Get Schooled

By RC

June 6, 2005 01:11 PM | Link to this

One of the positive things that NCLB has done for all public schools is to force the school to look at the entire school population. They can’t just brag about their college bound statistics. By being required to report on all subgroups, the school sees where they need to improve. The unfortunate thing is that a subgroup can make significant gains, but still “fail”. NCLB should be placing more focus on gains. Recognize when gains are steadily being made, punish when gains aren’t being made.

By Nick

June 6, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

There is one aspect of NCLB that I have to criticize. While it is good in forcing schools to be held accountable, they are also being held accountable for students who have certain handicapps. For example, if a student fails a standardized test that happens to have a low IQ or some other learning disorder, then schools are held accountable to the same standards for students like that as they are for the rest of the student population. NCLB does need to take into consideration those students who arent on the same level due to mental and/or physical restraints that are beyond the school’s control.

By Robert

June 6, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

The most irratating that about NCLB is that the wonderful republican federal government that has forced this on us (for good or bad) has yet to finance it in any way. They expect local school systems to magically come up with the money to do what they deem important and required.

Why is this NOT a major issue?

By Dan

June 6, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Nick there is an exception for learning disabled children, the problem is it is a flat % (3% I think) Which is harmful if a school truly has more than that, but the scary part is if the school has less and they classify capable students as disabled to improve scores. Robert the plan is actually fully funded by the federal government but schools have only applied for abut 2/3 to 3/4 of the money that has been set aside for it. So once again look to the local administrators for answers

By Another Teacher

June 6, 2005 04:49 PM | Link to this

My school did not make AYP last year (due to subgroups - overall the school did make it); very few (less than 15?) students took advantage of the transfer option (with provided transportation). We offered tutoring after school and on Saturdays (with transportation) - neither was filled consistently. We still had out-of-district students coming to our school.

I took a look at my test scores in science, and this is what I found:

Over 65% of my students met or exceeded expectations. Of those that exceeded, all received As in my class and consistently did their homework.

Those that scored in the upper end of “Meets expectations” were mostly low A/ high B students. Struggled some, but worked hard. Lower end of “Meets expectations” were the low B/C students - inconsistent with homework and test scores - struggled more, but made an effort.

Every child, with the exception of 1 (and I’ll get to him in a minute), that did not meet expectations struggled the entire year, often failing. Had low scores in reading and math. Had been retained or placed (social promotion). Rarely or never turned in homework. Didn’t complete projects. Didn’t come to my study sessions. Never brought their books…etc…

Some had concerned parents who tried to help - even if we saw inprovement in a class grade, it didn’t translate into “meeting expectations” (although they were closer to the 300 mark than the others who didn’t try).

Some parents never returned a phone call or a letter or even a signed progress report all year. I even had the social worker visit some of the parents in an attempt to reach them.

My one exception was a Hispanic boy who got involved in a gang. He went from a straight A student to being retained. His parents tried, but with their limited English, had difficulty.

My question is, should I be accountable for those students that didn’t make it? I have the phone logs showing my attempts at reaching parents. I have the students’ signatures (I’m a big CYA person) showing that they received and understood my assignment policies.

On a different note, my son’s school did not make AYP either. Again, it was because of sub groups. I never even considered sending him to another school.

Finally, Dan, I keep hearing (I think from the PTA) that NCLB is not fully funded. I’ve been trying to research that to find some definitive answers - it’s not easy; one accounting trick the government likes is tout money for something it was already paying for under some other name. Also, I did find out that a lot of NCLB money is being used at the college level for Pell Grants and such. That’s nice, but it doesn’t help me. Let me know your sources - I’m very curious - if there’s grant money out there with my name on it, I’m all over that!

Also, Nick, they recently changed how they are evaluating special needs students. There some information about it on the government NCLB website (do a google search if you’re interested - I was trying to get this in before the 5:00 PM cut off or I’d have posted the link for you :-) ).

By Dan

June 7, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

Ok here is a pretty good recap of the budget along with some historical spending info http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget05/summary/edlite-section1.html In general the site is not pro NCLB but this section seems pretty straight forward. I would like to add though, the underlying theme in the budget aside from specifics is twofold first. The federal dollars are supplemental to the local funding, a bonus if you will. Second instead of throwing money at an issue the schools now must earn that bonus. This is of course in response that the education budget has doubled in the last 10 years while performance has stagnated or regressed. Whether or not you agree with testing etc those facts clearly suggest some accountability or reworking is necessary (a general statement not at you AT) Still looking for a source to compare the actual expenditures with that budget, I believe they are significantly less than budgeted

