One thing that I have never understood was the "No Child Left Behind Act". The effectiveness is something that stopped with intention. The motivation behind this law was pure and very smart but the execution of it was not as great. I see kids walking through the hallways at my school and I wonder, "Why are they left behind?"
Some of these kids can barely ready and they are SENIORS in high school? They are indeed left behind, actually they were left about the 2nd grade. It is hard to watch these children walk across a stage to recieve a diploma when they haven't earned it. What is it teaching them? That as long as they can read the words "hot oil" and "hamburger" and they can count to 60 (becasue after that customers start to get cranky if they don't have their food), they can make a living? NO! These students are not living out their potential. Some of them I know could be CEO's and major business owners, but they have been left to slip through the cracks. What can be done? I say, lets reform the school system and lets get teachers who care. I want to see teachers who want to help those students who are having trouble. I think that if kids start school with an experience that is fulfilling, then they won't have as much trouble when they get older. I hope that our upcoming president will put this at the top of the list of things to accoplish. If we leave this to go for too long, our country will be full of illliterate people that can flip some mighty fine burgers.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Classrooms are too overcrowded. I am not really sure that teachers have the necessary resources to notice when kids are unable to read because it's too easy to pass it off as laziness and they don't have the time to double check with every student in their classes. I honestly feel bad for teachers in this day and age, I, for one, don't think I would be able to handle it. It's sad, but unfortunately it's just the way it is unless something is done to decrease class sizes, decrease student apathy and cockiness, and increase the student's actual desire to learn. I may sound harsh, but the high school kids I have met in the past few years have depressed me to no end.
Legislations like these are oftentimes made and enforced by people who actually have very little idea of what really goes on in the classroom. The look at test scores and legislate based on them, instead of looking to change the way teachers teach.
Therefore, instead of teaching in ways that kids will actually learn, understand and retain (*gasp!*) the information they are taught (and ironically, such styles of teaching and learning are actually taught to many students, but the schools are unable to take their own advice about said styles), they instead teach the kids how to take the myriad of standardized tests given to them over the course of their school career.
This isn't really the teachers' fault, though. The teachers are only doing what it takes for them to keep their jobs, because instead of looking at the test scores and asking "what is it that isn't working?" officials look at the test scores and think that the teachers aren't teaching and take steps to replace them with teachers that will teach the tests instead of the actual material.
And on a side note, you only need to hit the submit button once. It takes a little while to load, so please be patient. Hitting submit more than once will result in multiple postings.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Okay, phew. I got all of the multiple copies of this blog deleted and got the point situation fixed (in case you're wondering why your point count went insane... my fault). Please only hit the submit button once. Sometimes it's slow, but it will post.
Now....
In a way, I can agree with you. Some teachers simply don't care. But, I think the majority of teachers went into teaching simply because they do care (and they definitely aren't there to get rich). We tend to look at success of a school or a teacher in terms of how well students do on standardized testing and that breeds all sorts of new problems without addressing the underlying issues. Overcrowding in the classroom, ancient texts and materials because of a lack of funding, and forcing teachers to think success in terms of overall class performance on standardized testing instead of individual student success in the classroom certainly don't help the situation. We should be focusing more on the individual student instead of that one score; otherwise students are going to continue falling through the cracks. If you can get 80% of your class to get high marks on that test that is such a deciding factor on how well you and your school is doing... why worry about the 20% who can't read? Focus on those who will make the school look good or risk facing the consequences... kinda makes it easy to overlook the 20% that can't read.
I was reading an article the other day in which school administrators have been found to be changing student answers and otherwise cheating where testing is concerned so that scores improve and their schools make the grade (as it were). If we're too the point where we're cheating in order to make the grade because we wouldn't otherwise do so... that says to me that what we're doing isn't working and it's time to try other means. Unfortunately, when you play politics with education, you want to back your legislation and make it look good, no matter if it's effective or not. Don't want the politicians looking bad for passing faulty legislation. And the kids get screwed as a result.
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
As a just release senior of HS. I find it highly annoying that we have to base our learning skills on a TEST. Nothing that will prepare us for the future of the 'real world'. I mean I was hoping for a more exciting learning experience, rather then on how well I could test. Because quite frankly I have test anxiety, and HATE being pressured to do well, because it makes the school look good. This "no child left behind" dealeo leaves the people who AREN'T left behind, behind. I mean we get pulled to the level of those who don't care about how well they do in school. So ultimatley everyone gets left behind.
