Re: Untested theories behind NCLB

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 Maybe schools are doing silly things because those are the only things they know how to do. Blaming that on tests is just plain silly. 
 
 Art 
  
 -----Original Message-----
 From: sally.thomas4@verizon.net
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Sent: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 8:21 AM
 Subject: Re: [arn-l] Untested theories behind NCLB
 
  I am hopping in here but wondering if aburke has spent significant time in

any classrooms lately.  I promise you it is a significant nightmare.

Teachers are teaching in ways - promulgated by the scientific research and

reading first and so on - which go against the grain of everything we've

learned about learning in this century. Goes way beyond test prep.  Makes me

sick to my stomach to watch what children are going through.  And to examine

in depth transcripts of lessons are student teachers are forced to teach.

There is virtually nothing to find but straight recitation of the facts!

That is true of 90% of the lessons they transcribe even though they've been

asked to find three different contexts for instruction during their days,

weeks, months in schools.  That is what their master teachers expect them to

do. Talk to the teachers, talk to the principals and it is ALL about we have

to raise test scores.





On 1/18/07 6:41 AM, "Scott Hays" <shays@ccwebster.net> wrote:



> 

> 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.