Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Questions for the Obama administration

I guess this qualifies as advocacy...

This came across one of my lists, so I thought I would pass it on. Apparently the Obama administration is asking for input through questions and votes/comments on the questions of others. I have no idea how they will use this material--if at all!--but it is another way to put the needs of the GT in the public eye, at least. No loss but a few minutes of my time, I figure. And maybe it will do some good. (She said optimistically...)

http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/

K-

I'm waiting to see Obama's direction for education. He was chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 95-99. A lot of money was used in the Annenberg Challenge , and unfortunately the outcome showed it made no statistical difference. There is always something of value to be learned from a project like that, even if it's just to learn what doesn't work.

I don't know anything about this. Thanks for the link. I'm looking at the reports...

I do wish more people took the time to analyze the dismal flops in life and learn from them. I always tell DS7 and DS4 that you learn nothing by getting things right; it's only from mistakes that you learn.

I think that NCLB taught us that sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing...IMHO.

It looks to me from reading the reports as if it's more complicated than a simple "didn't have an effect." Some of the supports that were assumed at the start of the program were removed by reforms in the middle of the trial. That's bound to screw things up a bit. It also sounds like the goals they set were acknowledged from the start to be pie-in-the-sky impossible. (Of course, I would argue that those are then NOT in fact goals! Goals should be achievable, measurable and desirable. So that's just kind of dumb, I'd say.)

Still, clearly not a raging success!

I do appreciate the fact that they are really analyzing what worked and what didn't. They did not brush this under the rug. The reports are there to be read by anyone, so that's good. The question now is what will we learn from this, from NCLB, from other failed educational reforms. And what will we do with that understanding?

I'd like to see someone clearly define how NCLB has failed.

Well, I guess that's a good question. I'm working from personal knowledge and experience, not from scores or data. (I realize that's flawed, but that's what I'm doing anyway. )

I guess I'd argue that the focus of NCLB on raising the scores at the bottom of the class is not good for kids near the top--not even just GT kids, but anyone achieving above 50%.

I think it encourages mediocrity to base monetary rewards for teachers on scores in the bottom half of the class, especially when raising scores in that half is not always possible or teacher-dependent. You reward people for what they can control. Assuming that teachers have complete control over their students' test scores is patently ridiculous.

I think it's also pretty clear that basing so much on one test places too much emphasis on one day's (or one week's) performance. We know from IQ testing how dangerous that can be. Not to mention how much it leads to teaching to the test and effectively rewarding teachers for taking creativity and problem solving out of the classroom in favor of the "fill them with knowledge" model that just isn't what real learning--real thinking!--is.

I'd prefer that we use a system that rewards teachers for advancing students--all students, those at the top as well as those at the bottom!--for at least a year's worth of progress for every year's worth of school. And I'd like to see other methods for evaluating that progress beyond standardized testing, which is far too simplistic and superficial.

FWIW...

Oh, I so agree, Dottie! That's why I like the "at least one year for one year" model. At the minimum, it begins with the assumption that not all kids are at the same place--nor that they need to be!

Yeah, but see, that's the point--that's NOT supposed to happen in this model. It requires above-level testing (or whatever else) to find where a child is starting the year. They must go up *from there*! Not from grade level, but from where they started the year!

I realize it's kind of pie-in-the sky. But I have heard through the GT grapevine that this system is being experimented with as a corrective to NCLB. I think it shows lots of promise.

I suspect the biggest problem would be what to do with a kid in elementary school who is already at the 12th grade level. Do you require college level work? And once they get past that, do you give them graduate level work? I'd say yes--either that or go broader and introduce new subjects that are off the beaten path to the kids who are so advanced. It might get kind of challenging to provide the challenge; still, it's a problem I'd LOVE to have in our schools!

Encouraging asking questions seems to be a good start.

As far as NCLB, my anecdotal evidence is similar to Kriston and Dottie's. I take comfort in the words of Martin Smith:



Hopefully the misdirected action of NCLB can be converted to good.

I've never actually seen clearly stated goals of NCLB, at least not in recent memory. But with the name of No Child Left Behind, I'm thinking the goal was probably focused on the low achievers. If it has actually helped those children, then NCLB has not failed. But if it has not helped gifted children get even farther ahead, I'm not sure we can say it failed to meet it's goal. We can say the goals failed to address our children's needs, and ask for change. I think I'm a real stickler for defining the goal, seeing if it's met, and verifying the goal is a good one.