In reference to NCLB:
1. List one component that you agree with and why.
2. List one component that you disagree with and why.
3. List suggestions to improve NCLB.
All posts should be numbered as above and answers should be thorough, but as brief as possible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I agree with holding each state accountable for developing a plan that addresses standards, assessments, and accountability. We do need these plans across every state, making every school district accountable for doing the job. I also agree with having highly qualified teachers. Each child in your class, whether a “good” student or not is going to improve in some way in your classroom if you are a highly qualified teacher.
ReplyDelete2. I do not agree with standardized testing to show whether we have improved student learning. We need other ways to show the school’s growth in learning because not every child does well on formal testing, and formal testing does not give you the total picture of improvement.
3. I think the proposals Obama made in March 2010, would help improve NCLB: changing to 2020 goal of “college and career readiness”, showing progress in other areas of learning not just math and reading, being less punitive and offering rewards for improvement, and more grants instead of formula-based funding. As far as looking at the progress of each school, there should be more considered than just standardized testing, maybe looking at benchmark tests or other testing developed by the school that shows a before and after snapshot of learning.
1. I agree that schools and teachers need to be held accountable for what they are teaching. Standards let teachers know what needs to be taught. This prevents teachers from just teaching the topics they like and prevents students from learning the same material every year.
ReplyDeleteI agree teachers need to be “highly qualified.” That prevents a lot of politics taking place in the hiring and placement of teachers.
2. I disagree with decreasing funding to schools that do not meet certain improvements. If the school is already struggling, why would you ask them to do even more with less? Less funding is not going to improve the school, but will only make it harder to recover.
I disagree with placing so much focus on standardized test. Teachers “teach to the test” trying to raise test scores. I know of teachers who have stopped the deeper level thinking projects in order to cram in all the information needed for the test by March. After March, they put little effort into the rest of the year because the CRCT is over.
I disagree with requiring 100% of students to pass the standardized test by the year 2014. That is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. There are some students who do not have the capability of passing the test and some who just are not good test takers.
3. I would suggest moving the testing window later in the year. That would allow teachers more time to actually teach the curriculum instead of trying to cram it in prior to the test. This also prevents teachers and students from not caring for the remainder of the year.
What is our ultimate goal for students? Passing a test? No, I like Obama’s suggested goal of having students college and career ready. This means we prepare students for life after high school.
1. I agree with teachers, and schools, being held accountable what they are teaching. The standards that are set by the state gives a teacher the knowledge of what is to be taught in the classroom. The teacher is responsible for teaching these standards. The teacher cannot just teach the standard, but the students have to have knowledge and understanding of the standard. The teacher does have accountability to all students. I also agree with having highly qualified teachers. Highly qualified teachers should/can provide instruction and assessments to ensure student knowledge and understanding of the standards. Having highly qualified teachers provides every student the chance to learn and improve in the classroom, as he or she deserves.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with placing so much emphasis on standardized testing. A single test does not show the growth of a student. I believe that the growth of a student is more important than the score on a test. I am held accountable that my students. Some students do not test well or have test anxiety, especially with the stresses put upon the standardized testing. Standardized testing also does not provide the deeper thinking skills that students need to develop in order to fully gain and understand what they have learned. Many students are “taught” to the test and do not truly know or understand the standards and content taught.
3. I would suggest placing more emphasis on the student’s growth over the school year, instead of test scores. Student growth can be shown through quality assessments, such as benchmarks, given throughout the school year. This would relieve some of the stresses of giving one test. I believe that if highly qualified teachers are authentically teaching the standards, then assessments could be given throughout the school year without worry from the teacher and students. I would also suggest moving the testing window for the main testing to later dates in the school year. This would allow teachers more time to teach the standards without feeling they had to just cover the standard. More time would also allow students more time to gain knowledge and understanding of the standards.
1. I agree with the requirement of teachers being “highly qualified”. Teachers need to be able to show the knowledge they have in a particular subject area. Working toward and graduating with a bachelor’s degree, being successful on a state mandated test, and holding a state certificate indicate that a teacher is “highly qualified”. Parents, students, as well as the government need to be confident that a teacher is knowledgeable in the area in which they will teach.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with the component that requires all students (100%!) to reach the state’s proficiency level by 2014. Not all students will be able to reach that goal. It’s truly unrealistic. I think there were good intentions when this law was written, but I am guessing that the lawmakers who voted on this have never been a classroom teacher. I have had many students in my short career (4 years) that will not be able to reach this goal. They are just not cognitively capable. We try our best with these students, but it is difficult when some do not know their multiplication facts and still have difficulty adding and subtracting. We are still required to teach them how to find the surface area of a cylinder though!!
3. a. Instead of requiring 100% proficiency level by 2014, improvement should be required if a student did not meet standards on the high stakes test. I’m not really sure how this could be measured – an increase in high stakes test score, work samples, academic achievements in the classroom are just a couple of possibilities. I have a student who is autistic and missed meeting on Math CRCT this year by 2 points! His score in 5th grade was in the 770’s I believe. What an improvement! He met in every other subject area. I feel that he had a success this year, but the state and federal governments would say otherwise.
b. I still do not really understand how each school in a system can meet AYP and the system not. That does not really make sense to me. If AYP is to be determined, it should be based on the individual schools and not the systems.
1. I agree that each state should be required to generate a plan that focuses on academic standards, academic assessments, and accountability. Having a statewide plan that is directly followed allows each school system to be cognizant of what is expected at each grade level. If school systems do not abide by the plan, they should be held accountable for students’ shortcomings. However, I do not believe accountability should be based on standardized tests scores. Instead, schools should be held accountable for taking the steps needed, such as obtaining highly qualified teachers, training parent advocates, and developing school improvement plans, to move toward higher student achievement.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree that all students will meet the state’s proficiency level of academic achievement (being proficient in reading and mathematics) by 2014. This objective fails to recognize students that show improvement on standardized tests. For example, there was a young lady with a specific learning disability in math that scored 760 on the math section of the CRCT in sixth grade. In seventh grade she increased her score by 36 points, but she did not meet the state’s proficiency standard of 800. Although she showed significant improvement, her score would still fall into the “does not meet” category for special education, conceivably causing the school to not meet AYP.
3. Suggestions to improve NCLB:
• Multiple measures should be used to determine if teachers are highly qualified. A person’s ability to earn a bachelor’s degree and pass a “rigorous” state exam does not mean that they will be an effective teacher.
• Schools that have been labeled “needs improvement” should receive federal funds to implement the recommendations for improvement handed down through NCLB.
• Instead of requiring all students to be proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014, the goal should require “college and career readiness” for students by 2020. (Obama administration proposed change.)
1. I definitely believe that schools should be required to develop a plan that helps reinforce the academic standards and assessment of their students. Requiring 'highly qualified' teachers will help teachers maintain a fresh wealth of knowledge, thus helping the students as they learn and prepare for the CRCT. A standards-based classroom is also great because it maintains a consistency in focus throughout their educational career. I do believe in the concept behind NCLB because all children have the right to have the best education possible, matching appropriate techniques with their unique skills. I think NCLB is a good way to keep schools accountable, preventing some kids from falling through 'the cracks'. It also provides valuable feedback about the children to their parents.
ReplyDelete2. I have some serious concerns with the amount of stress that NCLB puts on the children. Some children are not test-takers. Thus, the standardized tests do not always accurately display that student's knowledge. I also believe that children who consistently fail the test will drop out of school because they feel like failures. In the same breath, these tests also are inadequate assessments for certain groups of students, including those in special education, non-English speaking students and children that receive no help at home. If we are not careful, teachers will solely focus on teaching the test and the enjoyment of learning will be lost.
3. I believe that NCLB should focus more on the student's yearly progress. Students would probably be better served by the teachers developing more of a classroom-level diagnostic test for evaluation. Smaller classrooms are also needed so that teachers can focus more on the individual needs of the children. Other possible aids include the obtaining of grant money to help pay for mentors and tutors that could spend more time with struggling students.
1. I agree with the efforts being made to close the achievement gap and ensure that all students can achieve success in the classroom. To go along with this, as an educator and parent, it reassures me to be able to obtain and view the results of a school's performance. I also value the idea that schools who do not make progress must provide supplemental services such as after-school assistance or free tutoring.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with the boundaries that are set within NCLB that revolve around the concept of testing. It seems unfair that a student's achievement is measured only by the annual multiple-choice reading and math tests. In addition to this, teachers seem to be "teaching to the test" while students are missing out on a personal curriculum. As a teacher, I understand how much pressure NCLB places on the educational team within a school, and understand the reasons behind why teachers only teach what is guaranteed to be on the test. However, today's school environment is much different from the one that I remember, and I agree that the students are missing out on valuable experiences.
