Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is an extension of Mark Ziegler's 433, Teaching of Social Studies class.
Blog Archive
Great Quotes...To start class...to activate thinking...
"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan
32 comments:
I think that NCLB is yet another example of a well-intentioned, but poorly implemented law. Ideally, every child would receive the same education. However, since every child learns differently, it is all but impossible to teach everyone the same material. I know this is an extreme example, but there are special needs students who can only communicate non-verbally and may or may not be mobile. How are we to hold them to the same standard as, say, the gifted and talented students? I do, however, agree for the most part with NCLB's definition of highly qualified teachers. The only issue with that is the difference between colleges and certification requirements. Not all universities hold their students to the same standards, just as not all states have the same mandates concerning certification. Given that fact, what may be considered highly qualified in one state may not even be considered for a teaching job in another. I do think that government oversight can potentially create a better educational system. However, I do not think that NCLB is the vehicle to carry out this oversight. Teachers need to be qualified in their respective fields, but the government needs to recognize that there are as many differing fields within education as there are student learning styles. It is difficult to pigeonhole such a large and varied occupation, which is the primary reason that I think NCLB is such a failure. NCLB's one redeeming feature is that it managed to draw nationwide attention to the plight of public school education, a point which I feel was long overdue. There is definitely a need for increased oversight, and too many children are falling through the cracks of the current system. NCLB was started with the best of intentions, but fell far short of what it was originally intended to accomplish.
I agree with Amanda that NCLB is well-intentioned, but poorly implemented. One of the four principles that NCLB is founded on is "Greater Local Control and Flexibility." It seems like the opposite is happening in poorly performing school districts. These school districts get put on watch lists and have state funding taken away from them when students do not perform how lawmakers believe they should. The loss of funding actually decreases the flexibility of the school district to decide its own curriculum and programs. Instead these districts have to cut programs and focus on test preparation instead of real learning. If these districts still do not perform well, they can get taken over by the state. So much for flexibility and local control.
NCLB's definition of highly qualified teachers seems to match the PA state certification requirements pretty well. However, I think that it's possible for a person to meet all the state and NCLB requirements and still not be an effective teacher. There are a lot of personal qualities that make great teachers great and so-so teachers so-so. These really can't be measured by the Praxis, a 3.0 GPA, or a college diploma. Teacher training programs and state regulations can do a lot to make sure teachers know their subject material, but the personal qualities are hard to teach or enforce.
Government oversight of schools is provided for under the No Child Left Behind Law in the form of standards and standardized assessments. These measures are meant to help gauge the success of students and teachers across the nation, but it may actually be the case that these procedures are not improving the quality of schools in the United States. The performance of a teacher’s students on standardized assessments may not be the best measure of whether a teacher is highly-qualified and adept at educating. The qualifications of a highly-qualified teacher which are described in the NCLB Law are all important qualifications, but there are other factors which should be considered when evaluating a teacher. These factors include the following: whether the teacher shows an interest in their subject matter, whether the teacher shows concern and compassion for their students, whether a teacher employs effective and intriguing teaching techniques, and whether the students respond well to the teacher’s efforts. It is far more important for schools to have well-rounded faculty members rather than having teachers who are only successful at helping their students to perform well on standardized assessments. Standardized assessments may also not be the best measure of a student’s performance. If a student can successfully answer standardized test questions but cannot apply the information elsewhere, then the students are not receiving an adequate education. Some students are poor test takers and may be better able to express their knowledge in a different manner (perhaps through verbal communication or through a creative project). Students are most frequently tested for their math skills, writing ability, and reading comprehension. Those students who excel in science or social studies are unable to show their prowess in these fields on any standardized tests.
The standards and standardized assessments which are an integral part of the NCLB Law may actually be diminishing the quality of education in our nation’s schools. Teachers have been forced to engage in a teaching style which is often referred to as “teaching to the test”. Teachers have become very concerned with preparing their students for standardized assessments, and they have altered their lessons and lectures accordingly. This has led teachers to ask test questions similar to those on the standardized assessments and to engage in practice exercises which are meant to prepare students for the standardized tests. Teachers have faced fewer opportunities to allow their students to engage in abstract thinking, and teachers have also been unable to take time to teach their students interesting and important information which may not appear on the list of standards for the class. Teachers must be given greater freedom in the classroom; this will help to ensure that teachers are creating lesson plans which are well-suited to their teaching style.
I believe that ideally most people want the least amount of government involvement in their lives as possible. I believe this is especially true when it comes to their and their children's educations. For the majority of this countries history we have had a relatively hands off approach to our education system when it comes to the federal government. This has been a very unique approach when compared to other nations around the world. Because of this, governments around the world have been able to show record scores in various areas of studies.
