No Child Left Behind supported by Michelle Rhee

[Anonymous]

I was glad to see in the Post today that Michelle Rhee supports NCLB and hopes that it won't be gutted in an Obama administration (page A17). NCLB, while imperfect, represents one of the huge accomplishments for which Bush gets no credit (along with sending major assistance to Africa to fight AIDS).

[Anonymous]

"Bureaucratic solutions to problems of practice will always fail because effective teaching is not routine, students are not passive, and questions of practice are not simple, predictable, or standardized. Consequently, instructional decisions cannot be formulated on high then packaged and handed down to teachers."

- Linda Darling-Hammond
from award-winning book, The Right to Learn

[Anonymous]

As a teacher, I think that NCLB has created a system of accountability (which was needed) but overall - IT SUCKS!!! I teach English language learners. My students are expected to master a language and be reading proficiently in that language in only one year. They are expected to be fully proficient in math in less than a year. This may not seem that difficult if you are looking at a 3rd grader, but what about a 10th grader, who never learned to read? Should schools be penalized for having a high percentage of non-English speakers?
It doesn't surprise me that Rhee supports NCLB - as she expects 100% proficiency from all students. (A wonderful goal, but not attainable for some students with learning or language issues).

[Anonymous]

I've seen more students ruined by standardized testing. Yes, ruined! As ninth graders, they should be inquisitive and have a desire to learn to be resourceful. But unfortunately, b/c they've been taught to the test, they've lost their creativity. It's a rare teacher who's able to be inspirational w/in those testing parameters. Fewer and fewer are staying b/c it's become such a stagnant job with little to no room for creativity - and God forbid! - fun! And despite this attempt to level the playing field, those in wealthy areas will always do much better b/c their parents can provide them with the resources to be successful (tutoring, for example). Those in the downcounty areas (I'm referring to Mo Co.), who need even more support b/c of language barriers, for example, have to rely upon teachers who are already working overtime just to cover an already jam-packed curriculum. Add to that a transient population, and teachers find themselves constantly reteaching to a new group. Standardized testing is NOT the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I think that NCLB has created a system of accountability (which was needed) but overall - IT SUCKS!!! I teach English language learners. My students are expected to master a language and be reading proficiently in that language in only one year. They are expected to be fully proficient in math in less than a year. This may not seem that difficult if you are looking at a 3rd grader, but what about a 10th grader, who never learned to read? Should schools be penalized for having a high percentage of non-English speakers?
It doesn't surprise me that Rhee supports NCLB - as she expects 100% proficiency from all students. (A wonderful goal, but not attainable for some students with learning or language issues).

PP, where do you teach? I also teach ESOL at the high school level in Fairfax County and our students are exempt from state testing when they are in beginning ESOL. And there is no time limit for how long they can be at the beginning level of ESOL - they can stay there for years if they need to (and some do!). I am somewhat surprised to hear about your situation - so your students have to take state tests when they are beginning ESOL students? In my county, students do not take state tests (SOLs) until they get to the intermediate level. While some struggle, they usually do pretty well because at that point they have acquired enough English to understand the test for the most part. I do think it is interesting how the standards are different depending on where you are. As for the OPs comment, I do agree that while NCLB is not ideal and I do not like "teaching to the test", I do think it has made schools take notice of a lot of the students who were allowed to slip through the cracks in the past - LEP (Limited ENglish Proficient), Learning Disabled, etc. So for that reason, it is a good thing, though definitely flawed.

[Anonymous]

I teach in DC and our students are exempt from taking the reading portion of the DC CAS if they have been in the country for less than a year. After that, they must take the test, regardless of their level of proficiency. All students are required to take the math portion, even though almost every question is a word problem. PP - I thought this was a federal guideline. Glad to hear that it might not be...

[Anonymous]

I think it should be necessary for english learners to begin taking the tests once they've been in schools for 2 yrs
otherwise, the high population of hispanics will still 'slip through the cracks'...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I teach in DC and our students are exempt from taking the reading portion of the DC CAS if they have been in the country for less than a year. After that, they must take the test, regardless of their level of proficiency. All students are required to take the math portion, even though almost every question is a word problem. PP - I thought this was a federal guideline. Glad to hear that it might not be...

Yes, I definitely think it is a DC thing, not a NCLB since Fairfax Co. doesn't have that requirement. How awful! We, too, have students who are illiterate in their native languages so I can't imagine them having to take a test like that the first year they are here. I do wish, however, there was a better option for these kids - maybe more skills based learning since so many of them will never be able to graduate from a traditional high school on time.