Get Schooled

By Dan

May 31, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Who here would hire a Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Engineer, Pilot, Hairdresser, without them having been validated as to a minimum level of competency. (Ok you really don’t need a test for that, not for me anyway). How do you validate that competency? A test, often accompanied by a requisite amount of experience. Could someone achieve all of the learning and be just as good without being tested? Sure but who would hire them

By Teacher

May 31, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

Performance on one test does not show all that a child is capable of. Some children do not test well. Others have things going on at home that prevents them from performing as well as they could. There is so much pressure on the part of the teacher and student to produce high test scores and to perform well on the test. Everyone is affected in some way. Teachers are stressed out ( I see them everyday looking frazzled and discouraged.) There is too much pressure by using these tests to determine who is and is not competent. It is not fair to judge teachers, schools, students, etc on the basis of a test. Oftentimes, we have to start from scratch with children and this includes behavior and trust issues, before they will perform for you. I am tired of being judged by a test. Testing is taking the fun out of school. Kids don’t even get to play as much in kindergarten anymore because of all the pressure. When will the madness end and we go back to the basics. We must also educate parents on how to help their children because no one is reinforcing what is learned at school at home. Some children come to school and can’t recognize their own names or the letters of the alphabet.

By Dan

May 31, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

So whats the alternative? How do you hold teachers and administrators accountable? Teachers are like any other profession there are good and bad and as a group require incentive to perform at their best. Over the last 20-30 years educational performance in this country has been in a tailspin. So clearly some accountability is needed. I am 41 and had to take standardized tests throughout school and nobody complained. As a matter of fact many kids looked forward to the tests, as they often made for a break in routine and a shorter day. So the pressure is being put on the kids by the teachers and administration not the tests. Teachers claim that the tests don’t allow them to teach, I submit that just as often, if not more so, the tests are revealing they aren’t teaching. If teacher would just teach the basics effectively the tests would take care of themselves

By M.B.

May 31, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

As a teacher in the Atlanta Public Schools, I have first-hand experience in dealing with the ramifications (both positive and negative) of No Child Left Behind. I think the best way to evaluate schools is through a combination of objective measures (test scores) and subjective evaluations.
Test scores are indeed a straight forward means of evaluating student progress, but in struggling school districts where students may be one or more grade levels behind where they should be, test scores could easily still show up as “failing” on paper even if the students made significant gains in knowledge during the course of the year. For example, a 6th grader who reads on a 3rd grade reading level gains two grade levels of reading skill in the course of a year, but that would still produce a poor result on a standardized test because, regardless of the gains made, the student is still not on grade level.
Another reason for a mix of objective and subjective evaluations is the issue of leadership. A principal may institute reforms that may dramatically improve the quality of instruction at a school, but the result of the reforms may not begin to show up in the test scores for 1 or 2 years.
Regardless of the way schools are evaluated, any teacher worth his/her salt should be tracking and evaluating his/her students to see if they are actually learning. So, yes, accountability is a good thing. And any teacher who is doing the job properly should have no problem in having their progress measured.

By Lacy

May 31, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

I agree with Dan. There has to be some way of standardizing our schools and seeing which ones “measure up.” Maybe testing isn’t the best way, but for now it’s the best option open to us. Kids are going to be tested later in life, with the SAT, MCAT, GRE, ACT, whatever, so it seems like the earlier exposure should prepare them for taking these exams. And we have to have some way of knowing how educators are performing. Grades don’t do it—any class can get all A’s if the teacher is easy, and any class can get Bs and Cs if the teacher is a bit harder. There has to be some way to standardize, and it seems that testing as it is is the easiest and most cost effective.

As for the “some kids don’t test well” argument. That’s actually a plus for standardizing. In a given sample, you can assume that the level of kids who don’t “test well” should be somewhat uniform, thus lowering EVERY class’ scores. What we really need is more research into the effect of socioeconomics, etc, so that “good” teachers aren’t penalized for their caliber of student. Things like this can be taken into account statistically and give a “normalized” level of performance for a teacher. Bottom line, we need some way to measure performance, and standardized testing are the best idea anyone has proposed.

By M.B.

May 31, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

In response to Lacy,

I don’t think it is the right thing to do to have lower standards for lower-income or at-risk students. If our students are forced to meet the same standards, it just means that teachers in these areas have to work harder. We do a disservice to these kinds of students by lowering our expectations of them. Students will generally rise to the level of expectation you set for them if you give them the tools to get there.
Having said that, I do think it is appropriate to incorporate a means of subjectively evaluating schools for evidence of reform and significant progress. This way, underperforming schools who make significant gains can still be acknowledged.

