Thursday, August 28, 2008
NCLB Reauthorization / Election
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
I agree and believe that all students in America regardless of background, race, or class should have high standards set and have teachers that help them in achieving those standards. NCLB attempts to put in place common benchmarks that all schools have to meet just like common standards where established for all school executives in NC. NCLB should eliminate excuses and cause schools to operate like businesses where you either step up the performance or get out of business. However, I would advise the powers that be to re-examine the aspects of it that have flaws. Like the Hodgkinson article mentions, I have several students who are being tested that do not fit in the defined ten student groups. Where do foreign exchange students go in the model? Some students are changing their racial status once they get to high school so that they can get identified in a certain racial group for college admission purposes. What about schools who are on the high end of the standards and make growth but do not make the benchmark growth because there is no room to keep growing? What about the lower end of the standards where teachers are hard to get like .89 cent gasoline so teachers are teaching subjects that they have no license in or license in subjects that are not the areas where they teach?
It's interesting that you talk about how high school students change their racial status to fit into certain sub-groups, Marcia. I think that speaks directly to problems related to the NCLB Act. Another issue that I have with it is identifying benchmarks for some of the subgoups - where does the government come up with measures for the entire ELL population? With an inlfux of many cultures and languages, and even a steady flow of refugees inot our schools, how can we be measuring all of their growth according to standardized benchmarks? It amazes me that, after only one year in this country and the passing of a singe test measure (IPT), ELL students become part of our responsibilty to meet benchmarks in order to prove that we show adequate growth. Not only does NCLB unjustly measure our adequacy as a system by that subroup, but many other extremely diverse subgroups become part of the equation.
While I agree that teachers and systems need to be accountable, there has to be a better way to measure our abilities to educate all of the subgroups. I would caution the new administration to look carefully at the act and speak with professionals in the field before agreeing to renew the act just as it is. Some modifications could make this legislation much more effective and attainable, helping to encourage the educators in America instead of discourage them.
I guess I wonder, in general, about the role of the Federal government in public education. When each LEA gets, on average, less than 20% of its funding from federal sources, why should the Federal Government take primary responsibility in holding public schools accountable? It seems like the primary stakeholders--those represented by the state government and the local county governments which provide the vast majority of funds--should be the ones pressing for accountability. Hopefully we will learn more about Title I from Dr. Bruce, but it also seems that the Feds really only have one stick--pulling Title I funds away from LEAs--and have no substantive carrots to offer LEAs in assisting them to meet NCLB goals. To me it just seems that the Federal role in public schools as delineated by NCLB is out of proportion to its limited financial responsibility.
There are indeed some good things that go around the world as part of the ongoing globalization. It was funny reading about the “No child left behind” because there is also a motion for achieving that in Cyprus, and I suppose other parts of the world. Although the educational hierarchy and general system here differs from the one back home, there are many things that are common, such as the use of the field of education as a poker ace in the political gambling table. It is very good when politicians force some reforms because they believe in it, but on the contrary it is very bad when they do it to get more votes. At least, if politicians promise something, they need to do it, because that’s why we, or the majority in any case voted them for.
I would tell anyone in power to change things, to try and get to the bottom of the reform. Yes, there are rules and guidelines that suggest that No Child is Left Behind, but many children are in deed left behind in order for the school’s ratings to remain high. It’s like when a teacher has a superintendant or principal visiting his/her classroom, and choosing only the “brighter” students to give the answers. As long as any teacher does that, then children will be left behind. This effort actually needs to start from bottom up.
I see two issues that school leaders would need to articulate to the new president/policy makers/legislators. First, the issue of that standardized test being the basis for school performance. I know it's something we all groan about, but the resignation to it is a bit scary. This is a huge issue, especially when school leaders know that there are many kinds of assessments beyond standardized tests. The fact that such high stakes are attached to the one test is really a problem because we are judging our schools on how kids are doing on a test that may or may not indicate how well they are prepared for jobs that don't even exist yet. Secondly, from an elementary school perspective I would want to give insight about how narrowed the curriculum has become. So much time is devoted to reading and math that science is barely there and social studies/civics is basically absent. This has serious implications for preparing children for the 21st century and I think it should not be overlooked. It is especially true in under-performing schools. These schools have such a narrow curriculum there are serious ethical implications when the school across town is able to devote much more time to a wider curriculum.
Most of the comments thus far are relatively critical of NCLB. But whether one agrees with the details of NCLB, or the role of the federal government in public education, the fact remains that large numbers of students throughout our country attend schools that fail to provide them with high quality educations. The underlying intent of NCLB was to address this failing.
So, if NCLB is in some ways flawed, or if the federal government should pull back on its participation in educational policy, what should the alternative be? From a big-picture policy perspective, who should be acting to improve K-12 education, and what should those actions look like? The pre-NCLB status quo resulted in less-than-acceptable results for kids, so what would a more effective alternative look like? Minor changes to NCLB, an overhaul of the federal role in public education, national standards and testing, multi-state alliances?
For some excellent perspective on this question, check out this online debate about NCLB.
I am not sure I understand NCLB really, but from what I think I know, the intention of it is good. The idea is to expect high achievement from all kids.
The problem is that it doesn’t specify what achievement means. Some states, fearful
of performance standards, created very low level tests to ensure that all students would be
able to show progress and eventually meet the standard . So it allowed for
not so noble loopholes. This might be fixed with a national assessment that is good, ie, one with no mistakes like the NC end of grade tests that I have read. There are much better assessments out there.
The second problem as I understand it is that it compares apples to oranges instead of apples to apples, so it isn’t very scientific or meaningful when you get right down to it. What sense does it make to say we showed progress because the 3 Latinos in 6th grade this year did well compared to the 10 we had last year who were all totally different kids? And, wait, two of those students transferred in to our school in March, so we didn’t even really prepare them for this test? This would be fixed if we measured Jimmy’s progress this year to Jimmy’s progress next year. That would be meaningful progress data. Then group it by demographics if you want, but use the individual data for groupings, not apples and oranges.
I also like Martin’s suggestion that we broaden our assessments. I currently tutor a student who is seriously dyslexic. She will probably never be someone who spends a lot of time with the printed word. She has many other areas she could show progress in, but they are not measured by NCLB. Will she feel like a failure since the only test the school takes seriously is the reading and math every year? A school is not just for teaching reading and math. Allow some exceptions or alternate assessments for those who have documented exceptions.
After reading through the online debate on NCLB, it appears that most of those participants feel that the role of the Federal government in public education is appropriate and most of them even advocate an expansion of that role to include: 1) national curriculum standards and 2) national assessments. If we agree that more federal intervention is the answer--although I still can't figure out why states and local communities would have been satisfied with failing schools and huge achievement gaps--then national standards and tests linked to those standards seem reasonable to me. I do like the idea of the Feds requiring the "ends" but allowing ample freedom for states/districts to decide the "means"--in effect, setting a target and letting states, districts, etc., use whatever means they feel are best to meet that target. One example of this is changing the "highly qualified teacher" requirement. Instead of having the feds spell out a "definition" of a highly qualified teacher (which apparently has limited correlation with student learning), states/districts would have the freedom to hire and develop "highly effective teachers" without having them jump through meaningless certification requirements. Interesting stuff.
I would suggest that the new president have a wide variety of practicing educators on this committee. Often times decisions that affect our schools are being made by such people as legislators, congressmen and corporate executives. When the No Child Left Behind Act is reauthorized current classroom teachers, principals and guidance counselors from a variety of schools (urban, suburban, charter, private) should voice thier opinoins and concerns about the current policies. In addition, the president should make unannounced visits to the schools and classrooms of these educators so that he can see a true picture.
