No Child Left Behind working?

[lookout123]

The Economist

I saw a headline that test scores were improving a few days or a week ago, but didn't pay much attention. The writers at The Economist apparently were. I've heard absolutely nothing positive about NCLB from teachers - my sister included. But the writer of this article thinks it actually may be working.

[Skunks]

I would counter that test scores are not indicative of any actual improvement on the part of children, except at taking tests; or, at least, that there is little connection between their scores and their long-term success in fields other than test-taking.

But I suppose that's basically the problem with NCLB. That, and the extra requirements (funding not included). (I think?)

..

I ran across <a href="http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/7lesson.htm">an excerpt</a> from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865714487/102-3919712-6517746">a book by John Gatto, <i>Dumbing Us Down</i></a>, a while back. I've been dying to read it ever since: this country's shitty excuse for public education strikes me as a particularly important topic, in spite of (in fact, maybe even because of) how often it is overshadowed by bombs, turbans, guns, and dying children.

[wolf]

Are the teachers just teaching to the test?

You end up with good results, but poor critical thinkers.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by wolf

Are the teachers just teaching to the test?

Yes, even the good ones. It's a function of necessity - you only have so much time in the day, and the stakes for getting good scores are so high, that even the best teachers have to take months out of the year to teach specifically to the test.

That's a big part of the reason why my wife refuses to work in the public school system. She's an incredible teacher, creative, innovative, connects with kids, parents fight to get into her class, the next year's teachers fight to get her kids.

Her private school switched over to a standardized test for about two years, and she nearly quit out of frustration. She went from teaching students and developing kids to churning out test scores. It's awful.

-sm

[lookout123]

what is a fair way to judge the progress of an education? the teachers i worked with before deciding teaching wasn't for me gave their lessons, gave some tests, but freely admitted that none of it mattered because they couldn't hold a student back even if they didn't learn thing all year.
we live in a society where it considered harmful to the child's selfesteem if we hold them back.

the private school my son attends tests the heck out of the kids - not one begi standardized test, but throughout the year scores are tracked. the teachers' income and job security is based upon their ability to teach kids the subject matter. market forces are brutal, but it means that an imcompetent teacher isn't going to spend too many years there.

is that the answer? it works for this school, but would it become just another game at a national level? what can be done to A) give a higher quality education B) not eliminate critical thinking?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Her private school switched over to a standardized test for about two years, and she nearly quit out of frustration. She went from teaching students and developing kids to churning out test scores. It's awful.

See, but here's what I don't get. (No offense to your wife.) If this is really such a bright group of kids, they shouldn't have any problem with the content on standardized tests. I'm young enough to clearly remember those, and they were fuckin' easy.

There were teachers who would teach the test for about six weeks beforehand (boredboredboredbored), and there were teachers who didn't do a thing about it except warn us the night before to get a good night's sleep. Either way, the class seemed to do about the same. The only place "teaching the test" is even effective is when you have a whole class of remedial kids who all will fail unless they learn better test-taking skills.

Originally Posted by lookout123

what is a fair way to judge the progress of an education?

I have to agree with Clodfobble. The best teachers just teach the subject, and don't worry about teaching to the test. Those standardized tests were around way back in the stone ages when I was still a kid. The teacher would tell us that we were going to have a standardized test that wouldn't effect our grade and to do our best on it. I actually sort of liked taking them since the pressure was off about a grade and they were a break in the routine.

Originally Posted by lookout123

the private school my son attends tests the heck out of the kids - not one begi standardized test, but throughout the year scores are tracked. the teachers' income and job security is based upon their ability to teach kids the subject matter. market forces are brutal, but it means that an imcompetent teacher isn't going to spend too many years there.

is that the answer? it works for this school, but would it become just another game at a national level? what can be done to A) give a higher quality education B) not eliminate critical thinking?

I think too many standardized tests throughout the year take away from time that could be spent learning. Making such testing mandatory on a national level would not be something I'd favor.

We will get a higher quality of education in this country when this country begins to respect education. Right now it doesn't. Teaching is a low paying profession because we don't respect the work that teachers do. Schools need to be equally funded across the board.