By Dan

May 31, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Some method of normalization would be a good improvement however it could be easily manipulated, and theoretically would eventually be a non issue as everyone catches up. Also NCLB concerns only federal funding, most school funding is at a local level, so whether or not you are in favor of it, NCLB doesn’t have a significant negative impact if you fail but rather a positive one if you acheive. in other words do well and you get a bonus do poorly and you should still have enough financial resources to run the schools properly

By M.B.

May 31, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Correct, Dan, that most funding occurs at the local level, but you must remember that it is NCLB that determines what schools are on the “Needs Improvment” list….and being tagged with that label can be very debilitating on the community level. I’ve witnessed the effects of this in several communities. The most typical reaction of parents in those communities is to panic and go in search of a new school in which to enroll their child rather than to get more involved at the school to help the school improve. Unfortunately, bad word of mouth about a school only seems to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, NCLB and its accompanying labels are far more significant that just funding.
But again, I am definitely in favor of school accountability and in favor of the intent behind NCLB (even if not its execution)

By M.B.

May 31, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Correct, Dan, that most funding occurs at the local level, but you must remember that it is NCLB that determines what schools are on the “Needs Improvment” list….and being tagged with that label can be very debilitating on the community level. I’ve witnessed the effects of this in several communities. The most typical reaction of parents in those communities is to panic and go in search of a new school in which to enroll their child rather than to get more involved at the school to help the school improve. Likewise, some parents begin to turn teachers into the enemy rather than trying to partner with them to help ensure the success of the school. Unfortunately, bad word of mouth about a school only seems to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, NCLB and its accompanying labels are far more significant that just funding.
But again, I am definitely in favor of school accountability and in favor of the intent behind NCLB (even if not its execution)

By vk

May 31, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

What the general public doesn’t seem to realize is that the teachers are having to teach for the CRCT, not teach the basics to our children. I know this to be a fact. I have a friend who is an elementary school teacher and this is her biggest complaint.

Teach for the test. What happened to teaching the children?

By kaa

May 31, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Teacher training today encourages teachers to use multiple ways to access student learning as well as using different methods to address different learning styles. (no, I’m not just talking about projects) So, many teachers try to do this in order for most or all their students to learn and be successful. Yet, all this hard work done by the teacher and the student really means nothing. Why? Because both the teacher and the student will be judged by one test score. This is simply not fair. Standardized testing is the cheap and easy way out. We all know that it just takes a few seconds to grade a standardized test. Why not use the money to send teams of experts to the schools to see what is really going on first hand? Have the school produce a portfolio of student’s work. Conduct interviews with the students, teachers and administrators. This whole accontablilty by standardized testing is just plain hypocrisy. Most professions require testing to get you in the door, but ultimately you have to prove yourself by DOING the job. Doctors take the MCAT and graduate from medical school, but then they are required to “practice” on people for 2 to 3 years.

By Sylvia

May 31, 2005 05:09 PM | Link to this

The CRCT tests how much of the curriculum has been learned -this is what Georgia considers to be “the basics”. I agree that there should be numerous ways of measuring progress and achievement at schools, but I don’t understand the complaints about the kids being taught to pass a test - not if the tests are curriculum based. There have been flaws in the curriculum which is the new standards are addressing and we should see higher SAT scores eventually, once the new curriculum has been thoroughly established.

By Dan

June 1, 2005 08:34 AM | Link to this

When good teachers teach the curriculum effectively the kids pass the test. Poor teachers must teach to the test in order for the kids to pass. Kaa’s suggestion of using the money to have teams of experts interviewing students and assessing a portfolio of there work? That is perhaps the most ridiculous impossible comment I have heard on this board and thats saying something. Aside from the subjectivity of such a method the cost and the time involved would be 1000 times the testing.

By C

June 1, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

As a teacher, I recently recieved evil looks from my principal when our fifth graders didn’t measure up to the scores of the previous years’ fifth graders. Standardized testing is an effective way of assessing the progress of students. However, when we use the scores to compare the students to others, it will not give us the results we hope for. Every child is different. How can I compare a classroom full of children, most of whom are reading two grade levels below, to a classroom of students moslty on grade level? It’s unfair to the student and their parents. With all the resources of the state, we can find a way to track the students individual scores and compile those yearly for comparison. Compare the students’ performance last year to their performance this year and then complain and belittle me when they show decline. All of my students made progress whether it was from a lower failing score to a higher failing score or from an on grade level score to an above grade level score. Progress was shown for that student! That is what matters!

