In 2002 the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was passed into law. The goal of this legislation was to improve the performance of primary and secondary students’ education by increasing the accountability for states and their schools, increase the focus on reading and give families more flexibility in the schools which our children are able to attend. The belief behind NCLB is to raise the expectations and to establish measurable goals to improve the individual outcome of your child’s education through state regulated minimum achievement tests (TAKS in Texas.)
This all sounds great, doesn’t it? Our schools get highly qualified teachers to educate our children and systematic testing to indicate a teaching weakness. What could go wrong?
For starters, Austin has at least 10 middle/high schools who have been rated “Academically Unacceptable.” Texas is having difficulties finding qualified math and science teachers. Don’t get me wrong; I want my children to learn from teachers who know the subjects they're teaching, but to what end? Is it better to have 3 properly qualified teachers with 30 plus students per class and not enough equipment than to have 5 qualified teachers with 18-20 students per class?
I’m genuinely concerned with the quality of teaching that goes on in our Austin schools. During the 2007-2008 school year my son took more practice TAKS and TAKS tests than I can count on two hands. Not to mention the prep time they had for a week prior going into these tests. If my child is spending this much time studying for a minimum basic skills test, where does it leave time for actual learning? You may wonder what I mean by this last comment; I’ll make it very simple for everyone. Public schools are teaching to test, it’s just that simple. The problem with this is children don’t actually learn. Sure, they can give you some cookie cutter response from a textbook, but whatever happened to teaching our children to think with their minds? Which leads me to one of the most detrimental problems NCLB has, under funding.
With out the proper funding we can’t begin to accomplish anything. We can’t hire teachers and schools are in a state of disrepair. Also, to my great surprise, several schools have but only one set of schoolbooks per class. Are you kidding me? How are our children supposed to study for their state tests when they don’t have a book to take home and study with? Homework seems to have become a thing of the past in some Austin schools.
3 comments:
I remember feeling the pressure on the schools during these testing periods for TAAS and then TEKS and TAKS while in school, and I can't imagine what it is like now that No Child Left Behind is being enforced.
I found this blog very interesting as I have only heard negative response from everyone involved in the system on the topic of this kind of testing. Teachers, parents and students all seem to have the same conclusion; the tests are a waste of time and resources that could go to teaching someting that can actually be useful to the students.
I am curious to see an argument that is pro-NCLB. There are problems within school sytems due to a serious lack of funding and also a lack of hope in fixing the system. NCLB only serves to further disenchant those involved because it does not address the real issues.
“And for starters please…teach our children the importance of thinking outside the box.” True! This is a fundamental thought process that all children need to grasp and understand. This is a wonderful skill that jobs and universities look for. How are they going to be able to succeed if they cannot even think differently and creatively if they are pushed to think how everyone else “should”? Not everyone learns the same way as others. Many critics can easily see that there is a problem with standardized testing. For standardized testing means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focusing on a deeper understanding of the that can be readily transferred to similar problems. One good example, is that say a teacher teaches states that all of the questions on a math test are simple addition problems like 2+2=4, 4+7=11,... so the teacher does not invest time for addition applications of addition such as story problems and such, therefore there will be more time for material which is assessed on the test. This is known as “teaching to the test”. This is a really big issue for me because when I was in high school I was very interested in math and science hence taking all science classes possible like: chemistry, biology, physics, and computer science. To my dismay, when I decided that I wanted to do engineering, I found out that my own physics class did not teach some of the fundamentals of physics (for engineering) that I needed such as conservation of angular momentum, not to mention my favorite electricity and magnetism (very weak teaching in that area, in my opinion). In my opinion, every high school stuedent should be required to be introduced to calculus and trigonometry. Many problems and solutions of real life probability, science, and such are based on these mathematical skills.
“If my child is spending this much time studying for a minimum basic skills test, where does it leave time for actual learning?” Well said! The NCLB focuses on math and English language skillsthreat to states that choose to test students in all areas, where the states get no credit under NCLB for improvements made in other subjects areas and will be forced to narrow focus. (and eventually science) may elevate scores on two fundamental skills while students loose benefits of a broad education. So if the goal of elevating performance of students is so large, then the change in performance should be made across the board of other subject areas as well.
To end, “schools have but only one set of schoolbooks per class. Are you kidding me...” is a considerable question we should all be asking. NCLB creates huge demands upon local districts, many are not funded by this law. NCLB, LEAs must allow transfers of students from poorly performing schools to good schools, but Title I funding will not follow that student to the new school. So if you were a principal of a school with good scores. You serve 400+ students with great success. Then 40 new students come waltzing in who are at the bottom of the scale. They come come to your building with no extra resources to turn around their poor performance. You have no special programs for such students and no teachers specially trained to work with such students who are below their grade level. Last note: Education Week reported in its December 4, 2002 issue:
"Governors: State Finances Worst Since World War II"By Robert C. Johnston
Thirty-seven states were forced to cut some $12.8 billion from their enacted budgets in fiscal 2002, according to "The Fiscal Survey of States," which was released last week by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers, both based in Washington.
Post a Comment