Dr. Graham, I agree with your comments completely. Regardless of your views on NCLB, the one positive outcome that is undeniable is the emphasis it has placed on teaching all children effectively. Schools can no longer say that they are effective while subgroups within their student body continue to fail. There are definitely many downsides to NCLB, but unless educators are held to high accountability standards it is too easy for them to become complacent. NCLB forced our faculty at my school to have the tough conversations about why certain students were not achieving on state assessments. It forced many of our teachers to change their pedagogy, develop cultural awareness, and change long held hidden prejudices. These are all positive outcomes of NCLB.
There will be negative outcomes to any program of accountability. However, it is evident that kids are not slipping through the cracks as easily, and teachers are working harder to reach the children that were overlooked previously. So, in this regard, I would have to say that NCLB has been effective.
Is it not true, theoretically, according to the way NCLB is implemented today that you could have a school in which none of the students learned anything from any of their classes that year but they were all on grade level so they all passed the NCLB assessment that year? This would be a model school according to NCLB, I guess? Isn't something wrong with that?
I would just like to challenge the notion that because of NCLB (the measurement of subgroups, teacher accountability, etc.), fewer kids are falling through the cracks. In fact, I think the reverse could be argued. When comparing NAEP results post-NCLB (2003-2007) vs. pre-NCLB (2000-2003) student improvement has SLOWED or STOPPED, and achievement gaps between racial groups have narrowed MORE SLOWLY than before NCLB. I believe that conversations in schools and changes made as a result of NCLB may have been good things, but the proof is in the pudding (and I believe NAEP to be a far better measure of learning than state tests)--and so far I'm not sure that we are seeing positive results, at least not on a macro-level.
Below is the link (granted, this group has an anti-test bias, but the data is reproduced directly from NCES, which administers and analyzes NAEP):
http://www.fairtest.org/files/NAEP%20results%20show%20NCLB%20failing%202.pdf
The one thing I have not liked about NCLB is that notion of "not leaving the child behind" which is what you all have commented on that is happening everyday in our schools. NCLB correlates to the end-of-grade tests administered in every state. I have emphatically said how I do not like these tests because they really don't show that students are learning. Also, there is not a clear understanding of what these tests actually show. You can go through the year and fail math and reading, but pass the tests (and sometimes with very high scores); but aren't you still "left behind"?
One issue about our Federal Government is that it makes decisions for our schools and never truly considers those involved. It's easy to make changes and set standards when you have not been in today's classrooms. I do believe with Marcia in that their must be standards set for teachers to teach students, but I also believe that NCLB should consider the students that are being taught in our classes. I believe that many teachers are doing the best they can in preparing students for these tests, but when one student, from a sub group, doesn't do well on the test, it makes the school look bad, but what about the other "x" students that did well?
I agree with the comment that our schools have become test driven and forces our teachers to spend time on preparing for tests, so that it makes the school look good, so the district looks good, thus proving NCLB is right...but what happens when the test is over and the student has not retained anything, isn't that being left behind?
Dr. Graham, I don't believe there is another alternative assessment that needs to be created instead of NCLB. I believe that NCLB needs to be seriously revised in a matter that all students are held accountable for their learning. It should also hold teachers accountable for what they are teaching. It should set standards in ALL areas of the curriculum so that it holds accountable the schools and districts to enforce that time and effort be placed just as much on the Sciences and History/Civics classes as it does Math and Reading. And frankly, ALL classes should have a stake in NCLB. We have looked at many documents about the 21st century student. The 21st century student is well-rounded so then why are standards only set in two areas?
In essence, all that has been said has been very enlightening. The fact remains is that the new president/policy makers/etc. will have to "go back to the drawing board" in order to make NCLB a level playing field...
Is America ready to re-write history?
I echo the sentiments of all of the posts before me. I too see the many "pitfalls" of NCLB. I do see the rise in awareness for accountability but however well intentioned NCLB was, its implementation has come at a high cost. As an elementary educator, I see the testing craze with children as young as 8 years old. They no longer experience the fun, creativity and freedom to explore things not embodied in the North Carolina Standard Course of Study. Teachers have shed their creativity and resigned to teaching the test. I think one of the most important suggestions I would offer, is a team of current educators driving the revision process.
