On the detriment of NCLB

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

NCLB

MEMBERS

6 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

NCLB Chatboard

On the detriment of NCLB

by Dominic F. Sankar

Jun 30, 2009

As a newly minted "No Longer a First Year Teacher", it is now time to turn my attention to all of the reflections I have collected or completed over the past year, and really dissect them. Several key areas, which will be instrumental to next year’s success, require careful scrutiny, and then there are one or two things that just leave me scratching my head.

As I prepared to enter my first year, I struggled with the ideology of “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Where would I stand? Could I justify actions that led to the promotion of a student I felt did not truly deserve it, or would I teach (and grade) the way I learned? Further complicating the matter was the question of how could I water-down my lessons, and at the same time, identify those higher achieving students?

As discussed on this message board (by Mr. Ed/7th/GA on 6/14/09) in “NCLB is Killing Gifted Ed and impacting gifted students' future”, I agree that it is extremely difficult to cater to one d...See MoreAs a newly minted "No Longer a First Year Teacher", it is now time to turn my attention to all of the reflections I have collected or completed over the past year, and really dissect them. Several key areas, which will be instrumental to next year’s success, require careful scrutiny, and then there are one or two things that just leave me scratching my head.

As I prepared to enter my first year, I struggled with the ideology of “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Where would I stand? Could I justify actions that led to the promotion of a student I felt did not truly deserve it, or would I teach (and grade) the way I learned? Further complicating the matter was the question of how could I water-down my lessons, and at the same time, identify those higher achieving students?

As discussed on this message board (by Mr. Ed/7th/GA on 6/14/09) in “NCLB is Killing Gifted Ed and impacting gifted students' future”, I agree that it is extremely difficult to cater to one demographic of (low-performing) student, and yet reach or engage students in need of more rigor.

Lesson differentiation can help to engage students with different learning styles, and increases the interaction between such students. However it has been my experience that sometimes these lessons are detrimental to some students, who lose focus and manifest this with poor behavior. I believe that in some cases (and not in all) that this moves beyond a teacher’s ability to differentiate, and into the realm of disengaging a certain level of student.

In agreement and in accordance to Mr. Ed/7th/GA, the focus of NCLB is on the lower performing students. I also agree that the focus of NCLB garners more attention in larger classes when the range of learning levels are more diverse and therefore encompass a greater spectrum, than it does in a smaller class where the range has less diversity. How then does a policy that is geared towards developing students at the tail end of a spectrum, help students that are in the middle or in the higher end, and how does this policy help those students improve?

A central ideology of education is the furthering or expansion of abilities and potentials. When a policy creates an all-encompassing curriculum to elevate a certain demographic of students, it has a trickle effect on other students, teachers and eventually the culture of an educational system. Another aspect of NCLB was identified in comments by Ms. Brown (06/15/2009: NCLB on this same site) who identifies the detrimental and seemingly unfair effects on Special Education. Ms. Brown comments that students in a special education class are being set up for failure, because they are subject to the same assessments as general education students, and whose progress are also measured alongside the general education students. In comments in response to Ms. Brown’s post, Mariana (06/20/2009, Re: NCLB) writes that her students were affected by unfair standards, which assessed special education students based on statewide tests, not on actual progress made.

Once again NCLB proves that it hinders more than it helps. There are compelling arguments and discussions that show that an all-encompassing policy that only caters to the improvement of scores of low-performing general education students, does not work. Not only can it create an unfocused and crippling environment for high-performing students, it also fails to facilitate the improvement of students in the middle of the pack. Furthermore NCLB may be having a less than desired effect on the assessment of students in a special education setting. (Word Count 596)

