Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SOL's are a waste of time, but they are mandated by the Commonwealth of VA as it's implementation of No Child Left Behind. NCLB is an intrusive law passed as the forefront of the education policy of the newly elected President in 2001. That would be George W. Bush.

By defining metrics to evaluate the the schools, you are defining what will be covered in school.

It is, IMHO, a horrible system. If you protest by walking out the school will be punished by reduction of federal funds.

And his buddy, Teddy Kennedy. Let's not forget him.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)[1][2] is a United States Act of Congress that came about as wide public concern about the state of education. First proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office,[3] the bill passed in the U.S. Congress with limited bipartisan support.[4]

I am teacher in FCPS and SOLs were around even before NCLB came into effect. NCLB is good in theory because it tracks all students and forces the schools to not just let certain groups (LEP, Special Ed, certain minority groups, etc) slip through the cracks. But, I agree, that the tests are not ideal and really don't assess much knowledge of anything other than memorization of facts. That said, the score a child needs to pass is extremely low. I think in my high school, out of 70 questions, the students only need to get about 50% correct to pass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By defining metrics to evaluate the the schools, you are defining what will be covered in school.

Yes! That's the point. Before every school had different "minimum" standards. Kids were graduating high school unable to read.

That's what "being held back" is for. But schools don't do that now, because it might hurt someone's self-esteem. Please.

You're repeating conventional wisdom and not speaking from a position of knowledge.

Self-esteem has nothing to do with policies discouraging retention. Research is quite clear that having students repeat a grade isn't effective unless accompanied by targeted and intensive supports and interventions. If the student didn't learn it the way it was taught the first time around, why would repeating it yield different results? Schools need to identify why a studnet isn't learning and offer differentiated instruction, not just subjecting a student to the same teaching methods that weren't effective previously. http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/WhitePaper_GradeRetentionandSocialPromotion.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By defining metrics to evaluate the the schools, you are defining what will be covered in school.

Yes! That's the point. Before every school had different "minimum" standards. Kids were graduating high school unable to read.

That's what "being held back" is for. But schools don't do that now, because it might hurt someone's self-esteem. Please.

I was surprised this year that my DD's school did not seem to be spending much time preparing for SOLs. Last year, they spent about a month. this year, I've barely heard anything about it.

The real problems with the SOL's are that essentially all of the kids have to pass, or the school fails. Or at least fails to meet AYP. That means that, if your school if just a few kids in one subgroup (LD) fail, the school fails.

The school failing has direct result in funding and has other impacts. For example, if your base school fails for several years (exact definition of failure is unknown to me), you can choose to go to a different school.

But, what are the tests measuring? How well kids know specific pieces of information (benchmarks). I would much rather look at year over year from broader measures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For your kids maybe it's easy, but not for all. I love the idea posted above about having the tests more as a measuring stick to gauge further instruction verses determining ranking by having the testing in December. Seems like a win win solution. Those that need extra help would hopefully get it in smaller group instruction and others could move on to learning new things. Seems like a similar thing is done with the DRA testing. The test is given in the fall and the spring to monitor progress and determine curriculum adjustments. I realize that many people against testing may not be for this additional test, however I think in the long run less emphasis would be placed on the test and would reduce anxiety among children since they would have already had the test once before. Do they even have two similar tests available to administer though in one year or could the same test be given twice just for those that didn't pass?

I believe that those who needed the extra attention to pass the test (which is apparently the metric used to assess performance) would receive the extra attention. I would worry how much attention and focus could legitimately and realistically be given to those who pass. I just think that the differentiation (on top of everything else) would impossible for the teachers.

I have two kids with learning disabilities and because they have IEPs and receive special education, we (us and the school) have a better idea than most where they are academically. I think beginning of year testing and end of year testing (similar to the DRA) would be far more useful and informative. There would also be less stress on the kids. We already know that our kids aren't likely to pass the SOLs and it's not because they don't know the material but because of anxiety and their learning disorders. Virginia no longer allows an alternative assessment in lieu of the SOLs because there was no standard alternative assessment method and some schools were setting the bar pretty low - which has now ruined it for everyone. We've done our best to try and minimize their stress about the tests but the environment at school is such that they get bent out of shape thinking about them. I know they're not the only ones. But, my kid and others like him are dragging down overall scores for everyone. Sorry.

Standardized testing has it's place but there's got to be a better way.

Those who are able to offer better solutions in one sentence shall not apologize for any result, hypothetical or otherwise, generated by a one-size-fits-all benchmark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For your kids maybe it's easy, but not for all. I love the idea posted above about having the tests more as a measuring stick to gauge further instruction verses determining ranking by having the testing in December. Seems like a win win solution. Those that need extra help would hopefully get it in smaller group instruction and others could move on to learning new things. Seems like a similar thing is done with the DRA testing. The test is given in the fall and the spring to monitor progress and determine curriculum adjustments. I realize that many people against testing may not be for this additional test, however I think in the long run less emphasis would be placed on the test and would reduce anxiety among children since they would have already had the test once before. Do they even have two similar tests available to administer though in one year or could the same test be given twice just for those that didn't pass?