I go to public high school, I've been in public schools all my life, and they've treated me quite well. But would we even have a problem with poor education standards and "left behind" students if education was totally privatized? As in, chuck public schools out the window, and let private schools take over. Yes, they're expensive, but by getting rid of public schools, many thousands of new private schools would open, they'd start competing with each other, and the glorious invisible hand of capitalism will drive prices down so everyone can afford them. And no more school related taxes! No more cranky seniors complaining about paying taxes for a school that their children graduated from long ago.
Now, I wasn't totally serious about everything I said up there. Just a different perspective, one that I really don't agree with either. Public schools work, but the STUDENT, not the government and not even the teachers, need to make it work. Young people need to learn personal responsibility at a young age and take responsibility for their own education in order to better their lives.
City schools are a big problem, too. Remember that report a couple months ago? I think it said that 17 major cities in the US have high school graduation rates under 50%. Obviously, "No Child Left Behind" is not working for them. I personally blame the students. I know, it sounds harsh. I'll agree these schools deserve MORE, not less, resources from the government, but a lot of these schools' failures come from the students' own failures.
I agree, but it also on the schools to provide a more meaningful way to learn, rather then learning by the 'test'. If teachers didn't have to teach us the test, the learning could be more appealing to the students. However if that student doesn't help themselves, then there's nothing anyone can do. So yes the blame does hold to the student, and how the attack their studies. Again though, if the teachers didn't teach by the test, they could be less stressed, and actually be able to learn their students ability to obtain information.
Wow I think i've found my next blog topic...
It's a sort of "team effort," though if there's anyone to "blame," it would seem to me that the blame lies more with the parents. Why? Because they are the ones that raise the kids to begin with. It is the parents who are responsible for instilling a desire to learn, as well as the consideration of others (and themselves, for that matter) that would ultimately make the teachers' lives easier.
That's not to say that the students or the teachers are off the hook, but when it comes down to it, many of the problems of "kids these days" stems from the home. A child that is taught that it's okay to stand up on a chair and scream at the top of their lungs will carry that through their life unless they are taught otherwise. That lesson should not be the job of the teachers.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I don't understand the complaint about "teaching to the test".
The test is aimed at measuring basic reading and math skills.
If schools are not teaching basic reading and math skills what exactly are they teaching and what other material would you have them teach that would be more interesting or appealing?
It does not seem like it should matter what teaching method a teacher uses or what techniques they use to make learning more interesting. Either they successfully teach the kid to read or they don't successfully teach the kid to read. The tests measure whether the kid has learned to read and how well.
My understanding of No Child Left Behind as it was passed a few years ago was that it only applied to kids in elementary school. You kids that are in highschool are mostly too old to have been subject to it. They perhaps should expand it to highschool but they have not yet. I don't doubt that you have been subject to a barrage of standardized tests but a lot of those were in place before No Child Left Behind and a lot of them are state educational initiatives that are separate from NCLB.
There is also a high school test that every high school student must take in tenth or eleventh grade. High schools must meet AYP or be closed, just like elementary schools.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I don't understand the complaint about "teaching to the test".
The test is aimed at measuring basic reading and math skills.
Because what is covered on the test isn't always what's covered in class, and many students are simply good at taking tests, especially when they are all multiple guess (conversely, there are many really bright students who do poorly at tests, both would result in mis-scoring and mislabeling both groups of students).
It does not seem like it should matter what teaching method a teacher uses or what techniques they use to make learning more interesting.
Actually, it matters greatly. It's called Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligences. It's the theory that some people learn better through different methods (hearing, seeing, doing). The current style of teaching puts the kinesthetic (and to a lesser extent, auditory) learners at a great disadvantage, since schools primarily focus on visual learners (reading) and secondarily auditory learners (lectures).
The tests measure whether the kid has learned to read and how well.
Like I said before, tests don't measure how much a student has learned. They measure how well a student can take a multiple choice test.
My understanding of No Child Left Behind as it was passed a few years ago was that it only applied to kids in elementary school.
First, NCLB applies to both elementary and high school. Even if it did only apply to elementary, there are still far too many schools in this country whose funding would affect both elementary and secondary because they are the same school.
Second, what it was actually intended for is irrelevant. NCLB gets used for detrimental purposes at least as much as it gets used for good purposes.
For example, it was actually intended as an initiative to help schools perform better by providing funding based on test scores. One of the things it was actually used for was to shut down schools such as the one I went to.
Third, money is not the answer. Providing schools more money does not raise test scores, yet it's teachers' jobs lie in the balance based on those test scores, because if the school doesn't get the funding, then it's the teachers who pay.
In other words, the primary goal of NCLB fails.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge