What do you think about NCLB?

[mirth]

Everyone I know who has an opinion is a stakeholder in public schooling, be it as parent, student, teacher or administrator. It sounds like a good idea -- that is, to get your arms around what you know, but I am aware for one thing that its metrics were pretty bad. Example: NCLB wanted to draw attention and reduce the # of high school drop-outs. But this depended on how each high school defined "drop out", and there were no standards on this. So every school could report their rates differently, (i.e. student still there after 2 years, 3 years, any sort of non-matriculation?)

 

I do agree that if the federal gov't is going to be involved with public ed at the non-univ level that it should understand where the nation is on average and document achievements to measure if anyone is making any progress.

 

What do homeschoolers think about NCLB?

 

(NCLB = No Child Left Behind, USA gov't national initiative)

[Corraleno]

I think it should have been called ACLB ~ ALL Children Left Behind. :mad:

 

The motives may have been good, but the actual effect of the standardized testing has been to remove actual teaching from the classrooms and force kids to memorize certain facts that they can regurgitate on a test to give the (often false) appearance that kids are making "adequate yearly progress." I read about a school district in CA where the board insisted high school teachers stop letting kids read entire novels, because they were "teaching the books instead of the standards." :banghead:

 

I recently met a 3rd grade teacher who works in a city elementary school with a very enlightened principal, who he says allows a huge amount of "teacher discretion." He said when the bureaucrats come in, the teachers sit there and nod, then they go back and do whatever they think is best for their kids in their class. I asked if he didn't get in trouble for that, and he said the district looks the other way because they can't argue with the test scores ~ this particular school, where they refuse to "teach to the test," has some of the highest scores in the city. Wouldn't you think the district would be looking at them as a model to follow, instead of an anomaly to politely ignore??? :confused:

 

Jackie

[Rhonda in TX]

School funding is dependent on these test scores, so districts want the high scores at all costs. Principals' jobs are dependent on these scores, so they want high scores at all costs. A very good friend of ours is a principal at a high school. Before that, he was principal at a low-income middle school. He was told to bring scores up or lose his job. He did, and he's now principal at one of the best high schools in the district. He knows how to work the program for the high scores. (He's a good man and a good principal, but he definitely knows how to work the system. He always has. He was the youngest principal in the history of the district.)

 

Testing starts at 3rd grade here in Texas. Kindergarteners are taught motivational cheers for the upper grades! If you go into the school (and I have), everywhere you look there are posters about "you can do it" - talking about the tests. Ugh.

 

A friend has a son with ADD. He's not hyperactive or a behavior problem at all, but he does have difficulty focusing. He's also very, very smart. The school never pushed medicating him until he was in 3rd grade. They told his parents that if he was not medicated, he most likely would not pass the TAKS and would fail 3rd grade.

 

No, I'm not a fan of NCLB.

[Jilly]

I am currently working on my teaching credential, and I can tell you it is talked about in every class, and most of my teachers think it has done much more harm than good. I have to agree.

[Impish]

I think I'm very grateful not to be dealing w/it. (Canadian)

[Tree Frog]

I believe it has caused teachers to teach to the slowest students in the class and hold back students who could move through the material much faster and/or deeper. Students who would like to be challenged in their learning are not and become bored with school. Instead, all students should be challenged on each student's level, allowing the students who understand the material to move ahead and giving other students the opportunity to stay on topic longer. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible.

 

Marcia

[Jean in Newcastle]

 

I recently met a 3rd grade teacher who works in a city elementary school with a very enlightened principal, who he says allows a huge amount of "teacher discretion." He said when the bureaucrats come in, the teachers sit there and nod, then they go back and do whatever they think is best for their kids in their class. I asked if he didn't get in trouble for that, and he said the district looks the other way because they can't argue with the test scores ~ this particular school, where they refuse to "teach to the test," has some of the highest scores in the city. Wouldn't you think the district would be looking at them as a model to follow, instead of an anomaly to politely ignore??? :confused:

 

 

But see, I think that if more principals had the brains and intestinal fortitude to follow this principal's example, then more schools would actually pass the tests. And then they would be rewarded. I think school districts and principals are being motivated by fear of the "stick" that NCLB holds over them so that they are making really dumb decisions to teach to the test. Correct me if I'm wrong (silly me - I know you will!:D) but I don't think that NCLB in itself tells the schools to teach to the test. For some dumb reason teachers (or really the school administrations) don't have faith that good teaching actually produces good results.

[Heather in Neverland]

sigh...I am probably going to regret this but...

 

Those who talk about "teaching to the test" being evil do not fully understand curriculum and assessment development.

 

It's a process we curriculum directors call "triangulation" and it goes like this...

 

An entity (whether it is the state, local district or even a homeschooling parent) decides they want to educate a child in say...Science, for example. The FIRST thing that has to be done is to create standards/benchmarks. Now I know those sound like evil words but all that is is eduspeak for "what do you want the child to know about this topic?"

 

We all do that or at least we should. We come on here all the time to discuss our goals for history, science, math, etc. If you wroteall of your goals for your child at the beginning of the year and numbered them, then kept track throughout the year of how closely you were teaching those goals you would have standards/benchmarks.

 

NEXT, You create/choose a curriculum that helps you meet these goals. Schools generally adopt textbooks that address the goals they are working towards. Homeschoolers discuss curriculum choices ad nauseum. :tongue_smilie:

 

FINALLY, how will you know if your child has reached the educational goal set for him? Well, when you are working with a small amount of kids (like your own family) it's not as hard. But when you are talking about millions of kids it gets a little dicier. So the entity creates a test that asks questions designed to see if the original educational goals were met (the standards/benchmarks). The test questions ARE aligned to these standards, I know, I've been doing this for years.

 

So we set educational goals, find or create materials to help us reach our goal, then assess to see if the goal has been reached. We call it "teaching to the test" but really...you should teach what you plan to assess and assess what you have taught. Why is that evil? If you set a goal for yourself to run a certan distance in a certain amount of time, how would you ever know if you met that goal unless you had a stopwatch?

 

Now, why where all the NCLB strings attached to this process? Standards/benchmarks have been around for a while and guess what, teachers didn't follow them. They did (or didn't do) exactly as they pleased. You can point the finger at unions and teacher tenure, lazy principals, lazy parents, and all manner of people who thought poor kids or special ed kids would never learn. The culprits are many.

 

The government has tried MANY initiatives over the years to improve education but nothing worked. It would be great if all human beings involved in education took their jobs seriously but they don't. So the government did the only thing that would get their attention...tied it to the money.

 

And guess what...it is working. Scores ARE going up. Teachers are forced to actually know what the goals are for the class, teach them, and then assess them. And then they have to take a look at the data and see where the gaps are and make a plan for closing those gaps.

 

None of this is evil.

 

Would it be better if we didn't have to have NCLB? Of course. My initial reaction to NCLB was the same as everyone else's. But I have seen the data. It works.

