Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