By GB

June 1, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

Where do I begin…Dan and Lacy have valid points however why did Georgia add the CRCT as a basis for a ‘standard’? Most teachers complain that they have to teach to the test and they do! I became exposed to the CRCT as a new parent (adopted child) of a second grader. The wording used on the CRCT is not on a second grade level and why are they required to know Geometry in the 2nd grade? I think teachers should be allowed to teach the course work and if the Iowa test is still being administered use those scores. NCLB is a joke. The problem which has been in the national news for months is that they do not fund under-performing schools - wake up people. Let’s think about the children. As a new parent I have come to realize that 90% of a child’s test score comes from the effort put in by the parent(s) at home.

By Kathy Prince

June 1, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Is far to judge teachers,principals,and schools? No. Only God can judge not man.

Patti, your article on May 8, 2005 was excellent : “Student test overdone”.Now is the time to find other ways to improve students performance on tests and classroom assignments.Everyone can help create valid measures to improve schools. For instance, I have a math book with just short cuts for standardized math tests. It works for all students and the passing rate is 85%.I started seven years ago working on this as a hobby in S. Florida. So I decided to publish it for everyone to increase their math scores. The book is called “ALL I WANT is the Answer: A Guide to Passing Math Exam. (TV 25) did a story on me May 28th. It will be aired in a few week. Look out for me. Remember only God can judge.

Kathy Prince Author www.iwanttheanswer.com.

By Shala

June 1, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Must I remind everyone, on any given day you can score a perfect score. Who’s to say you didn’t guess 98% of the test right or 98% of the test wrong. Most test may validate some professions and others hender.

These schools have placed the heavy burden on the students that excel and those students that don’t try. My son is a A/B student. He was so nervous until he had diarrhea, because the government hounds the state, the state hounds the schools and the schools threatens the students, from ages 3 to 18. The harrassement has to stop! Just teach! By the way the did pass the test.

By Jason

June 1, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Thank you GB! As a teacher in APS it warms my heart to hear that a parent feels that “90% of a child’s test score comes from the effort put in by the parent(s) at home.” Too often, parents are looking at a school as free daycare for 10 months of the year. At my school, we’ve offered Wednesday tutorial and Saturday School for extra-help preparing for the CRCT. In conjunction with our SRT reforms, these programs should allow our students to excel on the test. However, if homework is not done, then the children are not having the same opportunities to learn the material or become proficient with it. I am tired of trying to contact parents that do not want to be bothered. When “Atlanta Public Schools” appears on the Caller ID, parents don’t answer the phone. We do not have enough hours in the school day to teach children that are significantly behind. Parents must get involved and help out at home.

By Another Teacher

June 1, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Dan, I’ll explain what “teaching the test” means to me, if you explain what “just teaching the basics” means to you.

I am a science teacher, and as a science teacher, I try to incoroporate as many hands-on experiences as possible. From creating models to activities that demonstrate a principle to true labs (which require multiple trials if they are to be considered valid), I try to plan as many as I can. Why? Because I feel the best way to learn science is to DO science.

Since science started being assessed by the CRCT a couple years ago, I have changed how many hands-on activities I include. I have cut down on the activities and started using that time to go over sample test questions. Why? Because that’s what needed for my students. Most read below grade level, and have trouble interpreting the test questions - for example, a test question asked about the composition of the Earth’s inner core - my students knew the answer; what they didn’t know was what “composition” meant! Until I started getting them ready for the CRCT, I didn’t realize that this was a problem.

So now we use workbooks and go over test taking strategy instead of conducting longer, more elaborate labs. We interpret test questions instead of making models. I do demonstrations instead of the students doing them for themselves - all in the name of time.

For those of you who think that the hands-on stuff is just fluff, and not “the basics” be aware that groups like the NSF and NSTA feel that inquiry-based, hands-on science instruction is the best way for students to learn science.

I do think we should be accountable, and I don’t have a problem with the tests as one indicator. I just feel that tests are like snapshots - and we’ve all had bad pictures taken on occasion.

One final thought - the other main indicator for NCLB chosen by most school systems is attendance - makes sense, after all, you can’t learn if you’re not there. However, who is primarily responsible for getting their kids to school each day?

