Also, note that current events 1-3 are locked and you can no longer comment on them. I will try to post a few more possibilities this week as we get closer to school.
Good luck!
Monday, August 8, 2011
Current Event #8: Arne Duncan to Override NCLB
This one hits a little close to home, because it's all about schools. Read the latest news on the Obama's administration's plan for No Child Left Behind. Then tell us what you think--does it make sense to let states or schools that are not meeting 100% proficiency to get out of that requirement? Think about your own experience in public schools--is high-stakes testing meaningful, perhaps not as a way to gauge all of your learning, but at least as a way to set minimum requirements? There is a lot to talk about here.
Good luck!
Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Going off my 11 years in the Durham Public Schools system, I've come to the conclusion that standardized testing is the stupidest thing ever created. Not only because of all the insane rules and regulations about what students and teachers can and cannot do, but just as a way to judge performance. Tests after tests under high stress situations are not an accurate way to judge performance. Many people are very good in school, but aren't great test takers, they can stress out because the tests are so hyped during the year. DPS isn't the only school system who makes a huge deal over the EOCs and EOGs, it's a nationwide problem. Minimum requirements shouldn't be set based on test scores, but as a cumulative grade of the school. Take every child's average in every class, and find the overall school average from that. This also eliminates the grading curve added on standardized tests, giving a true representation of the school's performance as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is necessary for the 100 percent proficiency part of the No Child Left Behind law to be overridden for many reasons. First of all, it is impossible for each school to have every single kid pass every single standardized test. It is also holding back states that have made their own education programs and preventing them from being implemented. High stakes testing doesn’t measure your learning very well, but it is necessary to see who needs help and who has clearly not learned the material. The minimum requirements are needed so that students do not advance up in grades without knowing what they need to know. Overall, I am glad that Mr. Duncan made this move, but I hope that in the future, the states will have the largest say in how they run their schools.
ReplyDeleteThe question is how to measure it. How do we measure if a school is doing a good job or not? Having a school not reach the "proficient" level and lose federal money does not solve the problem. But if we do not set some standard, how do we know we are doing a good job?
ReplyDeleteThe realization is the federal expectation is higher than the reality achievements. But how can a student take a test in New York and fail it, but go to Alabama and take the same test, and pass it? Something must be implemented to regulate this gap.
Maggie H
I believe that ‘No child left behind’ was an unnecessary and a stupid bill from the beginning. Grading the whole school and the students on a single test grade is not only stupid but also unfair. Some students are good students but not good test takers. Some might have had a rough day or might be suffering through a crucial cycle of life. Some might be sick and some kids fail the test due to the pressure of passing the test that put on their shoulder the list goes on and on. There are many other ways to grade a school’s performance other than standardized testing. The government can assess the school on average class grades
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost all of the previous posts that a single standardized test is not the best way to measure a school's success. Taking a cumulative average of all of the students' grades in the school is an interesting idea, but I don't think it is the best method either. Class averages are different from school to school and even teacher to teacher, they do not have the uniform accuracy that a standardized test has. In addition, I think such a system would promote rapid grade inflation, and schools would have 50 kids with a 4.0 at graduation. I think the best method of measurement is to compare individual students' test scores from year to year, and rate schools by the number of and rate at which students improved. If a student has not improved but has elite test scores year in and year out, that should be rewarded as well.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that grading a school on its ability to teach students is important, No Child Left behind did it in a very bad way. The federal government implementing a blanket requirement that every school reach a certain proficiency level, regardless of resources and economic factors in a certain district, is ridiculous. It only lead to easing of the standards and teachers mainly teaching to what was probably going to be on the test. Testing schools’ ability to teach students is important and standardized testing is the best possible way to do it. States should set the standards because they are close enough to the individual districts to recognize their problems, but they are far away enough to not take too many excuses and expect good results. They would be the best body to create tough, but achievable standards.
ReplyDeleteI think that the No Child Left Behind law never should have been created. First of all, it’s nearly impossible to get everyone to get a proficient grade for many reasons. There are rebellious children who don’t think school is worth their time and the teachers and administrators can’t force someone to learn who doesn’t want to. You can bribe them and punish them all you want but you can’t control what stays in their mind. Then there are the children who are just bad test takers, and all the ridiculous rules that come with standardized testing don’t help that. Teachers stress out about the End of Grade and End of Course tests and they put a lot of pressure on the students, and when you’re already a bad test taker you don’t need that extra pressure. Obviously the politicians who are in control of this law got a great education since they are so successful, and it’s a very nice thought that they wish everyone could have the same experience they did, but it’s not going to happen, and they don’t seem to realize that.
ReplyDelete-Kareena Gardner
However pessimistic this may sound, there is no universal fix for Public Education. I give due credit to ‘No Child Left Behind’ for attempting to address issues within our system, but I disagree with their logic. Reducing appropriations to underachieving schools is not advantageous to our youth, nor is lowering academic standards to achieve impressive proficiency statistics – regardless of how good they may look on a politician’s resume. Standardized testing isn't always pleasant, nor is it always fair, but I am at a loss for an alternative. We cannot objectively compare schools on the basis of average student grades; and by measuring average classroom marks grade inflation would become a serious issue – after all, just having a 4.0 doesn’t actually make you smarter. Using standardized testing to indicate a student’s academic progression (as opposed to aptitude) I believe is ideal, but I can hardly imagine the bookkeeping nightmare that would ensue. As for the debate between state & national regulation, I’m torn. States would be more effective in evaluating individual schools, but they would also be tempted to inflate their own results. Regardless, I believe the way we respond to academic inadequacy should take priority over how we define it.
