Bush profiteers collect billions from No Child Left Behind

[Reader Rabbit]

This is Project Censored's number 12 story. It comes from Mandevilla's 23-part series at Daily Kos.

For those who don't understand why teachers loathe NCLB, this is an enormous part of it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I won't dispute the problems with SES, but the testing is needed, and then some.

I would have absolutely no problem if the states would pony up to develop and administer the tests themselves, so as to avoid the "profiteering" (which I think is probably going overboard - someone's got to make the tests and it's not going to happen for free), but the testing has exposed vast inequities in our education system for low income and minority students.

There's a damn good reason why every single civil rights organization hails NCLB. Teachers just don't like the idea that it exposes the fact that there are some really bad teachers, which is asinine because there are bad doctors, lawyers, and members of every other profession in the world, too.

[DCKit]

2. We went from "teaching the kids" to "teaching the tests"...

almost immediately when NCLB was passed. Every child I know has been bitching about this since it's inception.

How is our children going to learn when that is the totality of their education?

(note the nod to *)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. That's utter BS.

Children bitch about eat vegetables, too. Student achievement has to be assessed somehow, with some consistency, or we will have absolutely no way of knowing how our schools are performing. And as far as "teaching to the test" goes, it's only a problem where you have a horrible, bubble-sheet only test, which the vast majority of people that back NCLB would argue is the next frontier for reform. States like Massachusetts or Minnesota that have extended response tests perform far better than states like North Carolina, which only pays $.05 per student for the tests and has only multiple choice.

[rateyes]

7. There are areas of education where a child can be excelling that

are never tested for. Students are pulled out of health, PE, music, art classes, etc. for CRCT (the test in GA) practice.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. I'd sooner test for those things than stop testing reading and math proficiency.

Those two are fundamental to any college or work future that a student may have. Ignoring a student's, a school's, and a state's ability in those areas is downright foolish and harmful to our society. Not only that, it clearly covers up racial and class inequities of our education system.

Students should not be pulled out of other subject areas for any reason. That is an abject failure of the leadership of the state - rather than solving more difficult problems with the academic standards and the quality of teaching, they chose to cover up those problems either by lowering the standards even further, dumbing down the tests, or the route Georgia took of basically eliminating everything but reading and math. That's not a fault of the law - that's the fault of ass-backwards problem solving.

[YvonneCa]

18. No one I know in education wants to 'not test'. That's a 'straw man'...

...argument. Under NCLB, the testing has become all-consuming. It leaves little time to teach.

If the only test given was for NCLB...once a year...I'd cheer. But, in my county, tests are given three times a year...in reading, math and writing...to be sure state standards are met...in addition to NCLB. We start the school year...we test. We get to Christmas...we test. We return in the spring...we do test prep and test NCLB. After NCLB, at the end of the year...we test again. That's what I mean. And anyone who has taught knows you don't just test one day...you have all the hassle because kids are absent/makeups, etc. And then ther's the focus on scoring.

Teacher energy needs to be on the kids and teaching. JMHO. And, to add insult to injury, the data is used unfairly. Example:

At the start of a new school year, student A reads at 4th grade level. By year's end, student A reads at 6th grade level. That's two years of growth, and it is easily tested. Let's say student A is in a 4th grade classroom. The teacher does well, both on growth...and currently on NCLB. That's because NCLB wanted that student to read at 5th grade level by the end of the year...target met.


Now, take student B. At the start of the school year, student B reads at 4th grade level. By year's end, student B reads at 6th grade level. Again, that's two years of growth and it's easily tested. But student B is in a 6th grade classroom. The teacher has done well on growth...two years. But the teacher is 'iffy' on NCLB, because the target is 7th grade level (ready for middle school).


And then, take student C. At the start of the school year, student C reads at 4th grade level. By year's end, student C reads at 5th grade level. That's one year growth, and it's easily tested. But student C is also in a 6th grade classroom. The teacher has done okay on growth (one year for one year of instruction) by the student can't meet the NCLB target of 7th grade. That teacher is PUNISHED by NCLB.

That is the part that is unfair. And many excellent, dedicated teachers in underperforming schools are being targetted because of it.