Comment

(1)

report post

Lea Although you addressed the negative aspects of NCLB very well, you omitted the fact that the whole standardized testing procedure assumes that all that students need to know are the bare minimum facts of the core subjects. Thus, students are learning to memorize facts rotely, and when we teachers of electives actually expect them to use higher leve...See MoreAlthough you addressed the negative aspects of NCLB very well, you omitted the fact that the whole standardized testing procedure assumes that all that students need to know are the bare minimum facts of the core subjects. Thus, students are learning to memorize facts rotely, and when we teachers of electives actually expect them to use higher level or critical thinking, they are either flabbergasted, bemused or ignorant of how to even start the process. NCLB is the dumbing down of America, so we won't have to worry about losing jobs overseas. The employers will know that Americans are educated on basically a fifth grade level and hire the students from the countries where critical thinking means more than choosing a multiple choice answer. I have been a teacher for over two decades and I have never had to deal with such fundamentally lazy thinkers in my entire career. If I ask a question that has no choices, they invariably just sit and wait for me to prod the answers from them. Perhaps the gurus in D.C. and the state governments should consider setting the standard high enough so that no matter what subject the students are taking, they have to think to come up with an answer, not just eliminate choices. Furthermore, I don't know what the standards are like elsewhere, but in VA, you can miss 30-50% of the questions and still pass the tests. Then, to add insult to injury, the student who passed the SOL test, with an equivalent score of 60%, gets an A automatically on the final exam. At least, that is what our county does, much to the dismay of those of us who are trying to teach to the end of the year, in spite of the fact that the tests are given in early May. Insanity, your name is spelled NCLB! Thank you for letting me vent.

Lea

On 6/30/09, Dominic F. Sankar wrote: > As a newly minted "No Longer a First Year Teacher", it is > now time to turn my attention to all of the reflections I > have collected or completed over the past year, and really > dissect them. Several key areas, which will be > instrumental to next year’s success, require careful > scrutiny, and then there are one or two things that just > leave me scratching my head. > > As I prepared to enter my first year, I struggled with the > ideology of “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Where would I > stand? Could I justify actions that led to the promotion > of a student I felt did not truly deserve it, or would I > teach (and grade) the way I learned? Further complicating > the matter was the question of how could I water-down my > lessons, and at the same time, identify those higher > achieving students? > > As discussed on this message board (by Mr. Ed/7th/GA on > 6/14/09) in “NCLB is Killing Gifted Ed and impacting gifted > students' future”, I agree that it is extremely difficult > to cater to one demographic of (low-performing) student, > and yet reach or engage students in need of more rigor. > > Lesson differentiation can help to engage students with > different learning styles, and increases the interaction > between such students. However it has been my experience > that sometimes these lessons are detrimental to some > students, who lose focus and manifest this with poor > behavior. I believe that in some cases (and not in all) > that this moves beyond a teacher’s ability to > differentiate, and into the realm of disengaging a certain > level of student. > > In agreement and in accordance to Mr. Ed/7th/GA, the focus > of NCLB is on the lower performing students. I also agree > that the focus of NCLB garners more attention in larger > classes when the range of learning levels are more diverse > and therefore encompass a greater spectrum, than it does in > a smaller class where the range has less diversity. How > then does a policy that is geared towards developing > students at the tail end of a spectrum, help students that > are in the middle or in the higher end, and how does this > policy help those students improve? > > A central ideology of education is the furthering or > expansion of abilities and potentials. When a policy > creates an all-encompassing curriculum to elevate a certain > demographic of students, it has a trickle effect on other > students, teachers and eventually the culture of an > educational system. Another aspect of NCLB was identified > in comments by Ms. Brown (06/15/2009: NCLB on this same > site) who identifies the detrimental and seemingly unfair > effects on Special Education. Ms. Brown comments that > students in a special education class are being set up for > failure, because they are subject to the same assessments > as general education students, and whose progress are also > measured alongside the general education students. In > comments in response to Ms. Brown’s post, Mariana > (06/20/2009, Re: NCLB) writes that her students were > affected by unfair standards, which assessed special > education students based on statewide tests, not on actual > progress made. > > Once again NCLB proves that it hinders more than it helps. > There are compelling arguments and discussions that show > that an all-encompassing policy that only caters to the > improvement of scores of low-performing general education > students, does not work. Not only can it create an > unfocused and crippling environment for high-performing > students, it also fails to facilitate the improvement of > students in the middle of the pack. Furthermore NCLB may > be having a less than desired effect on the assessment of > students in a special education setting. (Word Count 596)

Jul 3, 2009

report post