Category Archive
The following is a list of all entries from the Uncategorized category.
Comments
Blogs I’ve commented on: (in chronological order)
http://kcoffey.wordpress.com/2007/01/16/no-child-should-be-left-behind/
http://canknight.wordpress.com/2007/02/02/should-we-have-a-ban-on-banning/
http://prettyladyliun06.wordpress.com/2007/02/01/beloved-sixth-graders/
http://anns311.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/10/
http://isjonasdead.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/do-your-traditional-school-grammar-and-like-it/
http://wdok.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/in-the-future-well-all-speak-canadian/
http://mcgoverj.wordpress.com/2007/04/04/middle-school-is-not-too-early-to-prepare-for-college/
http://m7pm.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/canon-fodder/
http://stephcj.wordpress.com/2007/02/28/its-not-smut-its-real-life/
Outro
To look back at all of my blogs, makes me laugh. It’s funny to read how passionate I was about the article when I read it. From all of my zealous rants, I think I learned a lot about NCLB and how it actually affects teachers, as well as ways to combat it. I’ve always had these opinions about NCLB and our education system in general, but it wasn’t until this year that I have any evidence to back up my opinions.
Also, I think my new favorite word is “bureaucracy”. This assignment really made me start looking into politics and instead of being completely bored in the first 5 minutes, it actually made me want to learn more. With the presidential election coming up next year, I think this new interest in politics will really help me out. Who supports changes in education? What changes do they support? Were these changes tested or are you just proposing theory? Where’s the funding coming from? How much? These are all questions I want answers to before voting for a politician.
Now to relate this back to literature—which I definitely should have done more often. The most obvious connection between NCLB and English is ESL students with special needs. These populations are NOT exempt from the standardized testing. How that makes sense to anyone, is beyond me. As for the idea of getting kids to actually enjoy reading and writing (what we’ve focused on all semester) how is that possible when we’re teaching to tests? If you take away creativity from the teaching profession, even more teachers will burn out. Then we’ll have to produce a greater number of teachers, which we can’t even do now.
In an ideal world, everyone would be concerned about this—not just teachers and future teachers. But since this world is everything but ideal, I’ve realized how important it is for teachers and future teachers to become the activists for better education.
The New (Right) MIndset
Now I’m usually not Miss.Current Events, but when I read this article in the Concord Monitor, I felt that I should start taking an interest. Hillary Clinton delivered a speech to the National Education Association and most were very impressed with what she had to say.
The federal No Child Left Behind law stifles originality and forces teachers to focus on preparing students for tests, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said yesterday. Although Clinton voted for the act in 2001, she criticized the program as underfunded and overly restrictive. “While the children are getting good at filling in all those little bubbles, what exactly are they really learning?” Clinton asked delegates at the National Education Association of New Hampshire’s annual meeting in Concord. “How much creativity are we losing? How much of our children’s passion is being killed?”
She’s preaching to the choir! Since I was introduced to scantrons, way back when, I’ve never done well on them and never understood why this should be the only basis of assessment. (Especially when you get to your fifth scantron in the same class and learn to beat the system without even trying.) And the part I never thought of until now, how do the teachers feel about that? If you’ve promoted creativity in your classroom all year, how do you handle the switch over meta-cognitive questions into multiple choice format?
Nonetheless, while I agree with her stance on this and other things, like higher teacher salaries, I’m a little wary on her idea of universal pre-schools and her attacks on large companies.
“This is Halliburton all over again,” Clinton told reporters, adding that many of the companies likely have “very close ties” to the Republican Party. “We have these contracts going to these cronies who are chosen largely on a political basis, and we have nothing to show for it.” The No Child Left Behind law requires school districts to provide tutoring and other services to schools that don’t meet standards. Clinton said that private companies have reaped $500 million annually from the arrangement but aren’t held accountable for results.
To make this claim/boost in this setting does nothing more than rile up people. Yes, I know that’s kinda the point, and this could just be the way it was reported, but to make claims like that without any suggestions to fix it, really bugs me. To get rid of bureaucracy takes planning. I do like her background though.
