UnderGround Forums
 

AcademicGround >> NCLB Answer to Cajones


4/25/06 4:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
eabeam
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Apr-06 04:47 PM
Member Since: 08/28/2001
Posts: 1683
 
I was not able to respond on your thread... Here is my response. I just wrote a post last night that disappeared. From a district administrator standpoint... NCLB is too large a varied to provide a blanket opinion. For example, the subgroup tracking is a good thing. It has motivated districts to focus effort and resources to populations that it would otherwise neglect. Same thing for test participation, before they mandated a minimum percentage of participation, there were districts in Texas that suspended or expelled all of their problem kids so that their test scores would not be counted. Then, there are some fundamentally stupid issues. Take the concept of 3%. This is how many students you are allowed to alternatively test. (Think special ed) Remember that disabled kids, including the ones in diapers that cannot speak, are in the school district until the age of 22. If you look at an IQ bell curve, 2.2% of the population has an IQ of 70 or below... Mentally Retarded. When you consider that this is an average, meaning that some districts will have variance more or less than 2.2% Mentally Retarded kids + the fact that Mentally Retarded kids stay in districts at least 4 years longer - giving them a higher representation in a school's population than the national mean... many districts will be expected to have Mentally Retarded kids test at the diploma-bound proficiency level under NCLB. Luckily, this provision is not being fully enforced yet. Who wants to bet that this won't be addressed/publicized until after Bush is out of office? There is much, much more on both sides...
4/25/06 10:12 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Apr-06
Member Since: 10/11/2005
Posts: 849
My response never showed, either, but the post count did go up. I think a bluenamer needs to post to get it back on track.
4/28/06 4:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
eabeam
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Apr-06
Member Since: 08/28/2001
Posts: 1691
Not really, most IEPs commit students to lowered expectations. If too many IEPs are directing kids in the other direction, that is the problem right there. With the exception of severe disabilities, IEP's are suppossed to find the best way to get a child to diploma proficiency. They should change the path, not the destination. There mere fact that people believe that an Individualized Education Program is suppossed to direct students in the opposite direction proves the need to track this subgoups learning outcomes. An IEP should only be directing a small percentage of students away from diploma bound curriculum. In theory, this would be the 3% that can pass an alternative standard -- which I have already slammed as bad. Of course this is district to district, state to state... when I moved from Boston to California --- I had to force myself to forget best practice and remember what we were taught in history class. (I estimate that California is about 10 years behind Mass.) Example#1 - the first year that the California High School Exit Examination was suppossed to be in effect. I saw a three-fold improvement in sped learning outcomes compared other years. The only difference? The expectation was raised. Example #2 - ESL - (My anecdotal observations) Many ESL programs are a mix of either very devoted, quality teachers who treat ESL as a calling - or - some of the most substandard English teachers that babysit more than they teach. NCLB motivates the district to try to promote more of the quality teachers in this area versus the weaker ones.
5/1/06 1:00 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
eabeam
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-May-06
Member Since: 08/28/2001
Posts: 1694
That was just an example of one of the things written in the law that defy logic. I was just pulling out one example where I have seen a positive student outcome and one specific example where you scratch your head and wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?" If you re-read my posts, remember this quote from Clerks... "I was making a broad generalization." "You were making a gerneralization about broads."
5/20/06 12:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
eabeam
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-May-06 04:49 PM
Member Since: 08/28/2001
Posts: 1838
Actually, I am experiencing a Huge negative effect in my district. My district just opened over $750,000 (salary only, not including benefits) of district positions that deal mostly with NCLB-type support. (qualification tracking, special groups data reporting, general bureaucracy). However, I only got about $200,000 for direct service providers. My growth may seem a lot, but my district has grown from 16,000 to 25,000 students in 7 years. So my "growth" positions equal worse caseloads. Mostly due to NCLB, bureaucracy is outspending direct service provision almost 4 to 1 at the district level.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.