[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda Problem

"Grade level" is a convenient shortcut to talking about the more cumbersome apparatus of standards and performance specified under NCLB. Both President Bush and Secretary Spellings have talked about "grade level" in the context of NCLB, instead of taking the longer route. Quibbling over the definition helps no one. Pretending that the concept is too ill-defined to be useful is charlatanism

NCLB doesn't insist that all children be at the same place at the same time. Really what NCLB does is acknowledge that some children are behind others and stay behind unless schools get extra help. NCLB takes the additional step of defining urgency around giving schools the extra help. You may see only downsides to NCLB, but a broad coalition of civil rights groups strongly oppose the bill to suspend NCLB's accountability provisions.

Of course some children struggle to learn and some children will inevitably be less successful in school. And I wholeheartedly agree that no child should be defeated by school. But the reason we have NCLB in the first place is to combat the fact that too many children are educationally second-class citizens That's why I don't understand the objection in your last paragraph - following your logic would defeat all of America's civil rights laws and a great deal of other progressive legislation. Is that really what you're arguing?

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Tauna Rogers <taunar@plateautel.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Sent: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 5:27 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda Problem


"Individualized lesson planning is not incompatible with teaching at grade
level." True. But again, what is grade level? I thought I knew but we
aren't using norm-referenced tests much anymore. When we were, it was
impossible, using that definition of grade level, for all children to be
there.


I was being sarcastic to illustrate the absurdity of assuming, even
insisting, that all children be at the same place at the same time. And if
all children could be at the same place at the same time, teaching would be
a snap compared to the reality.


And it's annoying to hear our policymakers constantly making statements
about how all children SHOULD be on grade level when they don't even know
what that thing called grade level is.


As to my own children Art, I would want the teacher meeting them right where
they are and building from there.


One more thing - that word "should" bothers me. The idea there is a place
(grade level?) where all children should be. What message does this send to
the children who struggle more to learn? They conclude that there is
something wrong with them.


----- Original Message -----
From: <aburke5054@aol.com>

To: <arn-l@interversity.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 8:21 AM

Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's Propaganda
Problem



"Individualized lesson planning" is not incompatible with teaching at
grade level.



If someone were teaching your child below grade level, you wouldn't
have
much patience with an argument that says it's oh so hard to define
what
grade level is and oh what a waste it is to teach at grade level
because
some children aren't there. So why would you make that argument for
other
people's children?



Art



-----Original Message-----

From: Tauna Rogers <taunar@plateautel.net>

To: arn-l@interversity.org

Sent: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 6:08 am

Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's
Propaganda
Problem





Kids should be at Grade Level. Where is Grade Level? Grade Level is
where

kids should be. Oh!





And since they should be there, they will be there, because that is
where

they should be.





I'm so glad this has finally been cleared up. This will help
tremendously.

No more time-consuming, individualized lesson planning.





Tauna





----- Original Message -----

From: "Peter Campbell" <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>



To: <arn-l@interversity.org>



Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:34 PM



Subject: Re: [arn-l] Fw: McClellan Tell-All Exposes Media's
Propaganda

Problem







So where should kids be? At "grade level." And what is "grade
level"?

Where kids should be.







This is sophistry at its finest. Tautology writ large.







Still waiting for a reply on the other questions:







1) Would you please provide information about what you as a teacher

did

to teach children at "grade level"?







2) Would you then please go on to describe what you did when you

encountered a student who was not "at grade level"?







3) Finally, would you describe how NCLB aided you in this above

process,

i.e., made you a better teacher?







I know you're not going to answer these questions because you can't

answer them.







Peter Campbell











On Jun 8, 2008, at 7:45 PM, aburke5054@aol.com wrote:







Teaching at grade level means teaching at grade level. Like, where

the

kids should to be. Like, at least where you want your own child

to be,

Not a particularly difficult concept.







Art

















------------------------------------------------

Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net




------------------------------------------------

Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net






Post a Message to arn-l:

Your name:

Your email address: (use the exact address you are subscribed with)

Subject line:

Message: