Posted on 07/12/2008 5:49:29 AM PDT by shrinkermd
President Bush has often spoken about education reform as a civil rights issue. So we're not entirely surprised to see civil rights groups now defending the No Child Left Behind law against attempts to gut its most effective provisions.
Last month, Representative Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, introduced the NCLB Recess Until Reauthorization Act, which would essentially suspend the law's accountability provisions but not the funding. Under Mr. Graves's bill, schools would no longer have to file progress reports that expose achievement gaps between kids of different races, ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Since NCLB passed in 2002, minority parents in particular have come to rely on this information to find out if a school is serving the needs of their children. But apparently Mr. Graves and his co-sponsor, Democrat Timothy Waltz of Minnesota, believe that the problem with public education today is too much accountability. Not surprisingly, teachers unions like the National Education Association are supporting their efforts.
What's heartening about this story is who has lined up to block this nonsense. The coalition includes the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and more than a dozen other liberal outfits.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Privatize
Vouchers
Just another way to ruin the education field, one step at a time.
.....Just another way to ruin the education field.....
The premise is wrong.
The liberals are not about kids and education, they are all about educators and votes. Educator is a euphamism for people who draw a salary to go to a classroom
Why would these folks intentionally harm “their own people?”
Looks like too many anchor babies are turning out to be just as dumb as their parents. They can’t cut the tests so the test are cut. They may as well be cutting their throats and their own "leaders" are passing out the knives.
They are turning education opportunity into welfare with impunity.
Again, why?
It gets worse…
NCLB has forced schools to pay attention to the learning gap, and the result has been that poor and minority children are doing better. We are nowhere near closing that gap, but it is undeniable that the lowest-performing students have made significant gains on standardized tests in the NCLB era. Easing up on accountability would be a big step backward.
A big step backwards? Why, why, WHY?
Futureslaves. And that is exactly what the La Raza pimps want. Mestizo “victims” in the form of economic slaves that will stupidly support their corrupt oligarchy ruling class.
Just like in Mexico.
This list is for intellectual discussion of articles and issues related to public education (including charter schools) from the preschool to university level. Items more appropriately placed on the “Naughty Teacher” list, “Another reason to Homeschool” list, or of a general public-school-bashing nature will not be pinged.
If you would like to be on or off this list, please freepmail Amelia, Gabz, Shag377, or SoftballMominVa
I'm not a member of a union, but I was really looking forward to the testing provisions in NCLB being implemented - I hoped it meant that I would no longer get 9th graders who were reading at a 3rd grade level or below.
So far I have 3 problems with NCLB. The first is that the states are allowed to set their own standards...in my state, an 8th grader who is reading at a 4th grade level can still pass the test and be promoted.
The 2nd problem I have is that even if a kid fails the test, s/he will probably be promoted anyway.
My third problem is that if we have too many special education students who fail the tests, our school is considered "failing" even if the other kids do okay.
Guess what? Many students are in special education because they don't learn at the same rate as the other students, so just maybe expecting them to be working at the same rate is just a tiny bit unrealistic, especially if they are mentally retarded as opposed to having learning or behavior disorders. Of course, as low as some of the standards are, maybe it isn't unrealistic at all....
The only thing NCLB had for conservatives was the national testing which caused the teacher’s (union mostly) to complain. Of course they will complain, the testing will, over time, uncover who are effective and who are not. The idea of finding some ineffective teachers and schools is what accountability is all about.
This program was sponsored IIRC by Kenedy and so it is likely to have a lot in it for the teacher’s union. Since the testing is the part the teachers do not like. (It forces us to teach to the test.) It stands to reason that the approach the democrats would take to unraveling it is to leave the funding provisions and eliminate the testing. This is profound in its absolute chutzpuh.
I teach the curriculum, and at my level, the students are supposed to be tested over whether they have mastered the curriculum. I don’t have a problem with that, and on the whole, my students do better on the test than the students who have the “easy A” teachers — which I think is what you are saying.
Now, if I get a bunch of students who have been socially promoted and aren’t reading or doing math at grade level, they aren’t going to do as well on the test, and I don’t think that is necessarily a reflection on my teaching; i.e., I think there ought to be some consideration of the abilities of the students as well, but on the whole, accountability is not a bad thing.
You are correct about the chutzpah.
Yes, you had my meaning correct. I see no problem with standard testing and in my last job we all developed a school common geometry test to be able to evaluate how each of our classes did. (I was a beginning teacher at the time and of course had the most to lose — but on the whole my classes met the standard.)
The only way this could be applied in an individual sense is to take data over several years of the same class and also add information such as: How many students continued to the next sequential class, and how did they do there? How do the students and parents feel about the teacher’s skill and preparation level? My desire is to see the really incompetant teachers weeded out of the system and with union rules this is difficult if not impossible. But a series of years of a teacher failing to teach and students being “turned off to the subject by that teacher should be enough to allow the school to make changes. (Usually they promote the teacher to counselor so that they don’t have the same impact on a kid’s education, but thats another gripe.)
Yes, excellent points. But the ability disparities are even worse than most imagine.
With middle class (mostly white) flight, the average IQ of big city children is now 85. Since an IQ of 85 is the average cutting score for graduating from a usual HS, this means half the children are really not up to the traditional, academic approach.
How to deal with this presently is more a political rather than an educational problem since almost all the civil rights organizations and minority interests, in general, all deny there are such differences.
The result is, we try to create an unachievable, egalitarian educational system that denies real differences. Educators seem to actively conspire in these efforts in spite of it creating an illusion of educational failure in the inner city when, in truth, the problem is one of differing abilities.
I agree that testing is required, and I hope, that the education establishment eventually realizes accounting for ability differences in reporting is not racist nor demeaning to any particular racial or other group. Until then, we will see multiple failed effort and partisan friction as the outcome.
