Discuss the pros and cons of No Child Left Behind. How has the new emphasis on "highly qualified" impacted teaching in Louisiana? Identify at least five pros and five cons with a discussion as to why each is a pro or con.
I had a difficult time coming up with pros. Some of them are both pros and cons. Five pros to NCLB: 1. NCLB works to have more qualified teachers in the classroom. This is a good thing because the "highly qualified" means that a teacher should have proven that he/she know the content area. 2. The programs and practices that are put into place should be researched based. This is important because the programs need to have some empirical data that shows that the programs accomplished what it say it will before more is invested. 3. The expectations of students are equal. All students are expected to have learned the same amount of knowledge. 4. The expectations of the teachers are equal. All teachers have the same level of expectations regardless of where they teach. 5. With NCLB, students are to be taught content with structure. This is important that all students will learn the same content regardless of where they go to school. Five cons of NCLB: 1. Just because a teacher is high qualified does not mean they can teacher. Some one can pass a content exam and take education courses, they does not make them a good teacher. 2. High stakes testing is a one-shot look at progress a student makes during a school year. The problem is that is does not illustrate how much a child has grown from one teacher to the next, just how they compare over 3-4 years when they take a test. 3. Although students have the same expectations, the resources are not equal. How can a child from a low SES and a high SES ever truly compare if one has resources and one does not. 4. NCLB has created structure so that it limits the creative learning that can occur in the classroom because a teacher has to cover so much material to a child ready for a high-stakes exam. 5. Students in high SES schools have more teachers that have content specific knowledge compared to students in a low SES schools. The content is not taught equally between rural and city schools. Regardless of NCLB, it can't change the demographics.
NCLB is both a good and bad thing. I feel that it is important to have qualified teachers in the classroom, but there needs to be more to teaching than just teaching to a test.
Instructor and classmates, please disregard the first set of responses. Thanks,~Jeannetta~
American schools have spent a tremendous amount of time under the spotlight of No Child Left Behind. Highly qualified has had a positive effect on teaching in Louisiana. It allows teachers to demonstrate knowledge in subjects taught. It provides flexibility in developing assessments for teachers to demonstrate competency in subject matter. There are some pros and some cons to NCLB. The pros include the following:
1. Schools are paying attention to the alignment of curriculum and instruction. Changes in teaching and learning are occurring in schools that have not made AYP for at least two years. Alignment of curriculum and instruction appear to be among the most common improvements.
2.The number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom is increasing. Having teachers to become certified in the subject (s) taught was a good move. This allows teachers to demonstrate knowledge that they have in a particular subject. This also ensure that the students are getting the best instruction.
3.Low performing schools are getting a makeover. For example, there are strives being made to improve staffing, curriculum and leadership.
4.Students are taking more tests in order to generate more data. Data are used to modify instruction and make informed decisions about improvement of strategies.
5.Schools are paying attention to the achievement gap. The law required districts and schools to be responsible for improving the achievement of subgroup of students. Such as, those from low –income families, or ethnic and racial minorities, and those who are learning English. This of course along with improving academic achievement.
The cons are the following:
1. NCLB leads to teaching to the test. For example, when testing is an important part of teaching, the teacher is teaching to the test or teaching with the test. Teachers are aware that it is a conduit to encourage students thinking.
2.Accountability based on high stakes testing ignores differences students may bring into the school. For example, teachers know their students. They are aware of how creativity may be hidden by so many factors such as, language, motivation, and boredom. High stakes testing could disconnect them from the learning process.
3.Schools are spending more time on reading and math, sometimes at the expense of subjects not being tested. Reduced time may be spent on other subject in order to spend more time on reading and math.
4.It is argued that NCLB requirements have meant that state governments and school districts have expanded roles in school operations; however, many times this is without adequate funds.
5.The test that is being used to satisfy NCLB has been judged to be instructionally insensitive. Some teachers believe that the test does not effectively measure students performance.
Jeannetta, I agree that so much is being left out due to NCLB. When only certain subjects are being tested, other subjects just as important are being neglected. How does this prepare our students and make them prepared for the future that lies ahead of them. We need to make sure that they are as well rounded as possible and only focusing on certain subjects is not the approach in my opinion.
Deanna, you are right. NCLB can be viewed in a positive and negative light. NCLB about structure and accountability. However, it also brought on stress for parents, students, teachers, and principals.
Deanna, you are right. NCLB can be viewed in a positive and negative light. NCLB about structure and accountability. However, it also brought on stress for parents, students, teachers, and principals.
Deanna, you are right. NCLB can be viewed in a positive and a negative light. NCLB brought about structure and accountability. However, it also brought on stress for parents, students, teachers, and principals.
Identifying Pros and Cons was more difficult than one would assume. The NCLB website tells of glorious goals and achievements, but the unintentional side effects are all too familiar to educators in the field. Many attributes of NCLB are an integration of Pros and Cons.
PROS: 1. Accountability on the classroom, school, district, state, and national level is an effort to ensure quality teaching is occurring and schools are being run in excellent fashion. With such high standards set, educators are constantly seeking ways to improve their practice.
2. Research-Based Practices are now being employed to improve student achievement. This helps prevent the use of out-dated, irrelevant practices when preparing our students for life.
3. Efforts to Close the Achievement Gap have placed education as a high priority, as it should be. Many struggling students are in our nation’s schools, and this effort to help them will only help society because our students are our future.
4. Supplemental Services Available such as tutoring or after school programs will provide help to students that may not have been offered without this legislation. As stated in #3, students are our future and investing in their education is important.
5. Safe Schools are a right every American should have and under NCLB, students can change schools if their school is deemed dangerous. This encourages administrators to take action to have a safe learning environment.
CONS: 1. Unintentional Side Effects of Accountability have proven harmful to students, teachers and schools. Much “finger pointing” is happening when test scores are released. In addition, implemented programs are discontinued if scores do not substantially rise immediately. Teachers learn one program, it’s thrown out, and a new program is implemented. Teachers have also resorted to “teaching to the test.”
2. School Report Cards are a great idea to hold schools accountable, but they’ve only created a media “feeding frenzy.” Unfortunately, the public is not properly informed how to interpret school scores and assumptions are harmful.
3. Stress, although a comical choice, is causing harm on personal levels. Teachers have fears of losing jobs, and fears of teaching grades with high stakes tests. They are pressured to learn new programs and technology, to improve test scores without adequate professional development. Passion for teaching is fading in many teachers. Students also are under immense pressure to succeed.
4. High Stakes Testing is contributing to the stress factor because student’s futures often rely on their performance on one test, during one week. Test anxiety is not taken into account. Performance throughout a school year is not taken into account.
5. Neglect of Subject Areas such as science, social studies, art, music, and P.E. are producing less well-rounded students who are unprepared to enter the work force in a wide array of fields. America would not be the wonderful country it is without knowledgeable scientists, political leaders, musicians, artists, athletes, etc.
Deanna, I agree with many of your points...specifically about "highly qualified" does not make a good teacher. I wish more effort was spent observing teachers to become familiar with them as an educator. Their are personality traits that make effective or ineffective teachers that cannot be measured by tests and college credits. In addition, it is possible to have a wonderful teacher that has test anxiety or other difficulties in test taking situations, just as our students do.
The federal mandate, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), has had tremendous implications for education in recent years. Although some of these side-effects have been beneficial, others have been the driving force behind some administrative unrest, indeed. Some of the pros of NCLB include: 1. Increased efforts to close the achievement gap- Hounded by impression of accountability, many schools have worked hard to organize efforts to show Annual Yearly Progress. 2. Parental Choice- Allowing parents to CHOOSE whether or not their child will attent a school that has repeatedly failed to show AYP demonstrates SHARED responsibility in students' success. 3. Recognition of Schools- Public recognition of schools' AYP gives well-performing schools something to be proud of (administrators, teachers, students, and parents/community members). 4. Guarantees teacher qualification in specific areas- This is just as important in ensuring student success as the environment in which they are taught. 5. Increased acknowledgement of parents/community- This shared accountability fosters the development of research-based strategies for school improvement. CONS: 1. Stigmatization of low-performing schools- Schools that fail to show AYP must face public humiliation, low employee AND student morale, and lose funding. 2. A skewed curriculum- Heavy focus on reading and math scores to determine AYP means lack thereof in other subject areas, which are just as important. 3. TEACHING TO THE TEST!- Many administrators encourage teachers to "teach to the test" in order to get (or keep) scores high which ultimately hinders the students. 4. Abiguous goal- NCLB states that by 2014, ALL children will be on grade level," a rather ambiguous goal. (More like an AIM- NOT GOAL) 5. Bases Highly Qualified Status on accretation rather than performance- Many outstanding teachers have left the classroom due to non-HQS only to allow one with all of the credentials who lacks the knowledge and expertise possessed by the so-called "non-highly qualified teacher."
