Re: Untested theories behind NCLB

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 I don't know what part of the premises are wrong and blaming readng and math tests for everything is silly is so hard for you to understand. Not to mention that you completely mischaracterize NCLB. 
 
 Art  
 -----Original Message-----
 From: shays@ccwebster.net
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Sent: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 6:41 AM
 Subject: Re: [arn-l] Untested theories behind NCLB
 
  On Jan 18, 2007, at 3:21 AM, aburke5054@aol.com wrote: 
 
 > Leaving aside the fact that the "inclusive and broad-based > explanations" are wrong, the nonsense is saying that schools are > doing all kinds of silly things and they keep doing them and it is > all because of reading and math tests. This specious argument could > appeal only to people whose view is so schematized that they think > everything about testing is bad. 
 
 Well, for once you seem to be tongue-tied, Art. You couldn't even find a tangential point with which to pick nits. If it is silly, please point out what you think is silly about: 
 
 • Narrowing the focus in areas being tested to guarantee that students do well on testable items. 
 If this is silliness on the part of schools, are they being silly to spend more time on things that will NOT appear on the test? What if in doing justice to skills or processes that are not tested, precious time is spent and students somehow never get around to learning or practicing the things that will be tested? Is this silliness, too? Are you suggesting that the test is unimportant, and getting all students to pass it is not the goal? Are you also suggesting that there are not consequences for failing to meet the goal of 100% proficiency on the test? 
 
 • Preempting time from subjects that are not tested narrows the curriculum across fields of study. 
 Of course it is silly to not teach history, science, art and P.E. But when did schools make the decision to stop offering those subject areas (or stop offering them in equal time allotments)? Might there be a connection between NCLB and consequences arising from low passing rates on reading and math tests (or perceptions of consequences, since ... according to you ... there really are no consequences in NCLB), and the decision to cut back on time alloted to other content areas? Or is that just "silliness"? Are schools merely being lazy (silly) by giving more time to the subjects that are being tested instead of finding ways to more efficiently teach the tested subjects, or might it be true that the "more efficient" models -- those programs and instructional materials recommended for use (i.e., those proven through "scientific research" to be more effective) -- take a much bigger bite out of the school day to implement? 
 
 • Narrowing of curriculum in earlier -- non-tested -- grades to better prepare students for tests they take in second or third grades. 
 Is it silly for the upper grade teachers at a school to insist that primary teachers focus their instruction to better prepare their students for the things that will be expected of them in the upper grades? Probably not. But what if the expectations (see above) are themselves narrow -- students in upper grades will be expected demonstrate proficiency in math and reading as demonstrated by their performance on that single test? Isn't this a silly reason to narrow instruction in K-2? 
 
 • Diminishing of problem-solving and critical thinking, and over-reliance on the expertise of higher authority 
 Have you ever challenged 36 kids to find the "best deal" for purchasing the paint needed to repaint their classroom? Rather than listen to each other's solutions (and explanations for them, based upon evidence and logic) and come to a decision (personal or in agreement with others), do you have any idea how many will just shrug their shoulders and ask, "But what is the RIGHT answer"? I have, and I know the end product of teaching to the 'right answer'. Is it silly for schools to abandon open-ended, inquiry approaches so that students can find the correct answer on a test; or is it sillier to present inquiry as a unique activity and approach to learning that is separate from and not as important as the more traditional and direct approach? Don't forget, the fact that the one is tested and the other is not (and that there are consequences for not doing well on the test) is not lost on students. 
 
 "Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been." 
 - - Jimmy Buffett 
 
 Scott Hays 
 shays@ccwebster.net 
 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.