Yep...NCLB is a really, really poorly executed plan that has not helped many in the past ten years. Now states are spending thousands of dollars investigating cheating scandals over standardized testing. What is it all for...what it is all proving? That schools are failing? We already knew that.

Again, fallacious logic - those aren't the only two options.

As noted multiple times here, post-secondary (essentially opt-in) education is a different ball of wax. Expectations, outcome, etc. are all massively different.

I know you know this, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.

Ahhhhhhhhh. :p

I want to say irony isn't the right word, but perhaps it really is.

If we hadn't identified and imposed requirements on failing schools, they would have done nothing more than maintained the status quo (or slid further). Now, they're being forced to change. That they bitch and moan about it is not really shocking.

NCLB has also inspired quite a bit of innovation. In Oklahoma, we're working on testing programs which, especially in the primary ed levels, test kids constantly during the year. Problem teachers/students/districts can be identified basically in real-time.

In OKC public schools, they're now trying all kinds of things to get back on track. Some of our inner-city schools have had new principals take over who were told to clean house. We've had mass resignations of teachers these principals identified as not being part of the solution. We'll see if that produces results, but at least we're doing something--and like it or not, none of this would have happened without NCLB.

That is great for OK...but here the same schools that were failing in 1993, when I was a freshman...are still failing. Honestly...there are people manipulating the data/testing so the schools can pass, otherwise they will never make any progress. That is disturbing.

In certain cities the dropout rate is 45% or higher...grads are barely literate and ill-prepared for the real world. So it's safe to say there are still schools that are passig kids through...

I respect the idea behid NCLB, because it addresses a huge problem that had been swept under the rug for many years. However I've not heard much positive about it from teachers who are in the front line in education. That bothers me- if teachers feel it isn't effective, someone needs to be listening to them!

The point you're not getting is that NCLB is an EXTREMELY narrow way of evaluating things. Just because someone does lousy on standardized tests doesn't make them a "problem student." It means they're bad at that kind of test. On the other side of the coin, there are people who can breeze through those tests and take home straight Fs - or who can memorize answers to the tests. There are no checks and balances.

These people do exist - and you're correct that testing only shows who can pass a test, and that other forms of interpretation/application are a MUCH higher-level skill than simply responding to questions.

However, these people are NOT the norm - in fact, they're an extreme minority. The overwhelming majority of people who do poorly on a test have poor understanding of the subject material.

NCLB sucks in its implementation more than its concept.

I agree completely with you, though, that NCLB is narrow - there are many things it could do to obviate some of the "bad test taker" concerns (untimed tests would be one, and making testing less formal another, among easy things that we've known about for decades) but instead, it just sort of pukes on itself.

Agree with all of the above.

I can't speak for every state, but the test our state uses (OAKS) for NCLB isn't timed, students are allowed a break whenever they need it or the tester thinks they need it, they can be tested alone, in small groups, or large groups, and there are a host of other accomodations (for instance, in some cases the tester can read the questions and answers fro the math and science portion to the students, and they can have them read the reading sections out loud).

Some kids will get stressed no matter what you do, and some will never test well, but I think our state made every effort to alleviate that issue. On the other hand, the legislature voted in the middle of October (when most schools were doing the first round of testing) to raise the score required to pass the math portion by 7 points which was a big jump. They didn't give the districts, schools, or teachers any time to prepare for that change. I oversee state testing at the charter school where I currently work. We are required by state law to show that our students are performing better than the students in our district (I believer we have to show that 80% pass or exceed) or we are out of business. It led to a pretty stressful situation for everyone.

I do have other issues with how state tests are sometimes used (for instance, I'm not sure this is still the case, but when I taught in Washington, they were moving towards making the state test a requirement for graduation. I think they've backed off on that, but I'm not sure). To make matters worse, at the time, they had no Plan B for special education students. The state made it clear they were just going to wait for a lawsuit which they knew would happen at some point and then deal with it.

I think my biggest problem is that evidence of a successful education isn't always shown in test scores that occur immediately in high school. It's shown in an ability to handle college, or manage your finances, or have an ability to manage your time well. To having a balance to social and work life as well as finding hobbies and other areas that interest you. There's a reason that better schools with higher achieving students often times have the money to give to extra activities and more creative ventures. These students have most likely started in strong elementary schools and worked their way up so they can more effectively manage their money rather than focusing just on brining up test scores as well as most likely living in areas of higher tax income where the local town can support the educational system better, plus having more involved parents and kids who don't need to start working the minute they can to help support the family, or need to come home right after school to baby sit.