By JR

June 1, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Students need to be held accountable for their own successes and failures. While teachers must teach the required curriculum, students must take responsibility for their own test results. Are good teachers in high performing schools or are good students in high performing schools? A teacher with high test results at Milton High School is suddenly transferred to South Fulton County and consequently, his test scores drop dramatically. Did that teacher suddenly transform into a poor teacher? If the teacher is doing his job, the students who want to learn will, those who don’t, won’t.

By RL

June 1, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

Teachers are now teaching how to do well on the test. Students have no common sense anymore, no creativity or individuality, we’ve created a generation of test takers. Most of the students will not function well in the real world, however they will be able to take a test. We’ve become the “Stepford” generation.

By Dan

June 1, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

First of all I concur that parents and students need to accept more repsonsibility that is unquestionable, and despite the dearth of good teachers a childs education is ultimately the responsibility of the parent.
But the teachers on the board complaing about reading levels is a perfect example of why these tests are necessary. In defending yourself from your detractors you are doing the exact same thing to the reading teachers! These are the basics I refer to and math and foundational science geography etc based on the grade level. And by the way lab experiments are truly a great learning/teaching tool, but they should be intended to illustrate and reinforce the concepts in the curriculum, if they don’t then those labs are poorly conceived and you need to develop labs that do. This is a perfect example of the tests revealing bad teaching rather than causing it.

By Another Teacher

June 1, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Dan - you mistake my explaining that my students have reading levels below grade level as a complaint. It’s not a complaint; it’s a fact. I’m working with the “cards I was dealt” so to speak. But my job is to teach science, not reading - to have to spend time with that is to take away time from something else.

I never said that my labs didn’t accomplish what they were supposed to - they did. But they took more time than I wanted (or had to give up) to illustrate a point - after all, I had a curriculum to cover.

For those of you parents (and concerned non-parents) interested, you can see released tests on the DOE website - I don’t have a an address handy or I would put it in this post. Please look at the tests before you comment. They are not “bad” but what they do often ask is the the child can apply the knowledge, not simply regurgitate it. That takes more time and effort from both the teacher and the student.

It dismays me that when I (or other teachers) try to explain our point of view when are often accused of “whining” or “complaining” - teachers have done the same to some of the parent posts.

It’s not about complaints or accusations, but opening up a line of dialogue. Remember the old saying about walking a mile in another’s shoes? How will you know what shoes I’m in unless I tell you?

As far as the basics go, you might be surprised to learn that I agree with you - for the lower grades. We need to focus on that foundation so that by the time they are in 8th grade, I’m not teaching them reading, but teaching them science. I’m not teaching them how to read a ruler (yeah, I gotta do that, too) - they’re measuring and recording data.

By Devil's Advocate

June 1, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

I recommend that you look up “Value Added” Assessment. It’s a different method of assessing teachers by looking at their students test scores. I know it’s used in Tennessee, but I don’t know if they use it in all districts.

What sets Value Added apart is that it does only compare the performance of the class to the performance of those same students in previous years. So, if a class of kids is three grade levels behind when they come in and a teacher moves them up two grade levels, that progress is attributed to the teachers’ strength. If teachers’ results are a certain percentage above the district average, then in many places they qualify for additional pay.

I know that it still matters if the kids are on level or not, but what I like about Value Added is that it measures the growth and rewards teachers who have students who gain more than they did in previous years.

Another factor that I’ve heard about Value Added is that it seemed to show is many of the teachers in the suburbs didn’t seem to be the great teachers the typical test scores showed. The teachers were just lucky in teaching kids who started out ahead.

By Another Teacher

June 1, 2005 04:16 PM | Link to this

For those of you interested, here is the DOE site for released tests - check it out! Try them yourself…it’s fun!

http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/curriculum/testing/crct_forms.asp

Let me state again, I don’t have a problem with the tests - my only problem is if they are used as a sole indicator for a child’s, teacher’s, or school’s success. There are too many variables (and no one single, easy solution) to the challenges that face education (and ultimately society)today.