 

Let the tomato-throwing commence. :D

[Wyndie]

I have discussed NCLB indepth with two school teacher friends of mine. One hates it but continues to teach in school b/c she loves teaching. The other said she is getting out of teaching b/c she hates seeing kids get passed who don't know enough to go to the next grade. She hates NCLB and is VERY happy to hear we homeschool. It tells me ALOT when a school teacher says they prefer children to be homeschooled.

[Laura Corin]

 

Would it be better if we didn't have to have NCLB? Of course. My initial reaction to NCLB was the same as everyone else's. But I have seen the data. It works.

 

Let the tomato-throwing commence. :D

 

Teachers with large classes need to know that the pupils are learning; parents have the right to understand what the school is doing. I think that when people talk about 'teaching to the test' they don't mean the triangulation that you mention. Instead they mean months and months of test preparation, to the exclusion of depth or breadth of learning.

 

I used to use the Texas TAKS for home testing. I only ever used the tests, but had a look through the official preparation materials which are also publicly available. The prep. materials present the questions for that year's tests with very minor changes. A child taught from them will be an expert at those particular questions, but will have no tools for coping with different formats or applications.

 

Best wishes

 

Laura

[AK_Mom4]

Heather, I will stand up and take a few tomatos with you.

At least if they teach to the test, they are teaching SOMETHING. My kids attended a bad school (this was before I knew about homeschooling). It was perfectly ok that 1/4 of the jr. high students couldn't read at grade level - they had tons of excuses and just passed them along to high school to drop out. Well, guess what! NCLB has forced them to adopt a new "the buck stops here" approach. The kids take a reading test and reading classes are now required in place of fun electives for those kids who can't read at grade level. Test scores have gone up and high school drop out rates are going down.

 

So, there are success stories out there. Maybe it went too far in some areas. But there are plenty of "bad" schools out there that needed the kick in the rear that NCLB provided.

[Mrs Mungo]

I used to use the Texas TAKS for home testing. I only ever used the tests, but had a look through the official preparation materials which are also publicly available. The prep. materials present the questions for that year's tests with very minor changes. A child taught from them will be an expert at those particular questions, but will have no tools for coping with different formats or applications.

 

 

:iagree: My cousin attended a very good school in Texas. Two months out of the year were *dedicated* to preparing for the test.

[Corraleno]

Sorry this is such a long quote, but I think it cuts directly to the heart of the matter, and reaffirms why many of us chose to homeschool (emphasis added):

 

High-stakes testing has radically altered the kind of instruction that is offered in American schools, to the point that "teaching to the test" has become a prominent part of the nation's educational landscape. Teachers often feel obliged to set aside other subjects for days, weeks, or (particularly in schools serving low-income students) even months at a time in order to devote themselves to boosting students' test scores. Indeed, both the content and the format of instruction are affected; the test essentially becomes the curriculum. For example, when students will be judged on the basis of a multiple-choice test, teachers may use multiple-choice exercises and in-class tests beforehand.

 

More strikingly, teachers will dispense with poetry and focus on prose, breeze through the Depression and linger on the Cold War, cut back on social studies to make room for more math—all depending on what they think will be emphasized on the tests. They may even place all instruction on hold and spend time administering and reviewing practice tests. The implications for the quality of teaching are not difficult to imagine, particularly if better scores on high-stakes exams are likely to result more from memorizing math facts and algorithms, for example, than from understanding concepts. As two researchers put it, "The controlling, `top-down' push for higher standards may actually produce a lower quality of education, precisely because its tactics constrict the means by which teachers most successfully inspire students'engagement in learning, and commitment to achieve."

 

Teachers across the country struggle with variations of this dilemma, worrying about their jobs as well as the short-term price their students may have to pay for more authentic learning. The choices are grim: Either the teachers capitulate, or they struggle courageously to resist this, or they find another career. "Everywhere we turned," one group of educators reported, "we heard stories of teachers who were being told, in the name of 'raising standards,' that they could no longer teach reading using the best of children's literature but instead must fill their classrooms and their days with worksheets, exercises, and drills." The result in any given classroom was that "children who had been excited about books, reading with each other, and talking to each other were now struggling to categorize lists of words."

 

Even in classes less noticeably ravaged by the imperatives of test preparation, there are hidden costs—opportunities missed, intellectual roads not taken. For one thing, teachers are less likely to work together in teams. For another, within each classroom "the most engaging questions kids bring up spontaneously—`teachable moments'—become annoyances."

http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:-ch3TjFRXKQJ:scholar.google.com/+author:%22Kohn%22+intitle:%22The+case+against+standardized+testing:+Raising+the+...%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

 

Jackie

[Perry]

"Everywhere we turned," one group of educators reported, "we heard stories of teachers who were being told, in the name of 'raising standards,' that they could no longer teach reading using the best of children's literature but instead must fill their classrooms and their days with worksheets, exercises, and drills." The result in any given classroom was that "children who had been excited about books, reading with each other, and talking to each other were now struggling to categorize lists of words."

 

Well, see, I don't think kids should be taught reading using children's literature. That was what whole language tried to do, and it was a disaster.

 

Phonics is a much better way of teaching reading for most kids. Of course children's literature is important. But not for reading instruction.

 

"Balanced literacy" (aka whole language) is one of the major reasons we started homeschooling.

[Corraleno]

Well, see, I don't think kids should be taught reading using children's literature. That was what whole language tried to do, and it was a disaster.

 

Phonics is a much better way of teaching reading for most kids. Of course children's literature is important. But not for reading instruction.

 

"Balanced literacy" (aka whole language) is one of the major reasons we started homeschooling.

 

I agree that phonics instruction is necessary and "whole language" didn't work, but that's not how I interpreted that passage. I read it more in light of the school board who outlawed teaching whole works and forced teachers to focus on just teaching the limited topics that would be on the test. I guess it depends on whether one interprets "teaching reading" to mean "teaching a child to sound out words" versus "teaching a child how to read and understand a book."

 

The larger point is that reducing education to the process of memorizing testable factoids will kill a student's love of learning:

 

Once teachers and students are compelled to focus only on what can be reduced to numbers, such as how many grammatical errors are present in a composition or how many mathematical algorithms have been committed to memory, the process of thinking has been severely compromised and the best programs and classes can't survive.

 

Jackie

Edited January 11, 2010 by Corraleno

[Rosy]

Thank you, Heather.

 

I've heard the criticisms of NCLB, and I think the overemphasis many teachers/schools/administrators put on "the test" is wrong. But I also think that there should be accountability when MY tax dollars are being spent. In a private school, there is direct accountability to the parents. In a public school, I've heard many times about teachers blowing off the parents' concerns and disregarding any criticism of their performance. If I were a public school parent, I would have very little recourse unless I was on the school board.