I believe that the NCLB law was an attempt by the US federal government to bring Americas youth up to par with the rest of the competitive world. The biggest problem with this relatively new law and way of dealing with education is that it seems to go against the ideals of education that we as a nation have come to expect over the last few centuries. With this being our first major law in this field, I believe it is understandable that it is no where near being a perfected law. We as a nation have a lot of work behind us if we are going to get behind advancing our youth in their ever growing international competition with the youth of the world. At the same time our Federal government will, I believe, continue to play an ever larger part in attempting to help us in reaching this goal.
Our first attempt, the NCLB law, has received an enormous amount of criticism and it will continue to over the next few years. But, over the next decades the federal government will further refine its role in this area and be able to adapt its methods to help our youth in more and better ways in their competition with the new and growing global market.
It seems like every few decades the federal government attempts to influence state/local schools in order to either save or spend a few extra dollars of the federal budget. I think the passage of NCLB in 2001 was a flattering attempt at major reform; however, poorly conceived and stubbornly implemented.
First, the basic foundation of goals manifested the authors’ lack of knowledge of the public school system. Standardized testing of just math and English (potentially science)? Every student, even those with learning disabilities, must reach certain academic standards by a certain date? These ideas may sound great on paper but only promote statewide focus on certain skills to reach those goals rather than supporting a complete wide-ranging curriculum. The mere definition of progress for students is also out of touch with reality. Some students have bad years or struggle with certain subjects, and NCLB only places more stress and pressure on these students.
Also, the consequences and red tape for funding sponsored in NCLB is probably the worst part of this haphazard attempt at legislation. Standards for teachers are reasonable but after being employed at a public school, the administrators should have the decision to determine what constitutes a worthy educator. The issue of funding should rely on average income and needs for the school rather than student performance in a few subjects. It's assumed that suburban schools will benefit and succeed from NCLB since they already have the revenue to advance.
Don't get me wrong. I think federal aid and government intervention is necessary in contemporary times, but the creation of NCLB to fulfill these needs was a national disappointment. The controversy and call for reform manifests its failures, not to mention the wasted funding for programs that have been deemed as inefficient. Let's try this again, but this time with public educators and administrators as the authors.
The guidelines governing NCLB take into account only one aspect of teaching. The rules to be a “highly qualified teacher” deal with only the material aspects- to have at least a bachelor’s degree, to fulfill the state’s teacher certification, and to have knowledge of the subject area. Nowhere in these guidelines does it mention anything about being able to actually teach the subject area to students. To truly be a “highly qualified teacher” means to be able to reach your students and be able to teach them, not just spit information at them and ask for the information to be spit back on a test. All students need teachers who have a passion for teaching their subject and who want to do anything to teach their students the best way they can, and this is not expressed in NCLB.
Government intervention and oversight is definitely needed to some degree, but not to the degree that NCLB has gone. Without government involvement, some schools would crumble because there is no one pushing them to do their best. At the same time, however, too much government oversight is discouraging to schools because teachers feel they have to “teach to the test” to pass the standards set up by the government, instead of developing and implementing creative teaching methods to involve the students. Overall, I feel that more government oversight does not make a better school because the government can not know what is right for every student in every situation and school. There is not a knowledge-blanket that can be spread over every school because every student is different and learns differently.
Depending on who you talk to, education is either getting better or declining because of NCLB. In my opinion, it is getting worse. Most of the teachers with whom I have talked to agree that NCLB and all of the standards have hurt their teaching style. They no longer feel the freedom to be creative in the classroom and feel pressured to tell the children what they need to know for the test. For example, my cooperating teaching for sophomore bloc used to have her students get in groups and create their own political party in junction with the lessons being taught on government. She does not have time to do this anymore, however, because of the material she needs to cover for the standard state tests. Reasons like this and the countless other complaints by teachers has led me to decide that NCLB is hurting education.
As many others, my initial reaction to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was that when I became a public school teacher I would be forced to teach to a test. It was from this point on that I held a disdain for such a law that would pigeon-hole education into standardized tests. Where would the application of knowledge go? For example, students may know the entire time line of the Cold War but have no clue about its effect on society today. While I understand the importance of getting all American students up to par, the questions still remains, what are we really teaching our kids? If our public school system is designed to prepare our students for the real world then there must be a lot of test taking jobs out there.
In not having a completely jaded view of the subject, I do see some of the positives that NCLB tries to accomplish. Forcing our school system to close the achievement gap while giving schools the freedom and flexibility to spend federal money how they see fit is certainly a step in the right direction for public schools. Also, making standards for “highly qualified teachers” will only help make our educators more capable in preparing our students for life after school. I do believe, however, the means to these ends are not being followed in the right direction. Does being a “highly qualified teacher” mean that someone just has to have extensive knowledge in their content? Or, could these teachers also having strong skills in delivering the knowledge in fun and interesting ways that encourage students to want to learn?
