Bad teachers or the system

[ASUADPi]

The problem is with the sped students and why the parents are suing, is because their child won't ever pass AIMS but their child has acheived their goals set forth on their IEP. The IEP is a federal document, so the parents don't understand, which I completely agree with, why their child, who is special needs has successful completed their goals but won't be able to recieve their diploma because they can't pass AIMS. It's not fair to those kids.

I don't know enough about funding so I'm not even going to hazard a guess about funding

That's totally fine that you don't agree with my analogy of the 4.0 kid, but I can say, from my personal experience, that when I was in high school I had about a 3.5 and I don't standardize test well. Giving me a math test and saying you have 40 problems and 30 minutes to finish, I can't do it. I can't do it.

And that is how AIMS is, the writing is untimed (but basically the writing portion has to be completed in the school day so it's "timed" in that aspect). But the reading and math portions are timed.

What's worse is that in 08 the kids get tested in science and 09 in social studies. I can say from teaching and talking to teachers at my school, the kids AREN'T learning the science and social studies required by the state's standard (which is what the AIMS test will cover). There isn't enough hours in the day.

There has been this huge push for reading, writing and math and now they are realizing "oops science and social studies are floundering, let's test them on it" but we don't have the time to teach it.

Let me give y'all an example of my day:

8:15-10:45 Voyager, which is the current adopted reading/writing curriculum
10:50-11:20 Lunch
11:30-12:15 DLT (this is the differentiated instruction time that the office of
civil right is demanding that we give to to children labeled
ELL. It is a crock of crap and basically we are losing 45
minutes of instructional time)
12:20-12:55 Math
1:00-1:30 specials
1:34-2:00 review, clean up, pack up, home

I was using that 45 minutes that was taken away from us for science and socials studies and so were my coworkers. But since the stupid office of civil rights (did I mention that we are SEGREGATING these children from their first grade peers) has demanded we do this, we have lost the ability to teach the science and social studies standards.

My kids will not be ready to take science and social studies when they get to 3rd grade. Yes, they have learned some science and social studies but nothing based on the AZ standards. Yet, they will be expected to pass it.

Doesn't seem quite fair does it?

Every day my job is hard. Every school year the state or the federal government makes it 10 times harder with their mandates.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

That's totally fine that you don't agree with my analogy of the 4.0 kid, but I can say, from my personal experience, that when I was in high school I had about a 3.5 and I don't standardize test well. Giving me a math test and saying you have 40 problems and 30 minutes to finish, I can't do it. I can't do it.

You should not have gotten a B in math, then - this means your 3.5 should have come from other areas, which is fine.

You're chicken-and-egg'ing the problem here - 'you don't test well' usually means "you're bad at one area" (which is fine, but should be reflected in the test) or "you read/analyze slowly" which is ALSO a measure of aptitude.

I'll go back and address some others when I'm not in the middle of the war room, but one last thing: if you actually think Carnation's analogy holds ANY water, you're way out of touch with reality.

[AGDee]

I don't think she is saying that she's unable to finish 40 problems in 30 minutes. I think she means that when she knows she's being timed, she goes into test panic mode and can't do it, but she can confirm or deny that herself.

When you say that reading and analyzing slowly is a measure of aptitude, you are exactly making our point. Aptitude is capacity to learn. A teacher cannot change a child's aptitude. Some of it is genetic, some of it is environmental and some of it could be related to a disability. The NCLB doesn't allow for these differences. All teachers are supposed to get all children up to an identical level regardless of their aptitude.

ETA: We had at least one district in Michigan who did not meet their AYP last year because to meet the AYP, they have to show improvement. If you have 98% of the kids in your district already meeting the standard, it's nearly impossible to increase that number because of the ELL and sped kids who cannot do any better no matter what.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

ETA: We had at least one district in Michigan who did not meet their AYP last year because to meet the AYP, they have to show improvement. If you have 98% of the kids in your district already meeting the standard, it's nearly impossible to increase that number because of the ELL and sped kids who cannot do any better no matter what.

It's possible that this district didn't make enough progress with their ELL and special education students because sub groups do count. (If all groups had to be at 75% passing, and the ELL kids weren't, the district could fail.)

However, it's completely false that your overall rate has to go up each year. If your passing rate remains above the increasing required pass rates in all areas, you will be fine. A district at 98% in all its subgroups won't be "needs improvement" until the very end of the increases: it could not have failed to AYP in the past for this reason.

I think this is another case where what's getting said about NCLB and what actually happened don't match.

ETA: Carnation, I agree that we won't ever have all the kids at grade level if we define grade level accurately, at least. But I think we could be doing better than we have been if we focus on well defined academic goals; we embrace methods related to achieving those goals; and we don't let other educrap get in the way. (I mean this in on a systemic level, not that you, your husband, or any other particular person could have done more.)

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't think she is saying that she's unable to finish 40 problems in 30 minutes. I think she means that when she knows she's being timed, she goes into test panic mode and can't do it, but she can confirm or deny that herself.

Originally Posted by phimuteach

Not necessarily true. "You don't test well" can oftentimes mean you get nervous under the pressure or don't respond well to the conditions under which the test is given. Environment and comfortability play a bigger part than you may realize.

Thank you for understanding what I meant

That was exactly my problem in school. It wasn't that I didn't know the stuff, but when I was told that I only had 30 minutes to do 40 problems (which is less than a minute a problem), I would freak out. Mentally, I would realize that I had less than a minute to get each problem done.

Kids psych themselves out.

[UGAalum94]

But would you say that kids who feel pressure should just be allowed to opt out of standardized tests?

(Even with the graduation test that I know of kids have multiple chances to pass, so even though passing the test is necessary to graduate, they could avoid being totally freaked out at any one administration.)

Don't you agree that some schools give passing grades to almost anyone enrolled? (and in Georgia with the HOPE grant, the pressure may be one to give Bs, rather than just passing grades)?

If schools are passing kids who haven't learned stuff, how would you measure what they actually learned if not with standardized tests?

[carnation]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'll go back and address some others when I'm not in the middle of the war room, but one last thing: if you actually think Carnation's analogy holds ANY water, you're way out of touch with reality.

Oh it holds water, all right! I'll try to put some more versions of NCLB on here--I'll look on my old staff emails later. The point of all of them is....NCLB is unachievable. I don't know a teacher or administrator who thinks it is, although heaven knows we keep trying.

I wish it were achievable. I've taught since 1974, my husband has since 1972, and heaven knows how we've knocked ourselves out going the extra mile for hundreds of kids. We've spent so much of our own money, tutored kids at our house for free, I could go on and on, but until we get to heaven we'll never be in a perfect world and anyone who thinks that all children will achieve a certain standard is a dreamer or insane.

[Phimuteach]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You should not have gotten a B in math, then - this means your 3.5 should have come from other areas, which is fine.

You're chicken-and-egg'ing the problem here - 'you don't test well' usually means "you're bad at one area" (which is fine, but should be reflected in the test) or "you read/analyze slowly" which is ALSO a measure of aptitude.

Not necessarily true. "You don't test well" can oftentimes mean you get nervous under the pressure or don't respond well to the conditions under which the test is given. Environment and comfortability play a bigger part than you may realize.