Re: Untested theories behind NCLB

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 You absolutely mischaracterize NCLB according to your schematized view that says the "details of implementation" are all flaws. NCLB requires states to improve their schools. If your state is botching the job, quit whining over reading and math tests and get on their case. 
 
 Art
 
  -----Original Message-----
 From: shays@ccwebster.net
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Sent: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 6:58 AM
 Subject: Re: [arn-l] Untested theories behind NCLB
 
  On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:21 AM, aburke5054@aol.com wrote: 
 
 > 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. 
 
 I do not blame tests of reading and math for everything, Art. Nor do I mischaracterize NCLB. Nor do you answer any questions, or provide any rationale to defend your assertions. Like the article from which this current non-substantive exchange sprang, I believe that undo importance is given to a single assessment in reading and mathematics between grades three and eight (soon to include science). Does NCLB require the states to establish measurable standards in reading and mathematics? Does NCLB require states to assess student performance in reading and mathematics? Does NCLB provide complete freedom to the states in how they measure that performance (may they use, for example, multiple measures of proficiency; may they track the growth of individual students over time as a measure of proficiency)? Does NCLB expect schools in the states to demonstrate annual progress in moving all kids to proficiency, as measured by (I'll answer the previous question for you) the test? Does NCLB reward schools that meet growth expectations, provide means by which successful practices might be replicated at other sites, set aside funding for professional development or training in those programs/practices identified as being successful, or in any way encourage state governments to do the same? Conversely, does NCLB impose increasingly draconian measures on schools that do not measure up in its effort to encourage schools to do (as you say) a better job? And do those measures, in any way, negatively impact resources that otherwise would be available to the schools identified as being in need of improvement (what many call "punishment", because resources needed for improvement must go to some other place, but which you wish to call something else but I forget what it is)? 
 
 There's my silly characterization of NCLB, and the basis for which I make it. The goal is admirable. The rub is in the details of implementation. 
 
 Now, please explain why the characterization is silly. Secondly, explain the silliness of the major point made in the original article and my previous post: focusing on student performance on a single test in mathematics and reading leads to a narrowing of instruction (both in the areas being tested as well as in other content areas) and a change in emphasis from inquiry learning to didactic instructional approaches 
 
 "Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been." 
 - - Jimmy Buffett 
 
 Scott Hays 
 shays@ccwebster.net 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------- 
 ARN-L archives: 
 http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html 
   
________________________________________________________________________
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.