I think that more government oversight makes for a worse school. I think that the only thing government should be involved with schools is setting up national standards for students and teachers. Government should also implement more funds into the schools that need it most. Create incentives for the best teachers to want to teach in low income school districts. But besides that, school should be a community issue only. It should be up to the particular state and the school district's community to figure out the curriculum.
I think by having accountability it forces teachers to work harder to try to get their students to achieve more in a year. Accountability is a good thing, but I think that NCLB is to narrow of a law. It does not truly measure how educated students are just by one week of testing. There are lots of different qualities that need to be added in to take into account of how educated a kid is. NCLB forces teachers to spend as much time as possible on core material that will be on the standardized tests and less time on other subjects. Some schools are going to as far lengths as erasing certain departments in schools such as technology classes, art classes, music classes, etc. in order to spend more time remediating math and writing skills. I believe that kids deserve to have all opportunities in school and should not be cheated on time spent with other subjects. If they need time to catch up programs should be set up for mandatory after school help or tutoring programs. We should not be moving backwards with education, but forward- plain and simple.
Wow...reading our blog tonight. You people are certainly thinking about these issues with a keen sophisitication and insight. I see so much of the debate within your answers. I will tell you this...since NCLB my own school district...like all districts really pays attention to out PSSA results. Indeed examining the weak spots and employing strategies to reform. Since the standards movement the life of a teacher moves quickly as there is rush to get it all in. Is this good or bad? I still enjoy teaching 500% but I sometimes think too much emphasis is on the test scores rather than the larger product: the experience of our kids. Finally, PSSA testing is really an interuption in the course of the year. In a world where we are all short on time it is one more thing that takes you away from your normal course of action in the classroom. In sum I have mixed feelings...I like the idea of the industrous teacher with high standards...I don't always like the idea of measuring a school or classroom strictly on test results. Mark
Government oversight in the schools will not always lead to the creation of better individuals. Involvement by the government can however, become a foundation for an education system based on merit and quality. NCLB is the Federal level response to a ‘crisis’ in our school system. Without the government’s actions, today we would still have teachers instructing students in areas they are not qualified to teach. Most if not all jobs have some sort of oversight. A lack of oversight for any period of time can quickly lead to the downfall of a program.
NCLB is designed to put the stress back on to the schools to hire excellent teachers and create outstanding programs. Many schools and educators are now feeling this push by the government and want to react negatively. The simple fact is though; the schools fell behind in their ethical obligations to the students. Surely this free and democratic country would not want to indoctrinate its children and command them in to knowing only what it wants them to know. That just would not fit the standards of freedom the nation spreads around the globe. The government saw the education system falling behind and decided to revise it. The past few years have only been the first phase of the program and a final say on the success of the program cannot be clearly made yet.
As time progresses and more teachers meet the minimum standards in their areas of knowledge the education system will improve substantially. The commonly tossed around thought that all teachers are doing is teaching to test. This is true to a certain extent. With all of the new rules, regulations, and guidelines out, all many can do for now is adapt to what the state now wants. Over the next few years this will change as the teachers become familiar with the new expectations surrounding their profession. The tests provide for an equal assessment of students. Whether or not the teacher goes beyond putting out the basics for the test is the concern of the school and its own evaluation system. The tests encompass what the government feels is important; be it the Pythagorean theorem, writing a persuasive essay, or knowing the Bill of Rights. It is meant to create a student that can succeed in today’s fast paced world. If that means that some things that are more trivial get cut out in the process for the moment, then so be it. The teacher needs to remember that they are facilitating the success of that student later on in life. They have a job to do, and for the moment until they get back on track, they will just have to make some sacrifices and tolerate the hardships. It’s always darkest before the light.
I agree with the idea that NCLB is a great idea, however very poorly implemented. To offer an equal and much higher level of education to lower income students in less successful school districts is an excellent idea. All public school students deserve to have a well-rounded and rigorous education. However, standardized testing, which breeds “teaching to the test” lesson planning and forces creativity out of the classroom, is not the way in which this goal should be achieved.
The aforementioned creativity was the strongest thought that came to mind while reading the NCLB definition of a “highly qualified teacher”. I agree that a teacher should have a copious amount of knowledge in their subject area to share with their students. I also believe that there is more than just content knowledge involved in the making of a “highly qualified teacher”. There is a level of success in a classroom that some of the most knowledgeable historians may lack when compared to a slightly less knowledgeable but creative school teacher.
Overall, I believe that education could get better due to NCLB, if there is drastic reform in the near future.
NCLB has changed the way we view education in our country. I think teachers and schools should be held accountable for student learning. However, the pressure of standarized testing does not benefit the learner. The stress of meeting AYP has forced teachers to teach to the test. I fear we are losing some of the creativity in the classroom. Not all students learn the same way. If you look at failing school districts, many of them have a much higher percentage of learning support kids. The testing is not fair because learning support kids are at a disadvantage. They must take the test regardless of the accommodation on their IEP. I think this puts some school districts with a large learning support population at an unfair disadvantage.
