If you can find something positive about this legislation, please be sure to share it with us. Coming from the special education side of this issue, I find it incredibly absurd that a child with a reading disability is still expected to read on grade lever by 2014. Why do we even bother to identify children if they are to be held to the exact same standard?
Yes, I'm looking forward to hearing something positive, as well. Even with children with no disabilities, those who come to us from another country, not speaking English, how do we fit them under this Act?
OK...so I've begun to delve into this topic and explore some of my own negatives regarding this legislation. I have always been a proponent of better education, but must admit that this Act definitely appalls me. I think I have to agree with the Alabama State Superintendant Joe Morton when he said, "There's a fallacy in the law and everybody knows it. According to the No Child Left Behind Act, by 2014 every child is supposed to test on grade level in reading and math. That can't happen." Morton was not then in 2010 (nor now in 2012)the only voice saying that there are too many variables and far too many scenarios. This totally upsets our entire value system concerning investing in the student to help them reach their highest potential. This can be accomplished by probing them to higher order thinking through national achievement standards rather than limiting them to standards-based reforms.
It really doesn't take alot of insight to notice how many holes are in this particular legislation. While I'm working in a school with a large population of students living in poverty and suffering from all of the symptoms of poverty mentality, I'm constantly reminded of the state of mind where students have to perform to a standard that far exceeds their ability to grasp within the time frame of this act. The act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is. While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of students that have below-average capabilities,[citation needed] such as students with autism. In fact, the "all" in NCLB means only 95% of students, because states must report the assessment scores of 95% of students when calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.
Marcus, I find this to be such a disturbing piece of legislation that we continue to hang on to as a society. I certainly hope that with the upcoming elections, change will be at hand (although I find it will be highly unlikely). Since this legislation has passed, I find myself struggling each day to have students with identified disabilities make the necessary gains to help the school achieve Adequate Yearly Progress. I have gotten to the point that AYP means nothing to me. I care for the student's well being than the progress of the school.
Tina…I must say that I totally concur with your expressed feelings here. I knew that my posting this as a blog would open many opportunities for those “close to the fire” so to speak, to share their experiences with this Act. I’m certain that you know that the law is written so that the scores of students with IEPs and 504 plans are counted just as other students' scores are counted. Schools have argued against having disabled populations involved in their AYP measurements because they claim that there are too many variables involved. Simply being classified as having special education needs does not automatically exempt students from assessment. Most students with mild disabilities or physical disabilities take the same test as non-disabled students. That being stated, one has to additionally wonder what will become of those teachers who may be performing as highly qualified, yet not meeting the profile of the required standards. Will they also be subjected to the rigor of pretense within the framework of the societal acceptances and consequently be excused to seek some other career? This is my opinion simply stated.
Tina, I agree with you....very disturbing. First of all, it seems that the WHOLE country has the same type of students, poverty in many schools, lack of funds/hours/support, mixed with a surplus of ideas/skills/tools/trained teachers and we seem to be getting deeper and deeper into this hole. Many teachers are taking the attitude that you have....don't give a damn about the laws and red tape but just want to do their job and help these kiddos to learn.
Marcus, I understand that all students should have the opportunity for an education and believe that, but who are they to think that ALL students need to be on grade level? We are all different individuals and will never all be the same. Our world works with all of us working, playing, learning, and living on all different levels. If we teach everyone to the top, we won't have what I call, the dishwashers of the world. We need people to fill those jobs. They are just as important as the business CEOs.
We will never get everyone on grade level as long as we allow an open door policy to our country and let a 10 yr old ELL student, join up with a group of 10 yr olds who have been speaking English for 10 yrs and have been reading and writing the language for at least 5 of those years. And then, as you talk about, put our special ed students in the same category. It's ludicrous and it's not fair to ANYONE.
I don't know if I'll ever adopt the constraints of this Act nor embrace them. I personally know of too many students who will never make the mark as far as being on grade level. Last year alone, I had students who made far better scores on their PASS tests yet still did not make year-and-half growth which meant they failed to qualify as being on grade level. I have long since been an advocate for students pursuing their own successes at their independent levels. That automatically means there will be executives and there will be dishwashers and that's the beauty of it all. God says, "The poor will always be among us." (John 12:8)
I agree with the both of you about the idiocy of this law. I was pleased to hear 10 states have successfully withdrawn from this law and hope our state reps have applied for the same exemption.
