Not to get into the middle of a political discussion, but does anyone feel that the federal mandate (with funding tied to the mandate) to "close the achievement gap" has hurt the higher performing kids?
The achievement gap gets closed when higher-performing kids stagnate, so yes, you're right. The whole point is to stop the bright kids and teach the underachievers. If you let the bright kids move ahead, most of the underachievers wouldn't be able to catch up and the achievement gap would stay in place in schools just as it does in the real world. Can't have that!
The educators I've spoken to about this don't see themselves as not allowing bright kids to learn. They take the view that these kids are already "proficient," which to them means that no more attention is warranted. When I've asked, "Why not teach the bright kids too?" the reaction from the majority with whom I've spoken has been confusion: "Why would we do
that? They're already proficient."
I've tried to argue that it's important to strive for excellence, but I've never got much of a response.
I think that this approach is part ideology, part a response to the demands of NCLB, and part a failure of imagination. Some of them really don't see that excellence can mean more than getting 100% on a grade-level test of basic material.
You also have to put into the equation that in many places, a teacher's pay and their school's funding (so essentially their jobs) are all tied to closing the achievement gap. I know as a teacher it is like having your hands tied because the amount of stuff I HAVE to do for the lower 25% of my student population takes up so much time that I physically don't have enough hours in a day to do much of anything for my higher end kids.
When I do "rebel" and take time for them I get asked all sorts of questions about why I haven't been keeping up with X,Y, and Z, and don't I realize that if they don't show " a year's worth of growth" our school could get in trouble or our school grade could drop and we could lose what little money we get?
Many of my colleagues have adopted the attitude of "why would we spend time of the upper end - they will already pass the test" for survival reasons, not because they necessarily believe it to be the right way to do things. I can't really blame them because if you are in a state like Fl then starting next year 50% of my evaluation will be tied to how my students do on the state exam. Now, if I taught all honors classes, like some people that would not be an issue for me - I'd say great, no problem, BUT when 50% of my teaching load is the lower end of the spectrum, who are low achievers, for a variety of reasons (including the fact that they really don't care and are just treading water until they are 16 and can quit, or are 18 and graduate some how) - I am not happy with this change in things. Of my students who will determine how well I get evaluated I would say that about 25% of them will not pass any standardized test given - no matter what I do with them, and no matter how easy the test is.
I am philosophical about it though and since, I agree that there is an achievement gap, and we should try to do something about it, I do rebel when I can so that the gap isn't being closed at the expense of the higher kids. Would I do this as often as I do if I didn't have 2 daughters at the higher end????? I don't know, because I don't think I would be as acutely aware of it as I am now.
So, as much as you would like to think that teachers are sacrificing our kids for the good of the other end, I seriously believe that many are doing it because they honestly believe that our kids and others like them will succeed, despite all of this nonsense.