Although the speech – Clinton’s first major policy address in the state – was heavy on specifics, it also gave Clinton an opportunity to remind New Hampshire teachers of her own education background. Before her political ascent, Clinton worked in Head Start programs and as a lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund, and as first lady she wrote about child-rearing in her book, It Takes a Village.
Specifics are necessary for change. With her background, I truly believe that she might have the passion needed to change our education system. Not only are Clinton’s ideas about the government aspect of education right on, but the education part of education as well.
But for all her criticism of current government policy, Clinton also appealed to students to renew their commitment to education.
Clinton’s father “basically was old-fashioned, and he said ‘Look, when you’re a child, your work is school,’ ” she said. “We’ve somehow got to break through all the media clutter that is out there and get that message to our kids.”
Attendants of the National Education Association were mostly all in praise of Clinton’s speech. Her mixture of stories and political suggestions truly gave them hope. Even if she does not end up being the presidential candidate, I believe her ideas will rub off and maybe even take shape someday, which would mean the world to English teachers. Given the freedom to be as creative as possible, and even encouraged to teach not to a test but to what students like is a dream I see becoming reality—if only there were more people with the right mindset.
“Clinton assails ‘No Child’ in NEA speech”
Sarah Liebowitz
Concord Monitor
March 31, 2007
Now We’re Getting Somewhere
As I was perusing my Google reader, I found a trend. First, there was just a general panic attack about NCLB being renewed. Next, people just let it all hang out and wanted to let congress know every little detail that was wrong with the bill. Then, once people got out all of their frustrations, suggestions for improvements started to seep through. Now, high office politicians are starting to take all of this in; here’s what they’ve come up with.
In an article from The Signal in Santa Clarita Valley, CA, a staff writer reported that McKeon, a local congressman was agreeing to a suggested NCLB fix. Said “fix” is directed towards how the government would assess a school’s progress.
States currently track yearly progress by using a ’status model’ that compares the performance of students in a specific grade against the performance of students of the same grade during the previous year. But some are concerned about the reliability of the model and suggest using a ‘growth model,’ which compares the achievement of the same students over time.
They finally figured out that as NCLB stands right now, using the “status model”, school’s have no clue how students are performing. Comparing students based on grade level is like comparing the younger sibling’s achievements based on what their big brother did last year. To test this new model the state of
Delaware is trying both the “status model” and “growth model”.
As part of a pilot program, the state of Delaware has been using a growth model in addition to the existing status model to measure progress and has seen an improvement in the accuracy of measurements.
First question that come to my mind, did we test the “status model” at all? Or did we just throw it in NCLB and hoped it would work? A good portion of the articles about NCLB all have “an expert” talking about it what’s wrong with it or making some suggestion to improve it. That’s all fine and well that they’re here in the aftermath of it, but where were they when NCLB was first signed?
McKeon said that growth models can play an important role in the reauthorization of the bill. “
However, these growth models must be well-designed, they must be rigorous, and they must meet a number of criteria that are consistent and central to NCLB,” he said.
Joan Lucid, assistant superintendent for instruction for the Saugus Union School District said that at McKeon’s roundtable discussion in February, local educators brought up the problems with the current system for measuring student progress.
“When you measure student growth over time, you really determine how well your programs are working,” Lucid said. “When you use a growth model, you actually are able to take a look at what individual students are doing over time and it allows you to then go back and target those individual students who aren’t making quite the progress you want them to be making.”
Lucid also said that this was a great way to follow students who have special needs and those who are English language learners. By comparing an individual’s progress to their own progress, teachers can see where that child actually is. Switching methods of assessment might not be the only thing NCLB needs to change, but it’s a start.
“McKeon Agrees With No Child Left Behind Fixes”
Katherine Geyer
The Signal
Theory is Nice, But Actual Practice is Better
I don’t really know what I was expecting when I got downtown last Wednesday, but whatever it was, the GVSU Teaching with Technology Fair (6th annual) surpassed it. I did think it’d be a bit bigger, and with all the content it could have been, but overall it was still semi-impressive.