These are my thoughts on NCLB. There are definitely some high points as well as room for improvement. In my own district, Caddo Public Schools, I am seeing the implications of this mandate, firsthand. With 11 Academically Unacceptable schools out of the 75 total schools, I am able to see the good along with the bad, and as an administrator, I definitely the pressure to show growth.
The federal mandate, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), has had tremendous implications for education in recent years. Although some of these side-effects have been beneficial, others have been the driving force behind some administrative unrest, indeed. Some of the pros of NCLB include: 1. Increased efforts to close the achievement gap- Hounded by impression of accountability, many schools have worked hard to organize efforts to show Annual Yearly Progress. 2. Parental Choice- Allowing parents to CHOOSE whether or not their child will attent a school that has repeatedly failed to show AYP demonstrates SHARED responsibility in students' success. 3. Recognition of Schools- Public recognition of schools' AYP gives well-performing schools something to be proud of (administrators, teachers, students, and parents/community members). 4. Guarantees teacher qualification in specific areas- This is just as important in ensuring student success as the environment in which they are taught. 5. Increased acknowledgement of parents/community- This shared accountability fosters the development of research-based strategies for school improvement. CONS: 1. Stigmatization of low-performing schools- Schools that fail to show AYP must face public humiliation, low employee AND student morale, and lose funding. 2. A skewed curriculum- Heavy focus on reading and math scores to determine AYP means lack thereof in other subject areas, which are just as important. 3. TEACHING TO THE TEST!- Many administrators encourage teachers to "teach to the test" in order to get (or keep) scores high which ultimately hinders the students. 4. Abiguous goal- NCLB states that by 2014, ALL children will be on grade level," a rather ambiguous goal. (More like an AIM- NOT GOAL) 5. Bases Highly Qualified Status on accretation rather than performance- Many outstanding teachers have left the classroom due to non-HQS only to allow one with all of the credentials who lacks the knowledge and expertise possessed by the so-called "non-highly qualified teacher."
These are my thoughts on NCLB. There are definitely some high points as well as room for improvement. In my own district, Caddo Public Schools, I am seeing the implications of this mandate, firsthand. With 11 Academically Unacceptable schools out of the 75 total schools, I am able to see the good along with the bad, and as an administrator, I definitely the pressure to show growth.
It is my opinion that No Child Left Behind was created with the best intentions. The educators and policymakers behind the NCLB Act desired to set up a system where children would be educated to the fullest extent so that they would be better prepared for future academic challenges and competition in a global market. In many ways, however, I feel that NCLB has been detrimental to education. Five pros to NCLB are as follows: 1. The No Child Left Behind Act set high standards for students. I believe that students live up to-- or down to-- the expectations that teachers and other influential adults hold for them. If a child believes that he can accomplish great things, then he will accomplish those things. NCLB raised the bar for students, and many students are accomplishing goals that they might not have sought if NCLB was not created. 2. Because of the high standards, states have been required to ensure that teachers are actually teaching. One of the biggest problems that I face as a fourth-grade teacher in Louisiana is that my students are not prepared to learn fourth grade skills when they arrive in my classroom. Because of NCLB, Louisiana has created a Comprehensive Curriculum which mandates that teachers must teach certain skills so that students are prepared for future success. 3. NCLB requires that low-performing schools work hard to ensure student success. This has led to school restructuring and hiring of qualified personnel in areas that had been lacking such resources for a long time. 4. NCLB has required that states give more attention, interest, importance, and money to education. For far too long, education has been a topic on the backburner of Louisiana politics. Thanks to NCLB, schools are getting more resources that have been desperately needed. 5. More importance is placed on the qualifications of educators. Too many schools in Louisiana have employed teachers that are not qualified to teach. NCLB has required the state board of education to examine educators to make sure that they are qualified to teach students.
Five cons of NCLB: 1. The Leap test is a culturally biased test and is not an acceptable method of assessing student achievement. Many of my students cannot relate to the examples and stories that are used in the test. Therefore, it is unfair to them to make assumptions about their levels of achievement through one biased test form. 2. A student's progress to another grade level should not be based on the outcomes of one test. Many factors can skew the results of the assessment and cause a student to develop feelings of self-doubt and poor self-esteem when he or she does not perform as expected. 3. Students are not clones and cannot be taught -- or evaluated -- by a cookie-cutter educational system. A "One Size Fits All" educational system leads to feelings of frustration and alienation. This in turn causes students to feel as though education is not the route that they would like to traverse. Consequently, dropout rates rise. 4. NCLB has caused many school systems to turn to performance pay for teachers. This leads to teachers "teaching the test" and, many times, cheating on the test so that students will perform better. 5. More structured curriculum requirements such as the Comprehensive Curriculum and Grade Level Expectations cause teachers to feel frustrated at the lack of freedom in education. This causes worker dissatisfaction and makes teachers want to quit teaching due to the extra stress and strain of higher standards.
