What's wrong with the No Child Left Behind Act?

Can someone give me the DU perspective on this because from what I've heard (mostly from the slimy media) it doesn't seem bad at all.

It bases education on standardized tests and fires those teachers and principles responsible for low test scores. I've always supported standardized testing because, let's face it, there are plenty of students who are urchins and do nothing in school but sell drugs. These people don't deserve to graduate. There is also a heavily subjective factor in school grades.

Is it true that Ted Kennedy supported it?

That's why it's bad. I also tend to believe in local control of education with federal assistance, but I believe that local school districts can make better decisions about curriculum, etc. than the federal government can.

eom

requiring schools and colleges receiving money under the law to provide military recruiters with access to students' names, addresses, and telephone numbers. The privacy implications are profound.

he DOES the opposite.

2 words - no $. The education bill is the second largest unfunded mandate (after special education) in the history of federal education legislation. It is the largest reduction of local school board decision-making power in history.

Their plans are suppoased to involve reducing the size of federal government programs and giving the power back to the states. Hell I'm all for that so we can get rid of the NCLB crap and hold local officials accountable for the conditions of our schools.

it hasn't been funded, the money went to a slightly different program involving children.

Thankfully, that decent Donald Rumsfeld is in charge of it.

You have a bad school and mark it as a bad school. Now you've got educators who are associated with a failing school. They aren't going to want that so the better teachers and principals are going to immediately leave the school. The school will then only be able to attract teachers who might not be the best. The school continues to fail. And there's no funding to help the school improve or provide incentives for quality educators to teach there.

That's how I saw an educator on C-Span explain the main problem with NCLB.

If a school gets a failing mark the "good" students are allowed to transfer to a "good" school, which will make the "bad" school worse. It really is just a methid to segregate and isolate the poor people in the poor areas with little school funding and "keep them down."

If I recall correctly, the boy king instituted a similar system in texas when he was gov and they now are amongst the worst states in education.

Bad schools already have a hard time attracting teachers, since those are the schools swamped with problems. Add to it the proviso that if you can't raise reading scores in six months you're out the door, what sane teacher who needs an income is going to jump on board that train wreck?

Plus, what kind of sense does it make to give failing schools LESS money. I don't believe in throwing money at the education problem, since I don't feel you need to spend gazillions per student to teach them to read, but your average failing school is not spending money on carpetted planetariums.

While I think there are many things wrong with education in the US, failing urban schools are in WAY over their ability to solve the problems they have by themselves.

I attend one of the finest schools in the country, ranked first in the state of PA as a high school. And because 94.5% of the school took the standardized test and the requirement is 95%, the state put my school, ranked NUMBER ONE on a watch list and threatened a take over if we failed again within the next few years. My school had to SUE the state to get off the list, costing the district money that it didn't have that should have gone to pay for the BIGGEST UNFUNDED MANDATE in the history of education.

It is a problem. The districts don't have the money to pay for it and local taxes are going up, up, up.

:hi:

eeep, was that a euphemism or what? It uses punishment - if a school is in trouble and not performing well, students may leave and the school loses funding. SO naturally the school performs even worse.

Second, a problem with standardized tests is that it is straightforward to teach the test - increase kids' test-taking skills, teach them the stuff that comes up on tests, put them in practice tests a lot, and so forth. And even without that, there's some major questions about what tests test? Then we have the whole literature on cultural bias, cheating on the tests, and so forth. Take a look sometime at the Princeton Review's books about the SAT - they do a fine job prepping people because they understand that the SAT is a test of how well you take the SAT - and very little else.

As someone who's done classroom teaching, I agree with your point about lack of objectivity - but disagree to the degree that I feel I have a pretty good grasp on how well my students do and can take appropriate action to move the class along faster if everyone's really getting it, and take aside those who are lost, help them get found. A test, properly done, is a learning tool- it helps the student see where they are and helps the teacher see where/if they need help. Increased reliance on standard testing diminshes the role of the person on the spot who knows the class best and who, if they aren't doing a good job of evaluating their students, should be trained to doit better - not have that part of their job usurped.

I'm sure there's a lot more to cavel about with the NKLB thing, but that's my take. I believe it's also an unfunded mandate sort of thing, but I'm not sure on that.

just for the testing, which comes out of their funds for books, facilities, teachers, etc.

on a test) and they disaggregate the data by income, race, special education, etc. and each subgroup must meet that standard (say 62% of students pass the cut off that is supposed to prove "mastery" on a state test). So far so good, sounds reasonable. If any single subgroup does not meet the goal - the whole school fails. Now that wouldn't be bad in and of itself, becuase it would focus the school's improvement efforts on that area. BUT there are more and more consequences for the school. All that cost the school money.

Here is where it gets really bad. Each year the bar gets raised. So take a struggling urban elementary school where 33% passed the grade level test. They have to show a certain amount of progress in the first year - for each subgroup. The next year the bar gets raised higher and each group has to meet the higher mark.