 

So for those who disagree with NCLB, what is your solution for the lack of accountability? For the unwillingness to uphold standards? Unfortunately, not everyone has choices when it comes to their child's education. Not everyone can/should homeschool, and in some places you can't just transfer to a better school or district. What should the consequence be for a school that continually fails to educate its children?

[Catherine]

I think that requirements to teach certain skills need teeth.

 

But I want to address the poster who noted that slower kids benefit most from efforts to "teach to the test" (heavily paraphrased, I realize). Speaking as someone whose kids definitely brought up the average, I would gladly welcome ANY effort to assist the slowest learners. IMO the social cost of these kids, once adults, is far greater than that of the brainy ones who've not had their educational needs fully met. Many of them will be fine. None of the slowest learners will "be fine" without specific help and we all pay the price.

 

I've wondered at times about the actual outcome of NCLB, if it really does help to prevent dropping out, and improve kids' skills. If it truly does, I'll support it. The only data I've seen so far (without really looking LOL) suggests that what's happened is simply an improvement in test-taking skills that does not actually mean improved reading and math ability. Can anyone actually cite real scientific data?

[tex-mex]

School funding is dependent on these test scores, so districts want the high scores at all costs. Principals' jobs are dependent on these scores, so they want high scores at all costs. A very good friend of ours is a principal at a high school. Before that, he was principal at a low-income middle school. He was told to bring scores up or lose his job. He did, and he's now principal at one of the best high schools in the district. He knows how to work the program for the high scores. (He's a good man and a good principal, but he definitely knows how to work the system. He always has. He was the youngest principal in the history of the district.)

 

Testing starts at 3rd grade here in Texas. Kindergarteners are taught motivational cheers for the upper grades! If you go into the school (and I have), everywhere you look there are posters about "you can do it" - talking about the tests. Ugh.

 

A friend has a son with ADD. He's not hyperactive or a behavior problem at all, but he does have difficulty focusing. He's also very, very smart. The school never pushed medicating him until he was in 3rd grade. They told his parents that if he was not medicated, he most likely would not pass the TAKS and would fail 3rd grade.

 

No, I'm not a fan of NCLB.

 

:iagree:I left full time teaching when NCLB was beginning to be implemented in my state. Now from my old K-8 colleagues, I hear so many horrible stories of being told to teach to the test, not having time to teach fundamentals (due to quarterly testing), and unhappiness with choosing teaching as a career. I'm glad I left when I had the chance.

[mhaddon]

Well let's just say not a fan at all- was going into elementary education and this is one of the main reasons I will not be teaching in a PS anytime soon ;)

[tex-mex]

 

So for those who disagree with NCLB, what is your solution for the lack of accountability? For the unwillingness to uphold standards? Unfortunately, not everyone has choices when it comes to their child's education. Not everyone can/should homeschool, and in some places you can't just transfer to a better school or district. What should the consequence be for a school that continually fails to educate its children?

 

 

As a former schoolteacher who taught in CA's inner city and poor rural school districts... I totally agree with where Gov. Schwartznegger is heading. Private vouchers and merit pay for good teachers.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/ap_on_re_us/us_california_education_reform

[Tree Frog]

It's a process we curriculum directors call "triangulation" and it goes like this...

 

An entity (whether it is the state, local district or even a homeschooling parent) decides they want to educate a child in say...Science, for example. The FIRST thing that has to be done is to create standards/benchmarks. Now I know those sound like evil words but all that is is eduspeak for "what do you want the child to know about this topic?"

 

We all do that or at least we should. We come on here all the time to discuss our goals for history, science, math, etc. If you wroteall of your goals for your child at the beginning of the year and numbered them, then kept track throughout the year of how closely you were teaching those goals you would have standards/benchmarks.

 

NEXT, You create/choose a curriculum that helps you meet these goals. Schools generally adopt textbooks that address the goals they are working towards. Homeschoolers discuss curriculum choices ad nauseum. :tongue_smilie:

 

FINALLY, how will you know if your child has reached the educational goal set for him? Well, when you are working with a small amount of kids (like your own family) it's not as hard. But when you are talking about millions of kids it gets a little dicier. So the entity creates a test that asks questions designed to see if the original educational goals were met (the standards/benchmarks). The test questions ARE aligned to these standards, I know, I've been doing this for years.

 

So we set educational goals, find or create materials to help us reach our goal, then assess to see if the goal has been reached. We call it "teaching to the test" but really...you should teach what you plan to assess and assess what you have taught. Why is that evil? If you set a goal for yourself to run a certan distance in a certain amount of time, how would you ever know if you met that goal unless you had a stopwatch?

 

Now, why where all the NCLB strings attached to this process? Standards/benchmarks have been around for a while and guess what, teachers didn't follow them. They did (or didn't do) exactly as they pleased. You can point the finger at unions and teacher tenure, lazy principals, lazy parents, and all manner of people who thought poor kids or special ed kids would never learn. The culprits are many.

 

The government has tried MANY initiatives over the years to improve education but nothing worked. It would be great if all human beings involved in education took their jobs seriously but they don't. So the government did the only thing that would get their attention...tied it to the money.

 

And guess what...it is working. Scores ARE going up. Teachers are forced to actually know what the goals are for the class, teach them, and then assess them. And then they have to take a look at the data and see where the gaps are and make a plan for closing those gaps.

 

None of this is evil.

 

Would it be better if we didn't have to have NCLB? Of course. My initial reaction to NCLB was the same as everyone else's. But I have seen the data. It works.

 

Let the tomato-throwing commence. :D

 

 

The problem is that the NCLB tests are nationalized. The assumption is that all children are being taught the same material across the nation. I don't believe school districts in Washington state are teaching the same materials as those districts in Washington, DC, are teaching the same materials in South Dakota are teaching the same information in Alabama. For NCLB to work, public school education needs to be nationalized so that all the states are teaching the same material at the same time. (Please don't throw tomatoes at me...I don't agree that ps need to be/should be nationalized). What I hear you saying, Heather, is that school districts need benchmarks. I agree, but the test should then be based on what the school district believes is important, not what the federal gov't believes should be taught (unless what is taught is nationalized).

[Pippen]

I believe it has caused teachers to teach to the slowest students in the class and hold back students who could move through the material much faster and/or deeper. Students who would like to be challenged in their learning are not and become bored with school. Instead, all students should be challenged on each student's level, allowing the students who understand the material to move ahead and giving other students the opportunity to stay on topic longer. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible.

 

Marcia

 

NCLB is why I'm here. Our elementary school doubled it's struggling population of students in the years since my kids started attending and educational decisions (such as curriculum, scheduling, funding, discipline programs, etc) all have swung strongly in favor of that population. The gifted program which once served the top students in the school is now all but gone.

 

My daughter is a strong student who could no longer cope in that school. Having her home this year has made me really sad to realize what students are capable of doing and many aren't getting.