ReplyDelete-Tanner Lockhead
It does not make sense to let states get out of the 100% proficiency requirement. Why have such an infuriatingly exact requirement if it has no weight behind it? What really should happen is the abolition of such an extraordinarily absurd standard of excellence amongst all states. The set standard as it is encourages success, but only at a minimum. State’s schools that already have achieved this standard have no real higher level of accomplishment to aim for and those schools that fall short receive a failing grade no matter how close they may have been to achieving the sought after passing grade. The high stakes testing format is a poor way to gauge the learning experience and seeks constricting uniformity, inhibiting the best and discouraging others. Even using it as a minimum is dangerous because it leads to using it as the maximum, with more and more weight being put on it, with less and less gains. There is no cookie-cutter way to perfect the education system and the current no-child format is a most definitely not an exception to this situation. –David S
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I do not believe it makes much sense to let any school get out of the 100% proficiency requirement. The reason being, like Tanner said, is because I don’t think there is an alternative better than standardized testing. Tests might not be the optimal way to show everything thing that one has learned over the course of a year, but in my honest opinion, tests are the best way to do so. Perhaps a better idea would be lowering the requirement from 100% of the students passing english and math tests to 90% because it is unrealistic to expect every student to pass every standardized test.
ReplyDelete- Jonathon Morrison
Personally, I believe the idea of the NCLB act was good in theory. However, like communism, it's just an unrealistic expectation to set for society. Hardly everyone is perfect, and when such a ridiculous standard is set, it can be extremely discouraging to people far more than capable of passing a test. I agree with Maggie regarding our system of measuring the aptitude of these test takers. Yes, there must be some minimum requirement, but how do we figure out what that should be? It would take a lot more than just averaging a bunch of numbers together and expecting results. I believe there should be some more forethought about how each individual has different needs, and not just about putting millions of different people in the same pool when there are other things to consider about test-taking skills.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maliyah's idea that the NCLB act was built off of a foundation of good intentions, but in reality is unrealistic to assume that all students would be proficient in Math and English. It seems that the whole plan was set up as a result of it becoming common knowledge that we have dropped in our rankings to other countries, no longer holding a top position in the Math and Science standings that we used to have. The American society as a whole is not very good with the concept that we may not be number one at everything. Our culture raises us to believe that this country is the unchallengeable, unbeatable super society that we aren’t. It is unrealistic to focus on the end game of 100 percent proficiency in Math and English when our society disrespects and underpays those trying to get us there. There are roadblocks that we seem to be trying to hurdle instead of tear down.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what many of the comments seem to be saying. Standardized testing simply is not the way to measure educational success with schools, and it absolutely unreasonable to expect 100 percent proficiency with the schools. I agree with Maggie's comments saying we need to rethink how to measure success in schools. And as Jack stated, the way that seems most efficient to measure a school's success is to compare a student's test scores to his previous ones, rather than the rest of his classmates. High stakes testing does not seem meaningful to measure success, but it also doesn't seem to set a very good minimum requirement for students. In my experience, I have often found state-made proficiency tests very easy. So on a different note, the minimum requirement set by high-stakes testing always seemed low to me. Then again, some students are great test takers, and some aren't. There are a multitude of problems related to high-stakes testing to be explored.
ReplyDeleteI think that the 100% proficiency standard expectation from everybody is too unrealistic. The No Child Left Behind law doesn’t really take into account the differences between states. Giving waivers to states that meet the requirements gives them a chance to focus on their education on a more personal level. Each state is different demographically and financially, thus needing different programs to reach academic excellence. Like what happened in Tennessee, if the states have their own standards then their proficiency level will most likely be higher and then slowly they can raise that standard without constantly being under pressure to be as good as other more advantaged states. I honestly do think that high-stake testing is an exceptional way of evaluating what subjects need work on but not to give a pass-fail report on the schools. -Brenda Herrera
ReplyDeleteNCLB is an impractical law. The requirement of schools to have 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014 is simply unattainable due to struggling students, inadequate teachers, and, by far the least fixable, the complete apathy of some students towards education. Charles Murray, an author and social scientist, wrote, "The United States Congress, acting with large bipartisan majorities, at the urging of the President, enacted as the law of the land that all children are to be above average." That is impossible, both practically and theoretically. This requirement also encourages states to lower their academic standards in order to achieve 100% proficiency. Reducing funds to underperforming schools makes the goal even more impossible.
