Home > Teachers Group > Discussion Board

Concerned about the self esteem of borderline students.

I would imagine that you will receive many responses to this inquiry, and you might want to put it on the discussion board, so that we can have a kind of dialogue. 

I think that NCLB had one positive effect.  It made people start thinking and talking about education, and it symbolized an effort to make education a national priority. That was a great benefit, but that was the only benefit, in my opinion.

The biggest problem with NCLB is the tendency to "teach to the test."  This tendency is the result of creating so many dire consequences for the school that produces poor test scores.  This tendency to focus almost exclusively on tests that  measure only one's ability to take standardized tests,but that do not measure one's learning, has harmed our students in innumerable ways.

First, where is the joy in learning when the focus is on standardized tests? Second, where is the classroom in which a child may construct his or her knowledge through experiential means?  Third, what happens to teachable moments, which are like diamonds sprinkled through the teaching day? Fourth, since we have tested almost exclusively for math, reading, and writing skills, what has happened to art, music, and even social studies and science? Given enough time and space, I could go on to infinity with my list of harms.

Now, as for standardized testing, I agree that we need to measure the progress of students.  But the results of these tests are to hold a school's feet to the fire (a poor metaphor, I agree), not to help individual students.  If we are to leave no child behind, why are we not required to use testing to assess the progress of the individual? Why are we not then required to use that assessment to improve that student's learning?  It is nice to know the big picture, but we are teaching trees, not forests. (How is that for a mixed metaphor?) 

How does standardized testing measure learning?  It does not.  It measures a student's ability to use standardized test-taking strategies, those we have all been taught, for example, to eliminate the two most unlikely answers and focus on the two that remain.  Can the student who is able to do this make connections among ideas, think critically about problems and solutions, or approach problems creatively?  Maybe, but maybe not.  How will we ever know? Our next Einstein or Hawking will not emerge as the result of standardized testing, nor will our next Picasso or Mozart.

This is turning into a bit of a rant, but I am not done yet! NCLB is indicative of a movement to conduct education with a business model.  This was great for the Model-T, but I am not interested in an assembly-line classroom. What is the bottom line in education? What makes us "profitable"?  The profit of the public education system lies in the future, and is thus immeasurable. Our product is the future participant in democracy, a thinking, working, and responsible participant whose work and ideas will contribute to the greater good.  NCLB has dismantled that ideal to the detriment of all of us. 

Insofar as borderline students are concerned, I have read in various articles that the borderline students, those who are close to passing standardized tests, are the students who presently receive the most attention.  They are the students who are most likely to boost a school's scores.  Apparently, the students who will be competent or proficient and the students who are unlikely to pass are the ones being neglected right now.  This is yet another reason to find fault with NCLB.  I apologize for not being able to provide any sources for this information, but I read too many articles on education these days! 

The previous posts did a very good and thorough job of explaining their points of view.  I might want to posit one other element about the notion of NCLB and standards based reform in terms of at risk students.  I should begin with my own view on it, which is that the difference between NCLB in theory and in practice are two different elements.  Part of the growth of standards based education reform (SBER) and, in particular, NCLB was the idea that many of our students were becoming lost in terms of measuring their progress and identifying where improvement was needed.  The understanding at the time was that teaching was imprecise, vague in its identification of goals and objectives and subject to interpretation.  The desire to streamline learning in terms of SBER and its accountable counterpart in NCLB was driven, in part, in the desire of being able to identify in students what students had to know in order to be deemed competent and how the needs of all students can be met.  At risk students were deemed as being able to benefit the most from SBER and NCLB because there would be strict recoding of what these students knew and what they needed to know.  The ability to identify and diagnose such elements would allow a greater relevancy in the education of all students.

Having said this, I think that the implementation of SBER and NCLB has probably done more harm than good.  In no way was the standards movement intending to create public schooling in the manner it is now, where high stakes standardized testing controls so much of schools, teachers, administrators, and, of course, students.  The idea behind it was to empower students, making them aware of what they were learning, why it is important and critical, and how they, themselves, would know why they were learning what they are learning.  The reality is that it has been misapplied and the result has been fairly painful for students who are at risk of failing or who have been deemed as "not successful" via the results of a standardized test.

Nothing is good for ALL students.

The problem(s) that I suspect NCLB tried to address were  1) some students were not getting an appropriate education and 2) some students were getting a sub-par education because there were no standards they had to meet.  Although academic freedom is a good idea, there have to be some basic ideas/concepts/facts that are part of everyone's "good" education.

