- If you have been missing out on the lively Speed Test Scores 2009- Reality string. It is definitely worth a read and ties in well with my current topic of posting.
- If you missed Speed's Friday Funny, it may help you take all this stuff less seriously. Besides it is oh so true...
- If you are interested, the RAS Board meeting is tomorrow night. I hope to see you there. FYI, some thoughts from Speed regarding the agenda. Hopefully it will be a shorter meeting.
- 281 Exposed has viewpoints on Patsy Green's announcement to run again.
Now for the main event. I am going to try and describe the two primary positions regarding AYP/NCLB and ask for your help to clarify them. Or for you to describe others that I have missed.
For AYP/NCLB
- The measurement of academic results is necessary to ensure all the kids are learning the most critical subjects to at least a minimally acceptable threshold level.
- This is necessary to ensure the educational system focuses on all children based on their needs. And to ensure the curriculum/funding stays focused on the subjects that are critical to the student's and nation's success. Some breadth/depth of subjects is necessary, but it has gotten out of control.(ie what is "necessary" in public education?) Finally, to promote continuous improvement and efficiency gains within the "status quo" educational system.
- How the student's are taught is up to the educational system, however the children will need to pass the tests to prove their capability. Just like they need to in their normal classes.
- Without some "potential loss/gain", the educational system would stay the status quo course and ignore NCLB. Therefore potential funding losses/gains and negative/positive press regarding the school's status are necessary to motivate and drive change.
- The expectations are aggressive because the USA needs rapid improvement in order to be a world leader in education, which is needed to stay competitive in a global economy.
Against AYP/NCLB
- The measurement of academic results disturbs the good learning environment and encourages teaching to the test. (ie memorization vs learning)
- Testing is not an accurate/fair way to measure the academic capability of a student.
- The educational system and personnel are self motivated to ensure all kids learn to their capability. No monitoring/"check" is necessary.
- The focus on 4 areas prevents focusing on the "whole child" and the breadth and depth of valuable subjects that should be offered.
- The educational system and personnel work to continuously improve themselves, no carrots and sticks are required.
- The expectations are too aggressive and funding is inadequate.
- NCLB/AYP is an arbitrary and politically motivated mandate that was used to pass an education bill. The folks that passed it and made the tests do not know what they are doing. They were just interested in making themselves look good.
So you know I am for NCLB/AYP with a couple tweaks. And that when a school fails, I believe it is the fault of the failing student's parents, the school district and it's community citizen's. (ie lack of focus, prioritization, funding and volunteerism)
With that in mind, how did I do at describing both views? What would you add, correct or remove? Is there some middle ground I missed?
18 comments:
I have no problem with testing. I don't even have a problem with NCLB testing as such. I just think we should try to understand what testing means and what goals it serves.
To your last point in the "pro" column: The expectations are aggressive because the USA needs rapid improvement in order to be a world leader in education, which is needed to stay competitive in a global economy. How does focusing on those most likely to be left behind make us competitive in the world market? I don't want any child "left behind", but "Behind" is different for different children. Are we forced to pass on opportunities to foster and guide excellence in children who are being "left behind" because there are less resources, time and patience to meet their potential? How many of our brightest are being "left behind"? Is NCLB the best means to decide our education spending?
The NCLB tests are very limited in their scope. Schools do a lot of testing, and I would hope at least most of those tests have lot more to do with the way our kids are taught than NCLB related tests.
Schools have limited resources to do which doesn't have limits. I think Robbinsdale schools do a pretty good job dealing with the needs of bright kids, but consider the problem that presents with a program like NCLB. A teacher in any given classroom, might want to devote time challenging the best students, but that teacher also knows the best students will pass NCLB whether they get special attention or not. If good NCLB performance is what we establish as a goal, the teacher should shift attention to the marginal students, the ones who are in striking distance of NCLB goals.
This is a problem with NCLB but it's an issue with any test to one degree or another. Each test is a look at students from a particular perspective. Some perspectives might be better than others, more useful than others, but no test gives a comprehensive view of what schools do.
First, to help people keep us multi-named bloggers straight:
Give2Attain = G2A = John
Speed Gibson = R-Five
Hiram = Jon
I hope this helps you to keep up with the comment strings.
Second, I agree with Jon & Christine that Parents and some Citizen's often have unlimited expectations for the Public Schools. And it would be great if we could maximize the potential and number of experiences/choices of every child that walked in the door of our schools. And that the Citizen's as a whole have chosen to constrain the Public School's budget.