Deanna, I agree with you, particularly when you say that a child from a low SES background should not be compared to a child from a high SES background. While I believe that SES does not influence the ability to learn or someone's intelligence, it does affect the amount of life experiences that a child has, and this directly correlates to what a child knows or can relate to. In my opinion, the Leap test is designed with a lot of assumptions, many of which students from low SES backgrounds cannot relate to.
Jeannetta, I agree with you when you say that NCLB stifles creativity. My students seldom get chances to be creative in class because we are constantly cramming in GLEs for the Leap test. My own creativity is stifled as well!
Some pros and cons overlap based on differing opinions, environment, and school population, so it was a little difficult to concretize categories. Inasmuch, I have given you my opinions, which may or may not be that of the majority.
Pros:
1. NCLB seeks to ensure that our children have "highly qualified" teachers, which simply means that a teacher must have sufficient academic content knowledge to teach the course. 2. The disparity between SES, race, and language barriers in neighborhood schools is undergoing analysis for possible solutions to make education more equitable. 3. Teaching practices are becoming more research-based, which helps teachers keep up with current information, technologies, and lessons. 4. After school programs such as general tutoring, homework help and LEAP preparation are provided free of charge to all students, complete with transportation to home or daycare following the program. This will take a load off of teachers and parents who may have been trying to cram too much information in too little time. 5. By giving parents the opportunity to CHOOSE a school that will offer their child maximum opportunity for success, legislature is giving them some ownership in their child’s education.
Cons:
1. Though we all want equitable treatment for all children, by asserting the same expectations for each student when the disparity among them (materials, home life, background, culture, SES) is so drastic sets some up for failure from the onset. 2. Our schools have become test-driven. We are no longer student-centered, we are test-centered. We have to leave students behind to keep up with testing curriculum standards OR we continue to reteach information to students who come to us behind already, thus we do not make it through the necessary timeline which ensures us “success” on standardized testing. 3. Graduating successfully from an education program does NOT ensure the ability to apply knowledge to the classroom setting. I’ve had classmates who received 4.0 in the Master’s in Education program, but whom are unable to control fifteen 1st graders to the extent that they were invited NOT to return the following school year. 4. If our classes are any indication of what’s going on at other schools, the only subjects being taught are reading and math. Of course, these subjects are called core for a reason, but focusing on them benefits students at what cost? Half my students don’t even know basic government information that we were taught in lower elementary, as well as at home. Our kids today are getting barely any Science or SS from home or school. 5. Accountability, while enacted with the best of intentions, has done more harm than good, especially to impoverished schools with few resources and monumental learning and behavior problems. The media seem to love the scandalous list of failing schools and they laud the schools which continue to receive high report card grades. The administration, teachers, students, and parents at the low performing schools eventually experience a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by big government and bad media.
Deanna - you made a great point: "Regardless of NCLB, it can't change the demographics." You can have all the expectations, mandates, programs, hopes, dreams, whatever. If you don't change what's broken, nothing will be fixed.
Jeanetta - I agree with you; the government has way too much control over the education system. We pretty much sold our souls to the government for money to better our schools. It's an unfortunate system where we have to give them more control in order to have appropriate facilities and resources for our students.
I totally agree with you that children need to know that we expect them to perform to their full potential. If we don't teach them to strive to better themselves FOR themselves, to set their own bar higher and higher, who will?
Jenny - I didn't add safer schools to my pros and I wish I had. I think that our students' heirarchy of needs, as determined by Maslow, must be met in order to give the child the presence of mind to learn and grow. If the kids come to us afraid of gangs, bullies, hungry, tired, homeless...how can we even begin to teach them when survival is their priority and not ABC's?
Great point. I've been worried about you! Hope you are doing better than last time I saw you. Praying for you. :) Bekah
Bekahloo, an aim is more general...the overall picture we all want to WORK toward. A goal is something that we will actually attain. I guess them main difference is general to more specific. Hope this helps! :)
Deanna, I totally agree with you on the high vs.low SES implication. Schools with higher SES students tend to attract the more content specific teachers which is an addition to the skewed advantages already in place.
24 comments:
I had a difficult time coming up with pros. Some of them are both pros and cons. Five pros to NCLB:
1. NCLB works to have more qualified teachers in the classroom. This is a good thing because the "highly qualified" means that a teacher should have proven that he/she know the content area.
