No Child Left Behind

This probably won't be the academic version of the story, but wikipedia has that so here I believe is the higher aesthetic of the No Child issue.

It's a matter of attempting to apply quality management to education. Everybody outside manufacturing tends to say 'Quality? Yes please' but if it were that simple fighter jets would have rosewood inlays on the interior. There are four canonical definitions of quality but it's all a matter of communing with the cause to be served - like how really cheap cars and really fast cars both tend to have manual clutches/shifting while ones of moderate cost/performance get automatics. That's an oversimplification, and there are systems where 'yes, please' is applied with relative indiscretion under the assumption of infinite cost of poor quality.

The problem is when the cause is something that exists between bureaucrats, teachers, kids, huge amounts of capital, and whatever it may be that education is good for all in a society where the government is expected to eliminate unhappiness, you get a lot of personality and emotion. Not one element of the system can be measured without its human component feeling the need to foul the measurements and if you can't measure you're not in control. Not only that, but even if we did have a go/no-go gauge for every little thing about education, 30 years worth of good data on every condition possible, and a basis for comparison - nobody would want to do the thing with it.

We're all civic heroes now, nobody can flex. It's like, if you flex you betray something, but when you're weeping outside the gates of the White House you demand compromise and fairness.

0 Replies

I will give you my opinion of NCLB. I am a former high school teacher. I will say my opinion is shared by many teachers. I was happy to explain my opinion to my students (although I was more diplomatic with my students then I am here) and I am happy to tell you.

NCLB is a piece of political crap.

It is designed by conservatives as a way to push questionable ideas about education onto every school in the country. Ironically the people most in favor of NCLB happen to be the people who are against teachers and against public education in general.

There are several things wrong with it.

First, the goal is to take education out of the hands of teachers and local schools. Instead of allowing teachers to decide what their students need and allowing schools to make decisions on curriculum and teaching methods, NCLB wants to mandate these things from a federal level.

Second, NCLB relies on standardized tests. This is the fine strategy if you want to take the process of education away from the teachers... it is a crummy strategy if you care about education.

In good education tests are designed based on what happens in the classroom. This means the focus is on the education which is influenced by the needs and interests of the students using the experience and obsrevation of the teacher.

NCLB turns good education on its head. It wants the focus to be on the tests meaning that what happens in the classroom (which should be about teachers and students) is not based what is on the tests. This hurts education.

You will note that NCLB is heavily favored by Republicans, and most Democrats have problems with it. It has has become quite politicized.

In my opinion Republicans support it because it keeps real education-- as a process of questioning, exploring and learning, from happening in public schools.

Taking decisons about education out of the hands teachers and local schools doesn't make any sense.

That is my opinion. Many teachers (quite probably including yours) feel the same way.

((Oh, NCLB also mandates that public schools give the names of children to the military so that military recruiters can have a shot at them... this is the real reason it is called "No child left behind")).
\

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

ebrown - I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, seriously if a crack team of visionary educators could make the call for all it might work, but on the whole, can we say education in the hands of the teachers is a good thing? I mean, let a mill hand design the product he builds? It might work wonderfully - I've met superintendents with Masters of ME degrees, 20 IQ points on me, and a better understanding of the process - or it might fail but either way if the supers in every mill design their own thing, no matter how great it is it won't match up with stuff from other facilities. I don't mean make all kids the same - that would be monstrous - but there needs to be some standardization in terms of tools, evaluation and expenditure for all children lest the meaning of a high school diploma become uncertain.

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

ebrown - I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, seriously if a crack team of visionary educators could make the call for all it might work, but on the whole, can we say education in the hands of the teachers is a good thing? I mean, let a mill hand design the product he builds? It might work wonderfully - I've met superintendents with Masters of ME degrees, 20 IQ points on me, and a better understanding of the process - or it might fail but either way if the supers in every mill design their own thing, no matter how great it is it won't match up with stuff from other facilities. I don't mean make all kids the same - that would be monstrous - but there needs to be some standardization in terms of tools, evaluation and expenditure for all children lest the meaning of a high school diploma become uncertain.

The meaning of a highschool diploma has been uncertain for some time as was evident when I was studying numerous job applications of young high school graduates so nearly illiterate that they could not properly fill out the forms and should never have been graduated. I hasten to add that there are also HS grads who are competently educated at least in some subjects, even coming out of the public school systems.

NCLB does set measurable goals and demands that educators raise the bar and that does seem to have happened. After decades of decline, test scores are up though the NEA refuses to credit NCLB for that. More importantly there is good indication that the disparity in results between the more advantaged and less advantaged students has narrowed--kids are doing better in certain disciplines targeted by NCLB. And perhaps, because teachers are forced to spend more time teaching, they have less time for and seem to be doing less indoctrination these days. These are the plus factors for NCLB.