With this said,how should we prioritize and sacrifice? Should we help the lucky kids to be even luckier in the name of maximizing their potential? Or do we help the unlucky kids to even get on the playing field in the name of fairness and equity?
The reality is that unless funding or educational efficiency is increased significantly, priorities need to be set and cuts need to be made.....
To help you empathize with the unlucky kids, humor me. Close your eyes and imagine a child you love. I mean really visualize this, feelings and all. Now imagine that that particular child had been unlucky enough to be born in a home where the parent(s) either can not or chose not to prepare the child behaviorially or academically for school, and do not help them with school. Imagine how confused, lost, scared and depressed that particular child would be. With this feeling in place, how would we look at the topics we are discussing differently?
Thoughts?
Interesting perspective: peer pressure works both ways... kids with poor behavior and academics can improve by being around good role models... Typically we spend our time as parents worried about the other paradigm...
"With this said,how should we prioritize and sacrifice?"
An excellent question. If we allow are priorities to be determined by NCLB, then we will focus on those students who around the level set by standards each year. Since NCLB tests are in only a couple of areas, the program suggests that any resources devoted to other areas of learning are a waste.
I think in theory at least, we have the same obligation to each of our children, that is to provide them with a quality education. That means teaching all our children, not just those who are at risk of failing the government's changing NCLB standards.
We agree about needing to deliver a "Quality" education to all the kids. Now for the big questions:
What specifically is a "Quality" education for all children?
What should the Public School system not offer, because it exceeds the definition of "Quality" education? (it is "class" privelage, excess or waste)
Thoughts?
It's a daunting challenge to fix AYP at 14 schools, particularly given the closing schools and boundary changes. I'd be inclined to pick fewer targets, based on some perception of "most likely to improve".
I'd be inclined to pick fewer targets, based on some perception of "most likely to improve".
The problem with that is that it ensures NCLB failure. But then of course as the standards rise, all schools will eventually fail NCLB.
I don't rule out the advisability of picking unachievable goals, but we shouldn't do that unless we fully analyze all the consequences, including the political consequences.
The challenge is that as long as we truly believe that all schools will fail sooner or later because the schools, kids and system can not meet the expectations by improving and changing quickly....
We will fail !!!
What should the new paradigm be if we intend to improve and meet the expectation? How would this change our motivation, behaviors and choices?
"The challenge is that as long as we truly believe that all schools will fail sooner or later because the schools, kids and system can not meet the expectations by improving and changing quickly....
"We will fail !!!"
Sure, but we would fail to meet NCLB standards even if we decided not to believe that. Knowing what I do (and I don't know a lot) I expected the majority of schools to fail and they did. If the current NCLB system isn't changed, I expect more schools to fail in coming years. It's in the nature of the numbers. Maybe it's time to ask ourselves, how is it possible that individuals with only a superficial understanding of the system, mostly gleaned from a not very careful reading of the Sun Post are consistently right in their expectations, and those who are engaged in a process involving thousands of people in an extensive lobbying and legislative process are consistently wrong in their expectations? Shouldn't that raise questions important and critical questions about the soundness, and even the intellectual integrity of the process, and the program it created?
Has NCLB met expectations?
I agree with you. The Public Education system and yourself do believe we will fail. Therefore it is only a matter of time before we do.
Of course from my perspective, NCLB has been an absolute success as the Check step in PDCA. It has put the American people on notice that we are failing to acceptably educate a portion of our children.
The question is now: How are we going to "ACT" to improve the performance?
Jon, Knowing what you know, how would you change NCLB to make it more effective?
"The Public Education system and yourself do believe we will fail. Therefore it is only a matter of time before we do."
Well, fail NCLB, at least. And it just isn't the public education system that believes that. In effect, NCLB requires something akin to having all the children perform above average, a statistical impossibility.
There are a lot of problems with NCLB. For me, a basic one is the changing standards. Standards must be fixed because people are taught that they are and that's what they expect them to be. I expect a ruler to be the same length no matter where or when I purchase it. Because NCLB standards change from year to year, something the public does not know, and something that contradicts the basic understanding of what standards are that all of us share, NCLB results measured against those shifting standards inevitably mislead the public.