Here is the doom and gloom part. In a number of years (can't remember when) ALL schools are supposed to have 100% of the students passing. Can't be done. In the consequences provisions things like schools giving "vouchers" to pay for kids to get tutoring. Later years schools have to allow students to transfer to better schools (even if, as in Chicago, there are no schools to take the kids).

Many believe it is a set up - that as it gets impossible the solution: Vouchers! or worse... Vouchers for ALL schools (eg disband all public schools go to an entirely privatized system) is introduced (and wins).

and only serves to insure that all schools eventually fail, proving the conservative belief that all public schools are lousy.

They deal with just one town, but I've seen others just like them in other towns. Seems to me that there are so many regulations surrounding the "testing" that it drains already strained resources. (And like everyone else said: underfunding)

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/09/14/build/education/leftbehind.php?nnn=3

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/09/14/build/education/scores.php?nnn=3

then you will probably like this act.. why not base education on learning the basic skills needed to continue a life time of learning instead of teaching to a test?

standardized tests for standardized kids....let the brainwashing begin.

on top of the basic valididty problems that these tests suffer from the bar has been set to impossible heights. This act is designed to destroy the public education system in the United States and convert it to a private for profit school sysytem. The wealthy will get the best education while the rest become brainwashed slaves to the capitalistic nightmare that has taken over our once great nation.

NCLB is a terrible law that is doing nothing but harming our children and convincing teachers that the uphill battle isn't worth it. NCLB isn't a bad law because it's unfunded...funding it would only make it worse.

Here are some points about NCLB:

Schools must improve each year, as assess by standardized test scores. Sounds good, right? But hold on...if a school has 90% of its population pass the test, the next year the school must get more students to pass, or else it can be labeled needs improvement, and ultimately all the staff at the school can be fired (this has already happened at one school in Texas, I believe). What about schools that (miraculously) have 95% of the population passing...they can be labeled as needs improving if they don't get 96% of their population passing the following year.

NCLB puts new regulations on teachers' licenses above and beyond state requirements (keep in mind that education is a state program, as there is nothing in the Constitution about education, so the federal government shouldn't have much to do with deciding state education mandates). These new rules affect middle school teachers the most. Middle school teachers usually have a K-8 license, but often don't have an endorsement for their specific subject area (this is the category I fall into). This means that many teachers will have to go back to school and get another endorsement (we are talking thousands of dollars and a lot of time, and many teachers like me already have several thousands in student loans). If I did not already have a masters degree, I'd have to take 30 to 36 units by 2006 to keep teaching. Keep in mind that my degree is pretty fresh; I've only been teaching for 4 years, so it's not like I'm not up to date on the newest theories and buzzwords. If I didn't have my masters, I'd be forced to quit teaching simply because I cannot afford to go back to school (and I've already spent $25K+ getting credentialed). Half of all teachers quit in the first 5 years because of high stress and low pay. This law is putting additional stress on teachers, when there is already a shortage, making more teachers want to quit (including me, I've been seriously considering it).

Teachers, under NCLB, are held 100% accountable for student learning. That may sound fair on the surface, but think of education as a 3 legged stool. It takes all 3 legs to stand, and in this case the legs are the student, teacher, and PARENTS. I cannot teach a student who does not want to learn, AND has no support at home. Some children at my school are homeless, abused, neglected, non-english speaking, etc. But they still must pass the standardized test, regardless of aspects of their life that teachers cannot control. Yet teachers are held completely accountable for their learning.

Basically, the requirements of NCLB are unrealistic. I have given you a few examples, but there is MUCH more there. Teachers are already overburdened with teaching in classrooms with 35+ students (and NCLB has actually increased classroom sizes, I heard but cannot confirm). Do we really want teachers to be focused on teaching to the lowest common denominator because we have to get ALL students to pass a standardized test, or do we want to give children truly individual attention and help them to achieve their personal potential?

My dad is a recently retired school superintendent. He's a Republican, yet he says it's the stupidest thing to come down from Washington that he's ever seen.

As the above post points out, the chief stupidity is that it expects schools to IMPROVE every year, regardless of where their starting point is. If you already have an excellent school, it's going to be hard to make it better. So under NCLB, that school would likely be tagged as a failing school after a few years, even though it's a great school.

as a good thing. Ultimately it will doom the bill to irrelevance. First time everybody at some high end high school gets fired because the school didn't improve from 97% to 98% (I predict this will never happen), parents will rip the roof off the place. Ever mess with Boomer parents from a high end district? Let's just say they like to get their way and they know how to do it.

and teachers don't like to be held accountable! I have quite a few relatives that teach, and they hate it for that fact. All of the lazy teachers work less than half the days of the year, and they're just trying to protect their high paying jobs. They make an unbelievable amount per hour.

in other, less gentle, places you would be flamed hard for that one.

:)

Someday I must get rid of my ignores. I can't see what I am missing.

Entry level in my area is around $23k and that is considered high... which isn't much when someone has to pay off four years of college and set up household with it.

Our district lost some teachers for better salaries elsewhere...

As for lazy teachers... there are lazy people everywhere but luckily most of the teachers I have met love to teach and they are very energetic people who spend a lot of time with 20 or more students per day.

If you want to talk about making an unbelievable amount per hour...how about my pediatrician... he bill me $75 for 15 minutes...but I like him anyways...

Our dustrict is 30k and we're in Texas. I thought we were about the lowest there was.

Where is entry level 23 K?

:hi:

Bear in mind that it's very costly to live here and teachers graduate with college debt, as do most college grads..

and they pay out of pocket for lots of supplies for their students:(




http://www.edsource.org/pdf/TeachersCompFinal.pdf

n/t

And I'm worth every penny. When did so many in this country turn on the profession of teaching? Now we're just BAD, BAD, BAD. When I think of the work my mother did as a 4th grade teacher and now she gets to hear from the right how lazy and incompetent she was.

I actually think that it's because many in this country are too hung up on the successes of their children; look at sports. And when there is not agreement that Johnny or Jenny is God's gift to the classroom, some parents become hostile and mean.

Take parenting seriously but just because your child isn't perfect doesn't mean that you aren't.

so brilliant 'cause you taught yourself. I'll bet that whatever you do for a living is full of slacking assholes, too....or are you either unemployed or not out of school yet????? Such a stupid remark. If there were no teachers, all the asshole yuppie parents would not have 1) a free babysitter and 2) someone to blame for the fact that their kid is a lazy little dumb bastard. I've watched too many teachers work like dogs with the budget of a lemonade stand to try to help kids learn and many times try to help kids with rotten home environments-----both affluent and inner core. And the great money??---our three kids straight out of college made more than my husband after 35 years of teaching. Yep, great dough.

Monday, Sept. 21st: Arrive at work at 7am. Set up the room, file/deal with all of the work I brought in that I did at home on the weekend. Read lesson plans. Contact three parents whose kids are having difficulties to discuss options for addressing problems.
After school: rush off to a district committee meeting. Which lasted until 6:30. 7pm...coordinate a parent meeting for a special program at the DO. At 8:30 I'm still there, answering questions and giving parents the time and attention they need. I had a 30 minute lunch break and a 30 minute dinner break. By the time I leave at 8:50, I've been working for 13 1/2 hours, not counting dinner and lunch.

Tuesday, Sept. 22nd: Stagger in at 7am. Start correcting all of the papers I didn't get done because I was in meetings the night before. Stop correcting before I'm done to set up the room for the day and review lesson plans. After school: start planning next week's lessons. Struggle to find a way to meet required science standards with no science books or materials available. But I have to document that I'm meeting the requirement. Ponder Fred's struggle with exponents and make notes about how and when to give him some extra support. Head for the library/curriculum center to see what we're going to read since I haven't been given any texts yet. It's the 4th week of school. Give up in frustration and head for the teacher's store at 6pm to find something, anything, to address our 6th grade science standard. Only 11 hours today if you don't count the shopping expedition.

Wednesday, Sept. 23rd: Arrive 7am, set up, and try to get some paper correcting done. 8am staff meeting. 3:30 special programs meeting. Back in the room by 5pm. More planning. Answer a huge list of emails piling up about mundane details. At 6 pm, the teacher next door enters the room crying in frustration. I spend an hour supporting and mentoring...another one of my hats. Leave at 7. 12 hours that day.

Thursday, Sept. 24th: Arrive 7am, set up, and desperately try to finish the planning for the next week. Papers for correcting are piling up, but I need to get the planning done before the end of the week. 8:00 am special programs parent meeting. 3:30...make calls to 5 parents to discuss issues of the day. More paper correcting. Meet with 2 other teachers to set up some teaming/student sharing. I agree to take an extra 3 4th graders during our math because they need an accelerated math program. Work in the room planning/correcting until 6:25. At 6:30 there's another parent special programs meeting. It lasts until 7:30, at which time 2 parents with concerns need me to listen and support. I leave at 8:30...another 13.5 hour day.

Friday, Sept. 25th. 7am. Finish planning for the coming week, including differentiation for a variety of students who need it. 8:00 am meeting with the principle to set up parent ed schedule for the rest of the year. 3:30; put everything away, and pack up about 150 papers still to be corrected. And a huge pile of copies that need to be made. My copy budget for Sept. is shot, so I'll have to make them at home on the multifunction machine. Meet with the VP to discuss an after school vandalism incident. Leave at 5:30 pm, after only 11.5 hours. But I stop at staples on the way home and invest another $100 in ink for the multifunction machine.

Of course, I do get a 30 minute lunch each day, so you could subtract that 30 minutes from the daily totals. Except on the days when I'm returning parents calls, correcting papers, and meeting with students during lunch.

Oh, I almost forgot. 4 hours on Saturday correcting papers and making copies. Another 2 hours on Sunday. So I could be ready to begin again this morning. And used a whole ink cartridge in the process.

