Would liberals feel any different about it? I'll be interested to find out. The latest test scores show increases for the youngest children, and, more importantly, show a closing of the racial gap between whites and blacks.
The education community feels that because they are “teaching to the test” that somehow the overall education of the child is compromised. These studies really can't speak to that. What they do speak to is that young black students have made more progress than white students.
Conservatives will be ecstatic about this progress. While liberals complain about teaching to the test, conservatives complain about the discrimination of low expectations. Prior to NCLB, when a young black student failed to meet expectations, the loser was the young black student. Now, with the threats within NCLB, the loser could be the schools. It's interesting how schools are improving since they have the fear of losing funding and being embarrassed publicly.
There are a series of questions about what it means for NCLB to be working--the first is a basic statistical question of whether comparing different cohorts from each year is statistically valid.
If one takes a group of individuals and tests them in one year and compares those scores to a group of individuals to another cohort in another year one isn't measuring progress--one is measuring the difference between two samples.
I'm a strong advocate for a rational and valid testing of students to determine the effectiveness of a school.
The problem is that the testing under NCLB is both expensive and not valid. We spend an enormous amount of time and money testing students currently, but that testing tells us little about the effectiveness from year to year.
Further problems in the act relate to the rather bizarre ways performance is measured for sub groups. When one attempts to draw conclusions on small sub groups and determine the overall effectiveness of a school on a small number of students, statistical malpractice is being committed. Arne Duncan pointed to one case of a remarkably successful school that showed tremendous overall improvement in test scorse (notice no one in this case is arguing against testing), but because two or three ESL students didn't improve at the expected rate the school was placed on the watch list. Two or three students cannot be a valid sample to base conclusions on, let alone sanctions.
There is a larger theoretical problem with Spelling's claims. NCLB is three years old meaning most states didn't have the new standards in place until 2 years ago. Knowing how such policy filters down, the claim of NCLB being the driving force is pretty hard to swallow.
Remember, I'm a strong supporter of testing students, but the claims are pretty specious in this case. The racial gap data is especially problematic though. If you look at the significance markers the significance isn't a trend and the literature has shown that individual years of performance can be significantly different due to the random error term.
Sorry, a bit of technical ranting---I'm a fan of the idea of accountability using testing, but I find the current methods and interpretations quite poorly done.
This is bad news for the education establishment. The NEA is already dismissing the sudden improvement in scores as giving any credit to NCLB. They are cautioning us to take a wait and see approach because such inititives take time to have an impact. Funny how they didn't wait and see before filing suit against NCLB. They spent the first two years of the law's existence trying to find co-plaintiffs.
Archpundit said...
"Sorry, a bit of technical ranting---I'm a fan of the idea of accountability using testing, but I find the current methods and interpretations quite poorly done. "
Anyone with other ideas on testing, and with subsequent penalties for those who fail to adequately provide for the education of children, will be met with open arms by conservatives. Unfortunately, the education establishment has put their collective head in the sand and generations of children have suffered.
I agree that a school should not be punished for just two or three kids failing. But putting them on the watch list is a good idea, especially if you are a parent of a child who fits into the category of child that the school is failing to educate to their full potential.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I'm not saying NCLB isn't working, but this really can't be regarded as proof.
And I'm not sure what really could be considered proof -- which makes me a bit nervous. Do we have to wait 20 years before we declare it a victory or defeat? How many billions will have been wasted if NCLB turns out to have been worthless? (Think of the "War on Poverty," the "War on Drugs," etc.)
The states are supposed to be the "laboratories of democracy." Education reform should have started there -- on a smaller scale -- instead of being a massive, high-budget federal program that may -- or may not -- work.
And I'm not sure what really could be considered proof -- which makes me a bit nervous. Do we have to wait 20 years before we declare it a victory or defeat? How many billions will have been wasted if NCLB turns out to have been worthless?
How many billions would have been wasted if NCLB hadn't been enacted? I'm not an expert, but the accoutability and testing of NCLB is at least better than what we had before, which was no accountability whatsoever.
I just wish that people looking at NCLB with a critical eye would also look at Head Start the same way.
I'm just curious as to why evaluating and holding people accountable is acceptable in the real world, but when it comes to funding education, it's not fair.
Unfortunately, teaching to the test is a very real standard in many school districts. Being a former teacher in Unit 4,and a current teacher elsewhere, I can personally attest to the extra tutoring sessions, the pseudo-bribery, and the targeting of students at any cost to get them to improve.
The sad part is that most school districts have figured out not to target the lowest of the low non-IEP students, but rather those that are at the marginal level that "just need a little boost" to get over the hump to meet expectations. The effect is that test results go up.