Another example:

Let's say there are four second grade teachers. Every one of them produces an average of 1 to 3 years growth in their class of students. But they are very different as teachers...one complains about *certain* students placed in their class every year, another teaches 'GATE' students (and they get averaged into the total class improvement), another regularly takes kids the others don't want because of a belief that you work with students as they come to you, etc.

Thanks to the current focus on 'data' and 'results' (which does have a place) at the end of the year, these four teachers get a number (data) showing average growth of their class. IMO, data is important, but it is ONE measure of each teacher. Remember, ALL these teachers added value. ALL these teachers are good teachers. But administrators...under great pressure as 'at-will' employees...see this data. Some (really bad ones) make the data public by handing it out at staff meetings. This pits one teacher against another when we should all be working toward the same goal.



Data is a tool...but only ONE tool. Anyone who has taken a class in statistics will tell you you can twist data to make a case for anything. That's what has changed under NCLB...successful teachers who help their students grow are NOT rewarded, they are punished because sometimes even 3-4 years growth is still below standard.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. You might have to be familiar with public school culture....

>>>>>And as far as "teaching to the test" goes, it's only a problem where you have a horrible, bubble-sheet only test, which the vast majority of people that back NCLB would argue is the next frontier for reform.>>>>>>

.... to understand this but it is, in fact, a HUGE problem, bubble sheets, or no bubble sheets. I'm in NY. Part MC, part extended response. Don't know anything about any of the other states, but the teachers here are under enormous pressure to teach to the test. 'Cause principals are under enormous pressure to produce statistical improvement. 'Cause principals are essentially no longer unionized professionals ( they are *nominally* but they really are not.) but rather mini CEO's hired from year to year. The panic over testing and "data" that their level trickles down in a most predicatably Republican way.

Additional consequences of testing mania: the "data" is unreliable. You cannot collect relaibale data in the highly politically charged system that exists here. The reason is simple: with so much at stake, people *cheat*.

Also, to the very best of my knowledge, no teacher union is against intelligent assessment; I certainly am not. ( Why in the world would we be?) We are against the POLITICIZATION of assessment. We are aginst tainted testing. We are against ersatz data. We are against LOST TEACHING TIME ( as in *real* teaching time.)


>>>>>States like Massachusetts or Minnesota that have extended response tests perform far better than states like North Carolina, which only pays $.05 per student for the tests and has only multiple choice.>>>>>>>

How nice for those states.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. For what purpose would this data be politicized?

Education, outside of some on the fringes, is by and large a bipartisanly handled issue (which may or may not be a good thing). So if no one's "scoring points" politically, to what purpose would one politicize this testing?

Do you honestly believe this is part of a grand, bipartisan conspiracy to demonize teachers? Frankly, it would not and could not happen - they are one of the few professions that are mostly beyond reproach politically. If you're anywhere near smart, you don't attack teachers.

I won't argue that the state of principals and state/school/district administration is pitiable. They act more out of fear than out of solid reasoning or good intentions. They don't support teachers because they fear being fired or sued. They don't use the authority they have to implement meaningful changes. They lower their standards intentionally to drive up graduation rates instead of solving the problems that cause poor student retention. They use cheap, meaningless tests instead of forking over the money necessary to develop the kind of tests that SHOULD be taught to and that good teachers already teach to without vastly changing their pedagogy. They institute policies where teachers are encouraged (read: forced) to move kids along that have no business advancing in their education to make themselves and their schools look better.

All told - this is precisely why we have the NAEP exams - to expose the policies for the garbage that they are. And that is working in spades - while Bloomberg and Duncan are touting NYC's progress, the NAEP exams show absolutely none. NAEP provides a measure of truth in advertising that does not exist, and that would not be possible without having NCLB in place.

My problem with the teachers unions on these issues is that instead of pushing for those changes and pushing for better leadership, they too wind up taking the path of least resistance and just argue against the very measures we need to improve education. In this regard, they are no better than the principals and administrators. Everyone involved is playing the "cover your own ass" game and passing blame for the problems on someone else - ultimately, they're all passing the buck to parents, which is easy because there's no unified voice of parents to fight back.

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. For political advantage.

To lie. To represent something as true that is actually false.

Bloomberg said in his first run to judge him on the basis of how he did with the schools. That was 8 years ago. Achievement has not changed.... and from the inside.... one can tell that virtually *everything* is worse.

Read Diane Ravitch's column in todays NY Times that I OPed in this forum.