 

I do think there are times and places where it has helped--ie making schools more accountable for low income and special needs students. But as usual, the US government took extreme measures instead of a balanced approach that would have addressed the problem spots, not reworked the entire system and lowering the quality of education for those students who are capable of much more.

[Jilly]

I know there are examples of schools doing better now with NCLB, but I still find fault with it though. I think the problem is the content and the scope. There is so much that needs to be covered in the areas of language arts and math that everything else is falling to the side. There is no longer a need to teach history, science, or art. Yes there are standards to be met in these areas, but it isn’t being stressed, and it is not on the tests in the early grades. In addition there is so much that needs to be covered in math and language arts that teachers cover one concept and then move quickly to the next. Children learn, but often forget over the long term. Then you have the teacher stress, and this is a real factor that cannot be overlooked. Teacher creativity has been dropped because there is no room for it. You have your standards you have to meet, you have the curriculum you must use, you have the test hanging over you…it is stressful. What is the alternative? I don’t know, but I think we need to look at other nations in the world to get some ideas. Yes our schools are doing better than before, but are they great now? The answer is no, and I think we need to ask ourselves why.

[Tree Frog]

But I want to address the poster who noted that slower kids benefit most from efforts to "teach to the test" (heavily paraphrased, I realize). Speaking as someone whose kids definitely brought up the average, I would gladly welcome ANY effort to assist the slowest learners. IMO the social cost of these kids, once adults, is far greater than that of the brainy ones who've not had their educational needs fully met. Many of them will be fine. None of the slowest learners will "be fine" without specific help and we all pay the price.

 

 

There needs to be a balance, finding that middle ground in how quickly to move through subjects. I agree it's important to assist the slower learners. However, I don't think it should be to the detriment of the faster learners. I understand what you're saying in regards to the social cost of assisting the slower students, but there is also a social cost to not challenging the quicker students, too; they will find other "entertainment", whether it's to prove to their parents they don't need to study (or even get an education) to finding creative use of their talents, sometimes in very negative ways. I believe all students should be challenged on his or her own level, but I don't think it's fair for a class of 30 students to learn at the pace of the slowest 2 or 3 students.

[Perry]

There is so much that needs to be covered in the areas of language arts and math that everything else is falling to the side. There is no longer a need to teach history, science, or art.

 

I hear this a lot, but according to at least one study, arts instruction hasn't decreased.

New Report: NCLB Did Not Narrow Arts Curriculum

 

June 15th, 2009 | Category: Accountability

Share This Post

 

Under the headline, “Frequency of arts instruction remains steady, †a new report from the National Assessment of Education Progress concluded:

 

 

In 2008, fifty-seven percent of eighth-graders attended schools where music instruction was offered at least three or four times a week, and 47 percent attended schools where visual arts instruction was offered at least as often. There were no statistically significant changes since 1997 in the percentages of students attending schools offering instruction in music or visual arts with varying frequency.

 

There were also no significant differences found between the percentages of students in different racial/ethnic or gender groups attending schools with varying opportunities for instruction in either music or visual arts in 2008.

Does this mean the NCLB-negatively-impacted-arts-curriculum meme is done? Perception feeds reality, except when facts rear their ugly head.

 

 

My kids in ps have excellent arts and music instruction. In fact, those are the only areas I'm entirely satisfied with.

 

Also, I don't think NCLB can be blamed for the lack of history instruction. History was replaced sometime in the first half of this century by "social studies", and it really hasn't been taught in this country in decades. I didn't learn any history until I started homeschooling my kids, and I went to elementary school in the 60s.

[jujsky]

The problem is that the NCLB tests are nationalized. The assumption is that all children are being taught the same material across the nation. I don't believe school districts in Washington state are teaching the same materials as those districts in Washington, DC, are teaching the same materials in South Dakota are teaching the same information in Alabama. For NCLB to work, public school education needs to be nationalized so that all the states are teaching the same material at the same time. (Please don't throw tomatoes at me...I don't agree that ps need to be/should be nationalized). What I hear you saying, Heather, is that school districts need benchmarks. I agree, but the test should then be based on what the school district believes is important, not what the federal gov't believes should be taught (unless what is taught is nationalized).

 

:iagree: Thank you! I was going to make this point but you beat me to the punch.

 

I also want to add that NCLB is actually hurting some good school districts. There are a couple of districts in my area that are well-known for their excellent special education programs. Parents with special ed students often move to those districts so their children can receive the best education possible. Because funding is tied to test scores, and special ed students are not exempt from the test, schools with a large percentage of special ed students are not going to score as well as schools with a smaller percentage of special ed students. I also don't understand how withholding money from failing schools is going to ever help those schools pass. If the government is going to use an arbitrary test to measure school success, then they need to stop and take a look at WHY some of the numbers are so low. It's not helping matters to punish a school that has a high level of special ed, immigrant, or poverty-level students. The schools may jump through hoops and do everything they can, but it doesn't mean they're going to be able to pass. And what's the cost of passing? I know in our local elementary schools, science and social studies is barely taught at all because there is such an emphasis on covering math and reading for the tests.

 

Are there bad schools? Bad teachers? Absolutely! More often than not though, I don't think it is the teachers or the schools, but the environments many of these kids come from that is having the greatest impact. If a child goes to school hungry because they have little to eat at home, if a child is abused, if a child is up all night listening to his/her mother and her boyfriend fight, if a child lives in abject poverty then those things are going to negatively impact that child's ability to do well in school. The less affluent the district, the more likely the school will not be able to perform well. In essence, too much is expected of schools. Do people want schools to educate children or do people want schools to fix all of the social problems in our country? They can't do both -- at least not well.

 

Honestly, NCLB is one of the main reasons I homeschool. I'm sure that it is helping some schools, but I feel it is hurting far more schools than it is helping.

[Perry]

More often than not though, I don't think it is the teachers or the schools, but the environments many of these kids come from that is having the greatest impact. If a child goes to school hungry because they have little to eat at home, if a child is abused, if a child is up all night listening to his/her mother and her boyfriend fight, if a child lives in abject poverty then those things are going to negatively impact that child's ability to do well in school. The less affluent the district, the more likely the school will not be able to perform well. In essence, too much is expected of schools.

The problem with this is that there are schools that serve these populations that do very, very well. It is tough, and they have to work a lot harder at it, but some ARE doing it.