That's right. Lazy. All that time off. That unbelievably high salary.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

i think a problematic assumption is that its the teachers fault you can't get the test scores raised. I never understood our manic obession with testing students constantly. I know a teacher who works in a low performing school. She is a wonderful teacher..yet if the school is still low performing in a year she can get fired? This is an educator who has been in the teaching business for 30 years. what are you going to do...bring in a teacher fresh out of college with no experience? you'd be hard pressed to find a qualified teacher who WANTS to be in a low performing school. Low performing schools are low performing for lots of reasons. demographics is a major factor in this. so lets just cut off all funding to them? what does that solve? the teacher i know works in a school that draws from the "bad" part of the town. There is nothing you can do to raise the test scores of children who simply cannot lean either. I don't know if its like this everywhere, but as many as 40% of the top students in my town leave for private school, of course the test scores are going to go down. add to that the fact that under this act students would be able to transfer to better perforoming schools in the town. what do you have left but the bottom of the barrel?

What is our plan, as a grade level, to raise test scores in reading and math? While not unanimous, several of us said let's just teach to the test. Sorry folks, but that is the most likely scenario.

Tell me a profession or a job where you are evaluated by taking a test. Policemen? Firemen? Secretaries? Teachers? Checker at WALMART? You get a performance review!

You think teachers are going to be fired for standardized tests? Come on. We know how to work the system and teach to the test and while you make think it's unethical, what are you going to do about it? And while you are figuring out what to do about that (oh, you'll have to build another bureaucracy) dollars and time will be wasted on something that doesn't really matter all that much because EVERYONE involved has turned it in to a joke; states, local districts, administrators, and teachers.
NCLB? It isn't funded anyway so some states are actually taking a pass.

One of the things that has always made the American school system BETTER than those around the world has been the fact that we don't peel off kids using testing. You can go as far as you want and the system doesn't have roadblocks: until now.

This is real, and it probably happens a hundred fold every year, in every state.

Students are supposed to be divided up into classes in our county by certain standards. These standards would prevent one teacher from accidentally ending up with a class of students on a low-performing level.

One year there were 5 classes on our elementary grade level. The 4 other teachers had pretty good classes, well-balanced on the whole.
I was an experienced teacher which nothing but good evaluations, high grades on my certification classes, and an excellent reputation.

But this year, my class was a nightmare. The teachers on my grade level went with me to have a meeting with the principal, and the teachers from the previous grade level went as well. The latter presented the criteria they had used in dividing the classes, and they even SHOWED the principal the lists they had kept for the dividing.......proving that my class could not be possible unless someone else changed the kids around.

The principal refused to listen and ushered the 11 of us out of her office. Later one of the secretaries came to us and blabbed. Turns out two classes (one another grade), one of them mine, were "stacked" with the problem students. I won't go into reasons, but it was true. Nothing was ever done about it of course, but needless to say that no one could have taken this bunch and had them score well. A total of 21 out of 25 had serious serious learning and behavioral problems. My kids did not score well on a standardized test. They were not capable of doing so.

Soon the guidance counselor, who knew nothing of the meeting we had, went to the principal to intervene for me......I even had parents complaining their kids should be spread out in other classrooms. They praised me, but felt the concentration was not fair to anyone. The principal refused to listen. She was angry because the other teacher and I had crossed her the year before. It was payback time.

In this state money is taken away from the schools who need it the most, the schools without textbooks up to date, the schools without parents who are supportive. The money is given to the schools who perform well already. I had 20 year old science books, a near-by magnet school had two sets of new texts for each student.....one set for home, one for class.

When you support the idea of one test fits all, I think you have not examined the whole situation. These kids are human beings, and so are the teachers. The right wing has done a marvelous job of belittling teachers and schools, and now the next step is coming. Public schools are so bad, they will be privatized.

Before you set up a new system, you must first discredit the old. They have done that already.

Often the good teachers get some of the hardest kids to teach, just because the teacher is good. Principals figure that the good teachers can "handle it" while some of the less seasoned teachers might not be able to do that. It's unfair, and it's why so many good teachers burn out. Thank you for staying!

the principal did that to teachers he wanted to quit. Another trick was giving them 6 different rooms to roam between with a cart.

Would you like for me to send you a private message with the reason? It had to do with my mother who was dying. I will share it privately. Yes, the principal disliked me because I hired a lawyer to fight back against her whims and fancies.

She disliked the other teacher because she stood up to her as well.

The situation you described sounded to me, as an experenced classroom teacher, like a principal trying to run off a teacher. Your response lets me see I was probably right.

That doesn't mean I'm taking the principal's side or that I think you're a bad teacher. On the contrary, I quit teaching myself because I couldn't stand our new principal. You could see the callouses on his knuckles from when he brachiated like an Austrailopithicine, which was his normal state.

PS - I got a better job, and they didn't get a better teacher.

When you support the idea of one test fits all, I think you have not examined the whole situation. These kids are human beings, and so are the teachers. The right wing has done a marvelous job of belittling teachers and schools, and now the next step is coming. Public schools are so bad, they will be privatized.

