NCLB
No Child Left Behind. An oxymoron in its entirety. A wonderful piece of legislation written and passed by those that have nary a clue about education. It is the bane of my existance. Why? I'll tell you. Pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable...this may take awhile.
The premise of NCLB is to have every child on grade level by third grade. Sounds peachy, doesn't it? The only problems is some peaches have worms. This peach has an infestation. Children, everyone knows, come in all shapes and sizes. Everyone's potential is a bit different. In the U.S., these differences are not only tolerated, but celebrated. We pride ourselves on the diversity of America. Why then, is the country that chooses to accept everyone turning their back on the students who need the most help? I, for one, have always thought that education is not only to educate (i.e., give skills needed to perform in society); it is also meant to help each child reach their potential, no matter how vast or limited.
Given the passage of NCLB, educators attention must now be focused on the middle children to achieve the "numbers" needed for AYP (the dreaded Adequate Yearly Progress, determined by test scores). There is no time for the bright kids...heck, they can hold their own. There is no time for the low kids...heck, they're low so they will never make the cut. Can't waste our time on them. Any time previously used to target the lower achieving students to help them reach their potential is now devoted to the "middle of the road" students. Those who are almost there on their test scores. It is this disproportion of instructional time which is maddening. Put into perspective, in a class of 25 students (and what teacher wouldn't love to have only 25 students?) this means that about 7 of the children are recipients of intense intervention. Those students that are already proficient, above proficiency and in the emergent category (in other words, the rest of the class) receive only a fraction of the instructional time devoted to the above mentioned 7 students.
The next worm in NCLB surrounds the premise of "grade level". All students will function on "grade level" by third grade. Perfect...right??? Not quite. You see, grade level is an arbitrary measure. I'm sure everyone knows someone in the senior generation who rants and raves how "eighth grade just isn't like it was when I was a kid". True. It's not. What is considered "grade level" fluxuates with time. How can that be? In determining grade level, a standardized test is given to thousands of people. Let's take third grade as an example. Several thousand children take a standardized test during the norming period. All tests are scored. The child with the middle score becomes the "standard", or the 50th percentile. This is what is considered "average". All children scoring above the 50th percentile are "above grade level" and all children scoring below the 50th percentile are "below grade level", within certain parameters. There is a band of scores which fall into the "normal range", denoting "grade level". This normal range consists of one standard deviation above the mean, and one below the mean. So, there is a little wiggle room.
However, tests are "renormed" every so often. As we get better at educating our children, ALL children will perform better on said tests. This, in effect, raises the average score, which raises what is considered "grade level". Make sense? Even though children with less potential are making gains, children with more potential are making larger gains. Thus, the gap will always remain. There will always be high acheiving kids and low acheiving kids. ALL children cannot be the same. It is statistically impossible.
While I applaud people for trying to help the education of the children of this country, I cannot help but cringe at the current method being used to evaluate the education system. One size does not fit all. One size fits most...but what about the ones the one size does not fit? That, my friends, should be the burning question on everyone's mind.
The premise of NCLB is to have every child on grade level by third grade. Sounds peachy, doesn't it? The only problems is some peaches have worms. This peach has an infestation. Children, everyone knows, come in all shapes and sizes. Everyone's potential is a bit different. In the U.S., these differences are not only tolerated, but celebrated. We pride ourselves on the diversity of America. Why then, is the country that chooses to accept everyone turning their back on the students who need the most help? I, for one, have always thought that education is not only to educate (i.e., give skills needed to perform in society); it is also meant to help each child reach their potential, no matter how vast or limited.
Given the passage of NCLB, educators attention must now be focused on the middle children to achieve the "numbers" needed for AYP (the dreaded Adequate Yearly Progress, determined by test scores). There is no time for the bright kids...heck, they can hold their own. There is no time for the low kids...heck, they're low so they will never make the cut. Can't waste our time on them. Any time previously used to target the lower achieving students to help them reach their potential is now devoted to the "middle of the road" students. Those who are almost there on their test scores. It is this disproportion of instructional time which is maddening. Put into perspective, in a class of 25 students (and what teacher wouldn't love to have only 25 students?) this means that about 7 of the children are recipients of intense intervention. Those students that are already proficient, above proficiency and in the emergent category (in other words, the rest of the class) receive only a fraction of the instructional time devoted to the above mentioned 7 students.
The next worm in NCLB surrounds the premise of "grade level". All students will function on "grade level" by third grade. Perfect...right??? Not quite. You see, grade level is an arbitrary measure. I'm sure everyone knows someone in the senior generation who rants and raves how "eighth grade just isn't like it was when I was a kid". True. It's not. What is considered "grade level" fluxuates with time. How can that be? In determining grade level, a standardized test is given to thousands of people. Let's take third grade as an example. Several thousand children take a standardized test during the norming period. All tests are scored. The child with the middle score becomes the "standard", or the 50th percentile. This is what is considered "average". All children scoring above the 50th percentile are "above grade level" and all children scoring below the 50th percentile are "below grade level", within certain parameters. There is a band of scores which fall into the "normal range", denoting "grade level". This normal range consists of one standard deviation above the mean, and one below the mean. So, there is a little wiggle room.
However, tests are "renormed" every so often. As we get better at educating our children, ALL children will perform better on said tests. This, in effect, raises the average score, which raises what is considered "grade level". Make sense? Even though children with less potential are making gains, children with more potential are making larger gains. Thus, the gap will always remain. There will always be high acheiving kids and low acheiving kids. ALL children cannot be the same. It is statistically impossible.
While I applaud people for trying to help the education of the children of this country, I cannot help but cringe at the current method being used to evaluate the education system. One size does not fit all. One size fits most...but what about the ones the one size does not fit? That, my friends, should be the burning question on everyone's mind.
posted by Elizabeth at
9:23 PM
|
0 comments