As I rushed in, 15 minutes late, I didn’t miss a thing. The keynote speaker wasn’t even introduced yet, so I had a minute to take it in. The auditorium was sparsely seated which allowed me to pick out the professors I knew right away. But where were all the students? (For some reason I thought there would be more students; in retrospect I think it would be a great opportunity for those who are going in to the Education Field to take in. We’re all so fresh with ideas that maybe if we’re exposed to such things they’d be implemented in the classroom…successfully.) Before I had too much time to ponder this, Dr. Doolittle (love his name) was being introduced. His keynote address discussed the more psychological side of learning, which makes sense considering his field of expertise is in educational psychology. Dr. Doolittle’s explanations of cognitive psych, in my opinion, were a bit undermining. Nonetheless, when I thought about it, some of listeners probably didn’t know about top-down and bottom-up processing. Therefore, I took his activities with a grain of salt as I completed them for the millionth time. When time was up, I found it interesting to see that all of the middle-aged women surrounding me would rather talk to themselves than talk to me. (Apparently, they didn’t think my answers would be valid??) Luckily, I had Mike to discuss my answers with; unsurprisingly, we agreed on all of the issues presented. After playtime was over, Dr. Doolittle said a few thought-provoking things but the one idea that stuck with me was that we as a technological society “don’t need ‘the man’” anymore. We can publish things on the web without repercussions even if only for a little while. We as teachers need to recognize this and figure out how we can use this idea to help students learn.
The following break-out session presented by Dr. Doolittle “The iPodifaction of Education” was even less invigorating than his keynote address. After explaining, in great detail, features of an iPod (such as the movies it play, the songs it can play, etc) he finally got to the educational value of it. I was surprised to hear that so many universities were on the iTunes U. I can see great advantages of having entire lectures available online. (We actually listened to a bit of a lecture from Berkley.) However, on the downside, I can see this idea being abused almost instantly…. “Why go to class when the lecture is online?” But this did not bother me as much as the idea he presented for using the iPod in the English department. His example was to make discussion questions available on an iPod so that the students could record their answers instead of writing them down. Can we say….LAME?! Come on! No wonder why kids hate their English class! Instead of faking participation, why don’t people actually get the students engaged with what they’re reading. Maybe put an audio version of a Shakespeare play onto the iPod while students read along. I bet they’re understanding of it would skyrocket! If they didn’t understand something they could listen to HOW it is said or even rewind and listen again. But I digress. Overall, I think using technology that kids are already familiar with for teaching purposes is a wonderful idea. But as of right now I don’t see the iPod theory working out as well as Dr. Dolittle hopes it will.
The last breakout session I attended was “Digital Storytelling” and I’m sorry but this was by far the worst in my opinion. Not so much the idea, because frankly I’m in love with the idea, but the presentation. A dozen slides explaining the obvious benefits seemed redundant to me. What I was interested was how it worked, the software itself I mean. That was what I was interested in. I actually can’t wait to learn about it and hopefully use it in my classroom someday.
In between the breakout sessions I visited a former professor of mine who was presenting her latest project “Digital Fairytales in Italian”. Professoressa Licari taught me Italian for 2 years here at GV and I was so excited to see what she has been up to. When I was in her class, she emphasized using technology in all that we did. We used powerpoints (the effective kind) all the time, on top of recording ourselves speaking Italian, and watching Italian films to improve our language acquisition. This year she took it a step further and had her class create mini-movies. This was what I found to be the most interesting. ACTUALLY SEEING HOW TECHNOLOGY IS BEING USED. What a concept.
Testify!
If you want to affect change, you should write a letter to your congressman. Most kids have had to do this at some point in their lives, whether it be a school project or something they choose to do in their spare time. A community service project can usually get the attention of local politicians but how much does it really change? A teacher’s association in California hopes that if change a lot. They’re trying to start a letter-writing campaign in hopes that congressmen will take their experience with NCLB into account when fixing the law.
Jan Grist, president of the Hollister Elementary School Teachers Association, is asking teachers, administrators and board members in the Hollister School District to write testimonials showing how the law has negatively affected San Benito County’s schools.
“The last thing we want to do is see NCLB go away,” Grist said. “But what we do want to see is some changes in the way NCLB is handled.”
Grist and others say the education reform law is flawed by its focus on standardized testing and unrealistic test goals, its strict sanctions, and its lack of financial support.
These are the people who truly see what NCLB does to schools and students. The teachers are the ones who implement it and can see first hand where things need to be fixed. Accountability for one’s own actions is something that kids usually learn at a very young age. However, to apply this principle on a national scale, shouldn’t lawmakers first comprehend how the law effects the system its trying to help? Grist says yes and I do too.
“I asked that we all put down written testimonials so that the legislature really understands what we’re going through. We were told that they really don’t get it yet, and we did this so they can get a better picture of (No Child Left Behind),” Grist said.
Michal Query, who is in her 10th year teaching kindergarten at Ladd Lane Elementary, said she feels pressure because of the testing requirements. No Child Left Behind has mandated that all students should be testing at grade level in both mathematics and English by 2014.“I’m constantly thinking about my kindergartners as second-graders. What are they going to be able to do? What are they not going to be able to do? Our kindergartners are doing what an end-of-the-year first-grader used to be responsible for,” Query said.
What Query is experiencing seems utterly wrong to me. The focus should be on teaching, learning, and interacting with the students. NOT testing. I understand testing is necessary and I believe that it is an essential part of the education system. But it cannot be everything. Unfortunately that’s what NCLB is based on. Some do believe that NCLB is overall a good law with a few imperfections.
Alice Flores, the president of the district’s school board, said she does not think the law is perfect, but hopes people will write to the federal representatives talking about the positive as well as the negative aspects of No Child Left Behind.
Yet others still see major flaws that must be addressed before any progress can be made.
Accelerating student achievement is a goal that is echoed by the district’s superintendent as well. But Superintendent Ron Crates tempered this by saying that he does not like that the education reform act only focuses on achieving an end goal, not on improvement.
While the ideas of what strengths and weaknesses NCLB has are debated, one seemingly universal outcry is that the law is underfunded. Without more money how are the “overhauls” suppose to take place? How do schools extend programs if they can’t survive in their current situation?
“My feeling on No Child Left Behind is that it’s underfunded. They have given us a lot of mandated things we need to do at the school district without the money to back it up,” Barrios said. “Our teachers have been overburdened with things they need to do to meet the criteria.”
This is where the federal government is accountable and even it falls short. I hope that is a central message which gets conveyed in the letters and comprehended by congressmen.
“Teachers Write No Child Left Behind Testimonials”
Alice Joy
Hollister Free Lance
Nickelbee, what are you doing?
In 1999, 72% of the public said that the standards in the K-12 public school system were lacking. 90% thought that students should pass standardized tests and it didn’t matter if a majority of kids were held back.
Then came reality.
The No Child Left Behind Act is a public accountability system which means that it can not function without the support of the public. However, the heart of NCLB is full of arbitrary measures such as testing and adequate yearly progress (AYP) which is what the public debates about.
Most significantly, NCLB requires annual testing in reading, mathematics, and science in grades 3-8, and once again in high school. Each state must establish an acceptable system that uses those test results to determine whether schools and districts are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). These determinations must be based not only on the aggregate performance of all students, but on the performance of mandated subgroups (including those determined by ethnicity, income, and native language). Critically, AYP is not determined by how much students progress in the course of a school year, but on the basis of whether a sufficient number of students are deemed “proficient” each year–regardless of how close to or far from proficiency the students were when the school year began.Schools and districts that fail to make AYP are identified as “in need of improvement,” and required to adopt a series of mandated remedies each year during which they do not improve. These remedies include allowing students to attend another public school, offering federally funded after-school tutoring, and “restructuring” persistently low-performing schools.[2]
So is this what the public supports? There has not been a comprehensive study done on this, but this article attempts to assess what the public thinks with the help of polls.
There are several well-known surveys, however, that can be used to begin to gauge the public’s attitudes toward the key elements of the historic law. I have drawn on two polls that provide longitudinal and in-depth examinations of public opinion about schooling–conducted annually by Phi Delta Kappa (PDK)/Gallup and the Educational Testing Service (ETS)–and on one widely respected poll conducted by Public Agenda.