More later. You make some points that I agree with and others I find interesting but I won't have time to comment on 'til Monday.

[Smarmie Doofus]

31. Well, no. It's not a "grand conspiracy".

>>>>>Do you honestly believe this is part of a grand, bipartisan conspiracy to demonize teachers? Frankly, it would not and could not happen - they are one of the few professions that are mostly beyond reproach politically. If you're anywhere near smart, you don't attack teachers.>>>>

But "beyond reproach politically"? Wha? Whenever these issues are discussed in MSM the phrase "has the courage to defy the teachers' unions" ( or it's equivalent) is so commonplace it's already passed "cliche status".

The *mythical* teacher is beyond reproach. Bette Davis in the "Corn is Green", is beyond reproach. Mr. Chips, the White Shadow, Gabe Kaplan and Leave it to Beaver's Miss Landers: they're all "beyond reproach." Real-life teachers who organize for fair compensation, reasonable job security and in order to practice their profession without undue (*undue*) interference from non - pedagogues are an entirely different matter. 1. They cost money. 2. No living human can match the self sacrifice and saintly dedication of the Mr. Chips and the other above-mentioned FICTIONAL characters.


>>>My problem with the teachers unions on these issues is that instead of pushing for those changes and pushing for better leadership, they too wind up taking the path of least resistance and just argue against the very measures we need to improve education. In this regard, they are no better than the principals and administrators. Everyone involved is playing the "cover your own ass" game and passing blame for the problems on someone else - ultimately, they're all passing the buck to parents, which is easy because there's no unified voice of parents to fight back.>>>>

To the extent that the above is true, I agree. I'm just not sure it's true. There is, I'll grant, a kind of paranoia in the profession that may be reflected in what you are describing. "Paranoia" may be the wrong word; perhaps a "very heightened degree of vigilance" is what it really is. There's a sense among many that EVERY educational reform is part of a larger plan to weaken and essentially *break* the teachers' unions and professional organizations. The fact that the educational "reform" movement is led , in part, by RW ideological fanatics who HATE unions and HATE the very idea of public education on general principal may account for the "heightened state of vigilance". But they "are what they are".

The "reformers" that bug me the most are nominally progressive types like Obama, Bloommerg, ( actually I might just as easily put him in the *first* camp) Duncan , Rhee, Caroline Kennedy, et al, whose life experience and current circumstances are so laughably removed from the reality of public education.

The machinations and posturings of NEITHER wing of this reform movement is likely to result in a better public school system. The first faction is too emotional and the second faction is too indiffernet... since nothing that happens to the public school system ( it exists for the "little people" , you realize) is going to gore, or NOT gore their particular ox.

In a sense , the political dynamic that has taken over the debate is a lot like the abortion wars. A lot of folks are pro-choice because they don't trust the motives of the anti-choicers. Not because they regard the complex ethical issues associated with legalized abortion as a slam dunk.

Something similar seems to be happening in this debate.

[YvonneCa]

24. You seem to think many here are against testing. That is not...

...the case. I am against EXCESSIVE testing...to the point that good teaching is threatened. I have no problem with assessment OR with holding teachers, students AND families accountable.

[Reader Rabbit]

9. Your claim "every single civil rights organization hails NCLB" is a bit misleading.

Most of what I've read says that while the civil rights groups like the concepts of closing the achievement gap and holding all students to high standards, they also acknowledge that NCLB has numerous flaws that not only don't accomplish these aims, but that actively work against them. For example, Education and Civil Rights Groups Call for NCLB Changes in a "Joint Statement on No Child Left Behind Act."

The statement supports a strong federal role in improving education, but notes that NCLB is causing serious harm to education, including: “over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test results; and inadequate funding.”

[LWolf]

29. The testing is as corrupt as the politicians who mandate it.

Standardized tests were first developed early in the last century to sort people. To rank them. It started with "IQ" tests; then the U.S. military called on psychologists to develop tests for them to sort out recruits; the "alpha" and "beta" tests.

Today's standardized tests are a manipulation of data that is, at the very least, unethical.

Unless you'd like to spend a few weeks arguing the legitimacy of the bell curve, about half of all populations will be below the average in the norm group, and about half above. No matter how well anyone scores.

While I, and many other educators and educational psychologists, including my professor in my "psychological measurement" course pre-NCLB, are of the informed opinion that the data gained through such standardized testing is of limited value, it's really the USE of the data that is corrupt.