2. The programs and practices that are put into place should be researched based. This is important because the programs need to have some empirical data that shows that the programs accomplished what it say it will before more is invested.
3. The expectations of students are equal. All students are expected to have learned the same amount of knowledge.
4. The expectations of the teachers are equal. All teachers have the same level of expectations regardless of where they teach.
5. With NCLB, students are to be taught content with structure. This is important that all students will learn the same content regardless of where they go to school.
Five cons of NCLB:
1. Just because a teacher is high qualified does not mean they can teacher. Some one can pass a content exam and take education courses, they does not make them a good teacher.
2. High stakes testing is a one-shot look at progress a student makes during a school year. The problem is that is does not illustrate how much a child has grown from one teacher to the next, just how they compare over 3-4 years when they take a test.
3. Although students have the same expectations, the resources are not equal. How can a child from a low SES and a high SES ever truly compare if one has resources and one does not.
4. NCLB has created structure so that it limits the creative learning that can occur in the classroom because a teacher has to cover so much material to a child ready for a high-stakes exam.
5. Students in high SES schools have more teachers that have content specific knowledge compared to students in a low SES schools. The content is not taught equally between rural and city schools. Regardless of NCLB, it can't change the demographics.
NCLB is both a good and bad thing. I feel that it is important to have qualified teachers in the classroom, but there needs to be more to teaching than just teaching to a test.
Instructor and classmates, please disregard the first set of responses. Thanks,~Jeannetta~
American schools have spent a tremendous amount of time under the spotlight of No Child Left Behind. Highly qualified has had a positive effect on teaching in Louisiana. It allows teachers to demonstrate knowledge in subjects taught. It provides flexibility in developing assessments for teachers to demonstrate competency in subject matter. There are some pros and some cons to NCLB. The pros include the following:
1. Schools are paying attention to the alignment of curriculum and instruction. Changes in teaching and learning are occurring in schools that have not made AYP for at least two years. Alignment of curriculum and instruction appear to be among the most common improvements.
2.The number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom is increasing. Having teachers to become certified in the subject (s) taught was a good move. This allows teachers to demonstrate knowledge that they have in a particular subject. This also ensure that the students are getting the best instruction.
3.Low performing schools are getting a makeover. For example, there are strives being made to improve staffing, curriculum and leadership.
4.Students are taking more tests in order to generate more data. Data are used to modify instruction and make informed decisions about improvement of strategies.
5.Schools are paying attention to the achievement gap. The law required districts and schools to be responsible for improving the achievement of subgroup of students. Such as, those from low –income families, or ethnic and racial minorities, and those who are learning English. This of course along with improving academic achievement.
The cons are the following:
1. NCLB leads to teaching to the test. For example, when testing is an important part of teaching, the teacher is teaching to the test or teaching with the test. Teachers are aware that it is a conduit to encourage students thinking.
2.Accountability based on high stakes testing ignores differences students may bring into the school. For example, teachers know their students. They are aware of how creativity may be hidden by so many factors such as, language, motivation, and boredom. High stakes testing could disconnect them from the learning process.
3.Schools are spending more time on reading and math, sometimes at the expense of subjects not being tested. Reduced time may be spent on other subject in order to spend more time on reading and math.
4.It is argued that NCLB requirements have meant that state governments and school districts have expanded roles in school operations; however, many times this is without adequate funds.
5.The test that is being used to satisfy NCLB has been judged to be instructionally insensitive. Some teachers believe that the test does not effectively measure students performance.
Jeannetta, I agree that so much is being left out due to NCLB. When only certain subjects are being tested, other subjects just as important are being neglected. How does this prepare our students and make them prepared for the future that lies ahead of them. We need to make sure that they are as well rounded as possible and only focusing on certain subjects is not the approach in my opinion.
Deanna, you are right. NCLB can be viewed in a positive and negative light. NCLB about structure and accountability. However, it also brought on stress for parents, students, teachers, and principals.
Deanna, you are right. NCLB can be viewed in a positive and negative light. NCLB about structure and accountability. However, it also brought on stress for parents, students, teachers, and principals.
Deanna, you are right. NCLB can be viewed in a positive and a negative light. NCLB brought about structure and accountability. However, it also brought on stress for parents, students, teachers, and principals.
Identifying Pros and Cons was more difficult than one would assume. The NCLB website tells of glorious goals and achievements, but the unintentional side effects are all too familiar to educators in the field. Many attributes of NCLB are an integration of Pros and Cons.