John...I have not heard of such news yet. Who are these states and how long ago did they withdraw? Was it an act of congress? I really don't understand why our state would continue to place such enormous expectations on its school sysytems when we are so very far behind the ball in advancing academics and its institutions are literally suffering especially in poverty-stricken areas due to lack of financial resources. Perhaps, we can be an advocate for our state to follow suit.
I have to admit, as a private school educator, I am not as on top of these legislations and policies, but I did find an article that addresses what John stated:
Marcus, We continue to follow this idiotic law because of funding. The all mighty dollar speaks volumes. It is hard to believe that the folks that enacted this legislation had the best interests of children on their hearts.
Tina...I too think it's more than idiotic to continue this Act. I find it absurd that funding is behind the continuance of such an unfair Act when organizations that support NCLB assessment of disabled or limited English proficient (LEP) students say that inclusion ensures that deficiencies in the education of these disadvantaged students are identified and addressed. Where is the demand for accountability ? When does the funding stop due to lack of success evidence?
Just a note to update the latest on this Act that remains so unpopular. At least 27 states have already told the administration they’re opting out, and most of the rest are still considering it, MSNBC reports. To earn a waiver states must adopt higher standards in some areas than the law requires, but most have already done so. Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he’s actively encouraging states to opt out. “It’s far too punitive, far too prescriptive,” he explained. It “led to a narrowing of the curriculum. None of those things are good for children.” In a sign of just how unpopular the 2002 law is, few critics of Obama’s move to kill it have emerged; in a January poll, 53% said No Child needed “major revisions,” while another 21% wanted it eliminated entirely.
Note the words: punitive, prescriptive, narrowing of the curriculum. None of these are good for the children. Well, what else is new? When is there to be something solid for the good of the children?
If you can find something positive about this legislation, please be sure to share it with us. Coming from the special education side of this issue, I find it incredibly absurd that a child with a reading disability is still expected to read on grade lever by 2014. Why do we even bother to identify children if they are to be held to the exact same standard?
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm looking forward to hearing something positive, as well. Even with children with no disabilities, those who come to us from another country, not speaking English, how do we fit them under this Act?
ReplyDeleteOK...so I've begun to delve into this topic and explore some of my own negatives regarding this legislation. I have always been a proponent of better education, but must admit that this Act definitely appalls me. I think I have to agree with the Alabama State Superintendant Joe Morton when he said, "There's a fallacy in the law and everybody knows it. According to the No Child Left Behind Act, by 2014 every child is supposed to test on grade level in reading and math. That can't happen." Morton was not then in 2010 (nor now in 2012)the only voice saying that there are too many variables and far too many scenarios. This totally upsets our entire value system concerning investing in the student to help them reach their highest potential. This can be accomplished by probing them to higher order thinking through national achievement standards rather than limiting them to standards-based reforms.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt really doesn't take alot of insight to notice how many holes are in this particular legislation. While I'm working in a school with a large population of students living in poverty and suffering from all of the symptoms of poverty mentality, I'm constantly reminded of the state of mind where students have to perform to a standard that far exceeds their ability to grasp within the time frame of this act. The act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is. While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of students that have below-average capabilities,[citation needed] such as students with autism.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the "all" in NCLB means only 95% of students, because states must report the assessment scores of 95% of students when calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.
Marcus, I find this to be such a disturbing piece of legislation that we continue to hang on to as a society. I certainly hope that with the upcoming elections, change will be at hand (although I find it will be highly unlikely). Since this legislation has passed, I find myself struggling each day to have students with identified disabilities make the necessary gains to help the school achieve Adequate Yearly Progress. I have gotten to the point that AYP means nothing to me. I care for the student's well being than the progress of the school.
ReplyDeleteTina…I must say that I totally concur with your expressed feelings here. I knew that my posting this as a blog would open many opportunities for those “close to the fire” so to speak, to share their experiences with this Act. I’m certain that you know that the law is written so that the scores of students with IEPs and 504 plans are counted just as other students' scores are counted. Schools have argued against having disabled populations involved in their AYP measurements because they claim that there are too many variables involved. Simply being classified as having special education needs does not automatically exempt students from assessment. Most students with mild disabilities or physical disabilities take the same test as non-disabled students.