3. I am in agreement with many people when I say that student achievement should be viewed in terms of yearly progress, as opposed to their scores on standardized measures of achievement. Focusing solely on standardization does not promote the success of all students, in fact, this attempt hinders many of the abilities that students possess. The fact that funding is tied into NCLB sounds like a great measure to take in ensuring that schools meet performance expectations. However, in all reality, the schools that fail to meet set expectations are the schools that need Federal funding the most.
1. I agree that we need to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and more advantaged students. Economic status does not determine ability, but it is clearly having an effect on academic achievement within many school, so I agree that as teachers we need to find ways to bridge this gap and help all students to succeed. In this way, I agree with all that is being done to help Title 1 schools and individual students. The same can be said for the gap that exists between minority and nonminority students.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with some of the testing procedures used to determine improvement. Improvement cannot be shown by testing a students in math for two consecutive years to see if their scores increase if the content of those two math course are completely different (which is often the case). It would be the same as measuring a student in two different subject areas to determine improvement. Just as a student may have more interest and ability in one subject as opposed to the other, a student may have more interest and ability with particular math concepts than with others.
3. NCLB could be improved by soliciting the input of real teachers in real classrooms. I think that too often it is those who are far removed from the classroom who are making the rules for teachers. It's hard to say how something should be done if you have never done it or if it has a long length of time since you have had any real classroom experience, yet those are our rule- makers. Teachers can tell you that assessment needs to occur in order to determine achievement and improvement, but they can also tell you that assessment needs to be performed differently than it currently is. This same analogy applies to many areas of NCLB; more teacher input is needed.
1. I agree that schools should be held accountable for student achievement in academics as well as providing a safe learning environment. These are things that are within the realm of control for school officials, and things that any reasonable parent would expect from a school. Each child in this nation deserves access to the same caliber of instruction regardless of location.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with the attendance component of AYP. I do not feel that this is something schools should be penalized for, as it is not really within the teachers' or administrators' control to get children to school. I have often had students absent for several days only to return saying, "My mom didn't make me come." The parents have the control over student attendance, not the school. While it is true that the school can offer incentives and rewards for perfect attendance, etc., we cannot force students to attend and I do not think it is fair for NCLB to include this as a component of AYP.
3. One suggestion I have for improving NCLB would be to take the emphasis off of the "grade level proficiency" target and move it to student growth. So many students will never reach true grade level proficiency but make such great growth gains during the school year, and these achievements should be honored and celebrated as well. Students who work hard all year and achieve great gains should not feel as though they are failures simply because they score a few points too low on a standardized test or do not read on a certain grade level. When a child improves his or her grade level by one, two, or three years in the length of a school year, that is great progress and should be considered as such!
1. I agree with the concept behind NCLB that we need to make sure every child has a chance to learn. I think that it is good for us as educators to look at all the different subgroups and track their progress. It helps us to gauge how well we are reaching each group and holds us accountable to make sure we are not letting a certain subgroup “fall between the cracks”. I also like analyzing the data to see the strengths and weaknesses of each group. It helps me to determine how I need to change my lessons in order to better improve my effectiveness.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree with the methods used by NCLB to determine improvement. I have taught for long enough now to know that some years you have a really strong group and some years a really weak group. It is not fair to compare the test scores from different groups of students. The students may have made great strides but failed to meet the cutoff, which is going to be impossible to reach in a few years. It is unfair to say that just because test scores were not at some set number that the school was not effective in teaching and inspiring the students. Effective teaching cannot always be measured with a test.
3. I think that if NCLB is going to use standardized tests for accountability that it should not just use the pass rate as an indicator of effectiveness. I have seen some students who were so far below grade level not receive a service because they were perceived as not having a chance of passing. It is not fair but schools are often forced to play the numbers game. Maybe, a combination of meeting the cut off and percentage of growth for those individuals who didn’t meet could be used for accountability.