By Matt

June 1, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

We are looking at this the wrong way. Tests should be used to measure where we (students and schools) came from and how much can we improve. School disticts should not be compared to each other. It’s like comparing apples from two seperate farms. Some apples got better nutrients than others and they are simply better apples. However, both farms should be doing what ever they can to improve their apples and you have to check/evaluate the apples to see what can be done better. (Note: Some farms with no nutrients and no rain, still produce better apples)

By Dan

June 1, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Listen I know there are many pressures in teaching along with thankless tasks There are also very rewarding times I am sure. But if kids are graduating HS or even progress to 4th grade without being able to read, or do simple math, something is wrong. Clearly you cannot teach science, history, or any other subject without those tools. What is the alternative. Without testing what do people look at to evaluate schools? Graduation rates, which leads to “social promotion” and 8th grade teachers like yourself teaching kids the meaning of composition and how to read a ruler. If those children were kept in 4th or 5th grade until they proved to have mastered those basic items. You would have a far better chance of successfully teaching them science. Similarly the HS Sci teachers could bank on a certain level of competence in the kids you hand of to them, allowing them to create better lesson plans etc. I agree rating on raw scores is potentially unfair, but a system that rates a teacher on before and after scores would perhaps be a truer indication of the teacher. Of course as with any incentive system, there is always the possibility of manipulation. Testing may not be the perfect solution and may be proven wrong but history has already shown without question what we were doing before was wrong.

By Another Teacher

June 1, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

Value Added sounds to be exactly what we need. I think you’ll find most teachers would be for an assessment of what they were actually responsible for - most of us already do that regularly when we give a pre-test and a post-test to determine gains in a unit.

By Another Teacher

June 1, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Matt - if you read enough of my posts, you’ll notice I LOVE analogies!

I liked yours about the apple farms. We can take it further by saying that the better apples from the more challenged farms had to be nutured more by the farmers - who are our children’s farmers?

By Dan

June 1, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Well AT, I think your last comment is one for the local school board and administrators. I am not sure the exact % of funds on the table for NCLB but it is rather small and since very few school districts use all of the money allocated to them it shouldn’t undermine the education. So locally, you (as a district) can use whatever measures you deem appropriate. So the kids and teachers can be rated on many factors. NCLB has become a scape goat. If a school district has the guts and fortitude they can implement their own plan and in 10 yrs when those kids are in college or business the results will speak for themselves for good or bad.

By Another Teacher

June 1, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

You see, Dan - we’re not so far apart after all!

I can’t fathom how parents can allow their students to be promoted NOT knowing how to read or do math - unfortunately some of those have HS diplomas without the assumed skills.

I am for a serious overhaul of our educational system - I’ve stated that in previous posts. The school year is an arbitrary amount of time for students to attain certain skills - some achieve them faster - they should be allowed to move on. Some need more time - they should be given that time.

Remember - if you have an average, then 49% of the people are going to be below that. We sometimes forget that, and assume that everyone should achieve mastery of all skills at a similar rate.

What’s really scary to me is students who test significantly BELOW grade level on the ITBS, and yet pass the CRCT. What does that tell you?

By Another Teacher

June 1, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

I don’t think NCLB is ALL bad - I think parts of it are good, parts are well-meaning but need tweaking, and some parts need to be thrown out.

I think national standards are good (yeah, you read that right). But, I think we need to agree on those national standards, and develop a consistent test (for all states) to determine.

We need to factor in for transiency. About one third of the class I finished with was not the class I started with. Some didn’t have Earth science - yet they were supposed to pick up with my class where we were?

I gave a diagnostic test this year (based on the CRCT) 3 times - once at the start of the year, Christmas break, and the end of the year (it served as my final). Kids I had the entire year made terrific gains - from about 27 % to 78% average. When I factored in the students who hadn’t been with me the entire year, my average dropped to 69%. That’s a lot. I know we code for time at a school on the CRCT, but I know some of those kids are going to fall through the cracks and “be left behind.”

NCLB needs to be fully funded. Period.

Finally, I wish they would change the name…I had more than one parent tell me that their child couldn’t be held back - they thought “No Child Left Behind” meant “No Child Kept Back.”

By kaa

June 2, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

Hey Dan- Check out this website www.ncacasi.org It is the website for the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement. I work for a Department of Defense Dependent School who is accredited by this association. Kadena High School if you care to look the up the school. The NCA requires that a secondary school be on a 5 year school improvement cycle. The faculty of the school looks at the student body and chooses areas where the students can improve. Then the teachers, administrators and students work on improving the school by achieving the goals that are established. And guess what happens the 5th year? A team of experts visits the school. The team does interviews and looks at the school’s portfolio. Every aspect is data and research driven.

Here is something else you can research. Students who attend Department of Defense Dependent Schools often outscore their Stateside counterparts on most standardized tests. This includes subgroups like minority students, ESL students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Maybe this is because the focus in not on passing a test but on how to help the student body improve certain academic skills that helps them be better students and life long learners.