I believe that those who needed the extra attention to pass the test (which is apparently the metric used to assess performance) would receive the extra attention. I would worry how much attention and focus could legitimately and realistically be given to those who pass. I just think that the differentiation (on top of everything else) would impossible for the teachers.

I have two kids with learning disabilities and because they have IEPs and receive special education, we (us and the school) have a better idea than most where they are academically. I think beginning of year testing and end of year testing (similar to the DRA) would be far more useful and informative. There would also be less stress on the kids. We already know that our kids aren't likely to pass the SOLs and it's not because they don't know the material but because of anxiety and their learning disorders. Virginia no longer allows an alternative assessment in lieu of the SOLs because there was no standard alternative assessment method and some schools were setting the bar pretty low - which has now ruined it for everyone. We've done our best to try and minimize their stress about the tests but the environment at school is such that they get bent out of shape thinking about them. I know they're not the only ones. But, my kid and others like him are dragging down overall scores for everyone. Sorry.

Standardized testing has it's place but there's got to be a better way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SOL's are a waste of time, but they are mandated by the Commonwealth of VA as it's implementation of No Child Left Behind. NCLB is an intrusive law passed as the forefront of the education policy of the newly elected President in 2001. That would be George W. Bush.

By defining metrics to evaluate the the schools, you are defining what will be covered in school.

It is, IMHO, a horrible system. If you protest by walking out the school will be punished by reduction of federal funds.

And his buddy, Teddy Kennedy. Let's not forget him.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)[1][2] is a United States Act of Congress that came about as wide public concern about the state of education. First proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office,[3] the bill passed in the U.S. Congress with limited bipartisan support.[4]

The legislation was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[7] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[8] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

Copied the wrong part. I guess I would fail my SOLs.

Anonymous wrote:SOL's are a waste of time, but they are mandated by the Commonwealth of VA as it's implementation of No Child Left Behind. NCLB is an intrusive law passed as the forefront of the education policy of the newly elected President in 2001. That would be George W. Bush.

By defining metrics to evaluate the the schools, you are defining what will be covered in school.

It is, IMHO, a horrible system. If you protest by walking out the school will be punished by reduction of federal funds.

And his buddy, Teddy Kennedy. Let's not forget him.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)[1][2] is a United States Act of Congress that came about as wide public concern about the state of education. First proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office,[3] the bill passed in the U.S. Congress with limited bipartisan support.[4]

Anonymous wrote:For your kids maybe it's easy, but not for all. I love the idea posted above about having the tests more as a measuring stick to gauge further instruction verses determining ranking by having the testing in December. Seems like a win win solution. Those that need extra help would hopefully get it in smaller group instruction and others could move on to learning new things. Seems like a similar thing is done with the DRA testing. The test is given in the fall and the spring to monitor progress and determine curriculum adjustments. I realize that many people against testing may not be for this additional test, however I think in the long run less emphasis would be placed on the test and would reduce anxiety among children since they would have already had the test once before. Do they even have two similar tests available to administer though in one year or could the same test be given twice just for those that didn't pass?

I believe that those who needed the extra attention to pass the test (which is apparently the metric used to assess performance) would receive the extra attention. I would worry how much attention and focus could legitimately and realistically be given to those who pass. I just think that the differentiation (on top of everything else) would impossible for the teachers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By defining metrics to evaluate the the schools, you are defining what will be covered in school.

Yes! That's the point. Before every school had different "minimum" standards. Kids were graduating high school unable to read.

It's a test to "minimum" standard that most kids find easy. As it should be. It's the Minimum.

I'm not sure any more kids are graduating from hs today able to read. I do know more kids are graduating unprepared for college.

Anonymous wrote:It is, IMHO, a horrible system. If you protest by walking out the school will be punished by reduction of federal funds.

We certainly would be net better off if we just used local funds and stopped doing the dumb stuff.

Anonymous wrote:
By defining metrics to evaluate the the schools, you are defining what will be covered in school.

Yes! That's the point. Before every school had different "minimum" standards. Kids were graduating high school unable to read.

It's a test to "minimum" standard that most kids find easy. As it should be. It's the Minimum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the FCPS superintendant and various other school district chiefs aroung VA sent the VA Dept. of Ed. a letter request about 6 mos. ago asking/begging them to let schools give the SOLs in Dec. Then if kids passed, they could move on to other things. If they failed, they would spend more time on the test subjects and re-take it in May. The idea was to release teachers/students from focussing on the SOLs if they could show proficiency.

Va. Dept. of Ed. rejected the request.

This seems to be a solution to the problem stated in this thread. Maybe some of you who have connections or know how to rally the troops could push this issue again?

PP, might you have links to background materials on this? I'd surely like to work on this issue.

I was the PP quoted -- I just got my info. from reading the Post, there might have been something on the FCPS website as well.

Anonymous wrote:

That's never happened and aint gonna happen. The tests are too easy.

But your kid is not the only kid.