In 2003 24% of the public knew what NCLB while ¾ of the public did not. The numbers got better in 2006, 45% knew about NCLB but the majority (55%) did not. When people were surveyed about their opinions of NCLB in 2003 18% said it was good thing, 13% said is was a bad thing and 69% didn’t know what they thought about it. Once again in 2006 the numbers changed a bit 32% said it was a good thing and 31% said it wasn’t. Therefore the only conclusion to draw is that there is the “…emerging picture was of a moderately informed public with mixed feelings.”
In 2002, there seemed to be a strong emotion towards a national standard even though this is a rather aggressive method. Ironically, this idea was left out of NCLB on purpose because the congressmen thought the public would utterly oppose it. However, even though the people wanted a national standard, they still wanted the states to decide the curricula. They even wouldn’t mind narrowing the curricula to focus more closely on only English and math in 2002. Conversely, in 2006, this was not a widely accepted idea. The public changed their mind to say that only focusing on math and English would not give a fair picture of a student’s abilites. The funny thing is, this was the public opinion without them even realizing that an achievement gap exsists. Even when the government raised public concern about it, they still didn’t care. With all of this, the author of this article concluded that
America is torn on the uniform standard issue. (Genius!)
As for remedies to this little problem we have here in
America, surveys were given asking whether it would be better to fix the education system we already have or find an alternative. The masses responded that we should simply try and fix what we already have. Suggestions included after school tutoring and possible change in school districts. To further this reconstruction, the two ideas were to overhaul the faculty or close down inadequate schools. To my surprise (remember I’m not actually in the field yet so I don’t know reality only theory) the public would rather overhaul the faculty before anything else. Nonetheless, the one thing that all parents asked for was more money for the schools and smaller classrooms. (Something’s never change.) Now with all this said, has NCLB actually done anything? Does the public actually care?
Evidence suggests that most Americans continue to be relatively happy with their local public schools, but are mixed on the state of the nation’s schools as a whole. This pattern has existed for decades and there is no evidence that three or four years under NCLB have altered it. In fact, there is little evidence that the existence of NCLB has affected public judgments about school quality, school choice, testing, or harsh measures for low-performing schools at all.
So what did NCLB do? It divided the public opinion and made people feel very uncomfortable with the methods our school system is using. Overall people do not want to stray from traditional remedies for fear that a radical idea is not the answer. They’re not giving up on our public school system, they just recognize that it needs major improvements. Yet, when they look to the government for answers, this is what they come up with? I think we can do better.
Now what does this have to do with literature? Well, apparently the promoters of NCLB think it is a big issue.
Finally, it is worth noting that NCLB has emboldened its proponents to a degree that could leave them out of step with public sentiment. While Americans are of two minds on the urgency of the racial achievement gap, the responsibility of the schools for the gap, as well as the practice of disaggregation, the Bush administration and NCLB allies have been aggressive about using the law’s emphasis on disadvantaged children as a cudgel with which to hammer reluctant states. When
Utah was on the verge of opting out of the law in 2005, the U.S. Department of Education mounted a full-scale assault, charging that NCLB critics were insufficiently concerned about the plight of minority children. The Education Trust, the militantly progressive, hard-line champion of NCLB, charged that “[s]ome lawmakers and educators in
Utah are expending enormous energy to fend off . . . the federal law that aims to raise overall achievement and close gaps between [ethnic] groups.”[24] Similar rhetoric has been directed by the Bush administration toward
Connecticut. Because it is unclear that the public fully endorses the assumptions or machinery of NCLB, the long-term effectiveness of such tactics is uncertain. If history of other areas of policy serves as a guide, these tactics may eventually provoke a backlash against moral posturing and federal overreach.
The public hasn’t even fully recognized there is a problem yet that’s what the NCLB supporters are focusing on? Now I know that the achievement gap is a serious issue but how are we supposed to teach literature or even literacy when the administration focuses our attention of testing, standards and bureaucracy??
It’s mind boggling.
“No Child Left Behind:What the Public Thinks”
Frederick M. Hess
Feb 22, 2007
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Three Cheers for Virginia!
The five year old No Child Left Behind Act had come up against some strong disagreement since it’s conception. However, not until now has anyone really challenged it. The Virginia Department of Education is looking to exempt its students who struggle with English from taking the national reading test.