Testing is just a way to ignore these massive structural issues and in some situations, blame the teachers for the issue. Are there bad teachers, sure, but there are bad doctors and lawyer etc etc, that's no reason to knock an entire profession. More than anything I've seen teachers be beat down to the point where they've given up. The City of Detroit just cut salaries where teachers could be making only 24,000 a year. Why would intelligent, driven and ambitious people be attracted to a career where they are not allowed a say in their style of teaching or even their appreciation.

I think this could be highly effective IF implemented with the right leadership. I have seen principals who give bad final evaluations because they don't like a certain teacher even if they made growth. This makes it easy in some states to fire teachers over petty issues rather than their ability to effectively teach their class.

This isn't a response about qualification, but I think local governments are at least more responsive and aware of the pressing issues in their communities. I also think officials are more invested in the results. The accountability for problem solving is pretty diffused when you get to the federal level.

I don't have a big problem with national standards or national assessments, but I'd generally like the federal government to deal with things that only the federal level can handle. Education isn't one of those things.

The decisions for how the plan would be implemented were up to the states. I always thought it was delusional to say that every kid could be on grade level by a certain date, but a lot of what NCLB is blamed for has to do with implementation and the response of local districts to being held accountable. They elected to game the system rather than focus on real instruction.

(I'm not saying that bad tests scores are an instructional failure or that that kids' homes and parental expectations don't matter. But when the districts decided the games they would play, those games weren't required by NCLB.)

Finally, the NAEP actually does show some progress from the years of NCLB particularly with subgroup performance. Sure, it's a standardized test, but when you talk about educational outcomes, we don't maintain a whole lot of other data to evaluate the entire country at once. If we have evidence that kids are reading better than before NCLB, for example, I'd say we might have actually improved real student achievement.

ETA: someone mentioned having doubt about NCLB because teachers didn't like it. Well most people would prefer to use their own measures than embrace being judged from the outside. I think that's a pretty natural response but it doesn't mean that much objectively.

The real risks to individual teachers from NCLB itself are pretty low unless your district or principal is crazy (in which case, again, NCLB itself isn't really the problem.)

This are the problems I have though. First, while I can agree that local officials may be more likely to be responsive to pressing local issues, those local issues can be quite narrow -- things like school assignment, teaching sex ed and the like. And second, the day is long gone when communities were by and large educating the people who were going to stay in that community and live and work in the community. The people who will one day be working and contributing to community life where I live are now being educated all over the country. We all have a stake in education nationally. So maybe things like minimum standards is something only the federal government can handle.

That said, I still think a straw man is being beaten up here. The vast majority of real decisions about education are still made at the state and local level, including, as you say, how to implement NCLB. The only substantive federal involvement is standards and assessment. The issue, as I see it, is whether the assessments are working the way they should and measuring what they should.

I don't know why everybody thinks the schools and the teachers have ANYTHING to do with why certain cities have a lot of students who are failing. I would hazard a guess that the teachers in the Detroit Public Schools primarily went to Eastern Michigan and Michigan State, just like in every other district in Michigan. I would hazard a guess that most of these teachers had essentially the same education. I know that they have all the same requirements to maintain their certification.

The difference between successful school districts and failing school districts is about:
a) Whether the families in those districts value education, make sure their students attend school every day and do their homework, and work with them to get that done
b) Whether those students live on the streets or in homes, whether the homes they live in have electricity, heat and water or not, whether those students have meals on the table
c) Whether students see any value in getting an education
d) Whether students even feel safe in school, or in their homes and neighborhoods

It's pretty clear that there are students who excel and go forward to do great things, even from the worst performing schools. Those students are getting what they need from someone... a mentor, a parent, a relative.. somebody. Somebody is taking care of those kids and somebody is doing something to help them see that getting a good education is important.

Schools aren't failing. Society is.

There are great teachers who change a kid's life and there are teachers who just phone it in. I want a way to distinguish between the two and I think measuring outcome is the best way to do it.

But I also agree that you can't pin the failures of Timmy's last three teachers on this year's teacher. If he didn't master addition and subration in K-2, there's no way he's gonna grasp multiplication in 3rd grade no matter how dedicated that teacher is. So instead of basing success/failure on the raw score of today's test, why can't we base it on the amount of progress he has demonstrated since last year's test? I read about a school district in southern California who was doing that and I love the idea. Then even if Timmy is not up to grade level on his math skills, Miss Landers is still rewarded for helping him master the basics that he missed before.