A lot of interesting points and questions. Has NCLB actually had a positive impact on student learning (NAEP results might suggest that it has not)? Are we testing too narrowly, i.e., should we be testing more subjects? Are we using simplistic tests that do not adequately measure student learning (issues of test validity)? Should we move a discussion of accountability beyond simply standardized testing?
Let’s say the next president throws up his hands and says (and Congress agrees), “You know what, NCLB hasn’t worked. Going forward, the federal government will continue to provide similar funding to states, but we are getting out of the oversight business. It’s up to you—the states—to figure out what your accountability systems should look like. No more AYP. You decide what you want to do.”
What do you think the result would be? How would states react (and, more importantly, how would North Carolina react)? What impact would this have on schools and classrooms? What impact would it have on student learning?
Timberly, I agree that we should keep NCLB. I think the reasoning and goals behind NCLB are correct. We must hold school systems and teachers accountable. Books such as the "World is Flat" and documentaries like "Two Million Minutes" make it clear that we must raise the bar if our students are to compete in a global job market. Federally mandated legislation ensures that all states and school systems are held to the same standard.
I am also in agreement with Timberly and many others that there are serious flaws in NCLB. The question posed by Dr. Graham earlier about possible alternatives really made me think. One suggestion that I have is to reduce the 100% proficient goal. In a sense, this is asking all school systems to be perfect and no individual or system on earth is perfect. Each child has a different set of circumstances and obstacles that he or she faces. Many students deal with test anxiety, and do not perform well on EOCs as a result. I would be in favor of simply looking at the progress of each school. Clearly, as a school has a higher and higher percentage of its students proficient it gets increasingly harder for it to show growth. I think we need to establish a certain proficiency that we deem to be attainable for all systems. For example, we could set a standard of 90% proficient and then just make sure that schools maintain that level or above. Sanctions should only occur if you have schools operating in the 70% or below range or if a school shows a serious decline in its proficiency level. For example, if it went from 90% to 70% proficient. In grading, we consider 69 or below failing, but with NCLB you could be 90% proficient, not make AYP, and be reprimanded. This does not make sense. Does anyone else have any suggestions on this idea? These are just some thoughts that I wanted to put out there. This is an important discussion, and I wish that our legislators could receive a copy of educational dialogues like this one.
Greg's comment woke me from my dogmatic slumber. Come to think of it, NCLB has not really made significant good changes at my school in how we educate those who are not doing as well in school. It has perked up my administrator's ears when I tell her why I think a student is not doing well, though. Not that she made any changes based on that. It has also given her tunnel vision.
I wonder if anyone has other experiential evidence re: significant teaching or programatic changes as a result of NCLB?
If states take over, we won't have any common standards as a nation, which I think is a good thing. We won't know how NC kids are doing with respect to other states. I do not have much faith in how we choose the folks who choose and finalize the test. I have seen too many errors in them. I say don't give up on National norms, just adjust them.
Marcia,
A few years ago I worked in a high achieving school where students could score a 95 or better on both the reading and math EOGs (5th grade). Our difficulty was how to bring these students up. I wasn't sure if the parents were tougher or if the administration was tougher in trying to find a way to increase their scores. According to the NCLB, one point increase was not enough and the school relied on lower/middle students in order to ensure we made the "grade".
I especially felt bad for newer teachers who were thankful for these students to guide those that needed the additional support but it did not give them the push they needed to expand their knowledge. These new teachers were hoping that our AIG teachers could create the challenge these students needed.
This school did a great job and we worked hard before and after school with small-group tutoring and we still fell short with AIG students. It seems that homogeneous groupings reflected the best results; however, it can be difficult to manage for those not used to a lot of movement in the classroom.
If you are interested, please read the Time Magazine, Jun 2007 (How to Fix NCLB) regarding NCLB and how states are creating tests in order to "pass" but fail to meet the federal pass rates. I found this article disheartening and couldn't wait to share it at the teacher's table during lunch.