Before you set up a new system, you must first discredit the old. They have done that already.

We're supposed to produce miracles with this level of support.

Here are some good reasons: http://www.alfiekohn.com/standards/standards.htm

The students who are urchins (that's a very polite word :-)) are not motivated to achieve by their possible low scores on a standardized test.

I know of a teenager who was in a juvenile facility for selling drugs. One of his teachers there noticed that he was always drawing in the margins of his papers and books... good drawings, even if he drew in math class. She arranged for him to get hooked up with a professional artist for lessons. One of this young man's pieces is now hanging in the office of one of our county council representatives! The young man managed to get an entry level position with a commercial art group when he got out of the juvenile facility and is doing well there, last I heard. He liked it that he could earn good money doing something he enjoyed doing. Plus, he isn't hungry any more, which is why he started selling drugs.

Not all kids are urchins and not all are happy-ending stories either. But with all the emphasis on testing in the "academic" subjects, programs in art, music, and other "non-academic" areas are being cut drastically and often these programs are the one way to reach some of the hard core urchins. Honest!

It's built entirely on the premise that somehow teachers and schools just aren't working and/or caring enough and what they need is to be dragged into "accountability" by testing. What they NEED is equitable funding, smaller classes and schools and PARENTS who are accountable. And, sadly, there's no way to pass an initiative on that last one.

I have no clue why Kennedy supported it because it was never funded so that not only are teachers/schools burdened with more $#%## testing, they also have to take money from other places to PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.

eileen from OH

Dubya didn't keep the promise.

Second, it relies on standardized testing, requiring it in every grade -- the kids are already standardized-tested to death. Schools already teach to the tests, not to educate.

Third, it has impossible requirements for achievement, which if they are retained, will hurt all public schools in future; some are already starting to be hurt.

Fourth, Santorum tried to use it to sneak his ID/Creationism into science class. His language was adopted, as innocuous, by a 91-8 vote of the Senate. Once the meaning of his language became known, the Senate was able to take the language out in conference committee -- but it was still read in as conference committee language, not part of the bill.

Says that Bush let the Democrats have everything they wanted cause Ted Kennedy wrote the education bill...

The whole program encourages book cooking. Just the sort of books cooking that resulted in the "texas miracle" where low performing students dropped out or were moved to programs like the GED where the testing did not apply. The easiest way to improve scores is to get rid of those who bring the average down.

In Fla when the testing did not result in "enough" failing schools they simply changed the standards. "Failing schools" are necessary to justify the voucher program. They have tweaked the standards enough now to assure a steady flow of voucher dolars to the private sector.

Never believe that the intent of republicans is what they are advertising, and you wil be more likely to know the truth of the situation.

I have trouble with how very easily people have been convinced that the testing thing is so good. As a teacher, I thought of myself and my children as individuals with varied levels of life skills. There were never two alike, not in all my years of teaching.

Some of my former students, ones who really struggled with school, came by to see me the other day. They had dropped out. I felt so bad. When they had been taught as individuals, given tutoring, given extra time with mentors, they had been succeeding.

Since the almighty test became the only issue, they just could not cope. They could keep their grades up to a C, manage to survive, but they could not pass the test. They are wonderful kids, have overcome great odds, but it does not matter anymore.....they are seen as failures by others. They now image themselves that way.

There is a possibility one might go to evening classes for adults, but that won't last. The funding is going for those classes.

When our country defines human beings' worth by one test, then we are failures. It negates all the other efforts, and it calls them unimportant.

I agree with the other ones, but this...no. Students can kiss their teacher's ass all they want and join all the clubs they can, but if they can't pass AN OBJECTIVE TEST WITH UNIVERSAL STANDARDS then there's a problem.

And I don't appreciate your implication that these kids were ass-kissing when they came to see me.

Now, I am enraged at you. That was insulting.

The problems with these tests are legion. Read all of the links I posted for you.

1. They know kids are graduating without knowing how to read.

2. They know grading is out of control. Our local papaer reported that in grade 6 last year, 75 % of the total distrct grades were A's.

If grades are a joke, then how else can a parent know where their kid stands other than a standardized test. My guess is that if teachers would get grade inflatio under control, there wouldn't be a push for standardized testing.

Also, if a school takes a standardized test and it shows parents that 68 % of kids are reading below grade level, then that was a valuable test in my opinion. Parents need to know if the kids in their school are doing that badly, because things need to change when they aren't working.

There is a difference in making one test the ultimate and in using that one test to help fix the system.

And another thing, you appear to be limiting parents' ability to know if their kids are doing well or not. I would think they should be able to know.

Teachers do not inflate grades, administrators and school systems do.

if you flunked 20 % of a particular class, you were circled in red on the grade list the principal got and a private meeting was scheduled. The principal asked you what you could do to change your instructional techniques to help the kids succeed better than they were.