WARNING: Marichiko is now going to climb up on her soap box:

As with any country, America's greatest resource is her people. The US cannot afford to continue with what amounts to a policy of complacency and indifference regarding the education and well-being of its young.
In the January/Feburary Atlantic Monthly, Stephen S. Cohen and J. Bradford DeLong discuss current global economic trends and the implications of these trends for workers in the United States. Cohen and Delong note that workers will have to better educated than ever before if the US is to retain its current level of economic prosperity. White collar workers will be competing with workers who will do the same job for a tenth of the pay in countries like India. At the minimum, an education at a state University will be crucial in order to hang on to a white collar job in this country in the coming years.

In a less complex world, Abe Lincoln could study a book by firelight and rise to become President of the United States. Now, Lincoln would be lucky to have a career as a bus boy with such a background.

In today's United States, while all men may be created equal, they are not raised equal. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, more than one third of children in the US currently live in poverty, and 45 percent of kindergartners live in low-income families.

The pattern of academic test scores is striking and consistent: children in families whose incomes fall below 200 percent of Federal poverty lines are well below average on their reading, math, and general knowledge test scores compared to the well-above-average scores of children living in families with incomes over 300 percent of Federal poverty lines ($55,200 for a family of four). Only 16 percent of the children in officially poor families but 50 percent of the children from the most affluent families scored in the same upper range.

Schools with high proportions of low-income children have higher numbers of inexperienced teachers, fewer computers, less Internet access, and larger class sizes than schools with lower proportions of low-income children. Thus, the children who stand to gain the most from quality schools often do not have access to them. Source

Our children are our future, and this country is throwing a significant part of its future away. If the future global economy will favor those with an education from MIT, it will delegate to the human refuse pile those who have a high school diploma from an inner city school in the Bronx or a poor rural area in far western Colorado.

A recent survey of western nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows the US lagging number 16 in place for social spending on its children. We take top honors, however, among industrialized nations for the percentage of our children living in poverty. Even the children of Spain and strife torn Ireland are better off than those living in the US.

We are on a direct collision course for economic disaster. It would require no revolution to avoid it. Here is a direct quote from the above study, "The other 15 countries in the OECD survey face similar global conditions with respect to trade, investment, technology, the environment, and other factors that shape economic opportunities. The paucity of social expenditures addressing high poverty rates in the United States is not due to a lack of resources — high per capita income and high productivity make it possible for the United States to afford much greater social welfare spending. Moreover, other OECD countries that spend more on both poverty reduction and family-friendly policies have done so while maintaining competitive rates of productivity and income growth."

If we allow the current shortsighted policies on the part of the US toward our own to continue, we and our children will pay an increasingly stiff price. I hope that for the sake of our people, our nation will finally wake up before it's too late.

[russotto]

Alternative theory: Stupid people don't make much money. Stupid people tend to have stupid kids.

As for social welfare spending: No, throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it. Specifically, taking more of the money from those who have had some success and tossing it into systems which can absorb arbitrary amounts of money without improving is going to make things worse, not better.

Originally Posted by russotto

Alternative theory: Stupid people don't make much money. Stupid people tend to have stupid kids.

As for social welfare spending: No, throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it. Specifically, taking more of the money from those who have had some success and tossing it into systems which can absorb arbitrary amounts of money without improving is going to make things worse, not better.

That's what I like, a logical, well thought out response. You and your highly intelligent children deserve the society that you will reap. Be sure you don't throw any money at their college education. Don't throw money at your or their medical care, either. Oh, and I wouldn't throw any money at savings or investments or a retirement plan, either. The military? Nah, lets not throw money at defense. Tell you what, just keep all your cash under your mattress in your gated community that you won't throw any money at for roads or police or fire protection. And make sure not to throw any money at the upkeep of your home. Wouldn't want to squander a penny, now would we?

If you'll excuse me now, I'll just stumble off somewhere in awe of your laser-like intelligence.

[Clodfobble]

Wow, Mari, you're really on the warpath today. Most of those things (russotto's kids' college education, medical care, their savings or investments or a retirement plan) do not fall into the category of "systems which can absorb arbitrary amounts of money without improving."

The only one you listed that might fit that category is the military, and who the hell's talking about the military here? We're talking about whether "high per capita income and high productivity make it possible for the United States to afford much greater social welfare spending."