Immigrants who have been in the U.S. a short time “are simply unable to take a test written in English and produce results that are meaningful in any way,” said Donald J. Ford, superintendent of the Harrisonburg city school division.
The state of Virginia has realized the unfairness of having non-English speaking students take a written English test. Any score taken from it would be completely inaccurate and humiliating for the individual students. Therefore the state decided to not issue this test to this population even though the US Department of Education has refused their request for exemption. The Federal Government has even threatened to take away funding if the state fails to comply with “the law’s standard clause”.
The five-year-old federal law is scheduled to be rewritten this year, and lawmakers have said they will try to change the rules for recent immigrants and special-education students. The aim is to inject more common sense into the law while sticking with its promise to leave no child behind his or her peers.
Instead of waiting for the bureaucracy to take effect, Virginia has decided to take reality into account right away. They looked at the fact that many of their students (39%) are immigrants who do not have anything close to proficiency in English, many only at the beginning stage of the language. From this, the city of Harrisonburg, along with many others, has decided to withhold the standard test from those who do not have a good understanding of English.
Those boards have passed resolutions saying they will continue to evaluate all students’ reading proficiency, but will only administer the state’s grade-level Standards of Learning tests to students who have an adequate grasp of English, as determined by teachers and staff. Several school divisions said they will continue using an alternate test to measure progress in non-native English speakers.
This, of course, outrages Margaret Spellings, the US Education Secretary, who believes that Virginia is being completely insubordinate. She is the one who deemed the testing provision as “the law’s Standards Clause, a necessary measure to counter ‘the soft bigotry of low expectations’”. However, officials in the state of Virginia’s education system believe that Spellings is being the ‘bigot’ here.
Similar disagreements will arise in other states that have many students who aren’t proficient in English, said Reggie Felton, lobbyist for the National School Boards Association. The association has asked that the federal education department grant each state flexibility “for real-life situations to ensure that the test is valid and reliable for each student.”
In Arizona, where there are many Latino immigrants, school officials also are grappling with testing language learners.
“We believe that English language-learner students come to school with different levels of competency,” said Panfilo Contreras, executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association. “They may not be proficient in their own language, let alone English.”
Educators who are exposed to these diverse settings are the ones who truly see where NCLB act falls short. Yet it is their cries for help that go unanswered by the federal government. Politicians have begun to realize that NCLB needs to be modified in order to accommodate real-world situations. However, they are not making any strong suggestions towards positive change. They see the gaps between different populations but do not know how to effectively change the outcome of the education system. Yet, if they would only look at things a little differently they would have many more answers. The state of Virginia’s request for exemption is not a law-breaking, anti-federal government act; it’s simply trying to it’s part to help the students of America—English speaking or not.
“Va. schools criticize No Child Left Behind rule for English learners”
Associated Press
Feb 19, 2007
CNN.com
Uniform is not a issue about clothes anymore
The entire idea of the No Child left Behind Act was to put all kids on the same level and advance from there. 5 years later, that goal seems even more distant. As the law stands right now, the states set the bar individually and give standardized tests according to that. This method has proven to be ineffective. The popular solution is to set a uniform standard for the nation, even though it has had some strong opposition in the past.
Republicans generally have opposed national standards. GOP lawmakers say state and local officials know what is best for their students and as the primary funders of elementary and secondary education, should have primary say in running schools.
This I agree with. I believe that, for the most part, local officials would know what is good for their students. However, as the current law has shown, the system is not perfect. Something does need to happen…but is it national standards? Education secretary Margaret Spellings has previously had a negative view of uniform standards but as of late, she has began to consider them a more plausible idea. The Democrats and advocates for a uniform standard are saying that the “patchwork” of standards is not working and is even making it on kids in states with lower standards.
Many Democrats, along with education reform and business groups, say a patchwork of standards is inefficient. They also say students in states with low standards will have trouble competing in the global economy. Many other industrial nations have more stringent standards than those in the U.S.Advocates of national standards say the No Child Left Behind law is encouraging states to set low standards so schools can avoid consequences that come with missing annual progress goals.
