When it comes to No Child Left Behind, there is a lot of controversy. In my opinion, it is a good idea to have national standards and a curriculum that is consistent for all students in any state. However, it does not truly work this way since each state and even district can differ drastically in curricula
(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, Pheifer & Zellmer, 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). One major problem I have with the program is that it preaches that we need to do whatever it takes to help students learn and grow through differentiation of teaching and assessment, yet it strictly enforces the use of only one type of high stakes assessment for everyone at the end of the year
(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.;2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). How can we show valid statistics of what the students really learned or how much they grew if we only put all of the emphasis on one test? Also, many teachers, parents and politicians misuse and misunderstand the scores and data provided by such assessments
(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.; 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). The scary part is that many of the people that decide on the funding for schools have no clue how to properly analyze, compare and interpret test data. We are leaving many behind with unfair assessment such as minorities, ESL kids and those of low socioeconomic status
(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.; 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). We are also in some cases lowering our standards by allowing loopholes for some students in terms of score reporting for AYP
(Cawelti, 2006; Frontier, et al.; 2006; Guilfoyle, 2006). We need to differentiate assessment, not fudge the numbers. I will keep this rant short for tonight so stay tuned for more NCLB complaining at another time. Standards= good; Misuse of data and standards = bad. Cookie next to computer = good ; dog trying to steal it = bad...I better go!
References
Cawelti, G. (2006).
The side effects of NCLB.
Educational Leadership 64 (3), 64-8.
Frontier, A., Pheifer, D. & Zellmer, M.B. (2006).
What are NCLB’s instructional costs?
Educational Leadership 64 (3), 43-6.
Guilfoyle, C. (2006). NCLB: Is there life beyond testing?
Educational Leadership 64 (3),
8-13.
U.S. Department of Education (2005, September 19) No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
February 21, 2007, from http://www.nclb.gov
1 comment:
I agree that it is unfair for students to be tested on information that is completely foreign to them. Therefore, standards which reflect state-specific information should be eliminated from standardized tests. I believe that the information that students are going to be tested on should be the same in each state, although the classroom curricula may vary between states to complement the state’s history. It’s absurd for students to be asked to guess their best on standardized tests! You know, we keep hearing about how what is fair for one student isn’t necessarily fair to another; fair doesn’t mean treating everyone the same. Unfortunately, our standardized tests are extremely unfair in that they do treat everyone the same; they make absolutely no accommodations for learning and testing styles. If politicians insist on conducting standardized tests and want valid results, they should look into creating multiple formats; not everyone is comfortable taking multiple-choice tests. I think that we’re heading in the right direction, but we’ve got a long way to go before these assessments truly reflect student learning.
Post a Comment