I agree with NCLB's definition of highly qualified teachers.
However, every state has different standards for teachers to become certified. Colleges have different requirements as well. This aspect of NCLB needs revision. If we want to change education in America, everyone should be on the same sheet of music.
Government oversight on public schools is not necessarily a bad thing. In many ways it can be good. However, No Child Left Behind has many flaws that would only hinder a "highly qualified teacher." It is understandable to want to raise the bar on education for America's students in order to meet the standards set by students all over the world, but the path to those results only hinders education. The backbone of NCLB is having schools meet certain criteria, goals, and standards in a minimum of two years. The best way to get large results like these would be through standardized testing. Standardized exams do not promote real education or learning. In order for "highly qualified teachers" to have any impact through NCLB would be, essentially, to teach the test. Preparing their students for exams that determine if a school has made any progress would be the only way to get desired results. This kind of education greatly hinders teachers from teaching what they may consider to be the truly important material. Also if schools do not perform well they may not receive funding, proficient students may move to other schools and a school not making the grade may be taken over by the state. I feel as though this legislation, while good in nature, is focused more on producing quick results, rather than actually trying to better educate the youth of this country
After reading what a person would need to qualify as a "highly qualified teacher" I can understand. Having a bachelor's and passing exams like the praxis may make one a exemplary candidate on paper,and I do believe those to be necessary qualification, however, I feel as though it comes down to personality and many other skills as well. You can know your material through and through, but you have to be able to make it interesting and understandable for your students in order to be effective.
The idea of NCLB is a magnificent example of an idea that is brilliant on paper, but lost in its execution. The idea of holding educators and schools to a higher level is what the educational system should be focusing on, however the idea of a standardized test being the judge and gauge of the advancement is ridiculous. The idea of the NCLB is to create an across the board education where all students would have the same education and meet the same high expectation, however this is an impossible idea. A teacher I once had in high school told me that students are like snowflakes, similar and brilliant in appearance, but when you take the time to truly look you realize that no two snowflakes are the same. Students have different level of learning, different capacities of knowledge and different motivators, which makes it impossible to teach students the same material on the same tests.
Aside from students it is also important to realize that teachers themselves are also snowflakes, different in every way imaginable. The idea of a qualified teacher is impossible to define. Is a qualified teacher the student with a 4.0 that knows everything about anything who lectures from typed notes or the Millersville graduate who barely held a 3.0, but can hold the attention of thirty high school seniors for eighty minutes. Are qualification defined by grades or charisma. I think the system does affect the level of control a teacher has in the classroom. When I shadowed a history teacher at McCaskey last fall she was forced to implement strategies in her class that would help students excel on standardized tests. Prior to this change her class focused as an open forum for student, but to her dismay shifted to a yes/no, right and wrong standardized method.
I believe that NCLB has been a necessary evil to some extent. Its brought the perils of the education system to the forefront and has made both educators and the system liable, but at what cost. Teachers are becoming less and less in control and the government has become increasingly more dominant in the educational system. I think the government should play a role in education, however this role should be as a watch dog, not as a dictator. I believe currently the government standards are forcing school to worry that they will not make AYP and will lose their freedom in a sense. I know this is a major issue that echoes in the faculty room at McCaskey and in school across the nation. Are these standard unreasonable? Will NCLB withstand the test of time? Is this the shining doctrine to save the drowning educational system of the U.S.?
These are all questions that cannot be answered yet. We can make assumptions based on what is currently the results, but can we truly judge NCLB without letting it run its course. In my opinion the law is merely a rainstorm beating down the sinking educational system and the only thing saving it is the teachers who are trying to help the students stay afloat. Yet that is only one opinion and who I am to judge what the government deems is best for education I am merely one of the many who will have to aid the sinking ship.
My answer to the NCLB act question is : Terrible.
The NCLB act is a poor excuse for why American education (and America in general) has fallen behind the rest of the world. It is a finger pointed at teachers because they are an easy target to blame.
A keyword of the NCLB act is Accountability. This is placed solely on Educators, but never on parents/guardians/or anyone else. Teachers are the scapegoat for a American social phenomenon called 'pass the buck'. No one wants to take responsibility for national issue. So NCLB forces teachers to "get better and fix it, or else lose your job". I laugh at this proposal. I cannot see how government takeover, or privatization of schools, will ever improve student knowledge and standardized test scores.
Students and schools are being graded by standardized tests; clearly some people learn at different levels than others and its unfair to hold them to impossibly high standards.
The education system is not getting better because of the NCLM act. Countless teachers have lost their jobs because of students that have no motivation or willingness to learn.
The No Child Left Behind Act means well but overall I do not believe it is what is needed in the schools of the United States. First off, I think it is difficult to examine student's scores against each other. Some states have different criteria and most teachers graduated from different colleges or universities so their teaching strategy may be different. Right off the bat, it is not a fair start. Too much pressure is being put on the students as well as the teachers in order to do well on these tests. If a school does not fair well during the tests, they will actually lose funding, which in return will not help the test scores the next time they are taken. As many have stated, I truly think there is much more to a "highly qualified teacher." Yes, I believe it is excellent a person can go through and receive all their certifications, but I do not believe that makes someone "highly qualified." I believe it is important the teacher truly care about what he or she is teaching and show a sincere interest in the students academics as well as lives.
I have heard many young students complain that all they do in school is prepare for the standardized tests. It does not seem fair to the student along with the teacher. Many class time is wasted focusing on these standardized tests and many teachers are getting behind and not being able to complete the material they had intended for the class. I have even heard of schools going as far to lie about their scores in order to meet the requirements. As others mentioned, some students are just not good at taking tests and learn in so many other ways, whether it be through projects or activities. I also believe that teachers are being forced to "teach to the tests" in order for their students to meet the criteria. I strongly believe this takes away from the creativity of the teacher as well as the students and as a result, students do not learn near as much.
I have to agree with the previous entries in stating that NCLB has good intentions, but the the execution of the law is done poorly.
Upon reading what a "highly qualified teacher" is, I believe that those qualifications listed are core, but a teacher who is able to reach the students and not just teach needs to associated with a "highly qualified teacher." There are very smart teachers in the classroom, but can each of those teachers impact students in their learning in the way educators (not politicans) feel should happen?
It is unfortunate that the U.S is not up to par with other countries, but not each student is the same in their ability to grasp information. Students should have the oportunity to show what they are understanding in more ways than through a standardized test.
I feel that valuable lessons are being overlooked as teachers prepare their students for test, and what the test expects them to know. How can a teacher engage a student in high order thinking when these tests play a major role in what the teacher needs to teach the students.
It is also hard with standardized tests when each state and school district have different critera, and each state has different requirements for teachers. There was a time when I was looking to transfer and I glanced over other schools (not located in PA) and realized the courses I will be taking at Millersville are very different from these other state requirements. Does that mean that in the future the government will try to implement a nation wide teaching standard, and if so, what will happen to the states widely known for the teachers they produce?
I don't believe that No Child Left Behind is making education easier for teachers or students. While standardized tests are an obvious concrete way to gather information, they are not always accurate. So many different factors go into teaching and learning, many of which either do not show up on standardized test results, or either skew the results of such testing. Real understanding of material and main ideas is something that is better done in a classroom and graded by a teacher rather than a machine that tests students across the country. I agree that the understanding of math and science skills are important for every student, and that it is the reason for schooling, but standardized tests alone cannot put a grade on a student or a teacher.
The ranking of teachers with the NCLB Act is not, in my opinion, a good idea. Teachers have enough to worry about with individual students needs and school standards than to have to worry about their jobs. It seems that having teachers worry about their jobs takes concentration away from what their main goal should be, which is getting through to students in different and creative ways.
NCLB was not intended to be a law that made education an unpleasant idea to teachers and students but was intended to be a tool that would help the federal government all the way down to those in the class room the teachers to ensure that the youth of our country are getting an education that they deserve. However, what has happened through poor planning and execution of the law, is that now students and teachers are now test weary and the students are not having fun in the class room which aids in learning. So the issue of does government oversight help to make a better school can not be addressed by NCLB. The government I am sure can help to produce a better school system if it goes about it in a rational and thought out way. I feel that NCLB had neither of these attributes, while all of its intentions were good the out come was just the opposite. So the solution is to spend more time on the issue and create a much more reasonable way to test aptitude and advance in subjects (which should not just include Math, Reading and now Science.) A new way should be devised to test students in all subjects, to know that not every student is going to excel in those subjects that NCLB deems most important. So what I believe is that if you can take government oversight which will hold the local school systems accountable for what they are doing and the local school systems and get them to work together you will see a much improved system.
The next question of is education getting better because of NCLB is a very definite answer to me. The answer is no. The only thing that is getting better is the fact that we have the HQT, which I believe is a good thing in many ways. But now that we have these HQTs we are not allowing them to teach in a manor that is going to encourage a deeper learning, which includes things such as deep thought on a subject, changing opinions because of those thoughts, and the exploration of new ideas. These are the things that I believe if we want to see a growth in our education system that we need to really focus on not just test scores. With the increase in these areas will come the increase in test scores that the government so desperately wants. When the student engages the material and I mean truly engages it all the rest will follow. NCLB is not allowing these things to happen the teachers that are now highly qualified are teaching to a very restrictive test and this is not helping our school systems at all.
I have mixed emotions about the NCLB legislation because its purpose is solid but the effects of this law have been less than ideal. I believe it is very important for schools and teachers to be held to a high level accountability. As teachers we should not worry about being evaluated for doing our best for the students because we all entered the profession for that purpose. In addition, many schools are lagging greatly in achievement and funding and NCLB brings that into focus and is meant to fix it.
However, the way in which NCLB has been carried out seems to remove the entire purpose of education as I see it. The way to measure the process of school is the famous and much publicized standardized achievement tests. Although the purpose of making sure all children have the same chance to succeed is noble, it is forced schools to rearrange all there efforts into teaching for a test. In the process, many electives that where previously available for students have been removed to provide more time for teaching to the state standards. In turn, the results of the test scores cause increases or deceases in funding for a district and affect if parents will move into a school district.
I do not believe that is what education is supposed to be about. There simply has to be a way to combine sound education while retaining the arts and music. In addition, the focus on the same exact knowledge for everyone in the school system across the country seems to eliminate the uniqueness of students around the country. I am not saying that some students should be able to read well. I just think that a teacher in New Hampshire should have the ability and time to teach his or her class different than a teacher in Arizona. It worries me that we are suffocating the creativity out of school and replacing it with the proficiency of conformity.
Government oversight, I would argue, often ensures quality - the FDA which oversees the quality of food and drugs we consume, is one such instance. When it comes to school and the "quality control" of people, however, I don't necessarily think that the government is helping anybody. It seems to me that a bureaucracy in Washington trying to control the inner workings of the education system may sound good on paper, but in practice it probably hinders more than it accomplishes.
In a very basic sense, what the NCLB considers a highly qualified teacher is something that should already be common practice - and in that respect, I have no problem with it. Its this business of (for all intents and purposes) forcing teachers to teach to the tests - and viewing learning in a very basic and black and white lens.
I think the NCLB is perhaps a good intention at best. I think that for it to be successfully implemented though, requires some investigation, particularly on the part of the state and local governments and less weight being placed on the gov't at the national level.
NCLB... What are we thinking? No Child Left Behind expects to create a nation where everyone can be adequate. Our solution for this issue is to underfund schools who do badly and overfund schools who are doing well. How can this solution make sense? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Instead of pushing everyone toward the goal we are actually crippling many of the kids who really do need the help. I disagree with much of what NCLB says but I do agree that some kind of standardization of teacher quality must be set in motion. The standards for our teachers should be higher nationally. Each state is very different in their standards which hurts the teaching community.
NCLB has good intensions. How could it not with a goal of wanting every child to be able to read and write and do basic math. But the problem comes with the enforcement of the law. Schools who do not meet the standards have their funding cut and can eventually be taken over by the state. And for some take overs, the people who are brought into 'fix' the schools have no experience in the actual teaching profession. In the case of funding, the law is doing the reverse of what should happen if they want positive results. They are taking away funding from failing schools as a punishment. Instead they should be investing more money into those schools so that they can create better after school tutoring programs, be able to afford better teacher and technologies. It is through the increase in programs such as this that students will increase their scores, not the decrease in their already minimal funding.
With the testing one thing that appals me is that every student is held to the same standards. While this is good in theory, in the real world this is utterly impossible. Our professor stress that on the first day of school we will be handed a stack of IEPs for students that range from gifted to special needs. I went to high school with many children who might have been in the 12th grade but due to a mental handicaps a child may only be able to comprehend things on a 5th grade level but are required to take the 12th grade test.
The road to hell was paved with good intentions, and I believe the term can easily be applied to education. NLCB was praised at the time of its inseption (at least thats what I remember for all it's great policies. The implementation of such policies proved problematic for many schools. I believe that the NLCB definition of what a highly qualified teacher is has little to do with the personality of the teacher. I mean it's standard practice in America to have well-qualified professionals working in the areas of society that are absolutley VITAL! I believe NLCB is a way to weed out people that aren't suited to teach our youth.
When we have the best people for the job doing their best for the job (sounds redundant I know) then education will be get better.
There is always a downside.
My experiences with NLCB have been dismal. I saw nothing good come from the implementation of the law. I witnessed teachers being forced to teach their students how to pass a standardized test and not be able to put as much passion and interest into helping the students actually LEARN and not parrot back everything that is fed to them. And anyone with the proper certification can make students do that and get on with the day. It takes a real educator to create and devise an educational experience that will make something 'click' in the minds of every student that they can take with them for life. That being said; these are the type of educators that will work hard to balance all that is required with what they love to do.
