Get Schooled

By catlady

July 2, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

NCLB has done at least one favorable thing: it has brought attention to the schools. Unfortunately, it is based on so many faulty assumptions and misconceptions, and thus has provided a great deal of poor policy, misguided policy, faulty policy, and “unintended” (I question how unintended) collateral casualties.

Like a heart pump with a hole in it, it is fatally flawed.

By WFC

July 2, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

NCLB is a hoax. Socio-economic and educational attainment of parents determines 95% of a child’s progress in school. About 1% of kids can overcome this. Don’t believe this? Well, just switch the student bodies of a “failing” school and a “successful” school for a couple of years and see what happens.

By jackieO

July 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

WFC You bring up the central fallacy of NCLB. One of my colleagues offered to some Dekalb DECIDERS at a big county meeting what he believed to be a fool proof plan [similar to the one you mention, probably a little easier to implement] to demonstrate this fallacy.

Specifically: Switch the administrators, teachers, counselors, every school employee [even cafeteria staff and custodians] of a very high performing school with those of a very low performing school. See what happens! Of course, every teacher knows what will happen….NO CHange!! Some hypothesize that ALL measures of performance would decline….because the teachers would unaccustomed to their new charges……neither group of teachers would be familiar with successful techniques for their new students.Especially teachers who teach students who are reading significantly above grade level may have difficulty adjusting lessons for students who read significantly below grade level.

Of course, the DECIDERS indignantly treated my colleague as if he was dumber than dumb!!!

By jackieO

July 2, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

OOOPS..I think that should be …as if he WERE dumber than dumb.

By jim d

July 2, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—You just can’t fix stupid! and NCLB is by far the dumbest law passed in my lifetime.

By Lee

July 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

And so it begins….

Congress passed a bad law and instead of admitting their mistake and revoking the law, they will start to amend the law and make exemptions and exceptions.

It will turn NCLB into another bureaucratic nightmare and the central office will have to add a high dollar Director of NCLB and accompanying staff just to administer.

Are we surprised?

By jim d

July 2, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

OMG!!

Like the fools in Clayton county think this will fix anything!

By catlady

July 2, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

jim d, I think the dumbest law was one passed by Alabama in the 60s requiring pediophiles and other sexual deviants to go to the police department in their town and register. No one did, and the brilliant folks in Alabama came to the conclusion THAT THERE WERE NO SEXUAL DEVIANTS IN ALABAMA!

However, NCLB ranks second to that.

By Ernest

July 2, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

I’ll give them credit for trying but question whether these will result in different outcomes. Slowing down the transfers gives the school system an additional year before seeing increased transportation costs. It also gives receiving schools an opportunity to prepare for those students. Its been said before but perhaps limiting transfers to the ‘impacted’ subgroup(s) might be a remedy to consider.

WFC speaks a ‘truth’ that many do not want to acknowledge. We all probably are aware of schools in our district that needs more resources i.e. staff, to have a better chance at success. School staffing algorithms should factor in points WFC made allowing those schools to have more staffers and perhaps smaller class sizes. ESs with many students reading above grade level can probably get away with larger class sizes than those with students reading below grade level. Having to answer questions about ‘equity’ may prevent this from happening in some cases.

By catlady

July 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Lee, and the Director of NCLB will be…..a coach!

By catlady

July 2, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

jim d, maybe the CC BOE should wear uniforms! It might help them do better work!

By thomas

July 2, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

I used to think that NCLB was garbage, made up just to destroy public schools.

But after working in two Title I elementary schools, I am for a MODIFIED NCLB. We all know that “100% by 2014” is garbage. But having standards is good. Without standards, goals, and benchmarks, some people will let anything happen.

Just like they have done for years. No child should be left behind.

By jim d

July 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Thomas,

Dear sir,

All children don’t start out the same—to expect the same end result to be the same is not only stupid but defies logic.

By happy2teach

July 2, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

I’m not going to pretend that socioeconomics and environment don’t play in to achievement. Of course they’re HUGE factors.

But, what disturbs me on this blog is that TEACHERS, and others, seem that okays them just not trying. Why try to improve? It’s just easier to say the battle is lost at home. No wonder these kids have such a hard time overcoming…no one believes in them.

It breaks my heart that so many people just decide that the battle can only be won at home, what a weak attitude.

By luvs2teach

July 2, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

Assuming NCLB has to stick around…

I think tutoring should come before transfers. However, please correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t the free tutoring only for free/reduced lunch kids? If that’s the case, then change it so it’s for everyone.

