NCLB Etc.

When, I ask you, are the higher ups going to get off their high horse and do away with the stupid law?

This article caught my attention this morning.

There are a couple of things that really set me off, first and foremost of course, is the money. It's wrong to expect the state and town to come up with the money for something the feds hand down. Take some responsibility for your actions (what am I thinking...responsibility and government don't even belong in the same paragraph). If you can't fund it, kill it.


Something else? If the federal government is the one handing down these silly laws, then why is it up to the state to set the standards which need to be met? I have said before that I don't think the feds should be involved in any form, but, if they have to be, they could at least support and stand behind their initiatives.

Speaking on behalf of my own town, as it stands now, we are only level funded from last year. Last year we were functioning (barely) on a budget that was drastically reduced (as in more than 30 positions cut). So all of the "bad stuff" going on last year will continue this year. Great. It's certainly better than being cut again but still? When are the kids going to get the support they deserve and need? And how the heck are we supposed to come up with the money to fund programs that will help us make AYP and other goals when we can't even hire a librarian to staff the media center in the elementary schools? An override? Maybe but even I don't think that's a good idea. I'd support one again because when faced with no other options what else can you do? The kids shouldn't suffer.

I'm telling you, I'd support and extended school day before I'd support NCLB and federal involvement in education.

Ugh.

Funding Etc.

If you feel that the federal and/or state governments should back out of the education picture entirely, since that doesn't seem to likely to happen, how do you feel the current situations in education should be handled?

For example:

What should be done the many, many requirements through NCLB that must be met and the severe lack of funding to support them?

What should be done to attract quality teachers?

Should "good" teachers be rewarded?

What qualifies as a good teacher?

What about school choice?

Should MCAS be a graduation requirement?



Please remember, the questions are asked in a manner which reflects the current situation. I know that some people will feel that the way to resolve all of it is for the feds and state officials to back out. That's about as likely as a snowballs chance in hell though, so, what can be done to fix things aside from that?

NCLB: My Thoughts

The House Committee on Education and Labor began the hearings this week regarding the re-authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.

There are a few key points that I would like to address.

I am pleased to report that the discussion draft includes a provision that if passed would allow states to use multiple indicators as opposed to a single test for accountability purposes. These indicators include such things like graduation rates, dropout rates, college enrollment rates and the percentages of students who successfully complete end of course exams for college preparatory classes. This has been one of my biggest "beefs" with NCLB. How can one test be the single determinant of accountability? While adding these other indicators to the mix seems to make sense, it does raise the possibility that things such as graduation rates could be inflated by the states to serve the purpose of making Adequate Yearly Progress. The draft also allows for states to get partial credit towards their Annual Measurable Goals for increasing the numbers of students who move from below basic to basic and proficient to advanced.

One of the major concerns I have with the draft is in the area of the testing procedures of English Language Learners. As it stands now, ELL are tested in their native language for up to three years. The new draft increases the length of time to seven years. This means that a student who entered the country in second grade could potentially make it all the way to ninth grade before being tested in English. Three years seems more than enough time for a student to learn the language. One point that I do agree with in this regard is that this draft allows states to exclude the assessments of early ELL (those here for less than one year) when determining AYP.

Under the current law all schools, regardless of their circumstances are treated the same and are subject to the same interventions. The new plan would create two separate improvement systems: one for "Priority Schools" that would include those schools that miss AYP in one or two student groups and need only minor interventions and another for "High Priority Schools" which would include those schools that miss AYP in most, if not all of their student groups and need more substantial assistance. Again this makes sense to me. If one school is doing worse than another, why should they have the same "penalties?"

The draft also calls for bonuses for "excellent teachers." It seems fair to me, but, the question "What is an excellent teacher?" comes to mind. Someone can not claim to be a "good teacher" just because they have a Masters' Degree, appropriate licenses and experience, and while I am big proponent of seniority and the like, it seems to me that things like tenure should be earned, and if it is earned it should not mean lifetime job security if teachers cease being competent.

Anyway, there you have it. It should be interesting to see how this turns out when all is said and done.