PROS:
1. Accountability on the classroom, school, district, state, and national level is an effort to ensure quality teaching is occurring and schools are being run in excellent fashion. With such high standards set, educators are constantly seeking ways to improve their practice.
2. Research-Based Practices are now being employed to improve student achievement. This helps prevent the use of out-dated, irrelevant practices when preparing our students for life.
3. Efforts to Close the Achievement Gap have placed education as a high priority, as it should be. Many struggling students are in our nation’s schools, and this effort to help them will only help society because our students are our future.
4. Supplemental Services Available such as tutoring or after school programs will provide help to students that may not have been offered without this legislation. As stated in #3, students are our future and investing in their education is important.
5. Safe Schools are a right every American should have and under NCLB, students can change schools if their school is deemed dangerous. This encourages administrators to take action to have a safe learning environment.
CONS:
1. Unintentional Side Effects of Accountability have proven harmful to students, teachers and schools. Much “finger pointing” is happening when test scores are released. In addition, implemented programs are discontinued if scores do not substantially rise immediately. Teachers learn one program, it’s thrown out, and a new program is implemented. Teachers have also resorted to “teaching to the test.”
2. School Report Cards are a great idea to hold schools accountable, but they’ve only created a media “feeding frenzy.” Unfortunately, the public is not properly informed how to interpret school scores and assumptions are harmful.
3. Stress, although a comical choice, is causing harm on personal levels. Teachers have fears of losing jobs, and fears of teaching grades with high stakes tests. They are pressured to learn new programs and technology, to improve test scores without adequate professional development. Passion for teaching is fading in many teachers. Students also are under immense pressure to succeed.
4. High Stakes Testing is contributing to the stress factor because student’s futures often rely on their performance on one test, during one week. Test anxiety is not taken into account. Performance throughout a school year is not taken into account.
5. Neglect of Subject Areas such as science, social studies, art, music, and P.E. are producing less well-rounded students who are unprepared to enter the work force in a wide array of fields. America would not be the wonderful country it is without knowledgeable scientists, political leaders, musicians, artists, athletes, etc.
Deanna, I agree with many of your points...specifically about "highly qualified" does not make a good teacher. I wish more effort was spent observing teachers to become familiar with them as an educator. Their are personality traits that make effective or ineffective teachers that cannot be measured by tests and college credits. In addition, it is possible to have a wonderful teacher that has test anxiety or other difficulties in test taking situations, just as our students do.
The federal mandate, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), has had tremendous implications for education in recent years. Although some of these side-effects have been beneficial, others have been the driving force behind some administrative unrest, indeed. Some of the pros of NCLB include:
1. Increased efforts to close the achievement gap- Hounded by impression of accountability, many schools have worked hard to organize efforts to show Annual Yearly Progress.
2. Parental Choice- Allowing parents to CHOOSE whether or not their child will attent a school that has repeatedly failed to show AYP demonstrates SHARED responsibility in students' success.
3. Recognition of Schools- Public recognition of schools' AYP gives well-performing schools something to be proud of (administrators, teachers, students, and parents/community members).
4. Guarantees teacher qualification in specific areas- This is just as important in ensuring student success as the environment in which they are taught.
5. Increased acknowledgement of parents/community- This shared accountability fosters the development of research-based strategies for school improvement.
CONS:
1. Stigmatization of low-performing schools- Schools that fail to show AYP must face public humiliation, low employee AND student morale, and lose funding.
2. A skewed curriculum- Heavy focus on reading and math scores to determine AYP means lack thereof in other subject areas, which are just as important.
3. TEACHING TO THE TEST!- Many administrators encourage teachers to "teach to the test" in order to get (or keep) scores high which ultimately hinders the students.
4. Abiguous goal- NCLB states that by 2014, ALL children will be on grade level," a rather ambiguous goal. (More like an AIM- NOT GOAL)
5. Bases Highly Qualified Status on accretation rather than performance- Many outstanding teachers have left the classroom due to non-HQS only to allow one with all of the credentials who lacks the knowledge and expertise possessed by the so-called "non-highly qualified teacher."
These are my thoughts on NCLB. There are definitely some high points as well as room for improvement. In my own district, Caddo Public Schools, I am seeing the implications of this mandate, firsthand. With 11 Academically Unacceptable schools out of the 75 total schools, I am able to see the good along with the bad, and as an administrator, I definitely the pressure to show growth.