 

Common Characteristics of High Achievement Schools

Our research on the 90/90/90 Schools included both site visits and analyses of accountability

data. The site visits allowed us to conduct a categorical analysis of instructional practices. In the

same manner that the authors of In Search Of Excellence (Peters and Waterman, 1982) identified

the common practices of excellent organizations, we sought to identify the extent to which there

was a common set of behaviors exhibited by the leaders and teachers in schools with high

achievement, high minority enrollment, and high poverty levels. As a result, we found five

characteristics that were common to all “90/90/90 Schools.†These characteristics were:

• A focus on academic achievement

• Clear curriculum choices

• Frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for improvement

• An emphasis on nonfiction writing

• Collaborative scoring of student work

 

 

Curriculum Choices

Such a focus on achievement inevitably leads to curriculum choices, spending more time on the

core subjects of reading, writing, and mathematics and less time on other subjects. It is possible,

for example, that many of the teachers in these schools did not “cover the curriculum†in the

strict sense of checking off objectives from a wide variety of curricular areas. They chose—

wisely, we believe—to emphasize the core skills of reading, writing, and mathematics in order to

improve student opportunities for success in a wide variety of other academic endeavors later. It

is interesting to note parenthetically that, despite their disproportionate emphasis on language

arts and mathematics, these schools also significantly out-performed their peer schools on

science tests as well. This makes an important point that eludes those who remain committed to a

“coverage†model: tests of science, social studies, study skills, and virtually every other subject

area are, in fact, tests of reading and writing.

I used to believe as you do, right up until my kids started school. I live in Iowa, where we have always been told that our education system is one of the best in the country. When my oldest was in first grade, I quickly discovered that most of the kids in her combined first-second grade class couldn't read. At all. The teachers were constantly complaining that it was because their parents didn't read to them at night. Well, I call BS. I read to my dd every day of her life, and she was not learning to read at school. Midway through first grade, I started teaching her with a good phonics program, and within weeks she had advanced several grade levels. I started helping out in the school, and was shocked and appalled at what passed for reading instruction. Of course the kids couldn't read, they were being told to get their mouth ready, look at the shape of the word, and guess. It's true that those kids aren't going to have support at home. I wish they did, but they don't and the schools can't change that. What they CAN change is the way they teach, but they don't because it conflicts with their ideology of how they believe kids should be taught. Their ideology is not supported by science or evidence, but it continues anyway.

[Heather in WI]

So we set educational goals, find or create materials to help us reach our goal, then assess to see if the goal has been reached. We call it "teaching to the test" but really...you should teach what you plan to assess and assess what you have taught. Why is that evil? If you set a goal for yourself to run a certan distance in a certain amount of time, how would you ever know if you met that goal unless you had a stopwatch?

 

Now, why where all the NCLB strings attached to this process? Standards/benchmarks have been around for a while and guess what, teachers didn't follow them. They did (or didn't do) exactly as they pleased. You can point the finger at unions and teacher tenure, lazy principals, lazy parents, and all manner of people who thought poor kids or special ed kids would never learn. The culprits are many.

 

The government has tried MANY initiatives over the years to improve education but nothing worked. It would be great if all human beings involved in education took their jobs seriously but they don't. So the government did the only thing that would get their attention...tied it to the money.

 

And guess what...it is working. Scores ARE going up.

 

:iagree:

 

My opinion is either get the federal government COMPLETELY out of education or have a program like NCLB to enforce standards.

 

Our Milwaukee Public Schools are terrible.

More than four out of 10 Milwaukee Public Schools fourth-graders score at or below the most basic level of math proficiency, and more than six out of 10 eighth-graders score at or below basic. {snip} The average scores at the fourth and eighth grade (in MPS) are lower than the average special needs (students') scores for the state of Wisconsin {

source

}

 

And, it's not because of money.

Milwaukee Public Schools spends significantly more per student than comparable systems around the United States, but, by one measure, has some of the weakest academic results.

source

 

Our school district has missed NCLB progress targets for five years in a row!

 

At this point, most citizens are so fed up with MPS, we don't know what to do. I feel so bad for the parents who don't have the option to homeschool or put their children in private school. For years people knew MPS was bad, but before NCLB there wasn't a way to measure or prove it.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Heather in WI

[WiseOwlKnits]

NCLB is a big part of why I chose to homeschool. I used to be a teacher in a good district in TX. My last year in the field we sat down at the end of the year and counted the instructional days our school lost to testing - 77. 77 out of 180 days. And that doesn't count 6-weeks tests, semester tests, classroom (chapter) tests...that's only "benchmarks" and practice TAKS tests. Even in the P.E. classes, students had to do math and reading problems AND had to be graded on them as part of their P.E. grade. Good schools are under even more pressure to have their kids do well on the test so they can keep their "good" status.

 

I quit teaching because I had my DD over the summer and then decided I couldn't send her to a public school knowing what she'd face.

[angela in ohio]

I think the federal government should never have been involved in ps. But it is now.

 

I think conservatives are blamed for NCLB, but the liberals had plenty to do with it, then ducked out and pointed fingers when it failed.

 

And I think SOMETHING needs to be done to get around the stranglehold that the teacher's unions and schools of education have on our schools. NCLB was one attempt, but I don't think it was effective. No serious reform can come as long as the teachers union fights any attempt to get teachers to do their job well. Teachers are complaining that they had to quit teaching this or that in order to teach what is on the test. I don't think they can say with a straight face that they were doing a good job of teaching much BEFORE the test. If you haven't taught a child to read by fourth grade you have no business spending time on much else until that happens! This was an attempt to get them to quit teaching fluff and start teaching basic skills. I don't think that's wrong. I just think NCLB wasn't the most effective way to do it, as it was enacted.

 

I do think "they just teach to the test" is an over-used, poorly thought out refrain. I always ask, "Well, what's on the test? Do you know? Is it something worth teaching?"

[LibrarianMom]

The problem is that the NCLB tests are nationalized. The assumption is that all children are being taught the same material across the nation. I don't believe school districts in Washington state are teaching the same materials as those districts in Washington, DC, are teaching the same materials in South Dakota are teaching the same information in Alabama. For NCLB to work, public school education needs to be nationalized so that all the states are teaching the same material at the same time. (Please don't throw tomatoes at me...I don't agree that ps need to be/should be nationalized). What I hear you saying, Heather, is that school districts need benchmarks. I agree, but the test should then be based on what the school district believes is important, not what the federal gov't believes should be taught (unless what is taught is nationalized).

 

Actually the NCLB tests are not nationalized. Each state has its own standards and their own tests. Schools in Washington state and Washington DC are not necessarily teaching the same material. There are probably similarities but they will be teaching to their state standards.

 

An issue I have with NCLB is that each year the stakes raise and schools have to do better in order to make progress. The time is coming when schools will have to make 90 or 100% pass to make progress. While that would be great, it is unrealistic as you have some kids who are not able to do that well, others who are smart but aren't good test takers, and other kids (particularly older kids) who just don't care and purposefully will throw the test. In my state, juniors take the ACT as part of their state exam, but most take it again on an official test day and feel it doesn't matter.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have no problem with the idea of testing children, but I do have a problem IMO with fuzzy curricula such as Terc Investigations, Everyday Math, and lack of intensive phonics instruction. Locally in the next county they just approved spending a huge sum of money to adopt EDM:001_huh:.