We were told specifically, that what the principal was not telling us was to pass kids who didn't deserve to pass. The lesson we all learned was, don't ever flunk over 20 % of any class. That was sometimes difficult because if I had 25 kids in a class, 20 % is only 5. I may have had three kids who I saw once a week or less. That only left one possible failure among the other 20+ kids.

We had a few years here when we were not permitted to retain children at all. We were told flat out, no exceptions. It was the school board decision, and went along with state policy.

Then they realized that was wrong, and we could retain a certain percentage.

Next they decided that we had to do the whole language Core Knowledge deal to the extreme.

Then they realized they eliminated phonics, so they changed it again.

So as you say, it is not the teacher so much as the administration and the policies of the higher ups who know nothing of children.

they are constantly passing down one-size-fits-all this is the only thing that works, this will solve every problem kinds of mandates, using bully tactics, threats, and job security to enforce them, and then wringing their hands, blaming us, and rushing off to the other side of the pendulum when it doesn't work. And it starts all over.

--of 35 years. Principals, school boards, teachers, et al say that it is designed so that eventually every school in this nation will fail. One thing that hit him immediately was that they were taking a whole level of low functioning (borderline IQ) special ed kids and now refusing to have them exempt from the standard testing. I'm talking about kids (and I worked with them for years and have a step daughter who is one of them). As an example of what I'm talking about: this daughter who is now 28 years old would recognize the term "the president"; but if you said "so what do you think of Bush or President Bush" she would have no idea who you were talking about. Now, can you see this level kid having to pass the standard test that would also be given to my husband's honors class??? These kids mentally cannot do it even with one on one instruction. Even if they gave them the answers in advance. It's a set up to fail. And it is by no coincidence that one of Bush's brothers is the big money in one of these places supplying the 'mandatory tests'.......it stinks. OHHHH, and how could I forget...the private schools are totally exempt from this. Thus, if we ever start handing our money over to them in vouchers, etc., they WILL NOT have to meet any such standards. Do you smell anything, perhaps??--this guy has never done anything for people and he never will.

What a wiley way to get rid of public education ("it's not working/must be abandoned for charter schools") and get it privatized? Grrrrrr.

where the first thing the schools did to get their standardized tests up was to exempt kids by the hundreds from taking the tests to the point where it wasn't a reasonable test of the school. So they put in limits of how many kids could get exempted.

These are kids who already have one teacher for every 4 or 5 kids because they function so lowly. It is like saying that you have to include testing first graders with high school students because that is how low functioning these kids are. And for people to think that schools are exempting a bunch of normal IQ but lazy kids is not the truth. It is a very humiliating experience to make these kids take a test where they cannot answer one question, much less even make sense of the question. It's like making you take the bar exam. Many inner core schools have so many kids in these low functioning categories and they are not being ignored at all. They are receiving lots of help but no one could raise them to that level. So this legislation is dooming schools for actually working hard with these kids. And private schools have the right to refuse them. Public schools don't. Another nice little left over "human garbage" for Bush to deal with if we go "private". Maybe we can just not educated them and make them slaves at age 10.

I was just explaining where it came from.

:(

The logic is that schools with low test scores should be punished, when in fact these are the schools that need the most help.

Many underperforming schools are in poor areas and have few resources and large class sizes. Doesn't it stand to reason that these students will not perform as well as their middle class suburban peers?

Students from low-income households, who are more likely to be in less-than-desirable family sitations as it is, go to schools with fewer books, fewer teachers, fewer sports and activities. Until the funding for our schools is distributed a little more equally, many children will continue to be "left behind."

Here in Texas, schools get worse and worse each year as the passing percentages rise. It forces schools to spend all of their time (and I truly do mean all of their time) trying to meet their production quotas. As a result, children get no stimulation, unless he or she really likes remediation.

You'll get a generation of WalMart line workers out of this one.

At the time, I thought Kennedy was nutso for supporting this one.

1) Underfunded, we know that...

2) I realize you need to seperate the good kids from the kids who have no desire to learn but what are you going to do with those kids? Let them roam the streets so they can commit vandalism or break into peoples' houses. Plus think about it, it's called "No Child Left Behind" yet he wants to leave behind all of those kids who don't try in school. Seems hypocritical to me. Unfortunately the guy who's probably going to be my next governor worked in the Bush administration and is supporting policies very similar to this.

3) Some kids are bad at test taking. I think other things need to be focused on such as their grades in the class and class participation, etc. Granted these tests should be so simple that none of the kids should have trouble passing them unfortunately this isn't the case.

It's not just underfunding. It's the high-stakes testing portion of the legislation. The way the legislation is written, it guarantees eventual school failure, setting up the demise of public ed in favor of privatization.

I've expressed my opinion often enough already. Here's some things to ponder from others. I've posted some of these links here before, but they don't get read much! Click on them and save them to read as you have time; a host of rich information.

http://www.nochildleft.com/

http://www.fairtest.org/arn/caseagainst.html

http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA/

http://www.susanohanian.org/

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0111-04.htm

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/080203Rose/080203rose.html

I am glad I am retired now. I could not take the way the teachers and kids are being treated here in Florida now. It is the face of the future of NCLB.

There is a ruthlessness to it that I can not accept. It has nothing to do with real teaching.

And it's not much different for teachers or kids here on the left coast. I could go on ad nauseum, but I won't. I will say that we need the general population, and especially parents, to recognize what it is doing to public ed. We need them to fight back. To contact reps, lobby, and work. Or soon it will be NPSL in the U.S.

No Public Schools Left.

a standardized curriculum.

And what makes a failing student the automatic victim of a bad teacher? Don't parents play a role? The kind of home life the student has? How much studying a student does? What if English isn't his or her first language?


rocknation

http://www.nochildleft.com/articles.html

An excerpt from Gerald Bracey's article (my fav):

"The NCLB is a trap. It is the grand scheme of the school privatizers. NCLB sets up public schools for the final knock down.

Paranoia? Hardly. Consider that the Bush administration is de-regulating every pollution producing industry in sight while cutting Superfund cleanup money. It has rolled back regulations on power plants and snowmobiles and wants to take protection away from 20,000,000 acres of wetlands (20% of the total). President Bush's response to global warming: "Deal with it!" by which he means, adjust to it while we make the world safe for SUVs. The president wants to outsource hundreds of thousands of government jobs to private corporations. <1> He wants to get the government out of government.

Would an administration with such an anti-regulatory, pro-private sector policy perspective turn around and impose harsh, straitjacket requirements on schools, demands that would bankrupt any business? Of course not. Unless it had an ulterior purpose."

http://www.nochildleft.com/2003/feb03no.html

And that would be privatization and vouchers of course.

Neal Bush was set to make a killing as a maker of the tests used for the schools.

I've seen over and over again what is the parents responsibility in all of this. I have a 11 year old son with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. It mean sounds travels through the ear propertly but the brain doesnt always process the sound or meaning.
Several years back he was offered tutoring and because of those 3 hours extra per week he scored in the normal range on his statewide exam. SO what was done? He now doesn't get tutoring because he scored with the normal limits and then the next year turned around and scored within failing range again.
I can't get shit from this school system. I think they have already written him off and give him okay grades to make me go away.
I go over his homework with him and then the teacher tells me that I shouldn't do this because he should do it himself. Well in a perfect world.
Not all parents don't try and not all parents can do what a teaching professional does. Teaching is the only job that I'm aware of that doesn't hold the cards close to the vest. You're the damn professionals tell ME what the hell to do.
If I sat you in front of a Air Traffic Control radar screen after
talking with you for 30 mins, please by all means keep separation and by all means, don't kill anyone.
While teachers, some not all, like to guilt the parents, I'm not going to buy into it. I'm sorry that some parents like stupid statewide exams but it wasn't me and I never voted for any of that stupidity.
This isn't only about Teaching and losing public schools, lots of kids, by no fault of their own, are really being wrecked. Presently in the here and now.

1. Make an appointment with your school psychologist to discuss the aural processing disorder. Depending on the laws in your state...I only know my own state...he has to be served. Ask the psych for resources to research and learn more about the disability.

2. You need an Individual Educational Plan which outlines specific goals and strategies for reaching them in the classroom. In my state, the IEP is law.

3. Look for a local support group; other parents who have dealt with your issue can be very helpful.

4. Be aware of the ugly underbelly of the situation. Only kids labeled with certain learning disabilities qualify for extra services, because those are the only ones funded. It's federal funding. An underfunded mandate. If the child has a problem, any problem, but does not qualify under the requirements of the state or fed legislation, there is no $$$ to support any extra services. When budgets are tight, districts tighten the belt and work to keep the numbers of qualified kids lower. The unqualified kids who still need help are not offered services. See post # 63 above for a clear understanding of why. There are no teachers available to do the job. Contrary to what "greenwow" posted above, it's not that we don't want to. It's that there is no time left in the day. To truly address this problem, support services need to be fully funded. A political issue.

5. There are absolutely things you can do to help your child at home. With homework, too. Again, meet with the school psych and outside doctors etc. to find out what will benefit your child the most. Then give all of that info to the teacher, and get a formal plan working.

I never did well on standardized tests, yet my 3.8 gpa at Uconn would indicate I am certainly smart enough to have graduated high school. Testing is ok but it can;t be the end all, be all of determining a schools performance or the students readiness.

Maine has been a leader in fighting against it for that reason. They have an excellent school system, but there's no way they can bring it into conformity with what the act calls for. For example, in small rural communities, you can't always find teachers to hire who match the act's stringent requirements. If a school is labeled as inadequate, there may be no other school near enough for students to transfer to. And so forth.

Maine tried to get an exemption from the federal government for that reason, but was denied. They're haven't given up on the matter.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/july-dec03/maine_9-2.html

I have two doubts about the "No Child Left Behind" act.