Going from a nation that has absolutely no uniform standards even suggested, to a nation that is constantly criticizing states with low standards seems a bit harsh to me. That’s like saying “Oh by the way, as of next week, if you can’t remember the first hundred numbers of the number pi, you’re fired.” By doing this we’re not catching kids who are falling behind, we’re catching the administers who are having a hard time coping with this. On the other hand, there is merit to having schools held accountable for what they provide for their students. But overall schools do not know what to do with NCLB.
The discrepancies between state standardized tests and federal standardized tests give advocates of uniform standards a full chest to gloat from saying that this is proof that states hold lower standards.
A study by the Washington-based children’s advocacy group EdTrust showed 89 percent of fourth-graders in
Mississippi were deemed proficient or better in reading on recent state tests. Meanwhile, only 18 percent reached that level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — the gold-standard of scholastic achievement in the
United States.In Oklahoma, 75 percent of fourth-graders were proficient or better in math on the state test. On the federal test, 29 percent met that standard.
In Massachusetts — a state with relatively high standards — the gap is narrower. Fifty percent of fourth graders were proficient in reading on state tests, compared with 44 percent on the national test.
As a whole, if you couldn’t tell, I’m opposed to a uniform standard. I think there is no way that one concrete, set in stone policy can help our nation. I do believe something needs to be done but not this. However, I do not have a practical solution worked out yet so I really can’t say much more than just a overall strong dislike towards the idea of having students being judged nationally on something that might only work out in theory.
“Lawmakers prepare to review No Child Left Behind”
Associated Press
CNN.com
January 16, 2007
You have the floor….so what are you going to do with it?
Apparently nothing productive.
In an article from the New York Times titled “Democrats Push for Changes to No Child Left Behind Law” writer Diana Jean Schemo reports on the different approaches the Democratic party wants to take with NCLB. Since the Congressional majority has changed, all are interested with what the new leaders will do with their power. After five years in existence, NCLB has not come close to what it wants to accomplish—all student’s math and reading skills at grade level by 2014. On January 8, 2007, Democratic leaders called the law “too punitive” after President Bush stated that he wanted it to be renewed.
In remarks after the meeting, Mr. Bush predicted a strong bipartisan effort to address “major concerns” about No Child Left Behind “without weakening the essence of the bill.”
He added, “We showed in the past that we can work together to get positive results, and I’m confident we can do so again.”
Although all parties have expressed that changes need to be made, the Democrats are suggesting many major changes to the bill including: more flexibility, national academic standards, social programming, and increasing spending money. Senator Edward M. Kennedy from Massachusetts, purposes two of the biggest changes to NCLB.
His aides said Mr. Kennedy was proposing incentives for states to work together toward common academic standards that would help them and meet the demands of college, work and military service. Currently, states vary wildly in what they consider sufficient progress under the law.
Mr. Kennedy has also suggested expanding social programs for low-income children and putting outreach workers in every impoverished school, as a way of raising achievement. He is also proposing a new federal role in school construction and renovation.
Senator Kennedy’s approach is providing more for schools instead of pure change. He focuses on the needs of the lower-income schools that seem to have a bigger population of students falling behind. Another approach, taken by Representative George Miller from California, suggests that what needs to change is the funding. He appealed to the Education Secretary, Margaret Spellings, who responded with an undecided agreement,
But Ms. Spellings indicated that the administration would be amenable to changes in a number of areas the Democrats were suggesting, including the incentives to make state standards more rigorous and uniform. She also said that areas of common concern included how to test special education students and those with limited English.
In this, President Bush was right in saying that the parties will be willing to work together. However, the “common concern” that is mentioned on the last line of the article seems to be a secondary issue. What this article shows is that language and literacy have taken a back burner to the bureaucracy concerning NCLB. The Democrats have tried to amend what they have seen to be wrong with the bill but still focus on logistics rather than anything with actual substance. Why increase funding if the government isn’t going to do anything useful with it? NCLB and its suggested amendments lack reality. What started from a magnificent idea has turned into nothing more than a political shortcoming that will never attain its desired effects.
“Democrats Push for Changes to No Child Left Behind Law”
By Diana Jean Schemo
New York Times
January 9, 2007