The federal mandate, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), has had tremendous implications for education in recent years. Although some of these side-effects have been beneficial, others have been the driving force behind some administrative unrest, indeed. Some of the pros of NCLB include:
1. Increased efforts to close the achievement gap- Hounded by impression of accountability, many schools have worked hard to organize efforts to show Annual Yearly Progress.
2. Parental Choice- Allowing parents to CHOOSE whether or not their child will attent a school that has repeatedly failed to show AYP demonstrates SHARED responsibility in students' success.
3. Recognition of Schools- Public recognition of schools' AYP gives well-performing schools something to be proud of (administrators, teachers, students, and parents/community members).
4. Guarantees teacher qualification in specific areas- This is just as important in ensuring student success as the environment in which they are taught.
5. Increased acknowledgement of parents/community- This shared accountability fosters the development of research-based strategies for school improvement.
CONS:
1. Stigmatization of low-performing schools- Schools that fail to show AYP must face public humiliation, low employee AND student morale, and lose funding.
2. A skewed curriculum- Heavy focus on reading and math scores to determine AYP means lack thereof in other subject areas, which are just as important.
3. TEACHING TO THE TEST!- Many administrators encourage teachers to "teach to the test" in order to get (or keep) scores high which ultimately hinders the students.
4. Abiguous goal- NCLB states that by 2014, ALL children will be on grade level," a rather ambiguous goal. (More like an AIM- NOT GOAL)
5. Bases Highly Qualified Status on accretation rather than performance- Many outstanding teachers have left the classroom due to non-HQS only to allow one with all of the credentials who lacks the knowledge and expertise possessed by the so-called "non-highly qualified teacher."
These are my thoughts on NCLB. There are definitely some high points as well as room for improvement. In my own district, Caddo Public Schools, I am seeing the implications of this mandate, firsthand. With 11 Academically Unacceptable schools out of the 75 total schools, I am able to see the good along with the bad, and as an administrator, I definitely the pressure to show growth.
It is my opinion that No Child Left Behind was created with the best intentions. The educators and policymakers behind the NCLB Act desired to set up a system where children would be educated to the fullest extent so that they would be better prepared for future academic challenges and competition in a global market. In many ways, however, I feel that NCLB has been detrimental to education.
Five pros to NCLB are as follows:
1. The No Child Left Behind Act set high standards for students. I believe that students live up to-- or down to-- the expectations that teachers and other influential adults hold for them. If a child believes that he can accomplish great things, then he will accomplish those things. NCLB raised the bar for students, and many students are accomplishing goals that they might not have sought if NCLB was not created.
2. Because of the high standards, states have been required to ensure that teachers are actually teaching. One of the biggest problems that I face as a fourth-grade teacher in Louisiana is that my students are not prepared to learn fourth grade skills when they arrive in my classroom. Because of NCLB, Louisiana has created a Comprehensive Curriculum which mandates that teachers must teach certain skills so that students are prepared for future success.
3. NCLB requires that low-performing schools work hard to ensure student success. This has led to school restructuring and hiring of qualified personnel in areas that had been lacking such resources for a long time.
4. NCLB has required that states give more attention, interest, importance, and money to education. For far too long, education has been a topic on the backburner of Louisiana politics. Thanks to NCLB, schools are getting more resources that have been desperately needed.
5. More importance is placed on the qualifications of educators. Too many schools in Louisiana have employed teachers that are not qualified to teach. NCLB has required the state board of education to examine educators to make sure that they are qualified to teach students.
Five cons of NCLB:
1. The Leap test is a culturally biased test and is not an acceptable method of assessing student achievement. Many of my students cannot relate to the examples and stories that are used in the test. Therefore, it is unfair to them to make assumptions about their levels of achievement through one biased test form.
2. A student's progress to another grade level should not be based on the outcomes of one test. Many factors can skew the results of the assessment and cause a student to develop feelings of self-doubt and poor self-esteem when he or she does not perform as expected.
3. Students are not clones and cannot be taught -- or evaluated -- by a cookie-cutter educational system. A "One Size Fits All" educational system leads to feelings of frustration and alienation. This in turn causes students to feel as though education is not the route that they would like to traverse. Consequently, dropout rates rise.
4. NCLB has caused many school systems to turn to performance pay for teachers. This leads to teachers "teaching the test" and, many times, cheating on the test so that students will perform better.
5. More structured curriculum requirements such as the Comprehensive Curriculum and Grade Level Expectations cause teachers to feel frustrated at the lack of freedom in education. This causes worker dissatisfaction and makes teachers want to quit teaching due to the extra stress and strain of higher standards.