By Someone Who Cares About Children

June 2, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

The truth is, NCLB is a joke. To pass the 3rd grade test with a 300, which is a passing score, the child only has to get 40% of the answers correct. What are we celebrating in Georgia, when a passing score is 40% correct. These tests are just another way to make our politicians look good and appear as if they are reforming education. Lowering standards isn’t making progress. I say the students should do as the affluent high schoolers did a few years back in New Jersey, stage a sick-out during the testing dates and then the schools can be on the failing list for not only test scores but for attendance too.

By Dan

June 2, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

kaa The dept of defense is a whole different animal, first of all in your first post the implication was a group of experts annually not every 5 years, which isn’t enough by the way. Also what does that cost per student? Certainly significantly more than testing. so where does the money come from. They are also dealing with a small population of students who in many cases are relatively speaking captive audiences on a base in a foreign land and the low socio economic background is clearly mitigated by the fact they are in a school with other families that are mostly in the exact same position. Lastly political correctness, our public schools can’t agree on what color pen to grade papers in, you think they are going to agree to a bunch of standards concocted by “experts” The system you speak of sounds great in theory or in small areas implementing it for all public schools would be next to impossible But I will visit the website when I get a chance ;o)

By Tonye Pamosoo

June 2, 2005 10:33 AM | Link to this

I just want to say South Atlanta High School is the best.

By Dan

June 3, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

you are right “someone” the standards are laughable and it is primarily for pols and administrators to crow about However the scary part is, the teachers are complaining they must teach to the test and kids are still failing!! So it isn’t lowering stds but raising them. It is simply illustrating just how poorly the system has been working.

By sciteacher

June 3, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Antoehr Teacher did make good points. I stress to my students the positive points of testing, especially the End of course test for my subject. Many students down grade their own school because of testing results and community perceptions. But, those 23% of my students that scored 90 and above can hold their head high compared to any other students in this state. Their 90 was the same as the 90 at the number one rated school.

Do I teach to the test? There are those that make that accusation through colored glasses. If a school traditionally does well - the teachers are doing their job. If one or two teachers at a poor performing school have students do well - they are teaching to the test. It should simply be said that the teachers perpared their students.

What NCLB does is create an uncomfotable fix for a difficult problem. Parents do not want their children retained for any reason. We, as teachers, often don’t want to retain a headache. I’m in Macon, and my school sees 16 year old incomming 9th graders. Many continue their pattern and it is not uncommon to have 18 year old 9th graders.

Near the end of each semester it is always the same - the parents you can never reach before are there to plea for you to pass their child so that they can graduate one day. These are the parents who ridicule us for being poor teachers. These are also the parents that ask that you give their child the make-up work for 10 - 20 absences.

NCLB can work once we realize that the education of a child involes at least 2 of the 3 main parts of the equation - teachers, students and parents.

By Another Teacher

June 3, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

I think when teachers complain about “teaching the test,” the complaints aren’t that they don’t want to do their jobs, that they don’t want (or fear) accountability, or that they are against the tests per se.

What I feel (and many other teachers, too) is that in many cases, the curriculum is “an inch deep and a mile wide” (a study of this was actually reported in the AJC not too long ago). We are expected to cover too much in too short a time (as a matter of fact, my curriculum map goes to the end of the school year with new material, although the test is given in April). We rarely or never get to go in-depth with the learning.

Then there’s the problem of students who are behind academically or have no support at home.

“Teaching the test” is seen as the best alternative to “draw blood from a stone” so to speak.

So we go over testing terms - in lower grades they will actually spend time learning to bubble! We do test questions as warm-ups. We have workbooks and other resources with which to practice - I actually set up online practice CRCT test for the students to take. We pre-test and post-test and analyze the results. The problem isn’t that we do those things - the problem is that those things take away learning time from other activities (some may be considered fluff, but other may be considered valuable).

Teachers and parents are stressed - the kids pick up on that stress. And then, when you realize that you don’t make AYP because of a sub groups attendance, or that you students who pass the CRCT are below grade level according to the ITBS, you have wonder if it’s all worth it.

What would you think of mandatory Saturday school for any child a year or more below grade level according to the ITBS?

By Another Teacher

June 3, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Sorry, sciteacher - I know we sent on some unprepared 8th graders, all in the name of social promotion…

The running joke at the middle school level is that we don’t want any students competing with us for parking spots…

Really not funny, though, is it?