There are several glaring problems with NCLB, beyond the dreaded "teaching to the test". First, there is no nationalized standardized test. Tests are state based, and the assessments withing in these tests are mostly state based. While there is some corrallary effect between national and state standards, they are by no means uniform to the point where we can effectively compare states results among each other. In addition, this year Illinois dropped the writing requirement for third grade students. This was the hardest test, and often the least successful among all students. Ironically, I believed it was the best measure because it made students THINK. The tests that are left are now multiple choice, and small written responses in math and reading. These measures often do not accurately portray how a student is doing at school, but rather how good they are at taking tests.
Until there is a better system for testing, teachers are going to continue to be distressed with requirements placed upon them.
The question I pose from my constructivist viewpoint; How does the experience of "Drop Everything, it's Test Learning Time" affect a student's perception of the education process and what it means to learn?
Teachers are held very accountable for the successes and failures of their students in standardized testing.
In the C-U community, before the 03-04 school year, all but 5 of Stratton's teachers were let go and reassigned because of their past poor test performance. Ironically, they were let go before the test results of the '02-03 tests were known. Stratton showed dramatic improvement, more than any other school in the district. Give teachers a chance to adjust, and compromise. We will continue to ask for reform and rational testing. With any set of data, there needs to be a cohort-based, longitudinal study. When a business is started, there's usually a five-year plan or mark to determine if it's going to sink or swim. Right now, a patchwork plan has been instituted to make those outside of education feel that SOMETHING is being done. Unfortunately, it's just an umbrella over a very-disorganized set of assessments.
I get a bit upset when I hear complaints about being required to "teach to the test". Why is that bad? If the test is testing some irrelevent stuff, then complain about the content of the test. If the test is good, and you are teaching stuff that doesn't help the kids pass the test, what exactly are you teaching?
Now, there is something a bit different, like teaching test-taking techniques - that is a bit of a diversion from real learning, but shouldn't take too long, should it?
IP said: "I'm not an expert, but the accoutability and testing of NCLB is at least better than what we had before, which was no accountability whatsoever."
And who's watching the watchmen? Apparently, you have more faith in accountability within the federal bureaucracy than I do.
The public is watching, silly. These NCLB results are published every year. There is no reason to not trust something so transparant.
Just a couple of quick thoughts:
1) Perhaps you all should be congratulating the students and teachers who have worked so hard to jump through these new federal hoops. I hear an awful lot of back patting by the conservatives. Aren't the kids and the teachers the ones who succeeded here?
2) NCLB has helped Urbana schools focus more intently on the progress of it's reading and math scores. There is no question about that. Teachers have worked their butts off to get their curriculum streamlined and in concert with their fellow teachers, and in many ways that has been a good thing.
But teaching the same material to every student, means focusing on the basics and staying on target at all times. My kids used to spend the first two or three weeks of class creating family history projects. Digging into their attics, interviewing their grandparents, relatives, etc. It was a great project and many students kept their work for years.
This project is now gone. No time. I have to make sure I get the state standards on Jackson's Nullification crisis met by February. The nullification crisis will be on the test, the family history is irrelevant.
This is the world we are going to be living in. Instead of creating students who can create and think critically about issues, we are creating students who can recite the necessary factoid at the appropriate time so that our school can be judged a "success."
That's NCLB. It looks good in the paper, and it gives the conservative desire for conformity and Truth an outlet. But it sure makes for boring classes and, eventually, equally boring students.
I hear you foleyma - you want to be able to teach about family histories, and some suits in Spfld, or worse yet Washington, are telling you that is not "what should be taught".
I think you should be able to teach your way, in a school that advertises about its curriculum. And some other schools can focus on the Jackson Nullification Crisis (don't really know much about that one).
The problem is these are PUBLIC, taxpayer-funded, schools, and the taxpayers are looking for results for their $$$$. You get state money you get state control, you get federal money you get federal control.
Actually, I blame Americans. Every time you hear polls of issues the President should address, education is always listed. A true conservative would have ignores such polls, but Bush caved to the pressure (being the compassionate guy he is).
A different Anonymous wrote: "The public is watching, silly. These NCLB results are published every year. There is no reason to not trust something so transparent."
If anyone else thinks the results are transparent, then they should go here.
Try to figure out what's going on. Especially with the 17-year-olds' data that's divided percentile-wise. And look at the "Trends in Student Groups." In 1980, 17-year-old black students scored an average of 50 points lower than white students in math. By 1988, that gap closed to 20. It's since expanded to 29. If you can explain this phenomenon, I'd encourage you to write a disertation and submit it to the U of I for your Ph.D. in education. The data is hardly transparent.
Look, I don't know whether or not NCLB is working, but neither does any objective person at this point. If NCLB had been initiate by a state, we could compare it to other states and know with some certainty what was happening. As it stands, however, we're stuck with it until it becomes abundantly clear (whatever that means) that it is or is not working (whatever that means.) Up until then, we'll be spending tens of billions each year on something that may or may not be working.
It's truly a sad day when the conservative viewpoint is called "silly." The Reagan Revolution is over.