The downside as reported by educators among my family and others is the problem with a one-size-fits-all approach--this is my primary beef with most government programs. A school already doing an exemplary job educating children can receive a failing grade for failing to 'improve' enough in a single area. The program also is problematic when gifted teachers are forced to devote excessive time to 'teach to the test' rather than use the time in more innovative ways to inspire, encourage, and motivate children to learn. Learning basic skills is critical to education but education also includes teaching kids to think, discern, and evaluate. Most teachers believe there is an imbalance in NCLB.

My conclusion: mixed bag. I think the program needs some serious fine tuning, but I do like the concept of letting teachers and kids know what is expected that the kids know in order to pronounce them educated.

0 Replies

NCLB is based on the premise that all low-performing students should be raised to the average.

This is obviously an idiotic idea.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

NCLB is based on the premise that all low-performing students should be raised to the average.

This is obviously an idiotic idea.

Well yes and no. Reading up on the program itself, the concept is that you don't expect low performance from students nor accept it as the norm. So in that sense, NCLB is to be lauded. To punish a school that is doing an exemplary job of educating because all low-performing students haven't been raised to the average is idiotic however.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well yes and no. Reading up on the program itself, the concept is that you don't expect low performance from students nor accept it as the norm. So in that sense, NCLB is to be lauded.

So let's laud every company with a laudable mission statement, even if their actual practices are harmful? Go read Enron's mission statement; it was certainly laudable.

NCLB is a program, not just a concept.

0 Replies

And an unfunded program into the bargain. I suspect that Fox is an example of a child who was left behind--perhaps we should be more tolerant of her failings of comprehension.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well yes and no. Reading up on the program itself, the concept is that you don't expect low performance from students nor accept it as the norm. So in that sense, NCLB is to be lauded.

So let's laud every company with a laudable mission statement, even if their actual practices are harmful? Go read Enron's mission statement; it was certainly laudable.

NCLB is a program, not just a concept.

Clam down Dad. I didn't say that. All I said is that NCLB is correct in not accepting low performance from students as the norm and we do students no service when we expect low performance. Please read my previous post. I do not see NCLB as the end-all-education-problems solution and I do see the very real problems with it.

I think it is more productive to also recognize what is right and build from that.

0 Replies

That's right, DD--clam down and calm up.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That's right, DD--clam down and calm up.

Mollusc you be so snarky?

0 Replies

Don't try to mussel in on my punny remarks.

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

ebrown - I'm sure this doesn't apply to you, seriously if a crack team of visionary educators could make the call for all it might work, but on the whole, can we say education in the hands of the teachers is a good thing?

I will say without hesitation that education in the hands of teachers (working with their local schools and communities) is a good thing?

In whose hands do you think that education should be?

Quote:

I mean, let a mill hand design the product he builds? It might work wonderfully - I've met superintendents with Masters of ME degrees, 20 IQ points on me, and a better understanding of the process - or it might fail but either way if the supers in every mill design their own thing, no matter how great it is it won't match up with stuff from other facilities. I don't mean make all kids the same - that would be monstrous - but there needs to be some standardization in terms of tools, evaluation and expenditure for all children lest the meaning of a high school diploma become uncertain.

There is a difference between a skilled craftsman... who works in her own workshop making product with her own skills, vision and experience; and the assembly line worker who does exactly what is expected of her as part of a process set out by some central authority.

The skilled craftsmen will not all produce the same product... but what they produce will contain their vision, their experience, their skill and their pride.

Assembly line workers all produce the same product within a set of exacting standards. They don't have very much investment in their product because it isn't needed... they just do their job according to the expectations with confidence that their products will be the same as all the other products.

Which of these two positions (skilled craftsman or assembly line worker) do you think should describe the role of teachers?

0 Replies

An excellent simile . . .

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The downside as reported by educators among my family and others is the problem with a one-size-fits-all approach--this is my primary beef with most government programs.

Amen to that.

I agree that the diploma is a weak metric but leave it up to the schools and it'll be worse than weak - it will be corrupt. I think the kids' differences are more important than the teachers' so I'd love to go more stratified - like between middle school and high school decide who's a janitor, and who's a surgeon by means of standardized testing. Err toward letting dumb kids in smart classes and let them trickle back without penalty to where they belong or hold their ground as they will. When I was a kid a bunch of us sophs got put in senior AP Chem by mistake - I was the only one who hadn't even taken basic Chem and one by one the other sophs stopped showing up - got moved to Chem 2 or study hall - till I was the last man standing and moved across the room to sit with the seniors. Nobody got hurt, it saved me two semesters and gave me a better experience. I know, it's heartless, and minorities will do worse - but what war did we kick so much ass in that we've got the luxury of sentiment? It is what it is, you either pick up or you don't.