DeleteThat being stated, one has to additionally wonder what will become of those teachers who may be performing as highly qualified, yet not meeting the profile of the required standards. Will they also be subjected to the rigor of pretense within the framework of the societal acceptances and consequently be excused to seek some other career? This is my opinion simply stated.
Tina, I agree with you....very disturbing. First of all, it seems that the WHOLE country has the same type of students, poverty in many schools, lack of funds/hours/support, mixed with a surplus of ideas/skills/tools/trained teachers and we seem to be getting deeper and deeper into this hole. Many teachers are taking the attitude that you have....don't give a damn about the laws and red tape but just want to do their job and help these kiddos to learn.
DeleteMarcus, I understand that all students should have the opportunity for an education and believe that, but who are they to think that ALL students need to be on grade level? We are all different individuals and will never all be the same. Our world works with all of us working, playing, learning, and living on all different levels. If we teach everyone to the top, we won't have what I call, the dishwashers of the world. We need people to fill those jobs. They are just as important as the business CEOs.
We will never get everyone on grade level as long as we allow an open door policy to our country and let a 10 yr old ELL student, join up with a group of 10 yr olds who have been speaking English for 10 yrs and have been reading and writing the language for at least 5 of those years. And then, as you talk about, put our special ed students in the same category. It's ludicrous and it's not fair to ANYONE.
I don't know if I'll ever adopt the constraints of this Act nor embrace them. I personally know of too many students who will never make the mark as far as being on grade level. Last year alone, I had students who made far better scores on their PASS tests yet still did not make year-and-half growth which meant they failed to qualify as being on grade level. I have long since been an advocate for students pursuing their own successes at their independent levels. That automatically means there will be executives and there will be dishwashers and that's the beauty of it all. God says, "The poor will always be among us." (John 12:8)
DeleteI agree with the both of you about the idiocy of this law. I was pleased to hear 10 states have successfully withdrawn from this law and hope our state reps have applied for the same exemption.
ReplyDeleteJohn...I have not heard of such news yet. Who are these states and how long ago did they withdraw? Was it an act of congress? I really don't understand why our state would continue to place such enormous expectations on its school sysytems when we are so very far behind the ball in advancing academics and its institutions are literally suffering especially in poverty-stricken areas due to lack of financial resources. Perhaps, we can be an advocate for our state to follow suit.
DeleteI have not heard this either, John. What does it mean though, if they withdraw? I'm sure they lose federal money.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have to admit, as a private school educator, I am not as on top of these legislations and policies, but I did find an article that addresses what John stated:
Deletehttp://onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=1533236
Marcus, We continue to follow this idiotic law because of funding. The all mighty dollar speaks volumes. It is hard to believe that the folks that enacted this legislation had the best interests of children on their hearts.
ReplyDeleteTina...I too think it's more than idiotic to continue this Act. I find it absurd that funding is behind the continuance of such an unfair Act when organizations that support NCLB assessment of disabled or limited English proficient (LEP) students say that inclusion ensures that deficiencies in the education of these disadvantaged students are identified and addressed. Where is the demand for accountability ? When does the funding stop due to lack of success evidence?
DeleteI also don't like Obama's "Race to the top." Just the name implies competition.
DeleteJust a note to update the latest on this Act that remains so unpopular. At least 27 states have already told the administration they’re opting out, and most of the rest are still considering it, MSNBC reports. To earn a waiver states must adopt higher standards in some areas than the law requires, but most have already done so. Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he’s actively encouraging states to opt out. “It’s far too punitive, far too prescriptive,” he explained. It “led to a narrowing of the curriculum. None of those things are good for children.” In a sign of just how unpopular the 2002 law is, few critics of Obama’s move to kill it have emerged; in a January poll, 53% said No Child needed “major revisions,” while another 21% wanted it eliminated entirely.
ReplyDeleteNote the words: punitive, prescriptive, narrowing of the curriculum. None of these are good for the children. Well, what else is new? When is there to be something solid for the good of the children?