The first is based on the well-understood principle of
behaviorism: you get what you reward. I'm not at all
certain that scoring well on standardized tests means
that you can think critically, generalize, or understand
problems in their historical and social context. There
will be an inevitable trend towards testing things that
are easy to test, as opposed to the things that we want
kids to learn. And an equally strong trend towards
teaching to the tests, because that's what ensures survival.


My second doubt arises because the act suggests that
"under-performing" schools will get shut down. This
strikes me as yet another brain-dead application of
"free-market forces". The assumption is that the supply
of schools is elastic and responds in a timely way to
fluctuations in the number of "passing" schools in a given
geographic district. Concretely put: if you shut down 2 or
3 high schools in downtown Portland, where the hell do
you place 3,000 kids -- next month? The idea that you
can summon enough buses to ship those kids around to
other schools (that are near to capacity already)
is crazy. The idea that you can make a new, functioning
school materialize in 3 months (best-case) is even crazier.

Isn't this something like shooting horses that can't make
it over a bar? Eventually, you'll find a horse that makes
it -- but only if you don't run out of horses first.

My prediction is that this whole approach will work about
as well as energy deregulation did in California -- they
made insane assumptions about the elasticity of generating
and transmitting capacity and look what happened.

I'm suspicious of any answer to "problem schools" that
doesn't take into account the socioeconomics of the
neighborhood, the functioning of any other schools that
feed into the schools in question, performance of the
teachers, funding issues, behavioral problems, level of
involvement of the parents, ratio of teachers and assistants
to students, and above all else, the competence of the
management. None of these important factors are measured
by the "No Child Left Behind" act. Which makes comparison
of the outcomes the act *does* measure rather dubious, at
best.

J.
P.S. I'm not a teacher. Not thick-skinned enough, so I'll
stick to the comparatively easy job of writing software. My
hat's off to those of you who do this work, though. Don't
let the bureau-bastards get you down.

re: testing.

Not NCLB, but based on the same political theory/agenda.

The high-stakes testing piece of NCLB is not a new idea. It's been underway for a decade in some states; CA under Pete Wilson, GW in TX, Jeb in FL, and some others. It is a conservative strategy for privatizing education. And it has it's counterparts in other countries. NCLB just put it at the federal level for us. To truly take our schools back, we have to abolish high-stakes testing at the state level too. Here's the article:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1052077,00.html

Lost the plot

Despite concessions by ministers, the extent of primary testing remains deeply controversial. Here, Philip Pullman, the prizewinning children's author, argues that we are creating a generation that 'hates reading and feels nothing but hostility for literature'

Tuesday September 30, 2003
The Guardian

Literacy has both a public and a private pay-off. The first empowers us in society; the second enriches us as individuals and encourages us to think for ourselves... unless, of course, the latter is deliberately "educated" out of us for the convenience of those who'd really rather we didn't.

These are just a few of the concerns that have built up during the whole of my professional life as a teacher and a writer, but which I have become more urgently aware of in the recent past.

<snip>

To sum up: I am concerned that in a constant search for things to test, we're forgetting the true purpose, the true nature, of reading and writing; and in forcing these things to happen in a way that divorces them from pleasure, we are creating a generation of children who might be able to make the right noises when they see print, but who hate reading and feel nothing but hostility for literature.

NCLB is a lose-lose system. As other posters have said, it insists that each school improve every year but puts all these provisos and ridiculous details to make sure schools cannot improve. Plus, if one school does not meet the standards, the entire district fails.

Example: There is a school in my district for "problem" middle and high schoolers. Kids who are discipline problems and disruptive in class are removed from their schools and sent to this school for 9 weeks or more, where they receive more intense instruction. It has been very successful, both for keeping order in the regular classrooms and in helping marginal students straighten themselves out with the help of some very dedicated teachers.

Since this is a "temporary" school, it obviously does not graduate students. High school seniors at the school graduate from their "home" schools.

According to NCLB, then, this school has a 0% graduation rate and therefore fails. Thus, the entire district fails. How dumb is that?

I'm reading Molly Ivins' new book Bushwacked, and she goes into detail on *'s policies in Texas schools, which were his prototype for the NCLBA.

One problem not mentioned yet is the dropout rate. Texas "Enronizes" the numbers so they only report a dropout rate of around 4% in poor districts, but outside asessments have put it between 40 and 52%. In essence, the school encourages students who likely won't pass the test to drop out, by holding them back before they take the test (and how many will do that repeatedly?) or some other means. That way the school's overall numbers look better.

Molly describes the plan as one designed for schools to fail and provoke a backlash against public schools, all the better to "train" (rather than educate) people who can't afford private schools.

TAPPED discusses the subject:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/09/index.html#001539
(if need be scroll down to NO NUMBER LEFT UNFUDGED)

that perform poorly by taking away the very thing they need to improve - money to upgrade curricula, infrastructure, and personel. The white suburban schools are the benchmark, and the non-white inner city schools suffer. And the money just doesn't disappear, it is channeled to "alternative" schools that pick and choose who may attend, and where the public has NO input.