Standardized test scores are a measure of student learning. Not a measure of effective instruction. School districts, school sites, and teachers do not control all the factors that affect standardized test scores. The use of those scores, then, as a school or teacher accountability measure is invalid.

Despite the political propaganda. If civil rights organizations really want to see improvement, they need to set their sites on the sources, ALL the sources, of low achievement, rather than touting a bunch of standardized tests that have yet to make a positive difference, and are, through misuse, making a negative difference for students across the nation.

Of course the testing "exposes" inequities. Not that we didn't know those inequities were there pre-high stakes testing. The greatest predictor of standardized test scores is NOT what a teacher or a school does. It's parent SES. That was part of that Psychological Measurement course I took 15 years ago.

Poverty is the biggest predictor of poor academic achievement. I don't hear any politicians rushing forward to make poverty in the U.S. extinct. Generational illiteracy and poverty are not going to be overcome by what happens in the classroom during the school day in a year or a decade. It will take a generation or two. They will be overcome by wiping out poverty and by restoring intellect development as an American value. By parent education programs that teach them how to develop all those neural connections in the critical birth - age 4 stage that sets them up for academic achievement.

There are plenty of ways to make public schools better. Having been an educator for 26 years now, in two states, large and small districts, large and small schools, I can state unequivocally that schools are WORSE today than they were before the rise of high-stakes testing. We definitely need some profound changes in the system.

Starting with booting the "standards and accountability" movement and high-stakes testing out to the compost heap where it belongs. Not to go back to what we were doing 10, 15, or even 20 years ago. There are plenty of healthy, positive things we can do to make the system better. I have 50 or so ideas myself. None of them have anything whatsoever to do with standardized testing or the standardization of curriculum and instruction. Just with creating the most effective learning environment possible. Still, until the root causes of academic failure are addressed, nothing we do in school will be fully effective.

[YvonneCa]

33. Another thought about those 'vast inequities' exposed by...

...the testing. That's a good thing. But please understand some of us knew about it before NCLB exposed it. I have taught in the 13th poorest city of its size in the US...a small city with 80%+ English Language Learners. I understood the problems pretty well by my third year of teaching...and spent the rest of my career trying to find and implement solutions that work. My district has been quite successful in improvement...even in an age of NCLB.

Teachers don't oppose NCLB because it 'exposes bad teachers.' We know it couldn't possibly do that, given it's design. We oppose it because it INCREASES inequity for low income, minority students AND treats ELL and special-ed kids unfairly.

[faeryfaye59]

34. Making tests matter, and looking at teachers differently...

I would never dispute the presence of bad teachers. Many of us have been coerced into teaching to tests that measure little and mean less. Those of us who refuse have students who are able to perform well on tests because we have encouraged autonomous thought and challenged them to question everything along with the "skills skills skills" we hear of so often. There are districts where that is not allowed, and so I count myself lucky. As to the tests themselves, most states spend a gazillion dollars (I teach the humanities, not numbers--sorry)administering end of course exams of their own making. This seems so ridiculous when for much less we could use the SAT or the ACT or both to accomplish the accountability necessary and at the same time give students opportunities to learn to succeed on the tests that will determine their post secondary admissions. The problems with NCLB are many, and I only wish there were more "real" educators sorting through it. Unfortunately, most districts and most state departments of education believe in a top-down way of thinking. The thinking, in this case, must come from the classroom up. Just so you know, I am a union teacher (NEA)--and at our state level, our union does not rail against accountability. They work really hard to make sure good teachers stay in classrooms and do what we do best. Most of us work really hard to "teach your children well..."

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. K & R...

[mopinko]

4. money was the whole point

one way arne duncan fought nclb, and won, was that they wanted kids who needed extra tutoring to go to private tutoring companies for it. it was expensive, and it would have been impossible for all the kids that were entitled to get it for the money they alloted. the resources also just plain did not exist on a scale that was necessary.
to them, it was going to open up a huge market.
what the teachers wanted was to be able to do it themselves, after school. they knew the kids, they knew the kid's strengths and weaknesses, they wanted the job. he won that fight, and the cps teachers got the job.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. And yet Duncan supports nearly all other aspects of NCLB.

So clearly, money's not the whole point, at least not from a non-Bush supportive point of view.

