The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), as amended by No Child Left Behind Act (2001), will not be reauthorized until after the November election. As a leader in public education, what insight would you give the new president/legislators/policy makers in this task?
37 comments:
The direction I would look for the new leader to go is towards reaching all students instead of just the ones that are behind. I commonly hear this initiative called no child gets ahead, and I want the policy to be known as the one that benefits all. I want teachers to be less afraid to take risks with the new law. I want all parents to know that we will do the best we can to make their child successful.
Hear hear, Josh! I do think that this one size fits all policy can be dangerous and misleading. For one thing, when you talk about closing the gap, I think that you either are not serving the students at the upper levels of the gap (at least the ones who are close to 100%), or you just aren't measuring what they're learning, and then you aren't closing the gap, you're just not measuring the gap. Also, while I absolutely believe that every child can learn, I think we need to use a little perspective to determine what is necessary and appropriate for them to learn. As Josh pointed out in class on Wednesday, for some students it is critical that they learn a trade. For some, to push them to reach these set standards will result in them feeling like constant failures, when they could really benefit from learning some necessary life skills and become successful members of society. I think that the new policy needs to be, "No Child Left Unconsidered as an Individual," and stop labeling students who don't meet these government-set standards as "left behind."
I believe that we should seriously look at overhauling the assessments that are used for the purpose of accountability. We keep screaming about the different learning styles of the 21st century student, yet our assessments are archaic and bias to one learning style. I think there are too many kids told at a very young age that they are not successful students. I say there should be more celebration of kids' learning styles and less remediation of test taking skills.
Clearly, there is a wide range of opinions to be shared with regard to such a debated piece of legislation. It would therefore be my recommendation that a thorough review be completed to assess feedback not from the president/legislators/policy makers, but from the teachers on the front lines. While I accept the merits of accountability, I agree that a more student-centered approach must be established to foster a more challenging curriculum better suited to accommodate a variety of learning styles and abilities.
I think you all are on the right track. Tony, I agree that the teachers on the front line would be the best to gain feedback from. Dave, you make a great point. The assessments we use and the way(s) in which we use them are archaic and very bias. Kimberly and Josh, I personally have seen that the one size fit all policy is dangerous! It forces teacher to serve the lower student and the highest are left out.
I don't think that we have the time, energy, or money to fund a complete overhaul of the system. No Child Left Behind is not inherently evil, it simply became too punitive, did not offer adequate alternatives and never succeeded in realizing its promises to fund initiatives that would support struggling schools. While the NCLB allegedly would provide increased flexibility to the states, I believe that it should move towards even greater local control to allow the states and districts to make determinations about their students' and schools' needs, and the allocation of funding towards those local goals. Furthermore, I would recommend a move towards post-secondary prep programs like early-college schools, academies for trades and increased choice for students. We need to provide more forward-thinking and a diversity of opportunity--if we try to force all students to go to college, we are going to lose out on kids who become disenfranchised before they can ever get interested in learning with purpose. Deregulate the secondary systems with regards to funding, but with continuing mandates to demonstrate success in supporting struggling students and provide alternatives. Additionally, I would shift additional funds and attention to early childhood education.
As a Special Education teacher, I definitely agree with Josh's comment made in class. Forcing all students to learn the "standard" course of study and take standardized tests instead of learning a valuable trade is doing a disservice to our children. Although there are a few Occupational tracks in high school, we need to start offering these classes in middle school and provide more funding for these programs. It is frustrating and disheartening to watch a student with a full scale IQ of 70 being forced to take standardized tests above their ability level. Other standardized tests, such as NCEXTEND, have been developed for some Special Education students to take in place of End of Grade testing. NCEXTEND is a much better assessment for some students, which proves one size can not fit all in regards to NCLB. I understand the purpose of NCLB and the value of having accountability in our school system. However, this legislation has taken away from teacher’s creativity in the classroom. I agree with Dave’s comment that we keep encouraging teachers to teach to different learning styles of the 21st century, but our assessments are bias to one learning style. Instead of having one multiple choice test be the measure of what students have learned throughout the entire year, it would be more logical to create a legislation that uses End of Grade testing as one small piece of information to assess learning.
I am glad that some poeople agree with me about the fact that we have to figure out ways to make everyone productive members of scoiety, but the question is how do we accomplish that within the parameters we are up against in the education system that we are up against. I wonder we would should go from here? What initiaves? Is it more trade oriented schools, and ahve your college bound schools? I don't know what the answer is but if we don't do something we will be leaving out a section of students every year.
I am glad that some poeople agree with me about the fact that we have to figure out ways to make everyone productive members of scoiety, but the question is how do we accomplish that within the parameters we are up against in the education system that we are up against. I wonder we would should go from here? What initiaves? Is it more trade oriented schools, and ahve your college bound schools? I don't know what the answer is but if we don't do something we will be leaving out a section of students every year.
So do you all think schools would be better if NCLB was done away with or just “fixed”? Would it be too much to demolish it? Would it be even more work to completely revamp it? As I read your post I these questions run through my head? I am not sure…
The problem is that I agree with all of you. This takes us back to Niko's point about funding. Is NCLB a good thing, in any way, as it stands now? If so, we shouldn't do away with it. If it causes more problems that it solves and we don't have the money to improve it, it needs to be repealed.
Kendra that is an interesting thought; what if we were to demolish NCLB or revamp it? There are some aspects to the law that do provide improvements for students, like providing funding to schools that are in need because of the population that they serve and a more complex system of accountablity for schools to ensure that students are receive a quality education. However, as a person who looks strongly at the community aspect of education. What if there were more incentives not for teachers and schools but for communities and parents? What if parents were provided funding for tutoring, childcare, classes and community centers within communities that would encourage parent involvement and resources that would help schools, as well as, families. The community would then be forced to be more accountable for school performance which would spread the responsible and making the school and community more unified.
I think some form of NCLB is here to stay. I agree with everyone that the type of assessments in use is a key problem. Every piece of research I've ever seen talks about how student evaluation should not be based on one piece of data (just a standardized test). However, as Niko stated, funding becomes an issue. If the system were to create real portfolio, student based work evaluation, I think the cost would be prohibitive. I'm sure some of you were around in NC when the old Basic Education Plan was going to "save" public education in NC. It was the greatest plan in the world until the recession of '91 hit and the state budget crisis ended BEP.
I think the other issue that hasn't really been addressed is that NCLB is set up to make it harder for more diverse schools (and therefore more accountability groupings) fail. Politically it becomes easier to blame public education when NCLB stacks the deck. One failing group equals a failing school. I'd like to see any other endeavor that is considered a failure by not reaching 100% of the goal.
I do feel it necessary to accomodate a variety of interests - from the college-bound to the aspiring papaya farmer. Squeezing every child into a universal mold will not solve any problem.
As far as the funding issue, and the fervent discussion/Pandora's box which we have unearthed, I am reminded of a point which a wise old man brought to my attention: Stan Schainker claims that if an issue is a strong enough priority within the community, you make it the priority. Given the percentage of time spent devoted to education within presidential debates and along the campaign trail, it is not clear to me that education (reform or otherwise) is a priority within this society. Presumably, we as a group feel otherwise, but all the talk in the world won't solve the issue. I am trying hard to avoid pessimism, but I do feel that the little difference we might be able to make as the new kids on the block will lend itself better to focusing our attention on how to apply and use the current system (regardless of effectiveness) as best we can.
As I look at the posts so far, I have to say that I don't believe that NCLB is inherently evil. I think there are some school systems out there that are being forced to pay attention to populations that were previously ignored. I do believe that the system of assessments that is currently in place is flawed. I echo Hillary's comment about watching students with very low abilities being shoehorned into a standardized test is very frustrating. But, where do we draw the line between the standard that is supposed to be taught versus the need to individualize for the student? Are there standards that all students really do need to know in order to be a functioning member of society and how do we identify those standards? How do we assess those standards fairly for everyone? How do we make sure that a public school diploma does not wind up being just a meaningless piece of paper?
I agree with you, Steve. NCLB does forces school systems to look at populations that are ignored at times;and that aspects of NCLB is very important. I even think the assessment process which accountabilty is good in theroy. But the flaws come with poor planning and some unrealistic expectations on students.
I think that most will agree that NCLB was created with nothing but good intentions towards eliminating the many educational gaps that exist throughout our various school populations. As someone on the front line of working towards eliminating many of these gaps, (an EC teacher in a school that is 93% minority and 68%free and reduced lunch) I have seen first hand some positive incidental effects of NCLB.
Our school's climate has changed drastically over the past 3 years. Many of our teachers have agreed that each entering 6th grade has been better prepared and more teachable than the previous years. Incidentally, our students are smaller, more immature, and not as defiant to authority. All of these are characteristics of students being closer to their appropriate grade level age. Rather than having a 6th grade with 20 students who are 14, there are 3 or 4 at that age level.
I feel that this is not a coincidence, but a side effect to NCLB. While the test scores may not demonstrate the intended purpose of NCLB, it has helped bring about awareness and change. We still have a long way to go, but rather than spend that time scrapping a system that is already in place, we should simply ammend it.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel, we just need to rotate the tires.
I agree with Josh in that we need to help all students equally. I also support Niko in that we can't start a new movement because it would cost too much. The US is broke. I would, however, follow Obama's plan which will be to fix the problems that NCLB had left and make sure that there was money to back the entire package. I would also rename NCLB to "Everyone's a Winner" just so that people won't get sick when they hear those initials again and act negative. I do like accountability for all parties but that accountability must be focused at home with the children and the parents. There are only so many hoops that an educator can jump through before that educator leaves the field. I would also add that if we continue to play the accountability game then all occupations must be accountable, starting with the medical profession.
