No Child Left Behind -- Dogma vs. Reality

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Dogma versus reality
Thomas Sowell
July 19, 2005


There have been many bitter complaints from teachers and principals about the Bush administration's "No Child Left Behind" act -- and more specifically about having to "teach to the test" instead of doing whatever teachers and principals want to do. Now the results are in.

Not only have test scores in math and reading shown "solid gains" in the words of the New York Times, young black students have "significantly narrowed the gap" between themselves and white students. All this is based on official annual data from 28,000 schools across the country.

What is especially revealing is that it is the young black students who have made the largest gains while older minority students "scored as far behind whites as in previous decades."

In other words, the children whose education has taken place mostly since the No Child Left Behind act show the greatest gains, while for those whose education took place mostly under the old system, it was apparently too late to repair the damage.

Do not expect either the New York Times or the education establishment to draw these conclusions from these data.


The rest of this story found here: Thomas Sowell: Dogma versus reality (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050719.shtml)

[Shadow]

Ha, you beat me to it. This gives a lot of hope for the future. Hopefully the trend will continue. Good article.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Ha, you beat me to it.

I try very hard to do a good, efficient, and timely job as moderator of the Education Forum, :grin: .

This gives a lot of hope for the future. Hopefully the trend will continue. Good article.

I am curious to see if any of our resident educators care to comment on the issue. I know many who denounce and trash the No Child Left Behind program. As I am "outside the norm" on this issue, I have a hard time seeing things objectively :smirky: .

[Riverboat]

I agree with the motives behind NCLB, but I remain unconvinced that public education is a concern of the federal government. I'm frankly shocked to read Sowell coming down on that side.

BTW, I never bought into the notion that teachers were merely facilitators of anything. My view is the same now as his has been for the last 23 years: Ignore me at your peril.

[aaron11]

I think it was a good band aid...But not the cure...So long as School is run by gooberment it will continue to die a slow death...IMO

[Venus de Smilo]

I agree with the motives behind NCLB, but I remain unconvinced that public education is a concern of the federal government. I'm frankly shocked to read Sowell coming down on that side.

BTW, I never bought into the notion that teachers were merely facilitators of anything. My view is the same now as his has been for the last 23 years: Ignore me at your peril.

I don't think he's saying that he does agree education is a concern of the federal government. I think he has simply isolated the topic of NCLB within the context of accepting that it's the law and federal involvement in education is here to stay, certainly for the near future. His main focus was the failure of the education industry in general, particularly the philosophy promoted in teacher training.

What Sowell discovered as to education professors' belief about discipline is not surprising but nonetheless absurd.

[Shadow]

Dogma versus reality: Part II
Thomas Sowell

A recent e-mail from a dedicated teacher illustrates a problem that has received far too little attention.

In her kindergarten class was a little black girl who did well except for getting a very obvious question wrong. It turned out that the little girl had no problem with the concepts or the facts but had misinterpreted a word because it sounded like another word that she had heard used at home, where a "black English" dialect was spoken.

Since the teacher was white, she knew that she was running a risk by getting into this issue. Opening this can of worms could result in anything from being called a "racist" to an ugly confrontation at school or in court.

Nevertheless, the teacher told the girl's mother that, unless her daughter learned standard English, her education could suffer and her intelligence might be so under-estimated that she could be falsely labeled subnormal.

It was near the end of the term so there was no time to see what effect, if any, the teacher's words might have had.

Continued here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050720.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050720.shtml)

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Okay Shadow, you got me! :thumb:

[DesertFox]

That was a gutsy teacher. She could have lost her teaching career doing that. I've just about lost mine for having done something similar.

[DesertFox]

Venus is right. Education may not be a proper sphere for govt activity, but the govt ain't gonna get out of it. We need to deal with what is rather than what should be.