I believe that NCLB is an attempt by our government to do the right thing in an age where the right thing is not usually done. While I believe that NCLB is a positive step and that every child should have the chance to succeed in the classroom I believe that it is also holding many students back. I find it funny that we test students on facts when we should be teaching them the concepts and why and how events and situations happen not just when and who. Are these tests that just allow our students to cram for a big exam doing any good? Every student learns differently and while yes, some students do learn through long nights of studying and having a whirlwind of dates and names thrown in their direction I believe the vast majority of students learn in different ways.
I believe that the government should have certain standards for students to reach but I feel that the NCLB is not completely realistic. I don't believe that standardized tests are a good way to test if students really understand and grasp the information they need are supposed to be being taught. I feel that many students just don't understand the information that is being given to them and that they simple learn it for the test, not to LEARN it. I feel that NCLB just moves students along and is not a fair way to assess whether or not students truely grasp the information being shared with them.
I believe that the No Child Left Behind was a law that was meant to do good, but was poorly thought out. To me it was something that was pushed to make a certain party look good in the public eyes. NCLB looked like a brand new car, but when you drove it, you found out it had a lot of problems the dealer didn’t tell you about. As I stated in one of my other posts NCLB is a very complex, being comprised of nine different titles and more than 50 different programs designed to close the gap between the high performing and low performing students. So yes we want to give every child a chance, but at the same time by expanding in one field we compromise in another. Such fields would be standardized tests, ESL, and special and gifted students. So this being said where tests are only concentrated in certain areas, where kids at different levels of learning are thrown together leads to many new complications and alot more work.I believe that teachers especially the good ones who can make this system work somehow should be given more benefits from NCLB yes it can be great for the students but let us not forget that the teachers are there to. It limits a teacher by constricting them to certain areas of study and leaving a lot of important ones out, and if the teacher wants to include them it’s a lot more work for that teacher to take on. So if more benefits were put towards this program for the teachers I think it may have done somewhat better. So when we make teachers accountable for following these guidelines they should be rewarded somehow. Certain curriculum shouldn’t be erased from students grasps, such as music or art just so they can put more money into their math department. That is one thing I found funny when we talk about making teachers accountable about having good teachers. That a lot of good teachers are fun, and creative and by taking those type of things like music and art out of our schools is it going to cause issues for future teachers who may lack creativity. Next you got those standardized tests which yes they can be beneficial but they lack on some subjects and interrupt kids from what they are learning at the moment. Because I know when those PSSA’s come around, as a kid being told you have to do good, you drop what your learning in one class and cram. Its not pretty. So as to government oversight I say it’s needed but it has to be less restricting and better formed. NCLB could be good just as long as the time is put into it and not rushed could it succeed.
NCLB, where would we be with out it? Just as with many programs that are created from a Higher authority and implemented from the top down, NLCB shows the clash between idealistic objectives and realistic experiences. Unfortunately many of the landmarks that this program looks for to identify achievement in students and pinpoint what a highly qualified teacher is do not truly grasp all the values that make good teachers and students.
It is easy to put some of this blame on our own culture. With such drive to be professional and impersonal outside of American private life it is difficult for a government program such as NCLB to include more abstract points on what a highly qualified teacher or student would be. For example, teacher's need to connect with students on a level that they can command respect and create a healthy classroom relationship. My question is does anyone really teach educators, or even more general, college students certain people skills that will allow them to succeed as a leader in their profession? NLCB merely looks at what is highly qualified on paper, but one could easily get a degree and demonstrate knowledge in the subject area and also not be able to teach kids about understanding material. What really is bothering educators about NLCB is that it is apparent that it isn't working and people ARE being left behind, and at the same time there is no drive to change the direction of this program.
On a more positive note NLCB is taking the issues of how to assess understanding and the use of new funding to a new level. I'm not making the claim that there are not always people trying to come up with ways to improve assessment, understanding, and red tape. You must still feel that NLCB a strong catalyst in forcing educators and students a like too take a long hard look at our educational system's shortfalls and where NLCB sometimes makes them more apparent.
I believe NCLB was a good idea in theory, but in terms of practicality and effectiveness it is lacking. It is really possible for an overarching federal program to solve the problems that plague our education system? It seems that enormous and general federal programs may work in certain conditions. However, when you apply these programs, which are certainly rigid, they create massive inconsistencies all throughout the country. What may work in this school may not work in the next. I believe education reform, such as NCLB, should be brought down from the federal level to a more practical level of government. This would allow educational legislation to be more flexible, which in turn would allow legislation to adapt to the specific and unique needs of our diverse educational system. Allowing more clemency in teacher qualifications, standards, and education of special needs students would ultimately be more progressive than a rigid catch all federal policy. Due to the sheer complexities of the educational system, it seems improbable that an overarching federal policy would be the solution. Educational legislation needs room to evolve and adapt, so it can specifically seek out and remedy our educational systems problems. Large and pretentious federal programs are not the answer to our problems.