Before reauthorizing the legislation, I think it should be reviewed for successes and failures. We have to make sure that accountability is built into it. I would like them to take a hard look at the assessments that we give and how they are aligned with the standard course of study. We are missing the target in that regard and I think the legislation could possibly address that issue.
Josh and Kimberly hit the nail on the head! We want teachers to think outside the box and differentiate their lessons. One size fits all doesn't always work.
Schools need to benefit the student and not try to teach one type of curriculum for every student. The legislation needs to create funding for programs that will make a high school diploma mean more to kids not just a way out the door.
We know where we fail kids now, and how kids fail; what we haven't been able to figure out yet is how to not make them feel like failures, tell the schools of failures that they are failures, and fail the schools.
The system so far has reinforced the existing inequities and remains a blunt instrument for measuring an unrecognized diverse spectrum of educational values in diverse communities.
If we can use NCLB to target funding for growth, locally controlled culturally responsive initiatives, and the measurement and encouragement of unique programs and opportunities, we will be better off.
As long as we continue to punish and withold, we hurt kids far more than adults and persist in reinforcing the same broken systems and inequalities that have existed from the start of our American education system.
We can make it work, but it will take a strong hand, loosened purse-strings, and consistent assessment of not only the children and schools, but of the programs themselves.
I think too many of our students are asked to follow the same path of learning as other students. While I wholeheartedly believe that all students can learn, not all students need to be taught the same things. When I say this I am refering more to high school students than elementary students. Under the current system we are asking students to pass tests in classes that they have to take, but may not benefit their future success post high school. I feel like I am meeting more and more people that are between the ages of 18-22 who are not ready to take care of themselves with guidance let alone all the freedom they will be given after they graduate... IF they graduate.
It looks like we have the same things that we would like to see changed/improved upon with NCLB. I'm assuming that most teachers would feel the same way. Does anyone know who will be part of the evaluation process to decide the direction of NCLB? Will teachers be involved? If so how would they decide which teachers would be part of the process?
I agree with Josh and Kimberly. I believe that in an effort to comply with NCLB the drop out rates are increasing. Many schools view the lower achieving students as liabilities to the school ratings and these students are being allowed to quietly exit the system, rather than providing them with the quality education necessary for them to succeed. High-stakes, test-based accountability doesn’t lead to school improvement or equitable educational possibilities. It leads to avoidable losses of students. Inherently the system creates a dilemma for schools: comply or educate. Unfortunately, in this case compliance means losing students, which in my opinion means changes need to be made to the plan.
"Although there are a few Occupational tracks in high school, we need to start offering these classes in middle school and provide more funding for these programs."
I completely agree with Hillary on this point. It is nearly impossible to take teenager who is still in middle school and can not read, and expect to completely turn them around in one year. In this regards NCLB is not practical. The fact that districts look at growth reports and other aspects of these high stakes tests help valdiate the assessment to students like that.
While the NCEXTEND's more fairly assess the EC population, the assessment themselves are discriminatory. If your school has too many students taking these alternate assessments you are punished. In addition, only a slim percentage of the students who take these assessments can pass, making the test unfair to those already facing enough challenges as it is.
I believe that the original intention of The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), that is, increasing student learning, closing the achievement gap, and making sure that all children are taught by highly qualified teachers is honorable.
Many agree that using only standardized tests and assessments to measure learning is inappropriate.
I agree. This forces schools to focus on the tests and a narrow set of skills that make it easier for students to get a passing score. One of the fundamental changes to the law should be allowing for the use of more than test scores to measure student learning and school performance.
Closing the achievement gap should continue to be a focus. I agree with Niko, as we make this effort, we must divert additional funds toward early childhood education. Particularly, in impoverished areas of the country.
States have been given some flexibility in meeting the “highly qualified” staffing rules because of the shortage of teachers in areas such as special education. The reauthorized law should contain some funding to allow professional development for faculty and staff attempting to meet the “highly qualified” rules.
NCLB has never been funded at the level promised in 2001. In light of today’s economy, it is unlikely that the newly reauthorized law will receive full funding. However, the government should endeavor to come as close as possible.
Steve’s reference to how NCLB makes it harder for schools with diverse populations to make AYP, caused me to think a bit more about that issue.
NCLB fails to provide more than one way to make AYP, yet there are numerous ways to fall short. I think there should be a way to distinguish schools needing lots of support from schools that need just a little help. It should not be a pass/fail situation. For example, schools failing to make progress with 4-5 subgroups, should not be in the same category as those who miss the goal in one subgroup only.
