Matt Damon's speech to teachers

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by *winter*

What is it all for...what it is all proving? That schools are failing? We already knew that.

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.

[*winter*]

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!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

[AXOmom]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

[Educatingblue]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.