Historically, we don't spend as much on welfare spending as other countries because we don't think it's a good idea. It's far from a documented fact that all our problems would just disappear if we threw more money at the problem. How can the D.C. school district be the lowest-performing and the most highly-funded if that's the case?

And this is just sentimental nonsense:

In a less complex world, Abe Lincoln could study a book by firelight and rise to become President of the United States. Now, Lincoln would be lucky to have a career as a bus boy with such a background.

First of all, Abe Lincoln did more than study a book by firelight. He started business after business, failing at most of them, being relatively poor for a lot of those years. Bus boys don't start their own businesses, or they don't stay bus boys for long. Abe Lincoln was successful because he was determined to be, not because social welfare spending was somehow higher back in his day (far, far from it.)

If the future global economy will favor those with an education from MIT, it will delegate to the human refuse pile those who have a high school diploma from an inner city school in the Bronx or a poor rural area in far western Colorado.

The past global economy favored those with an education from MIT, too. Your homilies break down your credibility, mari. (And though you may not think it, you do have credibility with me in many areas.) The human refuse pile? Where, pray tell, is that? I can only guess that you must mean that those with just a high school diploma will have to work a lower-paid job. Well, duh. The man from MIT is designing nanotechnology to cure cancer, the high-school graduate isn't capable of that. He's not going to get paid the same.

Unless! he has studied hard all through high school, despite the fact that his school was crappy, and he is able to get into a college--probably not MIT, but better than a community college--on a scholarship which he will most certainly qualify for, and he perhaps will have the ability to become a technician for that MIT guy one day... and here's the important part: his children will be in a better position because of it. They won't have to go to that crappy school, they'll move to a better neighborhood and go to a better school, and maybe get into MIT. It almost always takes more than a generation to be extremely successful, just like it takes more than a generation to find oneself squarely in poverty.

Here's the thing: I would like to know how many people today who make, say, over $300,000, had grandparents who made an equivalent sum of money in their time. I would guess (though I don't know) that many if not most of them did not.

[lookout123]

I do not make $300,000. i do however make more in a month than my grandfather made in the best year of his career. i make more in 4 months than my father made in the best year of his career.
yes, adjusted for inflation.
it isn't because i am smarter, that much is certain. it takes time to move up and change is incremental.

my grandfather had an 8th grade education when he went into the navy. after WWII he was a carpenter. he owned his own businesses - some succeeded, some failed but he always kept going. he helped 2 of his 4 daughters through college - they both have been very successful. his son followed him into the navy and then business and has become a multimillionaire through hard work and perseverence. their kids are all off to a much better start than their parents were.

my mother married my father right out of high school and dad took the factory route - which was a huge step-up from his father's past. he busted his ass and instilled in us that only education + determination can get you anywhere - if you are missing either one... things get harder. i went into the USAF to pay for school, and i've got a fairly successful career. my son is having opportunities that i was never afforded - but most importantly he is learning the same lessons we were taught education + determination are required.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Wow, Mari, you're really on the warpath today. Most of those things (russotto's kids' college education, medical care, their savings or investments or a retirement plan) do not fall into the category of "systems which can absorb arbitrary amounts of money without improving."

A college education does NOT fall into this catagory while a primary school education does?

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The only one you listed that might fit that category is the military, and who the hell's talking about the military here? We're talking about whether "high per capita income and high productivity make it possible for the United States to afford much greater social welfare spending."

Well, I'm glad you, at least, are addressing my point. That long litany of mine was my way of expressing how weary I am of conservatives calling any expenditure they don't approve of "throwing money at it." "Throwing money at it" has becme the lazy conservative's way out of any debate

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Historically, we don't spend as much on welfare spending as other countries because we don't think it's a good idea. It's far from a documented fact that all our problems would just disappear if we threw more money at the problem. How can the D.C. school district be the lowest-performing and the most highly-funded if that's the case?

I never said all our problems would disappear if we invested in the education of our young. I said such an investment would place us in a more competitive position in the coming global economy.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And this is just sentimental nonsense:



First of all, Abe Lincoln did more than study a book by firelight. He started business after business, failing at most of them, being relatively poor for a lot of those years. Bus boys don't start their own businesses, or they don't stay bus boys for long. Abe Lincoln was successful because he was determined to be, not because social welfare spending was somehow higher back in his day (far, far from it.)