ReplyDeleteStandardized testing, however disliked, is extremely practical and simple. It provides a uniform minimum requirement for all students and schools within a state. As seen in a study of the Chicago Public School system (of which the CEO at the time was, incidentally, Arne Duncan) that was included in the well-known book Freakonomics, the enormous collection of data that high-stakes testing provides can be used in various ways. It can differentiate between students who did not pass because of their own incapability, the incapability of their teachers, or their apathy. It also easily and fairly accurately gauges students’ and teachers’ improvements from year to year. While there are certainly flaws, such as “teaching to the test”, standardized testing is the best option for evaluating the academic improvement of individuals, schools, and states. If there were anything better, we would be using it.
Even though Duncan has made a bold move, it is completely within his rights as Secretary of Education to do so. There has been a national outcry for change, and he has listened and answered. His actions will provide relief for every school that won’t achieve perfection. The future success of our country relies directly on the academic success of children today, and so the nation, not just the states, should have a large say in how education is carried out.
-Ben C.
I agree with Daniela S. and her view on high-stakes testing. All students have talents in different areas, to expect a 100 % proficiency from all students in reading and math seems very extreme. A long, discursive test with a lot of multiple choice questions is not a good way to measure proficiency. The No Child Left Behind law has only taught students to make educated guesses on multiple choice questions, rather than to fully apply their knowledge on the standardized tests. Not all states will be able to have a 100 % proficiency due to many factors that impact students.
ReplyDeleteHannah M.
Having a standardized test does provide a lot of useful information about students and teachers. They can be useful to see where a student or teacher needs improvement. However, a lot of students are not good test takers. The pressure put on them about these high-stakes tests creates a lot of anxiety making it harder to do well. Because of this, high-stakes testing is neither an accurate way to gauge learning nor to set minimum requirements. In theory No Child Left Behind was a good idea, but in practice it really is not. It does not make sense to fail a school because of the results from one test. It also does not make sense to cut funding from schools because they are doing poorly, if we do that how can we improve those schools? If schools are not meeting 100% proficiency according to the tests it does make sense to let them get out of that requirement but only if they can show they are making a good effort to make sure all students learn. They could do this by showing improvement or coming up with their own way to evaluate schools.
ReplyDeleteI honestly think that all this is a waste of time. No two students have the same learning ability, and most definitely won’t have the same grades. Especially on a test, I mean come-on you could be the smartest person ever but be a horrible test taker. Just because you don’t pass a state given test doesn’t mean you’re not ready for the next level. I’m a private school kid, so jumping into a public high school was a big deal, but to me all these “proficiency” test were easy only because I am already used to the extremely high standards of a private school. What the government needs to realize is not every kid out there is going to be able to adjust to different standards every time a new president comes along. They honestly need to just give up the No Child Left Behind deal, and just let us do our thing.
ReplyDeleteI have been in the public school system since I started kindergarten at Forest View Elementary School. I have had some classes where the kids passed all of their standardized tests and i have had some classes where kids failed most of them. I believe that taking away the 100% proficiency requirement would be beneficial to some schools and detrimental to others. One school might be serving lower achieving students and it would be impossible for them to get the kids to be 100% proficient and some other school that could get all of their kids to be 100% proficient could not try as hard to prepare the students since they wouldn’t have to meet requirements anymore. Taking all of this into account I believe that if the NCLB wants to measure proficiency then it should start doing it before kids start taking high stakes tests and monitor their learning when they are young so everyone can start on the same page. Even then they should loosen the requirement because a child background can affect their learning and the child could not learn as quickly as other children. However all children should have some level of proficiency in math and english due to them being in school.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of the comments being said, especially the ones about how No Child Left Behind had good intentions but very poor execution. However, the problem of certain schools doing more poorly is a very tricky situation to handle because no one school is the same and the individual problems cannot be solved by one simple solution. Although I personally hate standardized testing and agree that it is not a fair way to measure schools performance level, we have to remember that it is nearly the only way that the government can equally test a school in a controlled way. We also forget that standardized testing can be helpful to see where a teacher or child needs improvement, or where an entire school needs improvement. The real problem then comes down to money. If a school is doing poorly, they need more teachers, more resources, and more money, not cut funding.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, schools should maintain their standards and push students to achieve higher grades. By lowering the standards we just make it easier for the students. As a student I wouldn't mind having lower standards but as a citizen I would want my country to be smart. Countries around the world are academically superior to us because they push their students. They don't lower the standards. Things have to work at a set standard. By lowering that standard we hurt those who were working hard in the beginning. In my opinion increasing the standards intentionally is also wrong because it sets thing out of balance. Standards increase naturally as time goes along but when we mess with them it throws things off. For example; I have to take more AP classes than my dad because as every generation passes standards are pushed up. The best from back then is today's standard. If, however, we pushed the bar up we would make it more stressful for everybody. We should let things just happen and adjust only if something wrong is about to happen.
ReplyDeleteOf course it would be phenomenal if we could get 100% of students to be proficient in given subjects, but this can't be done realistically. In every school there is bound to be at least one student who will not or cannot pass standardized tests. For example, they could have a hard time sitting down or just do not even attempt the test. If they fail the test, they are forced to repeat the class. This is not a good solution to the problem. The reason they failed is because they did not learn what they needed using the method of teaching for that year. Instead of just making students repeat grades, perhaps they could receive extra tutoring or other help so they can learn the material better.
ReplyDelete