No child left behind = No more

[Scratchtown]

Thank God. Obama. Kudos to you. I'm a big conservative and I'm super thankful for the decision to get rid of NCLB

[NUinID]

The big problem with NCLB is that it is impossible to do. So yes good that it is gone.

[teachercd]

Finally!

 

I remember a student in class years ago...when I told him that he was going to end up failing...

 

"So...my mom will just sign the form saying I can pass"

 

Which was basically true.

[Moiraine]

Thank goodness. It might seem noble to focus on the lowest common denominator but if we do the U.S. is going to fall further and further behind in science/education/etc. Also, firing teachers who are working in a really difficult environment isn't a good incentive for them to work harder. And it makes it a hell of a lot harder to get good teachers there. And less likely that skilled/smart people will want to be teachers in the first place.

[knapplc]

NCLB was a well-intentioned law that didn't work out. I'm glad it's gone. Thanks, Obama!

[Moiraine]

NCLB was a well-intentioned law that didn't work out. I'm glad it's gone. Thanks, Obama!

 

I agree that there were good intentions but it never should have happened. At the time I was learning about it (a few years ago) there was no evidence that standardized tests are a good method for testing student knowledge. People lost jobs and maybe careers over this and they didn't even know if the tests showed what they were claiming to show.

[HuskerShark]

Education needs to make its way toward more hands-on work and problem solving skills. Any dummy can look up on Google the dates of some historical event, but not many students coming out of high school have developed usable skills aside from memorizing (many times) useless information.

[NUance]

Why does everyone hate the NCLB law? Didn't it help make underachieving schools more accountable? Seems like a worthy goal to me. :

[funhusker]

Why does everyone hate the NCLB law? Didn't it help make underachieving schools more accountable? Seems like a worthy goal to me. :

It did somewhat.

 

But eventually, all schools would have been considered "underachieving" because of the AYP requirements.

[teachercd]

Why does everyone hate the NCLB law? Didn't it help make underachieving schools more accountable? Seems like a worthy goal to me. :

It did...the problem was the students were not accountable.

[Moiraine]

Why does everyone hate the NCLB law? Didn't it help make underachieving schools more accountable? Seems like a worthy goal to me. :

Again, the way they tested whether teachers were doing a good job was by using a method that has not been proven to accurately assess whether they're doing a good job.

 

On top of that they put the sole blame on teachers and didn't take into account the amount of funding the schools get and the type of home life the students were from or any of a multitude of other factors that should be considered. Obviously teachers are the most important factor but they're more like 30% not 95%. (Yes I'm pulling that number out of thin air but they get so much blame even when it's a student who just doesn't want to try).

 

There are loads of other problems that could fill books. Another is teaching to the test which came about because of teachers/schools being shut down. Teaching to the test might be okay in math or a hard science but for most subjects it's teaching students how to answer specific test questions rather than teaching them to think and question things.

 

 

Also, as of 2010 the rate of improvement in test scores had not increased from the rate of inmprovement in test scores from the early 90s to 2002. Things were already trending up. They only maintained that trend. So even if we pretend that standardized tests are the gold standard for testing student knowledge/learning, it didn't even improve anything.

[NUance]

 

Why does everyone hate the NCLB law? Didn't it help make underachieving schools more accountable? Seems like a worthy goal to me. :

Again, the way they tested whether teachers were doing a good job was by using a method that has not been proven to assess whether they're doing a good job.

 

On top of that they put the sole blame on teachers and didn't take into account the amount of funding the schools get and the type of home life the students were from or any of a multitude of other factors that should be considered. Obviously teachers are the most important factor but they're more like 30% not 95%. (Yes I'm pulling that number out of thin air but they get so much blame even when it's a student who just doesn't want to try).

 

There are loads of other problems that could fill books. Another is teaching to the test which came about because of teachers/schools being shut down. Teaching to the test might be okay in math or a hard science but for most subjects it's teaching students how to answer specific test questions rather than teaching them to think and question things.