The problem has become "teaching to the test."  Theoretically this should not be a problem if the test tests the things students must know.  (You might recognize this as Outcome Based Education ala Bill Spady).  If the tests are good, they will be a guide to good teaching.

Perhaps its application is a bit too proscriptive, but I think the concept is good ... but it needs to be revisited/reworked periodically to keep IT on task.

No, I don't.  Just as a lesson plan isn't going to be a good fit for all students, neither is a plan like NCLB.  I am not suggesting that schools shouldn't have accountability and that all students shouldn't be pushed to learn, but they shouldn't be pushed to learn in the much the same way.  No two people are exactly alike, and no plan is going to completely and satisfactorily meet all student needs.

Definitely not.All good teachers recognize (and research proves this) that students must be viewed as and taught as individuals. The NCLB negates this by mandating that all students reach one standard. The very nature of NCLB is, in fact, leaving some of our children behind.

Take our special education kids for example. In order to help them rise to the levels that NCLB mandates, many special education teachers find that they must teach to the test. When this occurs, our special education kids miss out on the adaptive skills and life skills that are more relevant to their lives than any standardized test.

Exactly. As the previous poster says, the kids with IEPs are really badly affected by NCLB. By 2012, everyone is supposed to be proficient?? Really? Granted, there are alternative tests for kids who function at a very low level, but we are supposed to keep the number taking alt. tests low or it reflects negatively on the school. I teach children who will never test at that level, as either their learning disabilities, distractability or other issues will simply not allow it, no matter how many accomodations and modifications are made. We were actually told, a couple of years ago, to ID the kids who were on the borderline between levels, and concentrate more of our efforts on them. Are you kidding me? I have to teach ALL my students to the best of my ability, and was offended that such a suggestion would even be made.

Anyway, NCLB does indeed suppose a business model will effect change, and I am in the business of individualizing my instruction....cross purposes, at best.

The previous points are all very eloquent and appropriate. I feel that NCLB is a huge detriment to the special needs population and to those students who do not fit the "average" profile. The idea that all students should pass a standardized test to meet specific criteria goes against some of the main premises about individualized education. In the classroom teachers are expected to individualize lesson plans and assessments to fit the students needs. However, giving all students one test and expecting a specific outcome is unfair. Not all students test well despite the fact that they may possess the knowledge, and in some cases be advanced for the their age. They cannot demonstrate this on an outcome based test. Now these tests have become high stakes- forcing students to pass them in order to advance a grade or graduate with a diploma. NCLB leaves no room for alternative means of assessment. I see it basically as a way for politicians to manipulate statistics that "show" how they are improving the educational system and appease the public. Those in the public who are not aware how the system works, which is pretty much anyone not involved in an educational profession, only see the grade assigned to a praticular school or district with no idea of hwo that grade was attained. There are just too many fallacies to NCLB.

I teach remedial English and about half of my kids are deemed behavior/emotionally compromised or at-risk youth with a sprinkle of ESL kids here and there. About 98% of my kids having an IEP (Individual Education Plan). NCLB doesn't provide differentiation that we all, but especially teachers in my position, have to use every day in our classrooms.

My kid who reads at a 6th grade reading level when he is a junior taking this test is not going to be able to do well to show that he is getting the education he deserves. Yeah, he is a junior reading at a low level, but if the state was aware of the fact that when he came to me freshmen year he was at a 2nd grade reading level they could see there is TREMENDOUS amounts of learning happeneing. He is learning and learning well. Granted he is not where his peers in the regular or advance track are but that is not because he is not being taught properly, it is because he has developmental, learning, emotional and all kinds of other disabilities that hinder the learning and connective process.

As crappy as it may sound, it is a realistic thought that maybe 1 of my graduating seniors a year (out of about 12) will go on to community college. Most will work in a factory setting or a specialized field like welding or linemen. That is what they do. That is what they are capable of. I am not dealing with Harvard bound or even state university bound kids here. NCLB doesn't show the value of discussion, examination and rhetoric discussed in my classroom to get my kids to learn how to think an idea through and question and analyze for their own purposes to become productive members of society.

What about my freshman this year who has a processing problem where she cant use her mind's eye? You ask her to describe her sister physically and she cant because she cant create pictures from memory in her mind. She recognizes her sister, but cant tell you about her. How is she going to fair according to NCLB? She has made great progress already but she isn't going to shatter the test scores and earn the school any points.

It is all a bunch of baloney if you ask me. You have to gauge students' learning on an individual basis, just like we are all asked to teach them as individuals, but there is no feasible way to do this. Period.