Warning: Overly long and detailed post unlikely to interest people who do not what to learn more about NCLB.
Doug Mann wrote: > I don't agree that "hardly anyone knew" that an academic > performance gap existed 100 years. There was a great deal > of discussion about why it existed. I should make clear what I mean by "hardly anyone knew," I meant the general public and parents. Are you claiming that previously, any randomly selected set of parents, anywhere in the country, would have been able to compare the scores of schools and the students in those schools by race? I don't think so. I don't think that there is any period in American history in which the general public has been more aware of the performance of specific schools than now, if only because of the publicity that NCLB has generated. > Desegregation through racial integration in the 1960s and 70s > was seen by partisans of the Civil Rights movement (such as > myself) as a means to the end of closing the gap, not as an > end in itself. As it turned out, a rather unsuccessful means of closing the gap. > Closing the education achievement gap was also recognized > as a strategic goal of the school system in the US, and > substantial progress toward closing the gap in reading and > math, as measured by National Assessment of Educational > Progress exams, was made during the 1970s and early 80s. You could add the late 1960s, but it would still be irrelevant. NAEP exams were voluntary. The radical concept of NCLB is that it requires that a large fixed percentage of students in schools accepting Federal funds take exams. > The National Assessment of Education Progress (federal > testing program) has been monitoring achievement levels in > reading and math on a national scale since the 1970s. And > there have been widely used standardized achievement tests, > such as the California Achievement Test, that also allow > comparisons between districts and individual schools in > various states using the same yardstick. Let's not cloud the issue. There has never been a program that has required the sampling sizes and reporting of scores for every school under the federal umbrella. There has never been as much information available to parents and to the general public about individual school performance. > No Child left behind does not address the systemic obstacles > to "closing the gap" that I see in the Minneapolis Public > Schools (and which are common to other big city public school > systems), such as high teacher turnover and a high concentration > of inexperienced teachers in schools serving high-poverty and / > or high minority schools, and a multitiered curriculum > tracking system that begins in the elementary grades. NCLB addresses these obstacles indirectly by requiring schools to reach certain levels of success. That is, if the factors you cite are the primary cause of student failure, then the threat of reorganizing non-performing schools will require some type of action on the part of public school administrators. They may not be the solutions you espouse, but they would eventually have to find something effective. This is a better approach than -assuming- what the causes of low performance are and "fixing" them. Please recall that your previous solution of "integration" did not turn out to be an effective way of closing the gap. > What is new about NCLB isn't that it requires the collection, > breakdown and reporting of data on educational achievement and > the gap (which has always been classified as public information). > That's been happening since the late 1960s. What's new about NCLB > is that it has a mechanism for imposing changes in school governance > and ultimately closing down schools that fail to make "adequate > yearly progress." NCLB also promotes charter schools as an > alternative to district-run schools. The charter schools are generally > nonunion, pay lower wages, and don't have as much revenue per student > from public sources as the district-run schools (which is why they tend > to be nonunion, pay lower wages, and suffer from high teacher turnover > rates). Under NCLB the better performing public schools don't have to > make room for students in poor performing schools, despite the rhetoric > about students in poor performing schools getting "unlimited school choice" > at some point. Just how does NCLB promote charter schools? Regardless, since charter schools are subject to the reporting requirements of NCLB, why shouldn't they be an option for parents who can easily look at test results to see how well their alternatives are performing. If charter schools are not performing they will die the same death as failing traditional schools. In fact, they are even more likely to because they don't have the monopoly and traditional enrollment pool that the public schools have. Charters have to please parents or they shut down. This is certainly not true for traditional public schools, at least not without the requirements of NCLB. Chris Johnson wrote: > It is parents and teachers (not administrators and not unions) > who hate this law. It is people who are interested in quality > education, and not a right-wing agenda to disenfranchise the > middle and lower class families. I find it really difficult to believe that very many parents know much about NCLB, other than the misinformation expressed by opposing groups. In fact I know very few people in education that know very much about the law. Indeed, I don't believe that you understand much about it. Otherwise, you would know that much of NCLB was "borrowed" from the Clinton administration and is not derived from a right-wing agenda. > It is people who are sick of federal government meddling and unfunded > mandates. It is people who, regardless of their position on education > in general, realize that any law promoted by the Bush administration > is to the detriment of society, especially those named in opposition > to their true purpose using Karl Rove's double-plus ungood double speak. The Federal government is simply setting standards for programs that want to take its money. As I said, it is reasonable for the public schools to pay for tutoring for unsuccessful students and in Minnesota the option to change schools is already financed. The final stage, requires reorganization and does not require major expenditures. A lot of people confuse the underfunding of special education with NCLB. And states have been and should be testing students on a regular basis and under NCLB they get to choose the tests. > And since I offer an equal amount of proof, and more logic, > for my position than Atherton's post, my statements must be > as valid or more valid. I cited facts about NCLB. If you don't agree why don't you address my points. > The idea of leaving no child behind in school is wonderful, > if somewhat next to impossible to achieve. The No Child > Left Behind law does nothing to help the situation, is > completely misnamed, and in fact, is so problematic as to > make things worse. I would agree that it is not possible have every student meet basic standards, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. Even moderate success would be significantly better than how well we do now. Okay, how does NCLB make things worse? > I am not a union member, or even a teachers union supporter. > I am a big critic of school administrators. I am a parent > and a concerned citizen. And this law stinks. Okay, so specifically why does it stinks? > Bipartisan support in Congress is meaningless in this day > and age. There was bipartisan support for invading Iraq, too. > But both of these situations were analogous to the question of > "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" They were political > dirty tricks -- no matter which way a politician voted, they > were sure to get beat up for it. I prefer to make my evaluations > of laws based on reasoned logic and the overall good for society -- > not on how a bunch of ethically bankrupt politicians vote in an > effort to keep their lucrative jobs and enrich themselves. I don't understand how these are analogous to the question about wife beating. I see major differences between Iraq and NCLB, and very few similarities. Instead of making overly broad insinuations about conservative conspiracies and agendas you might want to research the topic a little more. Here's a good reputable web resource: http://www.educationnext.org/20034/62.html Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