Deanna, I agree with you, particularly when you say that a child from a low SES background should not be compared to a child from a high SES background. While I believe that SES does not influence the ability to learn or someone's intelligence, it does affect the amount of life experiences that a child has, and this directly correlates to what a child knows or can relate to. In my opinion, the Leap test is designed with a lot of assumptions, many of which students from low SES backgrounds cannot relate to.
Jeannetta, I agree with you when you say that NCLB stifles creativity. My students seldom get chances to be creative in class because we are constantly cramming in GLEs for the Leap test. My own creativity is stifled as well!
Some pros and cons overlap based on differing opinions, environment, and school population, so it was a little difficult to concretize categories. Inasmuch, I have given you my opinions, which may or may not be that of the majority.
Pros:
1. NCLB seeks to ensure that our children have "highly qualified" teachers, which simply means that a teacher must have sufficient academic content knowledge to teach the course.
2. The disparity between SES, race, and language barriers in neighborhood schools is undergoing analysis for possible solutions to make education more equitable.
3. Teaching practices are becoming more research-based, which helps teachers keep up with current information, technologies, and lessons.
4. After school programs such as general tutoring, homework help and LEAP preparation are provided free of charge to all students, complete with transportation to home or daycare following the program. This will take a load off of teachers and parents who may have been trying to cram too much information in too little time.
5. By giving parents the opportunity to CHOOSE a school that will offer their child maximum opportunity for success, legislature is giving them some ownership in their child’s education.
Cons:
1. Though we all want equitable treatment for all children, by asserting the same expectations for each student when the disparity among them (materials, home life, background, culture, SES) is so drastic sets some up for failure from the onset.
2. Our schools have become test-driven. We are no longer student-centered, we are test-centered. We have to leave students behind to keep up with testing curriculum standards OR we continue to reteach information to students who come to us behind already, thus we do not make it through the necessary timeline which ensures us “success” on standardized testing.
3. Graduating successfully from an education program does NOT ensure the ability to apply knowledge to the classroom setting. I’ve had classmates who received 4.0 in the Master’s in Education program, but whom are unable to control fifteen 1st graders to the extent that they were invited NOT to return the following school year.
4. If our classes are any indication of what’s going on at other schools, the only subjects being taught are reading and math. Of course, these subjects are called core for a reason, but focusing on them benefits students at what cost? Half my students don’t even know basic government information that we were taught in lower elementary, as well as at home. Our kids today are getting barely any Science or SS from home or school.
5. Accountability, while enacted with the best of intentions, has done more harm than good, especially to impoverished schools with few resources and monumental learning and behavior problems. The media seem to love the scandalous list of failing schools and they laud the schools which continue to receive high report card grades. The administration, teachers, students, and parents at the low performing schools eventually experience a self-fulfilling prophecy caused by big government and bad media.
Deanna - you made a great point: "Regardless of NCLB, it can't change the demographics." You can have all the expectations, mandates, programs, hopes, dreams, whatever. If you don't change what's broken, nothing will be fixed.
Felecia - can you give me the difference between an aim and a goal (in a nutshell)?
I always get confused as to which term to use.
Thanks!
Bekah
Jeanetta - I agree with you; the government has way too much control over the education system. We pretty much sold our souls to the government for money to better our schools. It's an unfortunate system where we have to give them more control in order to have appropriate facilities and resources for our students.
Take care,
Bekah
Sheila...love the pic of you and your sweetie! :)
I totally agree with you that children need to know that we expect them to perform to their full potential. If we don't teach them to strive to better themselves FOR themselves, to set their own bar higher and higher, who will?
Too blessed to stress, girl!
Bekah
Jenny - I didn't add safer schools to my pros and I wish I had. I think that our students' heirarchy of needs, as determined by Maslow, must be met in order to give the child the presence of mind to learn and grow. If the kids come to us afraid of gangs, bullies, hungry, tired, homeless...how can we even begin to teach them when survival is their priority and not ABC's?
Great point.
I've been worried about you! Hope you are doing better than last time I saw you. Praying for you. :)
Bekah
Bekah, thanks girl! It's tough losing a student. We get so attached, don't we? I'm lucky to have friends like you guys though!
Bekahloo, an aim is more general...the overall picture we all want to WORK toward. A goal is something that we will actually attain. I guess them main difference is general to more specific. Hope this helps! :)
Deanna, I totally agree with you on the high vs.low SES implication. Schools with higher SES students tend to attract the more content specific teachers which is an addition to the skewed advantages already in place.
Post a Comment