Welcome Guest!
Teachers are welcome to read and post on Teachers.Net.
Login to access to these free features:
• Relaxed spam filters
• Post pics, links & comments
• Get notified of responses |
• Join teacher groups
• Apply to teacher jobs
• Post a resume |
Welcome Guest!
You must login to comment on posts.
Login to access to these free features:
• Relaxed spam filters
• Post links & upload pics
• Get notified of responses |
• Join teacher groups
• Apply to teacher jobs
• Post a resume |
Welcome Guest!
Your account must login to post.
Login to access to these free features:
• Relaxed spam filters
• Post, comment, & upload pics
• Get notified of responses |
• Join teacher groups
• Apply to teacher jobs
• Post a resume |
by What's the worst thing about NCLB? The testing?
Jun 26, 2008
Is it Reading First? Or the testing? Or a combination?
On 6/26/08, Stellaluna wrote: > Did anyone see this? What a tough place to be.... but I > don't want to give away any spoilers. > > I downloaded it "on demand". I recommend watching it.. then > we could have a discussion.
by Stellalun
Jun 26, 2008
Shortly after this article was published... news reporting the opposite have been posted.
Not working at a Reading First school I don't know how to comment.
Anyone?
by Tom (Houston)
Jun 26, 2008
Someone said, "We need Doctors, Lawyers, and Indian Chiefs. But we desparately need Butchers, Bakers, and Candlestick Makers." I'm one of the older posters and remember when our school schedule had a break about the time of Thanksgiving to allow the farm kids to help gather the crop. NCLB pretends that all kids are exactly equal and all need the ex...See MoreSomeone said, "We need Doctors, Lawyers, and Indian Chiefs. But we desparately need Butchers, Bakers, and Candlestick Makers." I'm one of the older posters and remember when our school schedule had a break about the time of Thanksgiving to allow the farm kids to help gather the crop. NCLB pretends that all kids are exactly equal and all need the exact same education. IT'S WRONG!!! We had students that were the kids of the owners of very large farms. The math they needed was how many bushels of corn made a wagon load or how much cotton by volumn made a 500lb. bale. They didn't need Shakespear or Advanced Algebra. The kids that did, didn't need to know how a diesel engin worked or how much 13-13-13 was needed on a crop in July. When we started ignoring those facts of life and started pretending that the kids that could barely say his name was going to score the same as the son of the NASA person, we just stopped educating for the public good and started playing politics..... .
This is the first I've heard of this... and I thought I was making 'adequate progress' in keeping up with this jazz...
Anyone else out there whose state also will be under this category?
by requested web site
Jul 15, 2008
Not long ago there was a serious discussion on this site concerning a study that compared the NCLB standards and tests in all 50 states to each other.
There were several people who wanted to read the study. I came across the actually study when I was working on my master's thesis this morning. I do not know how to put a link in, but here i...See MoreNot long ago there was a serious discussion on this site concerning a study that compared the NCLB standards and tests in all 50 states to each other.
There were several people who wanted to read the study. I came across the actually study when I was working on my master's thesis this morning. I do not know how to put a link in, but here is the web site. The study is called THE PROFICIENCY ILLUSION
Here is the first page of the study:
No Child Left Behind made many promises, one of the most important of them being a pledge to Mr. and Mrs. Smith that they would get an annual snapshot of how their little Susie is doing in school. Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer would get an honest appraisal of how their local schools and school system are faring. Ms. Brown, Susie’s teacher, would get helpful feedback from her pupils’ annual testing data. And the children themselves would benefit, too. As President Bush explained last year during a school visit, “One of the things that I think is most important about the No Child Left Behind Act is that when you measure, particularly in the early grades, it enables you to address an individual’s problem today, rather than try to wait until tomorrow. My attitude is, is that measuring early enables a school to correct problems early…measuring is the gateway to success.” So far so good; these are the ideas that underpin twenty years of sensible education reform. But let’s return to little Susie Smith and whether the information coming to her parents and teachers is truly reliable and trustworthy. This fourth- grader lives in suburban Detroit, and her parents get word that she has passed Michigan’s state test. She’s “proficient” in reading and math. Mr. and Mrs. Smith understandably take this as good news; their daughter must be “on grade level” and on track to do well in later grades of school, maybe even go to college. Would that it were so. Unfortunately, there’s a lot that Mr. and Mrs. Smith don’t know. They don’t know that Michigan set its “proficiency passing score”—the score a student must attain in order to pass the test—among the lowest in the land. So Susie may be “proficient” in math in the eyes of Michigan education bureaucrats but she still could have scored worse than five-sixths of the other fourth-graders in the country. Susie’s parents and teachers also don’t know that Michigan has set the bar particularly low for younger students, such that Susie is likely to fail the state test by the time she gets to sixth grade—and certainly when she reaches eighth grade—even if she makes regular progress every year. And they also don’t know that “proficiency” on Michigan’s state tests has little meaning outside the Wolverine State’s borders; if Susie lived in California or Massachusetts or South Carolina, she would have missed the “proficiency” cut-off by a mile. Mr. and Mrs. Smith know that little Susie is “proficient.” What they don’t know is that “proficient” doesn’t mean much. This is the proficiency illusion. Standards-based education reform is in deeper trouble than we knew, both the Washington-driven, No Child Left Behind version and the older versions that most states undertook for themselves in the years since A Nation at Risk (1983) and the Charlottesville education summit (1989). It’s in trouble for multiple reasons. Foremost among these: on the whole, states do a bad job of setting (and maintaining) the standards that matter most—those that define student proficiency for purposes of NCLB and states’ own results-based accountability systems. We’ve known for years that there’s a problem with many states’ academic standards—the aspirational statements, widely available on state websites, of what students at various grade levels should know and be able to do in particular subjects. Fordham has been appraising state standards since 1997. A few states do a super job, yet our most recent comprehensive review (2006) found that “two-thirds of schoolchildren in America attend class in states with mediocre (or worse) expectations for what their students should learn.” Instead of setting forth a coherent sequence of skills and content that comprise the essential learnings of a given subject—and doing so in concrete, cumulative terms that send clear signals to educators, parents and policymakers—many states settle for nebulous, content-lite standards of scant value to those who are supposed to benefit from them. That’s a serious problem, striking at the very heart of resultsbased educational accountability. If the desired outcomes of schooling aren’t well stated, what is the likelihood that they will be produced? Yet that problem turns out to be just the opening chapter of an alarming tale. For we also understood that, when it comes to the real traction of standards-based education reform, a state’s posted academic standards aren’t the most important element. What really drives behavior, determines results, and shapes how performance is reported and understood, is the passing level—also known as the “cut score”—on the state’s actual tests. At day’s end, most people define educational success by how many kids pass the state test and how many fail. No matter what the aspirational statements set forth as goals, the rubber meets the road when the testing program
by D. Whaley
Jul 18, 2008
I feel that there are pros and cons to this discussion about NCLB. Children should not be limited to their abilities but glorified in what they can do.
next page »
« prev page
Teacher Chatboards
