…and i’ll find me a soapbox where i can shout it

Tests = Incentive To Teach? January 29, 2007

One of the more interesting debates about No Child Left Behind that I ran into reading an article from the January 26, 2007 Washington Post is that of students who are not native-English speakers being held to the same standards as their peers.  In Fairfax, Virginia, one of the nation’s largest school systems is going against the federally mandated testing of thousands of immigrant students.  The students will continue to be tested by the school, but not with the same grade-level material their native-English speaking peers are being tested with as is the standard for NCLB.

“It is wrong for our students to take a test they are predisposed to fail,” said board member Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner (Providence). “We will continue to test their proficiency twice a year and continue to move them forward as quickly as possible. This resolution is not, by any stretch, an attempt to shy away from accountability.”

I think that demanding the same standards for all students in all schools is simply ignoring how diverse our schools have become.  Students who are learning English as a second language may not be able to understand the way tests have been written, and this not only goes for a possible inability to read and write efficiently in English, but perhaps to the cultural bias that so many of our nation’s standardized tests seem to have. 

As unreasonable as it may seem to expect the same from those students who are learning English as a second language as native-English speakers, is there a way that these high expectations can actually be beneficial? 

Supporters of the federal provision also say that it forces school districts to focus on students who need extra help to catch up with their classmates. “We don’t want English-language learners to be left out of education,” said Peter Zamora, acting regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “If you remove this set of standards from the No Child Left Behind accountability system, you are removing the incentive to teach them.”

First of all, I have a very big problem with a statement like this because it makes it sound like teachers only teach to prepare students for tests, and if they didn’t have to worry about those funny immigrant students who don’t speak the language so well taking these tests, they could just sit them by themselves in a quiet room and forget about them.  As a future teacher, I am a little offended – I’d like to believe that my incentive to teach students couldn’t be taken away by test stipulations.  That being said, I will at least give the argument some consideration.  Because of these high standards, I think it is reasonable to believe that there are some school districts who will spend more time and money in working with students who speak English as a second language.

I understand both sides of the argument, and I think a happy medium can be found.  To have standards ESL students as high as their peers seems unreasonable, but to throw away any expectations of what these students can accomplish is not the solution either.  I think the answer lies with devising a set of standards that are specific for ESL students, challenging enough to ensure schools are doing their job in addressing these students needs, yet not so high that they are wasting time taking tests that don’t seem to make any sense to them.

full article

AYP, Teaching to the Test, and Growing Cynicism January 21, 2007

The number of articles that deal with the issue of schools needing to improve to meet the standards of No Child Left Behind can be so overwhelming at times that one could grow serious doubts about our nation’s educational system.  I came across such an article written by Kathryn Heidecker from the Daily Freeman on January 12, 2007 that I felt was perfect to respond to because of its discussion of two topics that seem to be recurring themes in the debate – Adequate Yearly Progress and teaching to the test.

Three districts were cited in this article as needing improvement because they failed to achieve AYP in English test scores in middle and secondary classrooms.  What does this all mean?  The state could end up taking action if districts fail to meet the standards set forth by NCLB, possibly allowing students to attend nearby public schools, replacing staff, instituting a new curriculum, and an assortment of other creative ideas set forth by politicians staring at statistics rather than actual situations.  If you are questioning my neutrality stance on the issue from that last statement, understand that my cynicism is a result from my frustrations towards AYP, an idea that sounds great on the surface, but appears so flawed in writing. 

In some cases, the designation for needing improvement in middle-level and secondary English Language Arts means that as little as 1 percent of students are not performing up to par, said James Douglass, the Kingston district’s director of secondary education.

I think that making schools and teachers more accountable is a great thing, but the standards we are holding these districts to must be reasonable.  The way in which we are deciding AYP can also be brought into question.

…many students did not take sufficient notes during the oral comprehension part of the state English exam last year, and as a result, scored poorly on an essay portion of a test…

There is a nuance in having students know how to take a test… teachers have worked with consultants hired by district specifically to address testing strategies for students.

I think that if you were looking at this issue of teaching to the test, and just allowed yourself to take a step back and really see what was happening here, it would be easy to notice how ridiculous it has become.  Is using classroom time to prepare students to take tests that are assigned for states to evaluate schools and have little to do with the skills these students need for the future really a valuable use of time? 

 full article

All the cool kids have blogs, so why not me? January 14, 2007

Any college student going into teaching has no doubt sat through lecture after lecture of how No Child Left Behind is changing our educational system.  We have heard it praised and condemned, usually depending on the professor, and know enough to be able to understand the basic ideas behind NCLB and its strengths and weaknesses.  What don’t we know?  Well… everything.

The problem with discussions about NCLB in college is that those leading them are so passionate about their perspective on the issue (as they should be – they are teachers after all) that it is difficult for students to distinguish between fact and opinion.  With this blog, I am attempting to take a completely neutral stance on the issue and research the views of those on all sides, from the maniacs who don’t want to see a word of NCLB changed to the fanatics who want to abolish the whole legislation, and everyone else who falls somewhere in between.  Although NCLB has an effect on all subjects this blog will try to focus as much as possible on the way it has influenced Language Arts in Secondary Education.

To gather the insane amounts of literature written about NCLB every second, I have suscribed to a few different feeds using Google Reader.  The Education sections in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Daily Oklahoman (two normally leaning more towards the left and one towards the right) were the major newspapers that I subscribed to.  I also subscribed to the search query “No Child Left Behind Language Arts” through Google News, and the education blogs edspresso.com and eduwonk.com. 

I think that these feeds will give me plenty of articles to choose from in my quest of figuring out just what exactly this No Child Left Behind business is all about.  My perspective on the issue is likely to change as this blog progresses, and I should also warn readers that my opinions will often come in the form of sarcasm, so bear with me.  If all goes according to plan, this blog will have influenced someone out there who will in the future be responsible for revising our educational system in America, better ensuring that our students get the best education they can possibly receive.  And to think… I probably won’t even get any credit for it.