I understand and believe there needs to be some type of accountability as many of us have already agreed. However, here is my question and some of us will be able to relate...you enter your classroom and you have a student for a few months and they leave, this same student has changed schools almost every year but stayed just long enough to count against you.
Or better yet, the "home schooled" child that shows up for the first day almost in tears because mom finally decided that she can no longer teach the child at home. Additionally, they discovered that he has ADHD. This poor sole entered my 5th grade class reading below a 1st grade level. Mom is crying during our first meeting, after writing me a note that she needs to speak to me. I told her it was to late for tears and now it was time to get to work. Although we scrambled to have him tested, and qualified for EC services, he passed the reading EOG by 2 standard deviations and failed the math test we did call that we could for this young boy. I even pulled out the phonics lessons from my own children, played reading stories so he could here the words correctly. Now with all that said and done, I am the one held accountable for his failing on the state tests.
I apologize for my ramblings, but living it and reading about NCLB really hits home to me.
PS. Where do I post the paper since I missed the first day of class? Thanks..
We all can agree that with NCLB, SOMEONE WILL be left behind and it's almost like it's the teachers who are the ones being left behind because they are ones who have to teach these students that come from all these different situations and get them prepared for the ill-feared tests and totally blind-sighted when scores come back to find out 1 or 2 from a sub group makes the scores of the test look bad. When those scores are view by the public, thy wonder what's going on at the school as though it's all the teacher's fault.
Like I mentioned before, I don't think parents really understand the whole point behind NCLB, testing and accountability. I think that's why kids are moved around so much. Not withstanding jobs or other extenuous reasons, but to move a child out of a school because the parent and/or child doesn't like a teacher and to move to another school and say the same thing, then come to find out the child has some disability (of which the parent was too unconcerned to have tested) and put the child back in the first school, right at the time of testing causing the scores for that teacher and school to suffer and now the parent is in tears.
Truly NCLB has some serious grounds to recover...
I do believe that in the field of education we will always have accountability, as we should. But, are our teachers being held accountable for the right things?
What is NCLB teaching our children about being responsible competent citizens? Until recently, the problem with NCLB and state standards is that all of the accountability falls on the teacher not the student. Now exit standards for graduation have been put in place, which hold the student accountable to some degree.
If our children are not held accountable through their years of schooling then how are they expected to be accountable on the job site? My major concern for our new legislators is; how will you put accountability on the student and not 100% on the teacher?
Wow, there are so many great points being made regarding NCLB! Maybe cohort 15 should be charged with "fixing" NCLB!
As a kindergarten teacher, I did not have to directly deal with NCLB. However, I could still feel the effects of it. My district required that I submit all my grades, for each student, to them at the end of every school year. On a spread sheet I had to mark the level each student achieved in three areas; literacy, writing and math. I'm not sure what the county did with this data-but I can tell you what it did not do. It did not show the growth of any individual child. As an inclusion teacher, my end of year data looked a lot different than the data of the teachers' next door. I had many kids that got level 2s all across the board, where the non-inclusion teacher may have mostly 3s for all her students. Does this mean she was a better teacher than me? Probably not, it just means that the majority of her students were non-ESL students, who didn't have to face the increased challenge of learning the English language and adapting to the American school system. My point is that my experience is very similar to the NCLB. The data that results from NCLB does not tell us much at all. While I'm not in favor of NCLB being completely abandoned, I do think that major changes need to be made to make it more affective.
Looking at the previous blogs, everyone talks about the testing component of NCLB. What about the other criteria? My school did not make AYP due to the fact that our attendance records were not up to date.(Administrators are definitely making sure attendance is done EVERYDAY now for this year) There were students on the rosters that no longer attended the school but were not dropped from class lists because they could not be dropped after a certain time period. Therefore their non-existent scores were calculated into the overall scores. Also graduation rates factor into the AYP rankings. We have foreign exchange students or other students who are only here one year then go back to their native country. Once they are in the system then taken out it is factored into our retention rate. What about students graduating with different pathways besides college prep? Are they factored into not making AYP? My school district does not have many occupational/career tech prep courses like carpentery, horticulture, etc. IS it to keep testing scores high? If I had to give advice to the president about NCLB, I do not know exactly what to suggest. I do think common benchmarks should be for all students so that if a child moves from Arizona to Maine they will be receiving the same quality education but I do not see how to do it since local districts and states still have so much influence.
