NCLB may not be the problem. But, it is not the solution that its backers made it out to be. Yes, my students who just moved here a year ago are going to take the tests. Do my students have the 'social' language skills? For the most part, yes. Do they have the 'academic' language? No, they are still working on their academic language. Will I be held accountable by my principal and the district? Yes. It does not matter that they will be broken down statistically. If they fail, that will be averaged in, no matter what.

PS - lol - I replied to all of your points. For some reason they did not stay in between the quotes. I will re-state my positions later.

I don't dispute this point - I addressed it in a previous point.

This fits both the "well-documented issues with standardized tests" (as in, problems with non-native/minority populations and test aptitude) and "specific cases" (as per the statistical inclusion).

However, I will reiterate - I see two main issues here: 1) why are there no separate standards for ESL/ELL testing (surely those in special ed are not counted?) and 2) perhaps reevaluating the goal of ESL/ELL classes (that is, what defines functional mastery of English) would be useful, although that utility should be viewed in light of the student (and not the test).

Mastery of English would be wonderful, but like I said for many students speaking English ends at school. So the entire weekend is spent speaking another language and the entire summer. Some of the parents can not speak any English nor do they attend some of the English workshops offered by the district. So if the students and parents do not follow through then mastery of any language will fail.

Correct me if I am worng, but special ed scores are included in many standardized testing (for AYP)? I think they are....I will have to get back to you on that. MzDiscreet where are you ma'am?

It's not the teachers, it's the parents. We don't have as much "family time" as we used to. Kids often eat dinner at different times, and spend weekends playing sports or taking lessons. As they get older, they "go and hang out." Parents are also so protective of their kids' feelings that they don't care that their children are failing. They don't want their children to know that they're dumb. And since teachers don't want to be fired, they listen to what the 'rents want.

I probably could have dictated your post back to you before I even opened it, but hey . . .

Short version: prove it.

Long version: This is a gross oversimplification of everything science can currently tell us about childhood development. The reality is this "go and hang out" time has always existed, just in different ways - maybe it was spent playing ball in the past, but it was always there.

We now know that the role of peer groups is probably the most important part of childhood development and determination of personality. Blaming this all on the parents, while convenient, is pretty much fallacious. A teacher's unwillingness to stand up to a parent over a student's failures is only partially the parent's fault. A student's lack of consistent dinner/family time seems somewhat irrelevant if this time is not spent specifically promoting school, or (worse) is in a dysfunctional setting. Generalities like this are not a substitute for logic and planning, and they go a long way toward helping the problem, and not the solution.

Bad parents are a detriment to their children's success. Bad teachers use bad parents as the ultimate cop-out for difficult students.

I've been saying for years that there should be an 'academic' high school for kids who are preparing for college, and more of a vocational-type high school for kids who will most likely end up working straight out of school. I agree that allowing (or even asking) a 14 or 15-year-old to map out his/her future is a little unrealistic; that's why I like the way the French do it. They take tests going into high school. If you pass the test, you go to the academic high school. If you don't, well, then you go learn a trade. I know, I know, some people don't test well, yada yada yada, but the way I understand it (I had several French friends growing up), the test has both a written and oral part, so if you suck at written tests you still have the chance to redeem yourself. I think it's pretty fair--it weeds out the ones who either aren't serious about academics or just don't have the aptitude for college prep so that nobody's (students or teachers) time is wasted. Sounds harsh, but maybe the time I spent in high school classrooms jaded me a little. I don't expect everyone to agree.

All but the absolutely most disabled do count in the special education numbers. I think the maximum percentage that can be exempted is 2%, so even the vast majority of special education students count in your NCLB test score data. (Although it might seem weird to those of use who are kind of old, at a lot of schools maybe 10% of so of kids might be receiving special eduction services of one kind or another.)