 

This link has a wealth of info on inadequate curricula IMO:

http://www.illinoisloop.org/math.html#spiral

 

 

I also have a problem with many states lowering the bar to pretty low levels compared to the NAEP exams on their NCLB tests. If you look at NAEP results, it is shocking how few make it to even basic level which is not proficient.:(

 

I have also heard that NCLB rules often require special education students to test on grade level for their age instead of their grade level that they are actually working on. I think that if that is true then that should be looked at. I would think that if a child is working on a grade level years behind their chronological grade level, then they should be tested on the grade level they are working on. I also like the idea of beginning of year tests and end of year tests to check for actual improvement.

 

As far as ESL students, I also think that should be taken into consideration as well. However, I did read an interesting article recently on the drawbacks of current ESL language instruction. Basically, it said that English immersion is the way to go.Those students who do not get immersion in English also end up not faring as well despite years of ESL instruction.

 

My 2 cents:)

[Rosy]

As a former schoolteacher who taught in CA's inner city and poor rural school districts... I totally agree with where Gov. Schwartznegger is heading. Private vouchers and merit pay for good teachers.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/ap_on_re_us/us_california_education_reform

 

I think that is a great idea...it seems that looking outside the traditional public school model will give parents more options as well as strengthening the existing public schools.

 

I agree with the others who have said the Fed gov't doesn't belong in education in the first place. If the Fed gov't is going to be handing out money, I think they ought to be able to ensure that we get a good return on our investment. I'm not sure NCLB is the best way for that to happen, but handing out money with no strings attached isn't a good idea either.

[Matryoshka]

As far as ESL students, I also think that should be taken into consideration as well. However, I did read an interesting article recently on the drawbacks of current ESL language instruction. Basically, it said that English immersion is the way to go.Those students who do not get immersion in English also end up not faring as well despite years of ESL instruction.

 

I think you're thinking of bilingual programs. ESL is English immersion - no other language is spoken in the classroom; only additional instruction in English is given vs. a regular classroom.

 

My mom was an ESL teacher for over 20 years. She had kids from all over the world and didn't speak a word of any of the native languages the kids spoke. She is trilingual, but all the Spanish-speaking kids were in the Spanish bilingual program, and there were pretty much zero German immigrants.

 

Most ESL programs are also only designed for a kid to stay in a couple of years, till their English is strong enough for a regular class.

[WiseOwlKnits]

I taught ESL. ESL is English-only instruction. Bilingual is some-percentage-Spanish/some-percentage-English.

 

The big problem with NCLB and ESL is that teachers now have 2 years to get students speaking, reading, writing, and understanding enough English to pass a standardized test not only in English, but using content-specific words that they may have never encountered even in their native language. I had many students who had come from Mexico, Iraq, etc. literate in their native language. In 2 years, that student is expected to be able to read, understand, and correctly answer questions about personification and alliteration, for example. Um, yeah.

 

And when the student CAN'T do that, the entire school fails b/c NCLB is written such that an entire school can "fail" because one too many students in one sub-group fails one section of the test. This happened with my school in 2005 - they got bumped down to "Acceptable" because one too many African American students didn't pass the science section of the TAKS test.

 

NCLB also made it harder, like the PP was saying, for SpEd students. Where they could take a district-approved test (usually a previously administered TAKS test on the child's working level), the vast majority of students were blocked out from having that option. Some say it's good because it ensures SpEd students are really pushed to do their best...others say that it creates undue stress and sets the child up for failure. After seeing an 8th grade boy (who was working on a 4th grade level) in tears because he couldn't understand what the questions on the test, I have to lean towards the latter.

[EthiopianFood]

I believe it has caused teachers to teach to the slowest students in the class and hold back students who could move through the material much faster and/or deeper. Students who would like to be challenged in their learning are not and become bored with school.

 

I haven't read past this post.

 

I have heard this so many times, and I really want to point something out. I KNOW some of the slowest kids in the class, and their needs are NOT being met by the school system. With NCLB, they just pass them along to the next grade, whether they have learned the material or not (refering to elementary school, at least). NO CHILD gets the individualized education that they deserve, including the kids who are behind. Yours needs faster, mine needs slower, neither gets it.

[AngieC]

Even in the P.E. classes, students had to do math and reading problems AND had to be graded on them as part of their P.E. grade.

 

:huh: I can't get past this post. What on earth did they make them do? Run a lap, do a math problem, run a lap? Or did they cancel gym for the day and do math problems instead? Either way, that's just insane!

[TravelingChris]

In my area of VA, They have started using portfolio reviews instead of tests for special ed and foreign language students. Many more are passing now. The schools that are failing are usually the same schools everyone would say were failing a long time ago. But then I hear how many kids are taking AP courses and then find the average passing rate is down at 3% or 10%. I don't think those classes are truly AP at all.

[Haiku]

 

What do homeschoolers think about NCLB?

 

 

 

I am a homeschooler who also has a child in school, and I also used to work as a textbook editor.

 

After NCLB went through, the work I did changed quite a bit. Textbooks (which are already poor learning tools, imo) became test prep manuals. In fact, one project I worked on was a science "curriculum" for 8th grade. The entire "curriculum" consisted of a test prep manual. That's it. That's all the kids were supposed to do for 8th grade science: study the test prep manual.

 

To me, NCLB has reduced schools to test-prep centers and has removed the idea of a vibrant school community. Now, a school exists only in relation to its NCLB grade. It doesn't matter what goes on in the school; only the grade matters.

 

And that is particularly worrisome because it has been well documented that family income is the biggest predictor of success in school. Poor areas just don't do as well, and NCLB does NOTHING to address this. It just points fingers.

 

My schooled daughter's education has been reduced to "Remember this: it will be on the test."

 

Tara

 

ETA: I lived overseas for a while, and the country I lived in had national testing. It worked in that country because the population was smaller than the state I lived in, very homogeneous, and not very economically stratified. Also, schools were funded equally in that country. In a country that allows poor schools to be funded poorly and that has a population as varied as the US, I have serious doubts that a national test can work.

Edited January 12, 2010 by TaraTheLiberator

[Pippen]

And guess what...it is working. Scores ARE going up. Teachers are forced to actually know what the goals are for the class, teach them, and then assess them. And then they have to take a look at the data and see where the gaps are and make a plan for closing those gaps.

 

None of this is evil.

 

Would it be better if we didn't have to have NCLB? Of course. My initial reaction to NCLB was the same as everyone else's. But I have seen the data. It works.

 

Let the tomato-throwing commence. :D

 

The data doesn't tell the whole story. In our experience the other side of the No Child Left Behind story is what I've come to think of as Good Students Being Left Behind.

