|
0 members (),
78
guests, and
221
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,946
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,946 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,145 |
Yup. What Dottie said. 
Kriston
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 389 |
If a student were to start class work three grade levels behind and move up two by the end of the school year, that would count as a victory. states are required to establish annual benchmarks toward a goal of 100 percent student proficiency in reading and math by 2014, with students tested in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. I'm confused how can growth be considered a victory in one sentence, and in another sentence, 100% be expected to achieve proficiency. Would the goal be growth or profiency? They are not the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
states are required to establish annual benchmarks toward a goal of 100 percent student proficiency in reading and math by 2014, with students tested in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. The idea of "100% proficiency" has always seemed silly to me. NCLB requires that 95% of children with learning disabilities become grade-level proficient in math and reading (see here). It ignores the reality that many children with developmental disabilities will never, ever be able to read or do math at an eighth grade level (or even a kindergarten level). Yet many or most of these children attend public schools, and they're lumped into the Proficiency Pile. If they don't pass the tests, the whole school fails. So I wonder if the people behind NCLB don't want to accept disabled kids for who they are any more than they accept gifted kids (which, of course, is not at all). This policy also makes me wonder how a school defines a learning disability. Some gifted kids have a learning disability, and it's reasonable to believe that they can become proficient and more. But 2E kids (say they have IQs over 130, which is 2% of the general population) are presumably only a small fraction of the LD group. who But what about kids with IQs less than 70 (again, 2% of the general population)? Unlike the 2E kids, all of them are learning disabled. Do they really only comprise 5% of the special ed population? If they do, maybe we need to re-examine how we define learning-disabled students. Val
Last edited by Val; 03/14/10 12:41 PM. Reason: clarity
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
I think shifting the emphasis to growth gives gifted children a chance at getting their needs met. These needs are lost when the focus is on proficiency but would be more apparent if growth is given a greater emphasis. If a child starts 3 years ahead, schools would have to differentiate in order to meet growth goals. I think this is a step forward for all children and can really help the gifted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
I'm not convinced. The entire focus of the article in the Washington Post was on low achievers. This paragraph sums it up: Those in the lowest-achieving 5 percent would be required to close, replace at least half their staff, switch to independent management or take other aggressive action, including replacing the principal, to raise achievement. Those in the next-lowest 5 percent would be placed on a warning list and expected to take major steps. Another 5 percent of schools, those with the widest achievement gaps, would be required to narrow those disparities. Schools would be rewarded for making large gains. Narrowing the achievement gap can be translated into holding back the bright ones as much as advancing the low achievers. Many educators describe this approach with the terms "equity" and "equal outcomes," which sounds nice. In practice, though, it can mean that everyone is believed to be able to reach the same level. So, by necessity, bright kids have to be held back. And in this sense, the term "bright kids" applies to anyone who scores above the minimum passing score on a test, not just gifted kids. Gifted kids are hit hardest as individuals, but the society as a whole is suffering because talented people of all persuasions aren't allowed to be challenged in school. Val
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
I would like to see some emphasis on meeting specific goals as a nation, like when we wanted to go to the moon and set about educating people to achieve it. If we set our sights higher than some arbitrary grade level standard, we are sure to achieve higher as a nation (and focus on the goal instead of equality) Sadly, this hasn't gotten much attention but seems to fit with what you said. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/educate-innovatePresident Obama has launched an �Educate to Innovate� campaign to improve the participation and performance of America�s students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This campaign will include efforts not only from the Federal Government but also from leading companies, foundations, non-profits, and science and engineering societies to work with young people across America to excel in science and math. P.S. From the transcript: You know, I was in Asia, I think many of you are aware, for a week, and I was having lunch with the President of South Korea, President Lee. And I was interested in education policy -- they've grown enormously over the last 40 years. And I asked him, what are the biggest challenges in your education policy? He said, the biggest challenge that I have is that my parents are too demanding. (Laughter.) He said, even if somebody is dirt poor, they are insisting that their kids are getting the best education. He said, I've had to import thousands of foreign teachers because they're all insisting that Korean children have to learn English in elementary school. That was the biggest education challenge that he had, was an insistence, a demand from parents for excellence in the schools...
That gives you a sense of what's happening around the world. There is a hunger for knowledge, an insistence on excellence, a reverence for science and math and technology and learning. That used to be what we were about. That's what we're going to be about again.
And I have to say that this doesn't get a lot of focus. Not once was I asked about education policy during my trip by the press. And oftentimes events like this get short shrift. They're not what's debated on cable. But this is probably going to make more of a difference in determining how well we do as a country than just about anything else that we do here.
Last edited by inky; 03/14/10 02:11 PM. Reason: reworked link and added quote
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
Sadly inky I'm not thinking that "above level" kids will factor into that growth situation at all. I think only years behind will count,  . I'm more hopeful because with the MAP test even "above level" children have growth goals. If schools are answerable to growth then some kind of change will have to take place when advanced students do not meet growth goals. Schools will no longer be able to give a 1st grader the standard 1st grade curriculum when he needs 4th grade math to advance. I don't expect immediate change but I see this as an opening for the grand-kids. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,032
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,032 |
Sadly inky I'm not thinking that "above level" kids will factor into that growth situation at all. I think only years behind will count,  . I'm more hopeful because with the MAP test even "above level" children have growth goals. If schools are answerable to growth then some kind of change will have to take place when advanced students do not meet growth goals. Schools will no longer be able to give a 1st grader the standard 1st grade curriculum when he needs 4th grade math to advance. I don't expect immediate change but I see this as an opening for the grand-kids.  I'm not familiar with the MAP test, but outside of that I share Dottie's trepidation on this bit. I can absolutely see them not only leaving out the advanced kids in a growth scenario, but in fact failing them on it entirely. I had an English teacher in high school who tried to fail me on "growth" because my post-tests did not improve upon my pre-test scores--of 100%. Good thing she wasn't my math teacher! Anyway, it would not surprise me to see that growth would only be a factor up to the grade-level mark. I'm afraid the problem we have is NCAA--No Child Allowed Ahead. Don't worry--once all schoolchildren in America are above average, they'll stop the programs. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 604
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 604 |
Another troubling part of the revisions is the loss of school choice:
"But this proposed change could meet with resistance from Congress, especially Republicans. Education Week quotes Alexa Marrero, a spokeswoman for Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee: �It�s disappointing to see [tutoring] and school choice removed from the parental toolbox, particularly because it appears the focus is shifting to the needs of schools rather than the needs of students." from The Christian Science Monitor article "No Child Left Behind overhaul: five key things that would change"
I see this having a huge impact on those of us who have been able to find an out of district school that fits our kids, and allows us to enroll them. What will this do to charter schools? Aren't they all technically "out of district" schools?
|
|
|
|
|