 

 

Your comment about the home life the students were from makes me wonder how much of the problem was due to the home life or demographic background the students. Did the NCLB program hold schools in poverty stricken areas to the same standards as wealthy schools? If they did, they shouldn't have. For some reason we in America insist on believing that all demographic groups—wealthy and poor—have the same intellectual capabilities. In fact, there are some who would scream "prejudice" for just mentioning the notion that not all demographic groups are created with the same gray matter capabilities. But if you compared the population of an extremely poor neighborhood to a wealthy neighborhood, wouldn't the wealthy neighborhood be characterized by higher intelligence? If a highly intelligent kid grows up in a poverty stricken high crime area, isn't he/she likely to leave that area and move to better surroundings as an adult? It seems like just that effect alone would tend to widen the gap of capabilities.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

Why does everyone hate the NCLB law? Didn't it help make underachieving schools more accountable? Seems like a worthy goal to me. :

Again, the way they tested whether teachers were doing a good job was by using a method that has not been proven to assess whether they're doing a good job.

 

On top of that they put the sole blame on teachers and didn't take into account the amount of funding the schools get and the type of home life the students were from or any of a multitude of other factors that should be considered. Obviously teachers are the most important factor but they're more like 30% not 95%. (Yes I'm pulling that number out of thin air but they get so much blame even when it's a student who just doesn't want to try).

 

There are loads of other problems that could fill books. Another is teaching to the test which came about because of teachers/schools being shut down. Teaching to the test might be okay in math or a hard science but for most subjects it's teaching students how to answer specific test questions rather than teaching them to think and question things.

Your comment about the home life the students were from makes me wonder how much of the problem was due to the home life or demographic background the students. Did the NCLB program hold schools in poverty stricken areas to the same standards as wealthy schools? If they did, they shouldn't have. For some reason we in America insist on believing that all demographic groupswealthy and poorhave the same intellectual capabilities. In fact, there are some who would scream "prejudice" for just mentioning the notion that not all demographic groups are created with the same gray matter capabilities. But if you compared the population of an extremely poor neighborhood to a wealthy neighborhood, wouldn't the wealthy neighborhood be characterized by higher intelligence? If a highly intelligent kid grows up in a poverty stricken high crime area, isn't he/she likely to leave that area and move to better surroundings as an adult? It seems like just that effect alone would tend to widen the gap of capabilities.

From everything I read, they were held to the same exact standards. If they fell below they were put on probation. If they stayed in probation too long teachers were fired/schools shutdown.

 

I think we sort of agree on what you're saying about location but I think the wording is important. I don't think people in wealthy areas are more likely to be intelligent. I think people in wealthy areas are more likely to have parents who graduated high school and college and therefore grow up in an environment which increases their potential to do well in school.

 

I've even read research on how being hungry can have a major impact on learning and obviously students in poor areas are more likely to be hungry when they go to school.

[BigRedBuster]

OK.....so, everyone hated it. I'm not in education but I know enough people who hate it that it must have really sucked as a law. I agree with Knapp that it was a very well intended law that just didn't work out.

 

My biggest question now is, what will we see change in education due to getting rid of this law?

 

And, how do we hold teacher's accountable for doing their job well?

 

I know teachers in our own school that are fantastic and ones that totally suck. How do we quantify that so we can get rid of the ones that suck and reward the ones that are fantastic so our school system continues to improve?

[Moiraine]

OK.....so, everyone hated it. I'm not in education but I know enough people who hate it that it must have really sucked as a law. I agree with Knapp that it was a very well intended law that just didn't work out.

 

My biggest question now is, what will we see change in education due to getting rid of this law?

 

And, how do we hold teacher's accountable for doing their job well?

 

I know teachers in our own school that are fantastic and ones that totally suck. How do we quantify that so we can get rid of the ones that suck and reward the ones that are fantastic so our school system continues to improve?

 

Don't know the details on the first. I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable obviously, and after enough years they get paid decently (if you ignore what is basically overtime hours for the majority), but for how much stock we put into the importance of education (and how important it actually is) they are not paid enough. Because they're paid so little, not as many smart people want to become teachers. Also, it's easy as pie to get an education degree. That's kind of a chicken/egg thing.

 

Anyhow, incentivizing is how I think it should be done. If the teachers really do something bad then punish/fire them but I think the focus should be more on incentives for the really good ones.