 

I don't have a problem with establishing goals, bringing in uniformity to curricula within states, or holding schools accountable for instruction of all populations. I have a HUGE problem with the fact that in districts that are stressed financially, resources must be redirected to the lower performing students in order to meet the mandates. Those resources have to come from somewhere, and in our district it's meant that better students in schools with higher populations of at-risk students aren't getting what they need. They cut the gifted program and reinstated it in only a very limited form. They talk individualizing but how that plays out in reality is that they do a lot of individualizing for the lower end, but if you're a top student that means in most classrooms you get a higher level reading group and maybe a few extra challenging math worksheets thrown in when the teacher has time. (I can hardly fault the teachers here-I sure wouldn't want their job. Our experience is that only a few of the best are handling all aspects of this successfully). They've adopted a reading curriculum that is tailored to meet the needs of the bottom but doesn't do anything substantial for the upper level. Math and especially reading have become even more emphasized to the point where our school's teachers were instructed to take minutes away from social studies and science if needed to keep the math and reading scores up. Minutes once devoted to writing have decreased significantly and are now focused on working towards the 5 paragraph essay required by the 4th grade tests. Changes are being made so rapidly by population and resource stressed schools that what my daughter received in 4th grade last year bore little resemblance to what her brother went through only 2 years ago. She's performing well on the standardized tests, but the quality of education that the better students receive has diminished at the expense of better test scores for others.

 

I don't have any problem with programs mandating better instruction and accountability, but I think because its largely unfunded by the federal govt, there's no way for many districts, schools or individual teachers to implement it without taking a great deal of potential learning away from the better students.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Pippen

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I think you're thinking of bilingual programs. ESL is English immersion - no other language is spoken in the classroom; only additional instruction in English is given vs. a regular classroom.

 

My mom was an ESL teacher for over 20 years. She had kids from all over the world and didn't speak a word of any of the native languages the kids spoke. She is trilingual, but all the Spanish-speaking kids were in the Spanish bilingual program, and there were pretty much zero German immigrants.

 

Most ESL programs are also only designed for a kid to stay in a couple of years, till their English is strong enough for a regular class.

 

Oops:tongue_smilie: I believe you are right. I think the article was referring to bilingual programs as not working well.

[Haiku]

Scores ARE going up. Teachers are forced to actually know what the goals are for the class, teach them, and then assess them. And then they have to take a look at the data and see where the gaps are and make a plan for closing those gaps.

 

 

If things actually played out in practice like you described in your post, that would be great. Unfortunately, what it actually plays out as is that the curricula is narrowed to ONLY what will be on the test. A well-rounded education is neglected in favor of intensive practice in one type of writing (the type that will be on the test), extensive practice testing and test-taking strategies instruction, and tons and tons of remedial reading practice.

 

There is no creativity in how things are taught. There is no flexibility in how things are taught. There are no "rabbit trails" taken. Individual student interests and class interests are ignored. Only what is on the test is given any attention or importance.

 

Last year, my 8th grader got art and music once a month. This year, she doesn't get them at all. She is offered gym once a week (which I know is better than most schools), but she misses it because she is in a remedial reading program (and I have mixed emotions about the missing gym thing: she NEEDS the remedial reading and I have pushed for it for four years, but the only reason they finally offered it is because she is going to have the take the state graduation test next year and there is no way she could pass it with the reading skills she currently possesses). The one thing she enjoys about school (gym), she misses for extra test prep.

 

NCLB does not result in more accountability. It results in a narrowed education aimed solely at "passing the test."

 

And having worked in educational publishing, my opinion is that standardized tests aren't worth the paper they are printed on. I helped develop standardized tests, and my opinion is they test how well you answered the test questions on that day, not how much you know. The test questions aren't designed to test your knowledge; they are designed to test how well you can answer them.

 

Tara

[jujsky]

Perry,

 

I could not figure out how to quote a quote, so I can't repost the information you used about a 90/90/90 school verbatim. To paraphrase, it said that reading, writing (non-creative writing), and math were emphasized, though that meant that time was taken from other subjects -- I'm assuming art, PE, music, history, and science.

 

Maybe it's a matter of what different individuals feel is important in terms of education. I don't think that cutting time from subjects -- history and science especially -- are going to make our children successful in a global economy. Those subjects are important, and motivate my kids to do well in the 3 R's.

 

I do agree that in SOME low-income schools the staff is making it work and kids are achieving. However, in MOST low-income schools they are not. We live in a district with a high Hispanic population. Our schools are failing because most of the kids not only live in poverty, but they come to school unable to speak English. The 2 years they allot the students to learn English before testing them is just not adequate time to become proficient enough to test well. NCLB does not care why schools are failing. A district we would move to if we ever decided to send our kids to school is failing because of the high percentage of special ed students who attend. They attend that district because they have an awesome special ed program.

 

To be completely fair and transparent here, I have always opposed standardized testing. Not all kids test well regardless of how smart they are or how much preparation they've had. My son is one of those people who thinks outside the box. He often bombs multiple choice questions because he doesn't give the answer the test is looking for. For example, he had to circle the picture that didn't belong the other day. There was a guy in shorts, a guy in a parka, a snowman, and an igloo. Most people would pick the guy in shorts -- the only picture that had nothing to do with the cold. DS chose the igloo -- the only thing that didn't have human features. His answer would have been wrong if marked on a test, but his logic sound -- it just wasn't an "in-the-box," neat little answer the test wanted. I have always done horribly on standardized tests due to test anxiety. Such a big deal was made out of them when I was in school. We had a few weeks of prep beforehand. My anxiety would build for days before the test, and once it was in front of me I would just freeze, sweat, watch the clock, panic. God, even thinking about it all these years later makes my heart beat faster and the bile rise in my throat! I was a student in the 80s and early 90s when there wasn't as much pressure on test-taking. If I was a student in today's classroom with the vast emphasis on preparing for this be-all, end-all test, I would not fare well. Geez, I'd probably have a nervous break-down! I was always an honor-roll student, a great writer, and an avid reader. Those tests did not accurately measure what I knew. They don't measure the strengths and weaknesses of many students.

Edited January 12, 2010 by jujsky

[WiseOwlKnits]

:huh: I can't get past this post. What on earth did they make them do? Run a lap, do a math problem, run a lap? Or did they cancel gym for the day and do math problems instead? Either way, that's just insane!

 

Our classes were 45 minutes. They had to spend 15 minutes of class doing a "warm-up" and then discussing which one was the right answer and why. Then they had 30 minutes for their regular P.E. class. Art, band, and all electives were the same way.

 

What struck me as funny was when the kids scored "low" on one of the math benchmarks. So for the next 6 weeks they made all the teachers in every class do math questions for a warm-up. So English teachers, art teachers, history teachers, etc. were trying to explain math problems to the kids when half of the teachers didn't understand what the correct answer was themself.

[Perry]

Perry,

To paraphrase, it said that reading, writing (non-creative writing), and math were emphasized, though that meant that time was taken from other subjects -- I'm assuming art, PE, music, history, and science.

 

Maybe it's a matter of what different individuals feel is important in terms of education. I don't think that cutting time from subjects -- history and science especially -- are going to make our children successful in a global economy. Those subjects are important, and motivate my kids to do well in the 3 R's.