By Dan

June 7, 2005 08:36 AM | Link to this

Ok here is a site with more numbers. Some may find it too have a partisan slant but you can interpret as you will. http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/recess/nclbfunded.htm

Net net the “bonus money” is there if you earn it. and again it is bonus money not money that was formerly available without the restrictions. and schools may opt out whenever they wish

By Jason

June 7, 2005 10:51 AM | Link to this

A Note to Another Teacher, Reading your most recent post seemed a little too much like my own school year. I had one student in my class that was tested at the Kindergarten level in every subject. (I teach 5th Grade.) Why he has not been placed in an alternative setting is beyond me, but now that he did not pass the reading and math sections faces the prospect of summer school. Clearly, this child is learning disabled in some way and will undoubtedly suffer through three weeks of intense drill only to not pass the test again. How much sense does it make to retain and retain and retain a youngster that needs additional support and a lot of it. (Also, this child’s mother called the school to complain that the parent-liason was “harrassing” her about getting her plethora of children to school on time.) This child’s scores (and others like him) will now be a reflection of me and how I taught all year. I don’t think that that is very fair. Something needs to change in the ol’ accoutability column. I’d like to see them compare children’s specific test scores from grade to grade. Just a thought.

By Anthony Hall

June 7, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

The NCLB act has caused more problems than any other act to fix school, problems. The lastest trend for schools that are failing is to teach the test. I am not blaming the schools but pressure to get off this list is causing schools and teachers to take drastic steps. They should have transferred teachers from those schools that were failing. The problem in the APS is plain and simple they need better management to resolve the problems in the schools. I hope we can get this fixed right now it’s just awful.

By Harvey Davis

June 7, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Does anyone know when the AYP results for this year will be available?

By Dan

June 7, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

All classes will have problem children and outstanding performers, both of whom will artificially change the teachers assessement, funny how no one mentions the positive impact of the high achievers. In any case over time the + and minuses should even out, I just hope the ones complaining aren’t teaching math or statistics

By Another Teacher

June 7, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Dan - thanks for the websites…I’ll have to do my homework, too!

Your comment about about classes having both outstanding performers as well as outstanding challenges is true, however, when you factor in poverty, a school with a higher percentage of free or reduced lunches also typically (I know there are exceptions) has a higher percentage of the lower end students - chalk it up to less educated parents making less money, single parenthood (no matter what the cause), or other factors. This results in schools (not just classes) that have lower test scores - a glance at AJC’s school book demonstrates that. For the most part, you find that the higher socio-economic metro areas have “better” schools.”

This is one of the things NCLB is trying to target, but it’s trying to fix one part of a multi-part problem.

More first year teachers teach in challenging schools - why? Because the good teachers get burnt out and transfer to a more desirable location. Poorer schools get more un- or underqualified teachers for the same reason.

Parent involvement and student buy-in in more of a challenge - why? Because there are subcultures of our society that don’t value an education.

One part of NCLB is making sure that qualified teachers are in every classroom - no more art teacher teaching math, that sort of thing. That’s good. But nothing is being done to enlist (or enforce) parent involvement. What do the folks here think about MANDATORY involvement for parents? Example - all parent must attend 3 school events including a conference.

Another problem is transiency - There are kids at my school who start the school year off there, move briefly, and then come back - I think there should be an administration fee for more than one move in a school year.

We lost thousands of dollars in textbooks - I think parents should have to pay a deposit. I know this probably sounds terrible, and not what you would expect to hear from a teacher (it’s also a little off-topic, and for that I apologize - I got on a roll).

But it comes back to my belief that education is a three legged stool - parent, student, teacher. If one of those leges is weak, then the whole stool topples over.

By KENNETH FERGUSON

June 8, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

I do not think that a student shall be graded on just the test scores alone,you should take in consideration what the student has done all year.I have a 10 year old that worries his self to death before the test, at times making himself sick, but on the other hand he is a all A’s or A-B student.I also have a child that just completed the first grade,I also think first graders should be tested at all at this age.Getting back to my 10 year old, I was told that they do not have time for recess, because of th workload is required, you know the old saying,”That kids that are well rested think better”

By Tony

June 8, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Dan states that NCLB is fully funded. It is not fully funded with regard to all the requirements placed on states and local governments. I would be very interested in seeing the information that verifies this claim. This law may have had good intentions to bring about improvements in public education, but there are many very serious flaws in its requirements.

By Dan

June 8, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Still trying to find a source other than editorial that will show funded vs actual. However more importantly is that those funds are a bonus. No one is entitled to them they are to be earned and if they feel that the testing costs more than the funding, they don’t have to do it. Schools should be fully capable of running with 100% local funding. The federal $ are just a drop in the bucket despite the fact they have doubled in the last 10 years