I never said social welfare spending was higher in Lincoln's day. My point was that the US of Lincoln's time was a far less complex era. People could get away with being relatively uneducated and still make a go of it. Someone could come from a simple backwoods education and still rise to be president - THEN. Today's society with its technology and competition requires a better education for a person to be successful (Yes, I know there are the occasional individual exceptions, but I'm talking about the country as a whole).

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The past global economy favored those with an education from MIT, too. Your homilies break down your credibility, mari. (And though you may not think it, you do have credibility with me in many areas.) The human refuse pile? Where, pray tell, is that? I can only guess that you must mean that those with just a high school diploma will have to work a lower-paid job. Well, duh. The man from MIT is designing nanotechnology to cure cancer, the high-school graduate isn't capable of that. He's not going to get paid the same.

An education from MIT was ALWAYS a good thing. Never said otherwise. My comments about graduates from high schools that provide a lower quality of training and preparation refer back to the Atlantic Monthly article I quoted. If global competition means that a minimum of a degree from a state university will be required, what is going to happen to kids who are forced to attend under funded inner city or rural schools? They will NOT be competitive and it won't necessarily be through any fault of their own. Of course, a college grad should be paid more than a high school grad. You are missing my point which was that all children should have the chance to attend schools that will equally give them the opportunity to be accepted into university programs if they have the desire, drive, and intelligence to attend. Right now, our schooling that we offer our children is not equal.

If you had bothered to look properly at what I wrote, I cited the work and conclusions of several people. If you wish to feel that the authors of the Atlantic Monthly article and the other sources I cited have no credibility, that's your free choice.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Unless! he has studied hard all through high school, despite the fact that his school was crappy, and he is able to get into a college--probably not MIT, but better than a community college--on a scholarship which he will most certainly qualify for, and he perhaps will have the ability to become a technician for that MIT guy one day... and here's the important part: his children will be in a better position because of it. They won't have to go to that crappy school, they'll move to a better neighborhood and go to a better school, and maybe get into MIT. It almost always takes more than a generation to be extremely successful, just like it takes more than a generation to find oneself squarely in poverty.

Why should ANY child in this wealthy country have to attend a "crappy school"? Especially with the coming pressures of a global workforce and economy, isn't it in the best interests of this nation to ensure that our people are as well educated as possible?

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Here's the thing: I would like to know how many people today who make, say, over $300,000, had grandparents who made an equivalent sum of money in their time. I would guess (though I don't know) that many if not most of them did not.

I have no idea. That was not the point I was trying to make. I was talking about maintaining US global competitiveness in the future by ensuring our young get the best possible education.

[wolf]

Mari, I have a question for you ... this time last year you were on welfare, destitute and facing eviction, and going online by stealing time from AOL, and now you have a new SUV and enough cash to get scammed out of it by a con man?

Recent posts have also seemed to indicate the memory loss thing is resolved.

Originally Posted by wolf

Mari, I have a question for you ... this time last year you were on welfare, destitute and facing eviction, and going online by stealing time from AOL, and now you have a new SUV and enough cash to get scammed out of it by a con man?

Recent posts have also seemed to indicate the memory loss thing is resolved.

Its getting better. I'm glad you think so, too. I was never on welfare. I was on SSDI which is for people who have worked and paid into the system. I got a lump sum settlement from SSDI last year which allowed me to buy a new second hand car and get ripped off by the ax murderer. I am now participating in the Ticket to Work Program and getting voc rehab. Thanks for asking.

[lookout123]

People could get away with being relatively uneducated and still make a go of it. Someone could come from a simple backwoods education and still rise to be president - THEN.

in Lincoln's time his WAS a sophisticated education. compared to our expectations he was uneducated, but when compared to his peers, be was a highly educated, learned individual.

you ask about "crappy schools". the thing is that you can never make any two schools exactly similar. if you raise the quality level of all schools (which i support) some schools will still be considered "better" and other will be considered "crappy".

that is my same complaint when people talk about raising minimum wage as a solution to the rich-poor gap. it won't change the gap one bit, it will just make the numbers different.

just as the people who make the least amount of money in a society will be considered the poor, schools who aren't "the best" will be considered "crappy".

the question is how do you make a sufficiently objective decision of what constitutes and acceptable school and what is not?