I agree, NCLB expects almost all students in the future to perform above today's average. This is because the system capability and student performance needs to improve, and the future average will be higher than today's average. Very statistically valid. (ie shifting the distribution/bell curve to the right by changing the population's characteristics...)
This is the reason that the targets increase each year. The NCLB/AYP developers knew it was impossible to improve the system capability and student performance over a one year period. Therefore they announced a 10 year final goal, with incremental yearly targets to help the education groups measure their improvements.
Unfortunately the educational system capability and student performance is not increasing fast enough, therefore each year more schools fail. Unless the communities and schools choose to take this more seriously, this will likely continue.
"NCLB expects almost all students in the future to perform above today's average. This is because the system capability and student performance needs to improve, and the future average will be higher than today's average."
That's an example of the basic problem with NCLB. Somebody has decided to expect an outcome based on something other than a rational analysis of the situation at hand.
However much I may need something to happen, expecting will not make it so.
"This is the reason that the targets increase each year."
The reasons the target shift every year is that a political deal was made that they should. Basically a trade was made for an educational program in exchange for a flawed evaluation system that could be corrected at some later date. We are currently seeing that political scenario play out. If the current system is allowed to continue, all schools will fail by 2014. If that's politically unacceptable, it will be changed. But if it isn't, by 2014 it will be irrelevant since a system that all schools as failing will be seen as useless and will be discredited.
The NCLB's approach to standards were intended to do two conflicting things, to measure school performance, and to provide an incentive for improving school performance, and that ensures that it can do neither of those things well, and over time won't do either of them at all.
Jon,
You definitely sees things differently from me. I believe aggressive goals and belief can work miracles. The below is for individuals, however it also works for organizations. It may not be perfect, however it is much better than the downward spiral of predicting failure and giving up.
Affirmations
By the way, Lou Tice and The Pacific Institute offer some very interesting classes and curriculum...
"I believe aggressive goals and belief can work miracles."
They can't make all kids perform above average. And if people don't have confidence in them, they can be worse than useless. Among other things, establishing unrealistic goals can be demoralizing and can result in a loss of trust in those who set them.
In this case, I think the particular set of goals here were the products of management theories popular in the 1990's, but which I think have been discredited by subsequent events.
Wow, very good discussion John,
I say this because I agree with statements on either side. I am not sure of my position yet, but perhaps my writing will cause me to lean one way or another:
The ideal situation is to maximize every student's potential, keep them all engaged and feel like they can succeed no mater what the obstacle. This may or may not be achievable, but I think that it is the goal.
Diverting funds and teacher energy to only the unlucky kids may cause the lucky to loose interest and not achieve to their full potential. It may be the full potential of these lucky kids that decides whether or not we can compete in the global economy. They may become business owners, leaders, and the like anyway, but are they better and sharper than those in competing nations?
I will propose a definition of potential: The ability of a student to generate a value to society.
-By VALUE, I mean something that the society values: Money, Volunteerism, and Communal Happiness etc.
-By SOCIETY, I mean the United States of America. Isn’t that what this is about? WE need to compete against THEM in the global economy. If it wasn’t about that, we could just send all of our tax money to unlucky countries.
If each student was given as much positive attention that they could mentally stand to receive (there is a limit somewhere before someone says I need a break):
- Unlucky kids may be overwhelmed by their circumstances outside of school, which any additional attention doesn’t get help. However, they would likely be better off than if they had not received attention at all.
- Unlucky kids may turn out to have more potential than their Lucky counterparts.
Neglecting Unlucky kids does not save taxpayer money. Kids that do not get educated to a certain level may likely go on to reduce society value rather than create it. They may go on to raise more unlucky kids. This brings up the point of what we mean by Luck. It is not just “unlucky” if a citizen group disregards the education a subgroup and then says that their children are unlucky. Being born in poverty happens in an instant for a child and from that perspective we may say that it is unlucky. But poverty doesn’t happen in an instant does it? Therefore poverty itself is not a matter of luck. I acknowledge that we are talking of more than just poverty in the group called unlucky. But just for argument sake, I bring this group up.
I guess, I’ll leave this with a question: “Is it more education that the Unlucky Kids need, or is it more love.” For English as a second language, I will propose it is likely more education since it is hard to learn if you don’t understand what the teacher is saying. For all disadvantaged kids, they may feel like no one cares, Having a teacher pay attention to them may help them not because they are getting more education, but because the teacher is showing that they care.
Post a Comment