I think the idea of NCLB is desirable, however the way that it has been conducted is extremely poor.
It has teachers teach to the test instead of being concerned with actual student understanding of content in the field. I do believe that a teacher should be very knowledgeable of their content area because kids will ask questions. I think the standards for teaching are fine just where they are because how much liberty do teachers have to differ from what is mandatory in the curriculum? It seems that most teachers I speak with are given what they need to teach. I think that the education system does need more funding, and I would suggest taking it from the defence budget. Take for example the book "Savage Inequalities" that describes public school buildings in dilapidated conditions. This is the richest country in the world, education should not be under funded. I agree that you need highly qualified teachers, however they need the resources to succeed. What would a highly qualified pilot be without a plane?
There is a problem with NCLB that it leaves out important subjects, that's why over 50 percent of high school seniors in America can't point to Iraq on a map. That is sad and pathetic.
NCLB seems to me to be a system designed for failure, so those in charge say scream "The public school system isn't working, we need to privatize it."
I agree with many bloggers, that NCLB is a law with good intentions, that has been poorly implemented. I also agree with many of you who think standardized testing really changes the face of the American education system. I feel that teachers have a fundamental role in society, and an already complicated job with the task of educating America's youth. Throw in some government policies and it makes things even more difficult. Standards have been set, and guidelines have been placed on the way teachers organize their semesters in order to teach what the government feels necessary for our children to learn. The knowledge students acquire is then tested by a 'standardized test', which in my opinion doesn't measure the growth of a student, or prove that a teacher is accountable. I know teachers who loved their jobs before 2001, and now have left their long careers because they feel the government has too large of a role in the classroom, and because they didn't want to change their teaching style. These teachers have such great pressur on them, and have lost their passion. I think a test does measure growth in certain areas, but what about the simple life lessons, that really make a difference in a child's life. What about the student who performs amazingly in social science courses and in language arts, but really struggles with math and english? What about the special needs student who is developing slower than the next child, or any student struggling for that matter? Students are faced with great pressures to perform on these tests and improve from year to year. When I was in high school, I learned quite a few life lessons, that stick with me until today, and I credit that to my teachers who cared about really educating me, and ensuring I understand what was being taught and take something from it to better my life. I know for a fact I have forgotten so much more of the information I was tested on, and it is scary to think about the teachers out there who have lost that passion, who are pressured so much that they feel they cannot really teach, but rather spill out information for their students to memorize and regurgitate for testing purposes.
In regards to holding teachers accountable, NCLB isn't doing that in my opinion. I believe teachers should have to continue their education and complete so many credits in so many years. I also know that there are so many teachers out there who do what they are supposed to in order to maintain the 'highly qualified teacher' status, but when in the classroom, are not as competant as they should be. Once again, this could be because they have that much pressure to ensure their students are prepared for standardized testing, and the teacher just hasn't adapted yet. This could also be because teachers just have lost faith and don't care about doing their job well. I have heard of teachers who have changed their lesson plans so much that their students learning is totally geared towards standardized testing, while the teacher has lost the passion of teaching. These teachers have lost their unique way of educating, they no longer teach exactly what they feel is important, and have lost the choice of how they want to run their classrooms. I read about a district that lost a ton of funding due to poor testing from year to year. This school was given some money to try to improve the learning there, but teachers had to strip down their classrooms of fun and creative learning tools. What about the teacher who strongly believes that learning environment needs to be a happy environment, with pictures, signs, and creative learning tools. You tell this teacher to empty their classroom and you create a person who could potentially start to hate their job. There are so many angles to come from in regards to NCLB, and so many things one could criticize. These are just a few things I have recently thought about.
I hope school districts, teachers and government can come together, be creative and implement positive change. I hope for the sake of my children, others, and myself and yours, that NCLB can be improved, that the kinks can be worked out, and that maybe one day, our education system is better, where everybody is happier and student achievement in life is the primary focus.
I think that No Child Left Behind is making education more difficult for teachers or students. I do believe, however, that the program is well-intentioned. Standardized tests are a good indicator of learning across the board, but they are not always accurate. Many different factors go into teaching and learning, many of which either do not show up on standardized test results, or either skew the results of such testing. Real understanding of material and main ideas is something that is better done in a classroom and sometimes can not be graded by a machine on a simple piece of paper. Basic skills in math, science, and writing are extremely important, but standardized tests alone cannot put a grade on a student or a teacher.
Ranking teachers through the NCLB act is completely unfair. Many teachers do not agree with the program and are more concerned with teaching their subject so that students learn. Teachers have enough to worry about with individual students needs and school standards than to have to worry about their jobs based on test scores and standardized rankings. If teachers have to worry about whether or not their job will stick, how can they tak the time to ensure a student's needs are filled and how on earth will they ensure that students are learning...period?
Post a Comment