TheApple

 I believe George W Bush and most Republican legislators support it. Why? Well, because they are completely clueless as to education in general and specifically what really does go on and what should go on in the classroom.

In most cases, having politicians dictate educational policy is about as successful as having your heart transplant operation done by your car mechanic.

 President Bush (and the Congress) made a slight error when creating NCLB. They "assumed" that education, like business, is measurable using a bottom line. In business, the bottom line is profit. In education, they thought the bottom line was achievement on tests. Unfortunately for the politicians (and several million school children) they were wrong. If you stress tests, administrators and teachers will go all out to achieve the bottom line of passing tests. However, in education, it turns out that there's more to the bottom line that can be measured so simply.

The problem with attempting to apply business-like assessment and accountability to education is that education and business operate on different time schedules. In business, profit is earned by the sale or lease of an end product, a thing or a service. It can be measured on an annual basis and one year's profit or loss is the end result and a reasonable measure of the business.

Learning is not a lock-step assembly-line production in which all "units" progress through the process in uniform time segments. Failure to progress at an 'acceptable' rate in one year does not nescessarily mean that the student will be behind at the end of high school, college or other terminus of schooling.

The goal of business is immediate profit; the goal in education is life-long learning. When a car rolls of the assembly line it is finished; when a student leaves school he is just begun.

I'm a "product" of NCLB (I'm young) as are many of my fellow peers (some of which are still repeating 12th grade).  It's pretty... terrible. When I was in school we spent more time studying for how to take this dreaded test than how to do math problems, do writing problems, and just learning. I'm oppossed to it because simply living through it, I missed out on a lot of information that I had to make up for hand over fist, it was so depressing when I got to college and did not know a thing.

 Dear MisterD,

I do believe you're being a little disingenuous here. " . . . the stakes a little higher" means that the tests are the SOLE determinant of performance. So, what else could you expect but that teachers would "emphasize the tests" since it's only the tests that the system itself emphasizes?

Its never been the sole determinant of anything where I've been.  Just another facet of how the local folks implement soemthing.

MisterD says ...

Its never been the sole determinant of anything where I've been.  Just another facet of how the local folks implement soemthing.

How many schools have you taught in?  How many levels of students have you taught? 

In my experience (2 schools, 5 grade levels), the focus by administrators is to pass the test and get good grades as a district.  The growth of the students is a concern by teachers, not administration, but teachers must also hold onto their own jobs by way of their students achieving high grades on the test.  That is what I have been told from year to year.

MisterD says ...

Its never been the sole determinant of anything where I've been.  Just another facet of how the local folks implement soemthing.

I'm not so sure about this, that is local, and not state. I was educated in rural PA, and meeting AYP was all that mattered for anything. Now I live in Metro Atlanta, my husband teaches at one of the major districts, and I have close friends who gradutated who teach in APS and other metro areas, and they all operate the same way, as is Georgia Standards.

 Could be an interesting read:  

The faults of the NCLB legislation are numerous, but they are not the major 

concern of this book. We are concerned here with only one of the provi- 

sions of NCLB, the one requiring that states adopt a system of account- 

ability whereby students, teachers, administrators, and schools are evaluated 

annually on the basis of students’ standardized test performance and that 

consequences follow when student scores are low or annual gains in school 

achievement are not made. 

Stakes are “high” because of the life-changing significance of the con- 

sequences attached to test scores. For example, the consequences of low 

scores for students include failure to be promoted to a subsequent grade, 

failure to graduate high school, or denial of college scholarship monies.

 Low-scoring students can also switch schools, receive tutoring at school 

expense, and may also have to attend district-mandated Saturday school, 

summer school, or after-school programs. Teachers and administrators 

can receive bonuses for high student scores, or, as is more typically the 

case, they can be reassigned or fired because of low student scores and 

poor student gains. Low scores and poor gains allow for schools to be re- 

constituted as public charter or private schools or simply closed, with the 

students reassigned elsewhere. The public ratings of public schools also 

mean that all school personnel receive public accolades or a public scold- 

ing as a consequence of school and district test scores. Shaming, an an- 

cient ritual, is a component of NCLB. 

Scholars and politicians from divergent viewpoints generally believe 

that NCLB is legislation badly in need of serious change. 

As noted, however, our concern is with just one piece of the NCLB legislation required 

of all the states, sometimes even eagerly accepted by them, that may live 

on after the inevitable restructuring (or demise) of NCLB. Our concern is 

with the acceptance of high-stakes testing as the mechanism to effect 

changes in our schools. In the chapters that follow, we present evidence 

that high-stakes testing so distorts and corrupts education that their con- 

tinued use seriously endangers the educational profession and limits the 

learning outcomes of our youth. 

Reprinted from Sharon L. Nichols and David C. Berliner, 

Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools 

 (Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard Education Press, 2007).

 Dear MisterD,

I believe that were you to read the book, you would find extensive documentary evidence.

"I have never seen any of these consequences implemented let alone in an educationally harmful way."

Darn, your anecdotal evidence can beat up my anecdotal evidence.

Regards,

John

Nicely said, Deven.

In all honesty, I casn't say how many of the five NCLB is responsible for, and it might be none directly and still be all of them indirectly. I don't mean to be obtuse by saying that, but it is hard to say whether the current mania for standardized assessment is the cause of or result of the demands of NCLB.

My actual complain about NCLB has nothing to do with the standardized tests, though I do agree with the statement that you don't get a pig (with or without lipstick) fat by weighing it more often.  My problem is with the punative nature of the law. Punishment rarely gets the results it is intended to get. The way to get improved behavior is to reward the desired behavior. It works for students and it would work for teachers, schools and school districts. You want me to teach a certain way, reward me for doing so. You want the school to reach certain standards? Reward them for trying and reward them more for succeeding. I see another school getting rewarded and I want some too.

Perhaps you are right and the negative consequences have never been enforced. If so, that makes the law just silly.

It needs to be modified.  It does not work for special education students or students in city schools.  I don't think children should be tested for hours to determine their true abilities.  My oldest daughter was in the paper about this subject.  She was losing hair at the age of 10 due to her teacher's stress about the tests!  It's not healthy for children.  Teachers are walking out due to the demands put on them.  The school I'm in is 80% hispanic and a lot are no were near ready to take state tests.  It's sad to me that a school is ranked by test scores, especially when one area can't compete with the another.  You should really study NCLB and live it and then you'll understand why it causes stress and anxiety in students, teachers,  parents and school systems.  It's a waste of teaching time and time teachers could be teaching students other things.

You can test a child to see where their strengths and weaknesses are but four or five times a year is just a waste of everyone times!   Yes, teach to standards but cut the test time in half.

If you're not in a subject where these test affect your career, then you really can't understand.  I've seen excellent teacher fired because their students are  not making the grade.  It is just sad to me that we are judge on a test.  I know I can have a bad day and do terrible on an exam and then the next day feel good and get a perfect score.  All this testing is a nightmare to students and teachers. It's amazing to me that  people think that testing constantly and preparing for it is a good thing?  Hello!  I know students that don't know half of what we know but they know how to use POE.  It not a bad thing but I'd like sixth graders learning their math facts and doing more constructive learning that will help them in the future.

Consequences, in any setting (NCLB, parent-child, teacher-student etc.) are there to promote better behavior.  They are not intended to be used simply as a means of punishment for its own sake. 

Any clearer?