I think that ESOL, ESL student do need to count in the data because otherwise ESL might become an academic dumping ground with no expectation of ESL students really learning, which would be worse in the long run for the kids than failing the tests. I agree that it would make more sense to measure the results of students who haven't yet learned English differently than kids who grew up speaking it. It is a shame that the present testing system expects the same results from kids who don't know English as from those who do. But let's keep in mind that in many states, and the states all came up with their own plans for testing and in many cases their own tests, the level of performance for passing is pretty darn low.

I think that parents do matter a lot, but mainly in terms of what attitudes they show their kids about school and school success and the influence always seem to be greater when what they show is negative. One of the biggest problems when people talk about lack of support is not total apathy; it's that parents actually work at subverting the standards for their kids at the last minute, even at schools where it might be impossible to get a parent on the phone for 95% of the year. Come the last few weeks and their kids being in danger of not passing or not graduating, suddenly, not only are parents involved, they are actively fighting the system. And you see this same dynamic with behavior and discipline problems. People aren't interested in helping back teachers up by dealing with the kids at home in any kind of proactive way, but if the kid is going to gets in really serious trouble with the administration, and suddenly, mom is in everybody's face.

Now, I agree with the above poster that if the school administrators could be counted on to back teachers up academically or in terms of discipline, then the parents wouldn't matter much at school at all. But most administrators seem to get ground down by the parents pretty quick and learn that addressing problems as the teacher's fault is easier, since after all, the teacher works for the administrator.

So if you are a teacher, unless you are a really good school, and/or you have an exceptional strength of character and morality, you too get ground down pretty fast. You, like the kids, learn that the kids pretty much run the place and in some ways certainly the easiest way to think of having a long career is to have ridiculously low expectations and a willingness not to make waves.

I think that's why so many people leave, especially at the bad schools, and then you really do get into a position where things get worse because the school would rather keep someone sincerely bad, as opposed to having no one to teach at all.

Why do you often have such an antagonistic tone? It's kind of weird to me.

Would there every come a point where you would allow schools to remove the most difficult students from the school?

Would there be a point at which you would allow teachers to simply refuse to meet with or address parent concerns?

Would you set up a system that prevented administrators from telling teachers how to resolve the issues that parents had complained about?

I really think you may be underestimating the influence that the parents have on people who can tell teachers how to do their jobs.

I agree that if the administration were willing to ignore parent complaints and back teachers in their grading and discipline then parents might be able to be removed from the equation, but since at the top level of school chain of command you have the elected officials of the school board, in many if not all places, it's not likely to happen.

Parents may often be used as an excuse; I don't dispute that; but they also in a notable number of cases actually prevent the measures that might work with the difficult student being used. Once a kid who doesn't already value school learns that the school has no authority, good luck.

I want to apologize for the length of the last couple of my posts. They may even exceed BA-on-the-topic-of-cloned food length, but I think about this topic a lot even though I don't have any good answers.

Ha - I honestly don't mean to, it's a result of my actual job (which requires very specific, to-the-point, and well-supported writing).

I really mean no antagonism.

This happens in many school districts already, with special programs for behavioral problems and those with educational needs beyond "Special Ed" - these programs, as far as I know, have seen quite a lot of success.

I would support these, assuming they were successful - I'm open to another way, if there is one, as well.

Yes - ultimately, I agree with your previous point about administration support as necessary (although I'm not sure I'll extend it to the same mechanism or length you do, even though it's entirely plausible) to the teacher's success. In that regard, when parents are over the top in demands or pressure on the teacher, it is the responsibility of the administration to address these demands/this pressure.

I don't think this happens, at all - I think many failings of the school system are a direct result of administration failing the teachers. (bolded for emphasis)

I'm not really sure what to say here, I don't really understand what this system would really do, or really what you're getting at - sorry.

Actually I think we're on a similar track here - see the bolded part above.

I'm not overly willing to accept the status quo here while listening to bizarre or misguided generalities about parents, decline of morals, or the evils of testing, though. This, I think, is the ultimate downfall of NCLB: it gives too much opportunity to scapegoat the program, rather than examining the glaring inefficiencies and outdated methods of many schools.