In theory, NCLB is a great idea. In practice I like many of you am not very convinced its such a great idea. As a Science and Social Studies teacher, I have not directly felt the effects of NCLB. Indirectly however, I feel the effects all the time. Each year it seems as if we are changing how we teach or who we teach to based on the previous year's testing results. Isn't it hard to become good at something or even okay at something if you only try it for a year and then move onto something else??
I do feel that need some sort of accountability system in place. Some set of standards to follow and some way to be compared to others both in a out of our state.
Being a high school social studies teacher, my knowledge in regards to testing is limited. My school is not looking for level three’s and four’s they expect it. What my school is looking for is how my students grew from the ninth grade biology test to the tenth grade civics and economics test. I had students make a 99 on the biology exam and make a 93 on the civics exam. According to what my school measures I did not do my job as a teacher.
Last week’s reading says, “Change is a process not an event.” Have we given NCLB enough time? Should we move on to the next great idea that will come out of some think tank? My advice to our legislators regarding NCLB is that they should put out some type of national survey on the future of NCLB much like the teacher working conditions survey that governor Easley sends out every year. The educational authorities seem to be so data driven, practice what you preach. This should be done before any type of legislation is passed regarding our young men and women.
Should we abandon NCLB to make way for the next great idea on the accountability docket? I agree with many of my fellow bloggers that the spirit of NCLB is inherently good. However it's inherent "goodness" and its practical translation, for me, were two entirely differnt things. I wholeheartdly agree that
core skills instruction should accomodate the needs of EC learners and LEP students. But if NCLB symbolizes a greater governmental influence on local school practice, I'd very much like to know what happened to the cash needed to supply the additional resources, TA's and smaller class sizes to facilitate these accomodations. As a middle school LA teacher, I admit I was resentful that the burden of accountability seemed to fall entirely on those of us in the trenches. Another facet of my resentment was expressed in an earlier blog entry: teachers go to great lengths to integrate test preparation into individualized, motivating and creative curriculum, only to be forced to change everything the next year, based on the most recent test results. I know that high teacher turnover is related in part to these concerns.
And the children? On more on one occasion I have had students so anxious about the EOG's and their ramifications that they were reduced to throwing up in my classroom trashcan. That type of emotional distress does not disappear once the test is over. As impractical as it might be in the long haul, I support the use of portfolio assessment to assess core skills on an individualized basis. At least portolios have a better chance of reflecting kids' work when they are confident, relaxed and content. Assessment should be based on products that reflect the BEST a child can be.
Coming back to what insight I would give the president. Lisa said "the president should make unannounced visits to the schools and classrooms of these educators so that he can see a true picture." We all know how differently things run when someone else is in classroom. Imagine if it's the president! Everything will look angelic.
I guess that in the bottom line, having a measurable standardized test is the easiest way for mass assessment. But we know that every person has different abilities that may not reflect on this type of exam. The bureaucratic hierarchical educational system demands that there is assessment for everything. It’s a job of a principal and all his/her superiors to assess whether the job is being done. NCLB is great in theory in deed. And the tests exist so that we have a measurable way of acknowledging if the educational system succeeds or fails. In times when failure is acknowledged, then maybe schemes like this come as a wake up call for all educators, or at least for the ones who do care about their students. What needs to be understood though, is that a school’s job is not to compete with the others on which one is the best! Each school should see that education is being provided at an excellent standard to all its students. Antagonism may be a reality of the capitalistic society, but ideally, this should not be reflected in education.
Most comments continue to cast NCLB in a negative light. Fine. But what is the alternative? The question isn't "Why don't you like NCLB?", the question is "What advice would you give about reauthorizing the legislation?"
