Alternative to No Child Left Behind

[JohnLocke]

Instead of all of this testing, teaching to the test, etc. what if we remade No Child Left Behind to be based upon opportunity for education rather than performance.

No teacher can make a student learn if that student refuses. Nor should a high performing school be punished, by diversion of funding, for succeeding.

I propose, that Congress develop an objectively quantifiable list of minimum standards that embody a "reasonable opportunity for a quality education." Each school could then be evaluated by these objectively quantifiable criteria, and then request funds from the Federal Government to address any short falls.

For example, in my opinion a "reasonable opportunity for a quality education" requires that the school be reasonably free from violence. If a school, such as my high school, experienced a number of stabbings, rapes and other violent crimes, that school could propose to the Federal Government what specific steps they would like to take to address that issue, e.g. metal detectors, school resource officers, surveillance, etc. and request the funds to take those steps.

Congress could develop similar standards for library materials, class size, adequate heating and ventilation, athletic facilities, scientific equipment, Advanced Placement and Honors classes, etc.

What do y'all think?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Your proposal is acceptable.

 

[AirPo]

Instead of all of this testing, teaching to the test, etc. what if we remade No Child Left Behind to be based upon opportunity for education rather than performance.

No teacher can make a student learn if that student refuses. Nor should a high performing school be punished, by diversion of funding, for succeeding.

I propose, that Congress develop an objectively quantifiable list of minimum standards that embody a "reasonable opportunity for a quality education." Each school could then be evaluated by these objectively quantifiable criteria, and then request funds from the Federal Government to address any short falls.

For example, in my opinion a "reasonable opportunity for a quality education" requires that the school be reasonably free from violence. If a school, such as my high school, experienced a number of stabbings, rapes and other violent crimes, that school could propose to the Federal Government what specific steps they would like to take to address that issue, e.g. metal detectors, school resource officers, surveillance, etc. and request the funds to take those steps.

Congress could develop similar standards for library materials, class size, adequate heating and ventilation, athletic facilities, scientific equipment, Advanced Placement and Honors classes, etc.

What do y'all think?

I don't have a problem with testing per se. My problem is collectively comparing the results to a national standard. Instead I think, results should be looked at individually. Compare end of year results with beginning of year results. On average, each child should be improving about a grade level each year.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think it should be in addition to rather than instead of.

One of the reasons for national testing is to be able to compare teaching methods so the best can be adopted. There can be too much emphasis on testing, but it shouldn't be ditched altogether.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Instead of all of this testing, teaching to the test, etc. what if we remade No Child Left Behind to be based upon opportunity for education rather than performance.

No teacher can make a student learn if that student refuses. Nor should a high performing school be punished, by diversion of funding, for succeeding.

I propose, that Congress develop an objectively quantifiable list of minimum standards that embody a "reasonable opportunity for a quality education." Each school could then be evaluated by these objectively quantifiable criteria, and then request funds from the Federal Government to address any short falls.

For example, in my opinion a "reasonable opportunity for a quality education" requires that the school be reasonably free from violence. If a school, such as my high school, experienced a number of stabbings, rapes and other violent crimes, that school could propose to the Federal Government what specific steps they would like to take to address that issue, e.g. metal detectors, school resource officers, surveillance, etc. and request the funds to take those steps.

Congress could develop similar standards for library materials, class size, adequate heating and ventilation, athletic facilities, scientific equipment, Advanced Placement and Honors classes, etc.

What do y'all think?

No.

This is not the purpose of our federal government. If any of the States want to do something like that, fine; but I object to the base premise that this is somehow a legitimate purpose of the federal government.

Sorry.

 

[NightHawkeye]

No.

This is not the purpose of our federal government. If any of the States want to do something like that, fine; but I object to the base premise that this is somehow a legitimate purpose of the federal government.

Sorry.

To be fair though, the premise was a replacement for "No Child Left Behind" ... a federal mandate.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Instead of all of this testing, teaching to the test, etc. what if we remade No Child Left Behind to be based upon opportunity for education rather than performance.

What is wrong with teaching to the test? If the test is decent, then if you teach to the test then you're doing your job. It's like in the martial arts: if the test is to actually step into the MMA ring and fight, then you'd be foolish not to. I've never heard a rational reason why teaching to the test is a bad thing.

 

[EdwinWillers]

To be fair though, the premise was a replacement for "No Child Left Behind" ... a federal mandate.

True enough. But then, I object to the No Child Left Behind federal mandate too, including the name.

 

[AirPo]

What is wrong with teaching to the test? If the test is decent, then if you teach to the test then you're doing your job. It's like in the martial arts: if the test is to actually step into the MMA ring and fight, then you'd be foolish not to. I've never heard a rational reason why teaching to the test is a bad thing.

I had a professor who taught to the test. The problem was his version of the test was ten times harder than the standard! If you could make it through his class you had little more to do than show up for the real thing.

 

[EdwinWillers]

What is wrong with teaching to the test? If the test is decent, then if you teach to the test then you're doing your job. It's like in the martial arts: if the test is to actually step into the MMA ring and fight, then you'd be foolish not to. I've never heard a rational reason why teaching to the test is a bad thing.

If you're teaching to the test, you're potentially missing out on teaching all the things the test can't cover - unless perhaps the test is an essay exam, or better yet, an oral board. Another risk is the attempt to make the questions themselves cover more ground and in the process become very difficult, even arcane to interpret so as to answer.

One example are trade proficiency exams, which pull from a pool of stock questions. Businesses have arisen that either get copies of the question pool, or over time build their own, based on surveys from people who just took the test. They then teach cram courses, helping the people basically memorize the questions. And when a state responds by attempting to circumvent this process, they end up developing arcane questions few are able to adequately answer.

Imho, tests ought to be an independent measure of the curriculum - what you've been taught, how well you've learned that material, not a goal to somehow "beat." Iow, the focus should not be the test, but the curriculum.

 

[JohnLocke]

Edwin,
I too would prefer to have education kept locally. In fact, I would abolish the Department of Education entirely, but that is a Libertarian pipe dream at the moment.

Some of the reasons I propose my alternative to No Child Left Behind (because presidents get all twerky when you abolish their "legacies") are:

1. The testing is massively expensive

2. The results of the testing, so far, have provided us with no more information about school quality than SAT scores and graduation rates all ready did.

3. The testing program itself is messed up. E.g. my niece took the test and scored extremely well. When she takes the test again, she again scores extremely well. Unfortunately, she comes home crying because her teacher said that she was going to get in trouble because my niece's score did not improve.

4. The testing program is invalidated by the actions of teachers, whether it is teaching to the test or the more extreme examples such as the Atlanta Public School System where teachers and administrators literally changed answers on the tests to improve students scores.

5. Testing does not, by itself, improve education. It might provide a basis to fire bad teachers and get new ones which might improve education, but that doesn't take into account the various collective bargaining agreements that teacher's unions have negotiated with their school boards which dramatically limit the conditions under which a teacher may be suspended/fired.

6. There is no evidence that this testing is a better tool for determining which teachers to fire than the measures previously used (Classroom observation, teaching evaluations, etc.)

Personally, I can't see any benefit to No Child Left Behind, though I'm open to being enlightened.