 

I do agree that in SOME low-income schools the staff is making it work and kids are achieving. However, in MOST low-income schools they are not. We live in a district with a high Hispanic population. Our schools are failing because most of the kids not only live in poverty, but they come to school unable to speak English. The 2 years they allot the students to learn English before testing them is just not adequate time to become proficient enough to test well. NCLB does not care why schools are failing. A district we would move to if we ever decided to send our kids to school is failing because of the high percentage of special ed students who attend. They attend that district because they have an awesome special ed program.

 

 

 

Here's another passage from the 90/90/90 article:

It was noteworthy that the schools that had the greatest gains did not eliminate special area

courses, such as music, art, physical education, and technology. Rather, these courses were

explicitly a part of the academic preparation of every student. In schools with the highest gains,

each teacher in the special areas was given the standards in mathematics and language arts in

which students needed the greatest amount of help. Each of these teachers incorporated some of

those language arts and math standards into their daily lessons.

I'm sure history and science probably take a back seat in some of these schools, but I don't have a problem with that in elementary school. Most of the science instruction I've seen at the elementary level has been a big waste of time. My kids studied the rainforest and life cycle of insects ad nauseum.

 

Social studies was another huge time waster. In first grade, my dd spent weeks working on a class project where they made a replica with dioramas and clay of the neighborhood. Seriously, are they afraid the kids are going to grow up and not know about the local Mr. Movies? At the time, we were afterschooling and doing SOTW a few times a week. My kids knew more history by 4th grade than I knew when I graduated from college. And it didn't take much time at all.

 

If the kids can't read and do math, secondary science and history instruction is useless. I'd rather see a really good foundation, and put off heavy duty science and history for a couple years. Any science they miss out on can be easily made up later.

 

 

I do agree that there are huge problems with NCLB and ESL. In my area though, it's not much of an issue, as we have only a small number of ESL kids. We do have high poverty areas, but the schools aren't making any attempt to emulate the 90/90/90 schools. Instead, they are trying all sorts of other lame brain interventions that don't work, and the curricula stinks. Good phonics instruction with early RTI has been very effective, yet they won't use it.

 

It doesn't make any sense.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Our classes were 45 minutes. They had to spend 15 minutes of class doing a "warm-up" and then discussing which one was the right answer and why. Then they had 30 minutes for their regular P.E. class. Art, band, and all electives were the same way.

 

What struck me as funny was when the kids scored "low" on one of the math benchmarks. So for the next 6 weeks they made all the teachers in every class do math questions for a warm-up. So English teachers, art teachers, history teachers, etc. were trying to explain math problems to the kids when half of the teachers didn't understand what the correct answer was themself.

 

I understand that this was done because they perceived a school wide weakness in math. But - way back in the early 80's when I was in teacher college, we were taught in P.E. class, ways to incorporate math and reading into our lessons. This was simple stuff for young kids - making letters with their bodies, lining up in a certain number pattern, stuff like that. I just wanted to point out that supporting academic stuff in P.E. class wasn't totally invented just for NCLB.

[Pippen]

Our classes were 45 minutes. They had to spend 15 minutes of class doing a "warm-up" and then discussing which one was the right answer and why. Then they had 30 minutes for their regular P.E. class. Art, band, and all electives were the same way.

 

What struck me as funny was when the kids scored "low" on one of the math benchmarks. So for the next 6 weeks they made all the teachers in every class do math questions for a warm-up. So English teachers, art teachers, history teachers, etc. were trying to explain math problems to the kids when half of the teachers didn't understand what the correct answer was themself.

 

They haven't gone this far in our district but they keep trying all sorts of different things--especially in the middle schools--to tackle the problem areas on test scores.

 

One year the 7th grade students had to rotate through writing classes in all their content areas. That meant that every social studies, math and science teachers became writing instructors. They did one inservice in the way of training and then they were on their own because at the time there were no curriculum materials for such courses. That lasted for a year or two.

 

Most recently they decided to add an extra language arts period at the middle school and to accomplish that all middle school core subject area teachers now have sections of grammar or writing. On paper most were certified but in reality many of them have taught their subjects exclusively for many years. I have a friend who has been teaching science for 25 years who is now teaching a 7th grade writing class. She will become NCLB "highly qualified" based on state guidelines after teaching it for a year or two based solely on having taught it.

 

Good teachers will find a way to make it worthwhile for the students but I can just imagine what's going on in some of those classes.

 

At the middle school level when they add on extra minutes aimed at improving test scores, the time is coming for the most part out of tech, home ec and art classes so tough luck to the students who are really wired up for those subjects. Somehow the foreign languages have remained entrenched so all middle school students get some kind of intro to languages, and rotate through Spanish, French and German.

[Heather in Neverland]

The problem is that the NCLB tests are nationalized. The assumption is that all children are being taught the same material across the nation. I don't believe school districts in Washington state are teaching the same materials as those districts in Washington, DC, are teaching the same materials in South Dakota are teaching the same information in Alabama. For NCLB to work, public school education needs to be nationalized so that all the states are teaching the same material at the same time. (Please don't throw tomatoes at me...I don't agree that ps need to be/should be nationalized). What I hear you saying, Heather, is that school districts need benchmarks. I agree, but the test should then be based on what the school district believes is important, not what the federal gov't believes should be taught (unless what is taught is nationalized).

 

NCLB tests are NOT nationalized. Each state creates or chooses its own test. I was on the committee to design the Language Arts portion of the test for the state of Michigan. The questions were written by teachers, evaluated by teachers and chosen by teachers. Other states may do the process differently but the U.S. does not have a national curriculum or a national test (not yet anyways).

[Tree Frog]

Actually the NCLB tests are not nationalized. Each state has its own standards and their own tests.

 

 

NCLB tests are NOT nationalized. Each state creates or chooses its own test. I was on the committee to design the Language Arts portion of the test for the state of Michigan. The questions were written by teachers, evaluated by teachers and chosen by teachers. Other states may do the process differently but the U.S. does not have a national curriculum or a national test (not yet anyways).

 

Thank you for the clarification. I thought the tests were all nationalized.

 

Marcia

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

NCLB tests are NOT nationalized. Each state creates or chooses its own test. I was on the committee to design the Language Arts portion of the test for the state of Michigan. The questions were written by teachers, evaluated by teachers and chosen by teachers. Other states may do the process differently but the U.S. does not have a national curriculum or a national test (not yet anyways).

 

This is correct for Virginia also. My MIL, a veteran teacher (and fan of testing), was on the committee to design the mathematics portion of the Standards of Learning which were developed in the mid-1990s as directed by the Commonwealth of VA - many years PRIOR to Federal government's adoption of NCLB (2001).

 

When people complain about the content on the SOLs, I often wonder if they know where they originate.

 

K