As for teachers' styles getting cramped - it's a drag - but really talented mechanical engineers, if employed as ME's, still don't get to decide what they're engineering. Let them excel so much they can teach the test and have time for field trips or move on to being professors if they're so great - if not let them at least do something verifiable.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I will say without hesitation that education in the hands of teachers (working with their local schools and communities) is a good thing?

In whose hands do you think that education should be?

A government body (I can't believe I just said that, but if they're going to sign the check it's their call) with the authority to develop and enforce a set of lower-control-limits on it. Since we're talking lower-limits basic employability/preparation for university education alone would suffice.

ebrown_p wrote:

There is a difference between a skilled craftsman... who works in her own workshop making product with her own skills, vision and experience; and the assembly line worker who does exactly what is expected of her as part of a process set out by some central authority.

I said mill hand - they have skills vision and experience - but apply it to producing something with a defined purpose and functionality. It's an unfortunate myth that people who wear hardhats are rude mechanicals - they wear the hat not because they do a crappy job but because they do a meaningful and important job so uncompromisingly that their safety is not otherwise ensured.

0 Replies

hanno wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The downside as reported by educators among my family and others is the problem with a one-size-fits-all approach--this is my primary beef with most government programs.

Amen to that.

I agree that the diploma is a weak metric but leave it up to the schools and it'll be worse than weak - it will be corrupt. I think the kids' differences are more important than the teachers' so I'd love to go more stratified - like between middle school and high school decide who's a janitor, and who's a surgeon by means of standardized testing. Err toward letting dumb kids in smart classes and let them trickle back without penalty to where they belong or hold their ground as they will. When I was a kid a bunch of us sophs got put in senior AP Chem by mistake - I was the only one who hadn't even taken basic Chem and one by one the other sophs stopped showing up - got moved to Chem 2 or study hall - till I was the last man standing and moved across the room to sit with the seniors. Nobody got hurt, it saved me two semesters and gave me a better experience. I know, it's heartless, and minorities will do worse - but what war did we kick so much ass in that we've got the luxury of sentiment? It is what it is, you either pick up or you don't.

As for teachers' styles getting cramped - it's a drag - but really talented mechanical engineers, if employed as ME's, still don't get to decide what they're engineering. Let them excel so much they can teach the test and have time for field trips or move on to being professors if they're so great - if not let them at least do something verifiable.

I wonder if we pulled the feds out of it entirely and left it up to the schools to educate the kids if they would do any worse? Put parents and school boards back in charge, in tandem with the teachers, and do you think they would so easily settle for social promotions and substandard scores on reading comprehension and math tests?

The amount spent on our 75 million students (Kindergarten through four years of college) is roughly $1 trillion with about 7% of that I think coming from the federal government. And yet it is the feds who seem to be calling the shots.

If I did the math right, if you divided that $1 trillion/year evenly between all the students, it comes out to something like $13,000 or so per capita. In a 20-student classroom, that would allow $260,000 for every classroom or $390,000 for a 30-student classroom.

You give me me $390,000/year to educate 30 kids, and I guarantee you, those kids would be educated by the time I had them for 16 years.

I don't think we're getting our money's worth.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/trends/tables/fig511.asp

0 Replies

Sure some would do worse. Sometimes ya get local bumpkins with high school diplomas and 40 years experience, sometimes these little darlins that get out of high school with half the Hollister catalog in garbage bags in the back of a 2-year old mid size Toyota, go to college to be teachers, do spring break for half a decade and assume they have the wisdom of the universe to impart. Same thing for the school boards and the state except then you've got bureaucrats as well. Parents? Even if they did all care. And that's just if no one tried to beat the system. At the Federal level? They're still hillbillies, rich kids, bureaucrats and people who couldn't care less but up there there's a chance for uniform decisive action subject to public scrutiny.

I mean how could one of the kids be sure what he's getting from you and his 13K a year is on par with what the kid in North Carolina who he'll be competing with for college admission and work is getting? And how would the colleges and employers know what they're getting?

What I keep hearing is that the teacher's think their job is specialized and that they're the best at it. Even if it were a monumental intellectual artistic feat which the current lineup was singularly fit to perform I don't see how that would make any difference - with the duty to supply to everyone in America in several capacities it's reckless and unethical of teachers even to want cart blanch in the matter.

0 Replies

No Child Left Behind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know