By your screen name, I'm guessing you are familiar with the social theories of learning, such as those proposed by Vigotsky & Bandura. Do you think the low IQs of these children are genetic, environmental, or a combination of both?
How to deal with this presently is more a political rather than an educational problem since almost all the civil rights organizations and minority interests, in general, all deny there are such differences.
It depends. If you believe the differences are genetic and immutable, this is a political problem. If you think the social theories are correct, it is also an educational issue, because these are the children who need preschool education, interventions from birth, a longer school day, etc...so it's an educational issue because they will need interventions and a different approach because they aren't really prepared to learn, and it's a political issue because providing these interventions is not cheap.
The result is, we try to create an unachievable, egalitarian educational system that denies real differences. Educators seem to actively conspire in these efforts in spite of it creating an illusion of educational failure in the inner city when, in truth, the problem is one of differing abilities.
It amazes me that every time a program is developed to try to overcome these differences, the biggest "buy-in" seems to come from educated middle-class moms whose children don't really need the intervention at all. I'm reminded of a young former neighbor, bright, educated, and not poverty stricken. She found that her new county had a program with a preschool educator who would visit the homes of those with infants and young children, bring books and other educational materials for free, and give suggestions, so she signed up for the program, because "it can't hurt".
Just like pre-K programs, the program was designed for parents who really do need help with parenting, but since they are available, parents who don't need such help sign up to "give their children an edge" or "just in case", which means that either the program costs even more, or some of the children who really do need extra help aren't getting it because of time or space constraints.
A good place to start on the IQ controversy is: HERE.
Murray, like most academic psychologists, does not believe that there is much evidence that government educational interventions beyond some reasonably adequate level can permanently boost IQ test scores. Murray’s preferred policy is to forget group averages and encourage private and public institutions to treat people as individuals.
A summary of 200 academic psychologists on the Bell Curve included the accepted premises regarding IQ. You can find that: HERE.
An almost inescapable conclusion is that the Departments of Education, Political Science, and Modern Languages are the only remaining people who discount IQ and its distribution as crucial in understanding of this issue.
I asked your opinion of the theories, and said the policy implications depended upon one's opinion of the theories.
I take it that you believe IQ is immutable and that The Bell Curve is your major influence in this matter?
We differ on what the facts are. If you read the Wall Street Journal editorial, you will find some of the accepted facts.
I'm not certain that we do, but I'm not certain about your viewpoint.
In your comments on the Ruby Payne articles, you seem to suggest that a major problem with inner city children is their lack of language skills, and also cultural differences, and therefore a different style of teaching (as well as committed and competent teachers) would be needed in those areas to show real results - which is both a political and educational issue.
On the other hand, your Bell Curve comments seem to indicate that you think the situation is hopeless and inner city schools will never be anything but failing, and it is unrealistic (as well as politically incorrect) not to acknowledge this...
So I'm trying to understand where exactly you are "coming from" in this area.
If you have not read the WSJ, you do not understand the basic facts of my position.
Finally, I have not said things are hopeless nor have I implied so. This is your conclusion not mine. I favor the brief statement made by Murray which was:
"Murray, like most academic psychologists, does not believe that there is much evidence that government educational interventions beyond some reasonably adequate level can permanently boost IQ test scores. Murray’s preferred policy is to forget group averages and encourage private and public institutions to treat people as individuals."
At least since the time of Dewey the belief has been that the environment trumps any individual differences. That his not proven, but believed; it is the nexus of our differences. There is indeed a nature-nurture interaction, but when it comes to IQ or "g," innate factors are overwhelming in their effect.
Every child needs a plan that permits him or her to succeed to their maximum ability. If testing enhances that it is good, if testing does not enhance that it is a bad policy and should be terminated.
So far I have 3 problems with NCLB. The first is that the states are allowed to set their own standards...in my state, an 8th grader who is reading at a 4th grade level can still pass the test and be promoted.
The 2nd problem I have is that even if a kid fails the test, s/he will probably be promoted anyway.
My third problem is that if we have too many special education students who fail the tests, our school is considered "failing" even if the other kids do okay
Sounds like a totally impossible educational framework and utterly impossible to implement.
Surely such a situation would be an exercise in complete frustration for the semi-literate child. The better prepared students must be bored out of their minds waiting for these kids to catch up with the class. And...I expect that because of the inability to keep up some of these semi-literate kids are disruptive in their behavior. Some would call this emotional child abuse for all involved.
Children with 3rd grade reading skills in 9th grade classes???? Huh?
If a child fails the test and is promoted anyway, aren't the teachers and principals lying to that student? What sort of morals are being taught here?
And...If a child who is really reading at the 3rd grade level is placed in a 9th grade class, isn't that called ***"lying"***? Aren't the teachers and principals **lying*** to that child and his parents?
Why are teachers cooperating with this? Last time I checked, teaching wasn't like a military draft. No one will go to jail if they quit.
I'd love to see the research on that - especially if you have anything that explains the lower IQ.
For those that may not realize it, 90 is the bottom of average, so if the AVERAGE IQ is 85, then it stands to reason that a healthy percentage of kids sitting in the regular classes have IQ's in the educable mentally retarded range - and these kids are expected to achieve at a level commensurate with those of average intelligence. What an incredible quandary for students and teachers. And unfortunately the tax payer. Because when these kids fail, and the schools fail then the tax payer is on the hook for whatever it costs to bring this kids to a average level.
Yes, it is more of a political than education problem. What community leader, representative, professor is going to announce that the average inner city kid is below average in intelligence and that the curriculum needs to be restructured with that in mind? Can't - it would be racist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.