As Marios says, "Each school should see that education is being provided at an excellent standard to all its students." So how could NCLB do a better job of that? Don't focus on what's wrong with it, focus on how to make it better.
I would definitely appoint an advisory panel of teacher representatives to have a voice on any revisions to NCLB before reauthorization.
And, as I said earlier, portfolio assessment, rather than a standardized test, would be more effective in evaluating core skills withing the frame of individualized needs,strengths and learning styles.
Kris, I completely agree with you. An advisory panel of teacher representatives to revise NCLB would be great. I think that using people from the front lines of education would be very beneficial in revising NCLB. I also like the idea of a portfolio assessment. We need to be able to demonstate growth in all students. Like I mentioned earlier, simple test scores do not give us much information. Test scores do not show the growth of a student. However, a portfolio that included work from throughout the school year, would be a better measure of each individual student's growth.
I realize that almost all the comments we've left reflect a negative light on NCLB. I think this is a result of the front line experience that we've all had with it. However, I have to say that NCLB had really made our school systems work harder than ever. Never before has there been such an emphasis on education. Now school districts are working hard to improve our schools all the time. I know we haven't see great results yet-but you have to remember that change takes time. I think we, as a nation, are headed in the right direction with an increases emphasis on quality education.
I also agree with Kris regarding portfolio assessment or any other assessment that will show an INDIVIDUAL student's growth over time. We as teachers, use multiple methods of assessment to determine a child's proficiency why shouldn't the same approach be used to determine school's effectiveness. I am not familiar with all of the ins and outs of NCLB but I have heard of the difficulty high performing schools have when trying to achieve "high growth," schools who have such low numbers of "minority" students that none of their subgroups other than white students are factored into determining growth, problems with technical things such as attendance, etc. These are issues that should be addressed by policy makers now that we've lived with NCLB and have seen the results. I don't know specific suggestions to make other than sitting down with teachers and administrators and having these conversations PRIOR to reauthorizing NCLB.
From an elementary perspective, I definitely agree that the measurement standards need to be revised. Whether it be through multiple assessments throughout the year, portfolios, observations, etc. states should have more flexibility in determining which criteria is used to meet AYP. Most importantly, this includes creating some sort of growth model that will capture student success, or lack thereof.
Additionally, I think it would be worthwhile to determine (and employ) the most developmentally appropriate means of assessing children at various benchmarks throughout their school career.
I agree that portfolios are a great tool for showing growth but even as I read the first benchmark on the writing test, those can be subjective to the reader. Who determines if a student is truly making growth throughout the year, or simply had a good day?
Additionally, if a growth model is created it would have to be standardized. Otherwise, schools, county, etc. would be creating their own in order to show growth. In other words, there would be no difference in what is currently being used.
We need tools that are standardized, show accountability at all levels, and "fair" to the learners. These tools also need to reflect true growth of learning without personal biases getting in the way. Unfortunately, I am just not sure yet how to implement or create such a tool.
I would advise policy people and the legislature to take a close look at how narrow the taught curriculum has become because the tested curriculum is so heavily weighted toward reading and math. Another comment is that as an elementary teacher I have felt NCLB in science and especially social studies due to the fact that I hardly teach them! Secondary and middle school teachers are always surprised when I tell them how little time we devote to certain subjects. Given a presupposition that NCLB isn't going anywhere fast, I would suggest that AYP needs to be closely looked at in terms of how AYP is an all or nothing proposition. I think groups that don't pass should receive targeted support and funds. Groups that make growth and meet goals should allow schools to be recognized for those groups. This way schools can shine a light on success, and subgroups that do not meet goals can still be held accountable to the public. This is a tough issue, but there is a way for a principal to tell a community how he or she feels about standardized tests, but still stay focused on being held accountable and improving the school system.
Further comments after reading again...the idea that individual student growth should be measured in currently a model that NC is using by looking at Academic Change. This is where students are measured on growth based on where they were when they started the year and comparing them to end of year scores. This is what the ABC system is based on and it makes the whole I, II, II, and IV levels a bit of a moot point as far as accountability goes. Parents and teachers of course still strive for threes and fours on the EOGs, but the Academic Change is what principals are looking closely at....correct Dr. Graham?
My advice would be simple--talk to us. We are in the classroom everyday and we are the ones who have to deal with what ever guidelines are put into place. So find out what we think, get our opinion, and at least make us think or feel that we had some part in any changes that may happen in NCLB. Also, I think that the model should only include tracking one students growth from year to year. Not 7th graders from one year compared to the 7th graders the next year. How can you see change, growth, or anything really when you are comparing two different things? Finally I agree with Martin. There are many times over the past 7 years where I have felt like the two subjects I happen to teach and love to teach just aren't as important. If a student needs to be pulled out orif class time needs to be taken away from for any reason in happend during Science or Social Studies class because they aren't the ones that "count". What is the state/school districts going to do now that the test will "count" in certain grades?
Excellent comments. A portfolio system would represent a much more comprehensive assessment of student learning than the current system of standardized tests; however, as Sharon points out, portfolio systems bump into the problem of objectivity, and they are also considerably more time-consuming to evaluate.
Martin, you are correct that academic change is receiving increased attention and focus. Whether or not principals across the board look at AC more closely than proficiency, I don’t know. Proficiency is the criterion for AYP and ABC levels of distinction, so I don’t think proficiency is being ignored, but I can say that I personally have spent more time looking at AC numbers than proficiency numbers in the schools in which I have worked as an administrator. And we will discuss academic change in more detail later in the semester.
Another thought to throw out: While NCLB may define the accountability context within which we work, it does not have to mark the limits of how we measure student learning. Standardized tests provide only a limited summary of student achievement, and I would argue that principals should be creating and/or incorporating more comprehensive assessment systems into the work of their schools. Just because NCLB doesn’t include a portfolio system doesn’t mean that a school can’t use portfolios to track and assess student progress (if one believes in the validity and use of portfolios). In my opinion, NCLB was in part a response to a lack of state-, district-, and site-based accountability models. In other words, educational leaders at all levels weren’t doing a good enough job to document and respond to student progress (or lack thereof) in transparent and rigorous ways. My hope is that, as future administrators and school/district leaders, you will see the accountability inherent in NCLB as a starting, rather than ending point to your responsibility as leaders to ensure student learning.
As Dr. Graham mentioned, I agree that NCLB does challenge schoools to create comprehensive accountability methods. It seems that successful PLCs have been attempting to address the issues of creating authentic assessments while redirecting focus on analyzing student achievement data.
In all fairness, the NCLB Act truly was a necesary step to get us to take a hard look at why our system is not working in the U.S. The advice to reconfigure its measures would be sound if those who are actively engaged in 'measuring' student achievement are a part of that committee. Creating a national test would offer biases, as we all know, and the portfolio system, while it leaves those who deal directly with the students in charge of evaluating their development, is time consuming and subjective. As we are bing held to state standards, could there be federal standards for the 21st century that would guide the states?
What about the notion of operating schools like businesses? Admin & staff would be responsible for creating a system that was appealing to its customers, and along with each child's desire to attend would come their federal funding? Admin & Teachers at these schools would make more money because more people would "shop" there - and with a greater desire to attend you school would come the ability to govern numbers, alternate funding options, community support, "special offers", etc. Those schools who were fairing poorly would have less money, so the push to improve becomes personal. Just food for thought, because that is how America has become so prosperous...
I agree, Sharong, that the spirit in which NCLB was intended needs to be respected. Teachers and government representatives should ideally work together to create an assessment rubric that has the best of what individualized and standardized assessment practices have to offer.
In doing this, I'm not convinced that portfolio assessment needs to remain soely subjective. A government supported rubric could explain standards for growth that must be evident in a proficient portfolio.
I know...the subjectivity issue still remains. If portfolios represent the best work of an individual, who decides what is adequate growth for the individual? Is it possible for those decisions to be standardized? These questions beg further consideration....
Post a Comment