[mopinko]

10. where do you get that?

seriously.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. From him, directly. (nt)

[mopinko]

13. in your phone calls?

i'm not trying to be snotty. i am serious.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Group meeting.

I apologize that I can't give any further details than that. Still, it shouldn't be much of a shock. Obama supports NCLB, and it hard to believe his Secretary of Education wouldn't as well. Duncan is a quiet reformer - he's not of the Michelle Rhee mold, but like Obama, he pushes an agenda through finding consensus (or at least attempting to).

[mopinko]

16. Ok sure

Whatever you say

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I don't require you to believe me. (nt)

[YvonneCa]

19. Well I hope he includes teachers,..not just unions...TEACHERS...

...in his attempt at consensus. We have a perspective that is NOT currently being heard. JMHO.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. He has a long track record of including teachers.

At least he did in Chicago.

[YvonneCa]

23. And when he includes them does he...

...LISTEN to them? When he listens, does he actually HEAR them? IMO, what has been missing is that there has been 'inclusion' but that ideas are actually dismissed...not really heard and valued.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. AFT seemed to think so. (nt)

[YvonneCa]

26. Now I'm unsure if you are ...

...hearing me. :7 I'm TIRED of my opinions (as a teacher) not being heard. Saying that the AFT (a union) thinks one thing or another doesn't matter to me. Doing that sends the message that the union's point of view is what counts.

Individual teachers' points of view are what should count. We need no validating by the AFT, NEA, CTA...etc. Hear US.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. How you would measure such a thing, I wouldn't know.

I vastly appreciate what you're saying, but to gauge something so ephemeral, I'm just not sure how you'd do it.

[YvonneCa]

28. Start by reading this ...

... thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5435933


And continue by talking to groups of teachers (that would be the harder task, but well worth doing).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Okay but listening to you does not mean rubber stamp everything you say.

And some of what you say in that post should already be happening and does not need a federal law to make it happen (involving parents and integrated curricula). In fact, both of those are well within the jurisdiction of teachers to make it happen without anyone else - it doesn't require money and it doesn't require any kind of approval. You can just do it.

[YvonneCa]

32. I'd never want anything I say to be rubber-stamped...

...by anyone. I am ONE teacher voice.


This part of your post makes me wonder what your level of knowledge is about education and how the system works (or doesn't work :7 ) currently:

"In fact, both of those are well within the jurisdiction of teachers to make it happen without anyone else - it doesn't require money and it doesn't require any kind of approval. You can just do it."


I have 24 years experience involving parents in their child's education AND designing curriculum...within district guidelines...for my classroom. When a district (or a city or a state) supports a strategy, the teacher will be praised for implementing it. When a district (or a city or a state) no longer supports a strategy, the teacher will be de-valued until they change. When NCLB came along, integration of curriculum was tossed and replaced by teaching to the test. Teachers in my district were told that integration was the 'I' word, and was not to be done. Same thing happened to programs in the school that involved community like 'student -led' conferences and goal setting, conflict resolution, history, art...on and on. They were de-valued because a decision was made at some level (above the teacher level) to use education minutes to meet AYP according to federal law (NCLB).

I actually understand the decision made to teach to the test...but I STRONGLY disagree with it being the correct thing to do for students. But, in my classroom, I couldn't just 'do it'...meaning do my own thing and integrate curriculum. Of course, my boss had to approve my classroom program. I tried to keep the important things there...most teachers do that. (I remember one teacher who used to refer to how he was 'illicitly teaching history last week' when the principal came in. He was reprimanded.) Teachers just don't have the power that some here think they have. THAT'S why we need to be heard.


P.S. Just a final thought...I hope you read the whole thread, and not just my post. There are MANY good ideas from MANY teachers...not just my ideas. I only presented my ideas to spark a discussion that would include teachers. I think more of that type of discussion is needed if school reform is to be a success. I've waited over 24 years for success. :7

[mopinko]

22. in chicago, the unions and the teachers are not exactly the same things.

chicago has a strong, but sometimes boneheaded union. they do a lot of things right, especially where it comes to continuing education. they get good bennies for the member.
one thing that i get upset with them about is that there is a max class size in their contracts, but they exceed it all the time. they should make that stick.
but above all, they make it tooooo hard to fire bad teachers. way too hard.