blame too.

My perspective comes from essentially four sources: 1. the current and former teachers who comment on it, 2.) my own research in educational issues, 3.) the downward slide I see among those students who recently graduated from high school and are now fumbling their way around university-level classes, 4.) the most vocal supporters tend toward the conservative side of the political spectrum because they resent the whole idea of public education (in general).

My comments regarding corporations constitute my predictions (which ultimately mean nothing because no one knows the future). It's my general belief that Americans are getting dumber and a direct cause of this, in my view, is the ECLB and general distrust of education by the public. I'm well aware that I could be wrong about all of this, and for the sake of all our futures, I hope I am.

I agree with you. Sadly our country is going down at least at the educational level. I do a lot of volunteer work in schools. I also do a lot of research on the subject and do tend to agree with you on what you wrote.

One point I must bring up. I am aware that corporations are interested in the bottom line mostly. However, to me they are one of so many factors that come into play. Parents, schools systems, teacher unions, our present day society being more and more selfish and self centered, we have become too materialistic, our work ethics, etc.
For the sake of argument let us say we bring corporations in line somehow. Do you believe that people's attitudes will change when it comes to work ethics and priorities in life? I personnaly doubt it.

Our social values have changed so much. I am not saying the the so called 'good old days' were so great either. However, thera was more of a social obligation people had that influenced and affect our lives in the past more so than in the present. At least that is how I see it. Our families used to be the core of the values of our society and the family unit has eroded in so many ways that have affected how we raise kids and what they now expect of society.

Whenever you read my post anywhere you will notice I never talk for or against any political parties. I simply address the point I am for or against. I do not label that point either conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, etc. I simply address how I believe in that point. I do not care under what agenda it may fall. Some of my views may give you the impression I am republican and on some others as democrat on some others liberal or conservative. I am of the belief once you label something in discussion you either turn on or off people. To make it as open minded and to keep people as opend minded I tend not to label anything.

You have a great day.

You have a great day.
El Amigo

[DiogenesofJackson]

Again, el amigo, we're in agreement on some things. I detest political parties, especially the GOP. I once worked for a democratic AG and that was awful. I came to the conclusion that political parties exist for self-propagation and preservation rather than fighting for the rights and beliefs of their respective constituencies.

As for personal ethics and values, I see in ECLB a denial of the utmost responsibility in educating a child: the parent(s). Instead, ECLB places that role onto classroom teachers. It is the ultimate responsibility to make sure their child can learn and will learn. Parents must augment what the public schools do. ECLB denies this role of the parent, probably because parents initially supported this type of "reform." If you ask any teacher, they'll likely agree that the vast majority of parents believe their kids do no wrong, and ECLB supports this sentiment.

As for corporate and Americans' personal values, I see these coming more into alignment. As you stated, corporations exist for the bottom line, usually at whatever is the cost (in terms of non-monetary costs, as in human lives and livelihoods). Essentially most Americans agree with this kind of ethos and will cram their collective heels in their neighbors' faces to get ahead. It's survival of the fittest, many would say. Most are trying to get ahead regardless of the circumstances, and most people today agree that the ends justifies the means.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by jps-teacher

Former 'No Child Left Behind' Advocate Turns Critic : NPR

"I've looked at the evidence and I've concluded they're wrong. They've put us on the wrong track. I feel passionately about the improvement of public education and I don't think any of this is going to improve public education."

Too little, too late? Perhaps.

Better late than never? Yes, I suppose so.

Ravitch is and was one of the leading scholars of education history. Her voice was a strong and clear one in support of these unbenighted policies - it is good to see reason return to her.

I especially agree with her about:

"There should not be an education marketplace, there should not be competition," Ravitch says. "Schools operate fundamentally — or should operate — like families. The fundamental principle by which education proceeds is collaboration. Teachers are supposed to share what works; schools are supposed to get together and talk about what's [been successful] for them. They're not supposed to hide their trade secrets and have a survival of the fittest competition with the school down the block."

[Emphasis mine]

I hate that so many charter schools can experiment with different things yet public schools have this rigid curriculum and teaching method they have to adhere to.

I'm not say every charter school does this and that there aren't any innovative public schools but I definitely feel that charter schools get more leeway to experiment with things.

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by PurpleLove08

I hate that so many charter schools can experiment with different things yet public schools have this rigid curriculum and teaching method they have to adhere to.

I'm not say every charter school does this and that there aren't any innovative public schools but I definitely feel that charter schools get more leeway to experiment with things.

Exactly, and then some want to boast about the superiority of charter schools. Well, if public schools had the same leeway you might see equal or greater results. We're essentially setting up our public schools to lose the war against charters because we aren't allowing them any room to try anything different.

[skyway31]

The discussion of failing public schools nearly always leaves out arguably the most important fact:
Public schools are unable to adequately deal with defiant, disruptive behavior from students who come from home environments that do not properly value education. Due to being required to house and educate ALL minors, schools HAVE to essentially "absorb" the behavior of delinquent/pre-criminal kids. What can a school do with a kid from a gang-infested neighboorhood who walks into a class and decides he/she wants to "have fun" with the teacher and other kids and disrupt the class incessantly? Remember, such behavior is largely just a way of life for a kid like this. The kid and his/her family doesn't really care about education much anyway. The "family" is not going to offer much support to the schools in the instance of a phone call home from school or a school suspension etc. Yet, these public schools can't kick the kids out. The schools have to sit back and take it. As a result, so many of these public, inner-city schools' classrooms are dysfunctional due to this inability to deal with gross defiance from kids. Thoughts?

[skyway31]

So, to address NCLB/ECLB, I must say I AM in support of a hardcore testing-based program that eventually may lead to the privitization of education. The idea of spending all of this taxpayer money on "educating" students who aren't interested in the first place is a waste. Because, at the end of the day, NCLB or not, students' education ultimately boils down to their own initiative. Kids/families who simply aren't willing to put forth adequate effort and cooperate with an education program aren't going to benefit from schools anyway. No matter how good the school and its teachers are, kids that fight the process every step of the way are going to do poorly. And perhaps reduce learning opportunities for others as well. Meanwhile, motivated kids who seek out their own education are going to succeed regardless. Kids, families, schools and the neighboorhoods that send their kids to the local schools have to take intitiative and support themselves rather than waiting on money from the government to magically educate them. Only when maximum efforts have been made in this area and a funding shortfall still exists should the government get involved with supplementing education financially.

[skyway31]

Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler

Exactly, and then some want to boast about the superiority of charter schools. Well, if public schools had the same leeway you might see equal or greater results. We're essentially setting up our public schools to lose the war against charters because we aren't allowing them any room to try anything different.

Let's make this really simple:
The "leeway" you refer to revolves only around two key steps the charter school can take:
1) Require kids wishing to attend to complete an application process where only those taking some initiative in the first place will apply and any bad applicants can be denied admission.
2) Upon housing kids at said school, should behavior become an adverse factor, the charter school can essentially kick the kid out and back to the regular public school.

In the above set of circumstances, the charter has two HUGE advantages:
1) A stronger pool of students enrolled on Day 1 due to the application process.
2) The charter school has something to hang over the kids heads to get sufficient effort and cooperation out of the kids in that the charter can always rescind the rights of the student to attend.
Public schools have neither of the above. Many of you who haven't spent much time in public, inner-city schools likely have no grasp of how vital the concepts above are.