Let me try to explain this point:


"Would you set up a system that prevented administrators from telling teachers how to resolve the issues that parents had complained about?"

I agree that it was pretty unclear. Every once and a while, my state will try to pass a law allowing teachers to do something as basic as refuse to change a grade at the direction of the administration, but oftentimes, by the time the law is actually passed, it keeps the original language, but allows administrators just to go in and changed the grade themselves. This seems terrible to me. On some level teachers need protection from being undermined by administrators. (It happens with discipline too. Although there may be guidelines about how teachers handle issues, administrators often kick the issues back to the teachers to address. Or if the parent complains, the administrators will elect to tell the teacher just to let it go completely.)

Viewed from another angle though, isn't it the natural order of organizations that those higher up can review and change the decisions of people lower than they are? So restrictions about what administrators can do are contrary to most understandings of management.

But unlike the private sector where those higher up still remain accountable for the success of projects or work, success in education isn't as easy to define. (A teacher might say academic quality is success; a parent might say
a passage grade, earned or not, is success.)

And in a way particular, it seems to me to education, the damage that bad administrative decisions create is rarely visited back on the administrator in any way. Teachers and students have to live with the results. Administrators, although they may have more people to account to informally, are probably held even less accountable for student results than teachers are.

On some level, and I think it often comes with unions, teachers need a way to say no to bad decisions and directions if they ultimately will be "accountable" for the students learning. And yet, unions do as much to hinder educational improvement as any force in the equation.

I'm not interested in the status quo, but I want to suggest that newer rather than the most traditional methods are among the worst problems with education. If anything a central problem with education and a big contributor to its ineffectiveness and inefficiency is the damned trendiness of the efforts at reform.

I am glad you brought this up 1908. I am a 3rd year teacher and from what I have seen, many new teachers are given lower level students along with ESL students. About 30% of my students are ESL and this is their first year taking any type of standardized test. They do not perform on grade level and I don't expect them to considering they have not yet mastered the language.

Agree completely.

I think bad teachers do scapegoat bad parents, but I still think bad parenting is where it starts. You're right, other sources have as much or more influence, and my response would be, how does that happen? My parents simply wouldn't allow me to get tangled up with bad influences within my peer group. Parents aren't helpless when it comes to what influences their children. They probably do seek out other influences, especially when their parents are completely irresponsible and never around.

Bad teachers or the system?

Both.

In general, students in the College of Education at most/all Universities are among the weakest, entering with low ACTs, SATs, and GPAs. The College of Education often accepts weakies who flunk out of the top-line departments. This has been the case forever.

In many states, a system of lesser colleges (often called State Teachers Colleges in the past) with big and weak Education Depts. developed. In the south, the separate (but never equal) black colleges produced teachers by the thousands.

Today - we've got tons of poor teachers, further handicapped by a strong union. (I'd say this is proved by the private schools {all non-union} which hire and retain good teachers, even with lower salaries)

The system also sux. The unions are in control, and always seeking higher pay, smaller class sizes, and less accountability.

As education spending rocketed up, some controls were needed, and NCLB was passed (Bush and Kennedy were the leaders on NCLB). If all this money was being spent, some evaluations and testing were needed to learn if the money was being well spent.

The system needs some changes, and vouchers are worth trying. Give the parents some control (the money) and most of them will choose to use their voucher to pick a quality school.

There's a newspaper article this week, telling about an autoshop teacher who has some very devoted students, who want to work extra and learn more - and many of these kids struggle in other classes.

Another article tells about the NYC HS for Accounting and Food Studies, and the young chefs there who love it and have a good career ahead of them. NYC also has a HS for future "sports professionals", not learning to play but learning to lead athletic ventures.

If parents had control with vouchers, they would use them to put their kids into schools that the kids like and enjoy.

Most drop out, I think, say school is boring.

Vouchers are worth trying. The existing system isn't working.