Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] NCLB petition



We can continue to bash NCLB (for many good reasons) but unless we can offer a reasonable way (meaning without tons more paper-work) to evaluate student outcomes, we haven't addressed the fundamental problem of the decline (on the average) of academic skills and knowledge. We regularly rehash our experiences (many spanning 3-4 decades of teaching) and the general consensus is clearly that there IS a problem. See comments below.



----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernard Cleyet" <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>


10. Emphasizes minimum content standards rather than maximum
development of human potential.

Without minimum content, without basic skills, I would think it is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve maximum potential.


11. Neglects the teaching of higher order thinking skills which cannot
be evaluated by machines.


Teaching such is not precluded--it is the JOB of the teachers to work on such along with the basics. The very fact that such cannot be evaluated IS part of why it is not strictly part of the uniform assessment, but again, this IS part of the teacher's responsibility to their students.

12. Applies standards to discrete subjects rather than to larger goals
such as insightful children, vibrant communities, and a healthy democracy.

When has it ever been different? Few schools AT ANY LEVEL have been able to achieve integrated curricula. It is a bit much to expect the public school system to do so. Besides, the goals stated above are so nebulus as to defy any kind of 'uniform' assessment.


13. Forces schools to adhere to a testing regime, with no provision
for innovating, adapting to social change, encouraging creativity, or
respecting student and community individuality, nuance, and difference.


Again, NCLB doesn't prevent any system doing any of the above with exception of the idiotic requirement that special-ed students (especially the mentally handicapped) be thrown in with the general student population. But that is a requirement that I'm not sure is strictly written into the NCLB. That such students be included in the assessments IS, but I'm not clear that it isn't the states that have failed to provide appropriate assessment tools for these special groups that can be shown to be equivalent (at their developmental level) to the tools used for the general population.

We bash tests because they aren't OUR tests, but I suspect the vast majority of us DO TEST. Until the lawyers and social 'do-gooders' got into the act, we seemed resigned to the use of the SAT and ACT as assessment tools for College entrance. I still think few would be happy with open admission to our schools of 'higher learning' having seen a lot of complaints from those states that have such. The quality of the tests used are a STATE matter, something that teachers, teacher unions, voters in general should have some voice in. The testing is mandated--the exact nature of the testing is not. Don't necessarily trash the Feds for deficiencies at your state levels.

Rick [Who DOES want a way to be sure that HS graduates can read, write, and do basic math.]