Brain Fertilizer

As a math teacher, I feel compelled to comment about this.

I too am a conservative, and I teach my classes as such, rewarding things like personal responsibility and accountability in students while disdaining excuses, and the quasi-racial profiling that goes on in many schools.

But I dislike the No Child Left Behind Act. NCLB mandates what's called "adequate yearly progress" on state assessments - given yearly, with four formative pre-tests. My high school did not qualify in math the first year (missed badly), and did not qualify the second year (missed the higher number by a fraction of a percent). We may or may not make the standard (higher still) this year. (I can get the numbers for you for Kansas later.)

My district's kids have all those disadvantages and then some. I don't want to identify my district, but suffice it to say it serves a large community of people who aren't paid a lot and who move a lot (that ought to be a dead giveaway).

Much of what you say is true regarding parental responsibility in this area. Parents - as I have discovered - can be both the biggest advantage a kid has and the biggest disadvantage. Parents are the single biggest indicator of a child's success. Although it makes things easier when parents and teachers are allies, the "takes a village" approach doesn't work.

But the problem with a large battery of state assessments becomes that curriculum becomes aligned with state standards, and then a certain small, immutable body of mathematics (for example) is taught to kids statewide, with little room for flexibility for teachers to add in interesting and challenging material that lies outside these standards - material that can spark a kid's interest and drive him/her to study mathematics and science, or to excel in general.

President Bush's goal is for all students - 100% to score proficient or higher in all subjects by 2014. No matter who you support Nov. 2 (and I support the President), no one can think that this is anything but a pipe dream. Does that sound bad for a teacher to say? No, I think it's merely realistic, and for the reasons you describe - parents and personal responsibility of the kid.

Some degree of accountabilty is required for schools - but I'm not sure this is it. It's driving exactly the behavior that critics say it drives - "teaching to the test". No one will say it, but everyone I speak to pretty much agrees that this is what happens. I hate it, and I refuse to do it.

Anyway, that is my two cents'. I am going to refer my own readers to this discussion, because it's one worth having. Good job.

Hmmmm...that's nearly word-for-word with what my more liberal friend said. (Okay, I exaggerate, but you know what I mean).
But this article stated flatly that based on research, when you account for the very real disadvantages some kids face, rigorous standards do help significantly. And the only way to enforce rigorous standards is through testing. You can't just sit back and go with how the teacher "feels" the student is doing, right? It's got to be quantifiable.

Perhaps they are defining "success" by performance on the test itself? That would make sense, I guess: a test that measures only how well the teach the test is going to be like a self-licking ice cream cone.

...on the other hand, in music theory class my freshman year, a group of students in another section decided to cheat on chord identification. Each one chose a different chord type he was supposed to learn so well that he would always positively identify 100%, and not have to worry about studying the other types at all. But within a month, when the teacher played any chord, all the people in the group knew who to look for to get the "high sign". Cheating? Yes. But they learned the chords better than any other class. And in high school, we had a teacher trying to teach us the amendments. He chose one poor student to ask about the 17th amendment every time. Within 3 iterations we had all learned it, even the poor student.
These are cases of "teaching for the test", but teaching for the test most emphatically did not prevent real learning from going on. In fact, while "teaching for the test" has a bad stigma in the United States, isn't that why most other nations outdo us? They teach rote memorization and do nothing but "teach for the tests". Along with that, they don't waste time building false self esteem or teaching the students to act out what kind of tree they are so eveyrone can get a friggin' gold star. How many hours are wasted in the day with silly liberal social theory?
On the other hand, it is generally accepted that students raised in the US are far better at flexibility and "thinking outside the box"....but "thinking outside the box" and a well-developed self-esteem don't help you identify Chile on a map or build a safe suspension bridge (although thinking outside the box can sometimes lead to inspiration...however, in and of itself, it doesn't help if the box you are thinking outside of is the collective Laws of Physics).
Furthermore, I think the phrase "disadvantages are taken into account" is a very important phrase. To me, it says that, yes, disadvantages still affect things, and despite the Act's name, kids are still "left behind". But despite the problems, more kids achieve greater success under "No Child Left Behind" than under previous systems. Can it be improved/tweaked/fixed? Sure. No plan is perfect. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I don't think we should eliminate the NCLB Act just because it isn't perfect.

But I admit it's hardly so definitive as I make it sound. There's lots of debating room left here.

Furthermore, as a Math teacher, how many times do you think we will have these discussions regarding the division of equal resources? Can we factor in all the aspects? Is it really quantifiable? Problems multiply when people say "What's yours is mine," but refuse to reciprocate with "What's minus yours, too."

hehehe....couldn't resist.