The transfers in my county only provided transportation for kids from Title 1 schools - my son’s MS (which is now my MS) is not T1, and so if I had wanted to take advantage of the transfers, I would’ve had to drive him myself (BTW - my MS is now off the NI list, but this year’s math might do us in - ugh). I’m not a huge voucher proponent (I have decidedly mixed feelings on them) but what would people think of systems having to offer vouchers which include private schools if they are NI? Just throwing it out there…

We do need to really assess why a school was in NI - when my school was NI, it was a small subgroup (SPED males) on one test. Other schools miss the mark in EVERY category! Yet, we’re all on the same list.

I have a really hard time with the state wanting to butt in earlier - especially having any say in hiring or selecting teaching methods - after all look at what a great job they did ensuring that the CRCT matched the standards. Look at what a great job they do with communication. Yeah, more state involvement is going to help. I would be ok with the state having a menu of things a school can choose from, but the school gets to make the choice.

Ok - I went to the DOE site and answered a couple of my own questions…

Here’s what the site says about tutoring: “Under the new plan, tutoring can be offered to all academically at-risk students in Title 1 schools, as long as economically-disadvantaged students are given first priority.” Why only title 1? My middle school is not T1 (misses by 4 percentage points), yet three of our feeder ESs are.

As far as the state inventions goes, it is tiered, and the top two tiers have a menu of things to choose. The bottom gets told by the state what to do.

By Tony

July 2, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

I used to think that NCLB was garbage, made up just to destroy public schools.

There have been recent admissions by federal DOE staff that this statement is in fact true.

By jim d

July 2, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

A few realities regarding NCLB that flexibillity won’t change.

Some state test scores have risen, but reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) have not. (NAEP math scores began rising prior to NCLB’s passage.) Most test experts agree that score gains on one test mean little if there are not parallel improvements on tests that are not taught to, such as NAEP.

Instruction in reading and math increasingly resembles test preparation, which is why scores often rise on state tests, but not on NAEP.

Texas is the NCLB model state. Due to a decade of intensive teaching to the TAAS test, scores rose dramatically and the racial score gap narrowed. But the gains were not confirmed and the racial gap did not close on NAEP or on the state’s college admissions exam. In fact, Texas colleges reported in-state high school graduates needed more, not less, remediation after high-stakes testing was introduced.

Study after study has found that a focus on reading and math tests causes schools to downplay science, history, art, physical education and even recess in order to boost scores.

To find out whether a child is having trouble in a particular area, such as multiplying fractions, a few questions on a state test do not provide enough information.

Children struggle academically for a variety of reasons. State tests do not provide any useful information on why an individual child may be having trouble, so the tests cannot help teachers figure out what to do differently to help that child.

Most “tutoring” is little more than test preparation, not real learning; unlike teachers, tutors do not have to be “highly qualified”; and money for tutoring is taken out of schools’ NCLB Title I funds, reducing support for most students

A federal Government Accountability Office study found that states vary wildly in how they define proficiency. “Proficient” is far easier to reach in some states than in others. The differing percentage of students scoring proficient therefore does not reflect the relative academic health of their schools and students

So someone please tell me how allowing more flexibillity is going to improve conditions for some of these kids?

By V for Vendetta

July 2, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

Sorry, thomas …

Some child need, deserve, or should be left behind. We’re not all the same, my friend. Call it what you will—social Darwinism, class discrepancies, etc.—but the fact remains that not everyone is created equal. People should be a little happier that they didn’t get the genetic short straw, no matter what their beliefs are.

Mine tend towards evolution, but “there but for the Lord’s grace am I” works for plenty of folks, too.

By catlady

July 2, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

But, what disturbs me on this blog is that TEACHERS, and others, seem that okays them just not trying. Why try to improve?

Happy2: you are getting something out of the comments that I am not getting. I don’t know anyone that says not trying is okay. I do hear people say that when so much effort is put into something, but there is not complete success, the people should not be surprised that it is not working. Children are not widgets.

Let’s say I want to make my Cocker Spaniel into a dog as smart as my Golden Retriever. I take him to special classes. I feed him enriched food. I make his bedding the most stimulating possible. I hire a person whose job it is to devote tremendous time to training him. I invite smart dog friends over for play dates. Yet, at the end of the day, athough he may appear more alert, and he may learn to sit, he will never perform as well as my Golden Retriever. I should not be surprised, and at some point there are decreasing returns for my efforts. Meanwhile, the Golden Retriever does not get the best, because so much of my money is going to remediate the Cocker.

Now, some may see this as a hateful analogy, but there is some truth in it.

By Simon

July 2, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

But, what disturbs me on this blog is that TEACHERS, and others, seem that okays them just not trying. Why try to improve? It’s just easier to say the battle is lost at home. No wonder these kids have such a hard time overcoming…no one believes in them.

I agree with you 100%.

catlady,

Yes, I do see your comments as “hateful analogy.” The biggest problem is that, unlike dogs, we can’t tell which child is a retriever and which is cocker spaniel. Too many schools somehow identify kids using whatever the methods they use, which is not scientifically validated or proven reliable…

By teach1

July 2, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

Simon

I worked in a class with special needs students. There is no way some of those sweet students will ever pass the crct. My special friends had a support class size of 7 with FT teacher and para pro. (they spent 2-5 hours of their day in that class) You are talking an extra $80,000 for the school year for both extra staff members for those 7 students. This was on top of the regular ed teacher salary I was paid to have them on my class list. I had an addtitional 15 students. (First grade) -By the way 100% passed or exceeded the crct out of those 15. My only regret…. I did not have the time I wanted to work with my high group of students to help them reach their potential. (OH well…. I KNEW THEY would pass) -please note the sarcasam. I did give them the best I could offer them.

By NorthGATeacher

July 2, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this

It shows what nitwits are running the asylum when I read that the state would “punish” schools not meeting NCLB. That’s like saying “let’s punish doctors if their patients don’t all live” or “let’s punish lawyers if their clients rob another convenience store”. The fact is (and all teachers and good parents know this) that parents and home life are 99% of a student’s success. It is ludicrous to think that a dedicated, hardworking teacher should be “punished” if students refuse to do the work, turn the classroom into a circus, or simply skip school. Teachers are not miracle workers who can change years of pathologic home enculturation. Remember back in the 1960s when teachers were respected and students had to EARN their grades, principals tossed out troublemakers, and the community and school board supported these actions? How can we have allowed public school governance and policy to deteriorate to what it is? Do not underestimate the votes any politician will get who runs on a “ban NCLB” platform.

By simon

July 2, 2008 5:38 PM | Link to this

Looking at responses like the one from teach1, it is clear that NCLB is totally determental for public education. The purpose/goal of public education should never be “passing CRCT.” If that becomes the goal/purpose, then ALL students suffer.

By Joy in Teaching.

July 2, 2008 6:35 PM | Link to this

Students should not be treated the same. Each child has differing needs and those needs will dictate different outcomes.

When my students use the “but its not fair” argument with me, I always give ask them the following question:

What if one of you passed out, fell in the floor, and stopped breathing? Wouldn’t you want me to help you to the best of my ability? (They all nod at that point.) If life were fair, that would mean that I couldn’t do any thing for the one in the floor, because it would be unfair to treat them differently than the rest of you.

Life isn’t fair. Schools have been handed this NCLB mess…and have been told that all students need to be basic cookie cutters of each other by a certain date or the schools will be taken over.

So much for helping each school breathe.

By HS Teacher, Too

July 2, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this

simon,

That is exactly the point. It has, in terms of “making AYP,” staying off the countless “no-no” lists, and continuing to receive funding, become the goal.

Almost unanimously, the teachers here wish that wasn’t so.

By Rita

July 3, 2008 12:03 AM | Link to this

Who needs flexibility when 40 percent of a school’s 8th graders fail the math section of the CRCT and the school still makes AYP. That already sounds pretty flexible to me.

By catlady

July 3, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Simon, you don’t think, after months or years of working with a student, that teachers cannot tell who is a cocker spaniel and who is a golden retriever? (Remembering that there ARE bright cockers, and dull retrievers, of course). I had a number of kids in my kindergarten class that I accurately predicted WHEN THEY WERE FIVE, AFTER A YEAR OF TEACHING THEM, that they would be dropouts, in jail, or pregnant (or all of the above) by the time they were 16. And, guess what, I was right most of the time. My point, however, is NOt in predicting. It is in accepting that not every student is able to make a year’s progress in 9 months. BTW, Did you know our current school grade setup was designed by a German efficiency expert? It has nothing to do with education.

By simon

July 3, 2008 7:50 PM | Link to this

cat

Is it surprising where they ended up with when they had teachers who knew where they would end up …

By catlady

July 3, 2008 8:41 PM | Link to this

The conclusion was reached AFTER the fact, not before.

By simon

July 3, 2008 10:52 PM | Link to this

Doesn’t a “prediction” occur before something happens?

I feel so sorry for those children that their teachers were against them…

By simon

July 3, 2008 11:55 PM | Link to this

Perhaps I should have questioned whether or not your “prediction” just popped into your mind the day after the school. Wouldn’t it be much more accurate to say that you formed the predictions throughout the year? I suppose you can still argue that the predictions were not made BEFORE…