[Shadow]

Okay Shadow, you got me! :thumb:

I got lucky. :grin:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

EXCELLENT artilce! Very indicative of today's problems and lack of response to them. I commend that teacher whole-heartedly. This should be evidence for WHY we should establish, in my opinion, a national language. This is ALSO evidence for my assertion the damage that has been done by the "slanging" of the English language. Words MEAN things, and children need to be taught that they do. There needs to be a greater understanding in relation to the language, than merely the dry and boring rigors of sentence diagramming and gramatical structure.

Thanks for that find Shadow!

[star2589]

Dogma versus reality
Thomas Sowell
July 19, 2005


There have been many bitter complaints from teachers and principals about the Bush administration's "No Child Left Behind" act -- and more specifically about having to "teach to the test" instead of doing whatever teachers and principals want to do. Now the results are in.

Not only have test scores in math and reading shown "solid gains" in the words of the New York Times, young black students have "significantly narrowed the gap" between themselves and white students. All this is based on official annual data from 28,000 schools across the country.

What is especially revealing is that it is the young black students who have made the largest gains while older minority students "scored as far behind whites as in previous decades."

In other words, the children whose education has taken place mostly since the No Child Left Behind act show the greatest gains, while for those whose education took place mostly under the old system, it was apparently too late to repair the damage.

Do not expect either the New York Times or the education establishment to draw these conclusions from these data.


The rest of this story found here: Thomas Sowell: Dogma versus reality (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050719.shtml)


its my opinion that the federal government has no place in education, and that it should be left to state and local governments to control.

the problem I have with this act, is that it works under the assumption that all students can achieve at a high level, and the reality is that is simply not true. so much is dependent on factors outside the classroom. the biggest factor being the parents. funding is taken away from schools that need it most, and teachers that have taught at one school for 20 years are forced to move to another.

standardised testing is also a poor way of measuring achievment. primarily, it tests how good a student is at taking tests, and memorise data.

I do believe that schools should have a solid and challenging curriculum, and that the curriculum shouldnt be dumbed down for the slower students. however, I dont think the federal government is the right, or most efficient place to regulate that.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

It is my opinion that the federal AND state government has no place in education, and that it should be left to the parents and local governments to control.

I totally agree that one cannot make the assumption that all students can achieve at a high level, nor at the SAME level, or even in the same way. The reality is that children are individual learners with their own learning style, and those outside factors DO play an important part of whether they can and/or will learn. Funding should go to the PARENTS who have intimate knowledge of their children and should see progress or deficiency on a daily basis AS their parent. It is beholden of the parents to use the funding wisely and appropriately for their child's education, IMHO.

We are in agreement, yet again, as I too think standardized testing is a poor way of measuring achievement. Practical application is more more illustrative of actual learning than does a test that was probably crammed for in the minutes leading up.

It is my belief that an appropriate curriculum for each individual student is much more challenging than a "canned" one because not all children learn the same way, at the same speed, with the same methods, etc. Also, teaching to a child's aptitude is much more likely to produce a successful person, than trying for a "well rounded" education, that ignores talent, ability, and skill because they MUST have a certain topic for a credit hour.

[DesertFox]

I'm results-oriented. My problem with federal govt involvement in education is that it hasn't worked since the early Sixties' initial infusion of Lefty ideology that has steadily increased. Prior to that it worked just fine; there was no problem with the education quality of the Thirties and Forties and Fifties.

The problem since then has been the lack of local authority and responsibility -- from the classroom (teacher) to the school (principal) itself. That's because districts now decide on issues that formerly were handled in the classroom or on campus, and that's because districts (sensibly) fear lawsuits. Hence the most damaging element in education is identical to the most damaging element in society at large -- courts that don't or won't do their jobs properly.

But in any case, education should be at the state level and NEVER held hostage to whims outta Washington.

NCLB is the target of all kinds of vicious commentary among teachers, but not from me. The problem teachers zero in on is the testing -- because it puts them on the spot. They'd have no problem with it whatsoever were they confident that their little charges would do well on the tests. They aren't, so they kick and scream.

Well, tough shit.

[TechnoPrincess]

My husband was a teacher for 9 years and this year has become a principal. I can tell you that he HATES No Child Left Behind. In theory it is a good thing, but with more and more mainstreaming of developmentally disabled children, it will never be possible. These children have specially designed curriculum, but have to be in the same classroom as the other kids, even if they cannot really understand the subject matter. Now, he is the principal of an alternative school that helps kids catch up that have fallen behind their peers. Because of the NCLB regulations it is hard to find qualified teachers for the program because it is not a normal school. And of course the Fed imposed this stupid thing without providing any funding, which only places the schools in a bind.

And don't even get me started on the parents....

[DesertFox]

Yep. If he could run his school the way he sees it needs to be run, I don't think he'd have a problem with NCLB. The ancillary crap -- the disabled, etc -- becomes the main crap so you can't do what you got into education to do in the first place -- teach ordinary kids. You have no authority to get rid of troublemakers, so you spend 90% of your time on 2% of the kids. If he could throw them out, his job would be a joy even with the ancillary stuff.

NCLB puts a principal squarely in everybody's sights. Teachers bitch and whine. District shouts and hollers. Parents stamp and scream. Kids act like kids. You couldn't pay me enough to do that job.

[TechnoPrincess]

Yep. If he could run his school the way he sees it needs to be run, I don't think he'd have a problem with NCLB. The ancillary crap -- the disabled, etc -- becomes the main crap so you can't do what you got into education to do in the first place -- teach ordinary kids. You have no authority to get rid of troublemakers, so you spend 90% of your time on 2% of the kids. If he could throw them out, his job would be a joy even with the ancillary stuff.

NCLB puts a principal squarely in everybody's sights. Teachers bitch and whine. District shouts and hollers. Parents stamp and scream. Kids act like kids. You couldn't pay me enough to do that job.

Exactly!

And then there are the parents who don't see why their kid needs to perform to a certain level....often these are the ones who have lived in poverty their entire lives and for some reason don't see a problem with it.

[star2589]

It is my belief that an appropriate curriculum for each individual student is much more challenging than a "canned" one because not all children learn the same way, at the same speed, with the same methods, etc. Also, teaching to a child's aptitude is much more likely to produce a successful person, than trying for a "well rounded" education, that ignores talent, ability, and skill because they MUST have a certain topic for a credit hour.

I do think that there are some things that any student ought to learn about, and certain skills they ought to have before graduating from school. however, that doesnt meant that each of these needs to be taught at the same or in the same way. a good teacher is flexable in their teaching methods and can find a method that works best for each individual student.

finding a practical way to teach students at different times is hard to find though. when two students are in the same class and have completely different backgrounds, its hard to teach both of them. what do you do when you have 40 or more students, and some of them are ahead in reading and behind in math, and some of them are the other way around? it doesnt make sense to be held back a grade or to skip a grade just because your behind or ahead in only one area.

[ConservativeYouthMovement]

I truly believe that the lower scores in people who didnt start school with the program are because the tests are a free day for you to screw around and do nothing. Personally, i filled out the test, gave it to a friend and left during the break. It may be wrong, but on the individual level, its a total waste of my time to sit there all day taking a test.

Also the teachers shouldnt be totally at blame, maybe not at all, because in general more than half of the students dont care, and the ones that do will get good scores on the test reguardless. With younger kids, they tend to do what they are told and not question it (yes there are a few who wont, but generally they are more optimistic). I believe as the program goes on and the tests are accepted more and adapted by test administrators to not be as long in the same sitting,higher grade levels will have similar scores as lower ones.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

the problem I have with this act, is that it works under the assumption that all students can achieve at a high level, and the reality is that is simply not true.

I do believe that schools should have a solid and challenging curriculum, and that the curriculum shouldnt be dumbed down for the slower students.

:unsmile: So, you don't mind if the slower students drop out? Are will you permit them to graduate under a different plan?

[Longhorn_Platinum]

I truly believe that the lower scores in people who didnt start school with the program are because the tests are a free day for you to screw around and do nothing. Personally, i filled out the test, gave it to a friend and left during the break. It may be wrong, but on the individual level, its a total waste of my time to sit there all day taking a test.

Also the teachers shouldnt be totally at blame, maybe not at all, because in general more than half of the students dont care, and the ones that do will get good scores on the test reguardless.

:moo:

[star2589]

:unsmile: So, you don't mind if the slower students drop out? Are will you permit them to graduate under a different plan?

there are some things that I think all students should know before graduating. graduation doesn't mean anything if there aren't any requirements for it. but, there's nothing wrong with different students getting there at their own pace.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:moo: Good, because I have long been an opponent of forcing students to take algebra in the 9th grade. Some of them will never be able to handle it, & the teacher shouldn't have to water down the subject for their sake. Those who can handle algebra should take it when they're ready, & those who aren't ready should be allowed to take a life skills math course that is appropriate to their career plans. The same thing should hold true for all the other subjects, as well.

[star2589]

:moo: Good, because I have long been an opponent of forcing students to take algebra in the 9th grade. Some of them will never be able to handle it, & the teacher shouldn't have to water down the subject for their sake. Those who can handle algebra should take it when they're ready, & those who aren't ready should be allowed to take a life skills math course that is appropriate to their career plans. The same thing should hold true for all the other subjects, as well.

so, what is the requirement for graduating then? is it taking the life skills math course, or is it taking algebra? everyone should have the same requirements or graduation is meaningless.

your right that not everyone should be expected to be able to do algebra in 9th grade. but there's nothing to stop them from taking algebra a few years later instead.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:moo: When I graduated from high school, I thought the same thing. It seemed a joke to me that some students were getting the same diploma as me, when they never took algebra, while I took trigonometry. But, when I became a teacher, I reälized that not everyone had the aptitude for higher math. I'd rather teach students at the level they're capable of learning at, rather than having to dumb down algebra & geometry to creäte a phony appearance of success, with a room full of frustrated students.

:moo: And what about the mentally retarded? Does it offend you that the mentally handicapped get the same diploma as the class valedictorian?

:moo: And what you fail to reälize is that, in addition to a diploma, you also have a transcript on file at your alma mater. That, not the diploma, is what really differentiates between students who have mastered different levels.

[star2589]

:moo: When I graduated from high school, I thought the same thing. It seemed a joke to me that some students were getting the same diploma as me, when they never took algebra, while I took trigonometry. But, when I became a teacher, I reälized that not everyone had the aptitude for higher math. I'd rather teach students at the level they're capable of learning at, rather than having to dumb down algebra & geometry to creäte a phony appearance of success, with a room full of frustrated students.

then perhaps should algebra not be a requirement for anyone, but an elective for those that enjoy math?

but its my opinion at least, that math up to geometry ought to be the expectation for a highschool graduate. and it will be harder for some students than for other, but thats true with every subject, but that doesnt mean that you reduce your expectations down so that everyone can easily meet them. if a student works hard, they can pass the classes that don't come as naturally to them.

:moo: And what about the mentally retarded? Does it offend you that the mentally handicapped get the same diploma as the class valedictorian?

as long as they both meet the minimum requirements for graduation, than no it doesnt bother me. I think there ought to be plently of room to surpass the expectations. but that doesnt mean those expectations shouldnt be there at all.


:moo: And what you fail to reälize is that, in addition to a diploma, you also have a transcript on file at your alma mater. That, not the diploma, is what really differentiates between students who have mastered different levels.

but the only people that every look at your transcripts are schools you apply to for further study. no one else needs to know that many details. they just want to know if you have a deploma, and then expect that if you do, you have a basic level of education.