|
|

Re: If Reading First is abandoned, will NCLB be less horrid?
Posted by Tracy on 7/30/08
On 6/26/08, What's the worst thing about NCLB? The testing?
wrote:
> Is it Reading First? Or the testing? Or a combination?
No. It's the concept that ALL children will be able to do
certain things by a certain time and can demonstrate this on
a single, high stakes test.
I teach in an urban district with a high transiency rate.
These kids arrive in ninth grade many times with third grade
reading levels, and matching math levels. But by the end of
10th grade, they should suddenly be expected to read and do
math on a tenth grade level. They don't pass, obviously, and
therefore we are a failing school. The fact that we may have
brought them up five grade levels isn't considered. All
that's looked at is that they didn't reach the high bar set
by the state. The wealthy districts have no problem reaching
that bar, so why can't we?
If you don't show "annual yearly progress", then the
state can take over your school. We just spent $30,000 on
outside consultants to come in, check us out, and offer
suggestions. It was that or face reorganization. The
consultants loved us! They saw that we're busting our asses
to help these kids. So, that was 30 grand that could have
been spent on tutors down the drain...
NCLB should be more aptly named "Rewarding wealthy
districts for being wealthy". It does nothing to improve
education. My school needs to hire more teachers due to
retirements. But try recruiting teachers when you're labeled
a failing school. The whole process is demeaning and
diheartening to the teachers (and students!) who work the
hardest, care the deepest and cry the most.
|