I would inform our new leadership that we need to identify the strengths of NCLB. The focus on education is commended and honorable (as Sarita stated), but we must research the factors that led education in the US to fall to 18th out of 24 world countries. We are still missing the goals for our students to be globally competitive. As Steve mentioned, all of the mandatory assessments have changed the direction of education to scores instead of understanding concepts. We have made tremendous improvements on AP exams and SAT scores, but we are still lagging in overall student proficiency. New structure to curriculum and emphasis on skills rather than speed or the amount of topics is needed. Having NCLB without addressing change in society doesn’t work. As Lisa mentioned, one size doesn’t fit all! Our government must impact socio-economics/equality to impact education because our country is not on the same page as we may want. “Rhetoric verses Reality”
As Kendra mentioned..."Would it be more work to revamp NCLB?" Anything of this magnitude will be a lot of work because you are dealing with a wide range of citizens. But restructuring the program is needed
to continue the task to improve overall student success, but revamping is also needed to gain more support from educators and build the morale/confidence of people invested in education.
Honestly I think the whole thing is broken. I believe they should do away with public education as we know it, authorize a dollar amount per child which can be used at any public school (not private). Grant charters to the schools in existence and any other entrepreneur. Set up a basic nationial curriculum with certain benchmark tests based on it and let the market go at it. In 10-15 years the dust will settle and I believe we will have a much better system. YES I do see many disadvantages and possible problems with this scenario.
Cory Draughon
I agree with the conversation going on about different options for students like trade schools. The only problem I have with them is the motive that goes into a child making a decision to attend one. I think many times there is a feeling of, I can't afford college, this is what my father does, and various other reasons people choose a trade. I think it is important to limit as many of those factors as possible so that everyone has an equal opportunity in choice.
Cory Draughon
I agree with many others in that “one size fits all” policy does not work. As a teacher in an alternative setting I see first hand the affects that NCLB has on lower achieving students. This policy provides little assistance for the students who are not interested in going to college, but desperately need life skills training in order to become productive members of society. I don’t think that overall NCLB is bad, but I feel that it needs to be revamped so that it will be more beneficial to all students.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have known in my teaching career has been NCLB so I really don't have anything to compare it with. I do know that this Federal intiative has caused a lot more paper work for schools and teachers, however, I do believe that it has made teachers and schools realize that they are accountable for their teaching. I do believe that assessing students' learning can be a valuable tool in order to see where your students are, but I believe that we have carried it to far. It seems as if we are testing, testing, testing way to much. At times, I feel like I am teaching more test taking skills more than my curriculum. I do agree that teachers need to work towards moving all students on grade level. I agree with Josh. Our new leader should push for reaching all students not just the ones who are behind. New intiatives and programs for the academically intelligent kids would be a great start.
I do believe that our next leader should make it a priority to close the achievement gap no matter what it takes. One size does not fit all. What works for one child, may not work for all children. What works for one school, may not work for all schools. I would like to see a push for curriculum alignment across the board (country) and a more realible testing program. We need to focus our attention on teaching these children what it is that they need to be successful as a citizen in this country. I don't believe that a test score shows what a students knows or doesn't know.
After reading Anthony’s post, I am glad someone took to the time to mention the positive aspects of NCLB. Although we definitely can all acknowledge the faults associated NCLB, having legislation requiring all students to be held accountable is based on a good theory. As Anthony mentioned, I too have witnessed the positive impact NCLB has had on groups of students who may have been previously overlooked in the classroom, such as Special Education students. Teachers are coming together and creating a climate of high expectations for all students. NCLB has helped some students and teachers push a little harder to reach the next level within the classroom. I will admit I have had students in the beginning of the year who I did not think had a chance at passing the EOGs, however with hard work throughout the year they were able to prove me wrong and score level 3s. NCLB needs to be revamped, but the fundamental idea behind this legislation has encouraged higher expectation for students.
I think that Steve, Niko, and Mechele raise a really good point, in that a large part of the problem of NCLB is the punishment aspect of the program. It is a huge problem when schools start to see lower-achieving kids as a liability, or start to want to eliminate diversity as a mode of achieving the designated growth.
I thought it was interesting that Candace pointed out the paperwork aspect of the program, because as I was reading these posts and considering alternatives, I actually was thinking the opposite. It seems to me that any other way measurement of accountability would likely end up with greater teacher time and paperwork. My students who are new English language learners are not forced to take the test, and instead are assessed through NCCLAS, which is far more time-consuming for me. I've had to go through this process for three students at the maximum each year, and just the thought of doing it for 22 is enough to give me a headache. A portfolio approach, too, would involve significant teacher-time and energy to assemble and to assess. This is not to say that these approaches are not worth the time and effort. It is just to say that while the NCLB has many flaws, as far as accountability goes, it is efficient.
Post a Comment