The NCLB Effect: Mediocrity Is More Important Than Excellence
June 15, 2007
There are a lot of disconcerting things about No Child Left Behind, but here’s one that I find particularly troubling. We spend a ton of time measuring many subgroups of students to make sure that they are making adequate yearly progress: special ed. students, students of all different races, low-income students, and so on.What about gifted students? Who is making sure that they are maximizing their potential?
Let’s be honest. Which group of people is likely to have more of a positive impact on the world for generations to come (for example, by designing new inventions, finding cures for diseases, or coming up with innovative entrepreneurial ideas that alter the way we do business): the top 1% of students or the bottom 1%?
Why don’t we spend time agonizing over why Johnny used to be in the 99th percentile in both reading and math but two years later is lagging in the 81st percentile in reading and the 83rd percentile in math?
Why is it that all NCLB cares about is that no child is left behind? What about creating a new endeavor, such as ”One Million Students Forging Ahead” that focuses on maximizing the talents of the best 1-3% of students in America?
“No Child Left Behind” has a nice ring to it. But “More Children Further Ahead” is just as important. Excellence matters.
Entry Filed under: AYP, Differentiation, Education, Elementary Education, Fifth Grade, First Grade, Fourth Grade, Gifted Students, Gifted and Talented, High Schools, Learning, No Child Left Behind, Second Grade, Secondary Education, Teaching, Third Grade, school. .
9 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
A. Mercer | June 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I’m finding the opposite of what you fear is true at my school. Since my state had a slow adoption curve, we are at the point where we have to make 25-35% at Proficient or Advanced (above grade level) in our test scores. The emphasis (and it has been stated explicitly) is on moving students from Basic (just below Proficient) to Proficient, and keeping Advanced and Proficient students at those levels. There is less effort on the two subgroups below Basic (Below and Far Below Basic). No matter how you slice it (your analysis, or my analysis), at this point, someone’s getting left behind.
2.
thirdgradeteacher | June 17, 2007 at 5:41 pm
VERY interesting. So your school is basically saying that since Proficient and Advanced levels are what count, you guys are going to throw all of your efforts behind the students who most realistically could get there. It makes sense… if raising test scores was all that mattered. But what an absolutely horrible unintended consequence for those students who are below Basic.
I think that goal (focus on the Basic level and to heck with the below Basic students) is nothing short of immoral. It disgusts me.
3.
A. Mercer | June 18, 2007 at 12:31 am
Oh, we focus on Basic level, especially if they are close to Proficient, but you can forget about those Below and Far Below Basic kids. I won’t say they get no services, but not the services their level demands.
4.
professional_mom_3kidz | June 18, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“-not the services their level demands.” I find that sad.
My son was a science wiz at the beginning of the previous school year, focusing primarily on chemistry. Because he hated English Language Arts, he was starting to lag behind in that subject. You know, “forgetting” his homework and the work he did turn in was sloppy at best.
His teacher’s solution was to have him do make up work during science. The most amazing thing happened. His grades rose a little in ELA, but he started failing science.
I wish more teachers thought about the kids in their class as their kids for the year, instead of their cross to bear. It’s not a just a job. Teachers affect kids for a very long time, and should treat a child as a person, instead of a malfunctioning machine that should regurgitate information at specified times.
Every kid is different and should be treated as such. Those in the top 1% should (at the very least) be looked in upon to make sure they stay in the the top percentile. How many kids all of a sudden just couldn’t get a concept, and then start failing because the class has moved on and on again, building upon that concept? Or how many are bored doing “busy work” because the rest of the class needs the practice?
I think the child’s specific teacher has a lot to do with a child’s success. You can tell the teacher who really cares by the attitudes of the kids in the class…not to mention the majority of their grades.
5.
Sailorman | June 19, 2007 at 1:47 pm
This is a cogent post. You are entirely correct: the lack of focus on the upper end of things is obviously hurting them. My own moniker was always “NCLB: No child helped to excel” but perhaps yours is better
It’s the same two conflicting principles again of process and result.
If your goal is to achieve equal results, then you can’t do so without biasing the process. So we give an inordinate amount of time to children who learn slowly, while withholding that time from the smart kids.
This is all well and good if the goal is only minimum proficiency, but it doesn’t work worth a damn if the goal includes any analysis of potential.
If your goal is to achieve equality in the process, you will end up with uneven results. Giving each student the same time or same money or same opportunities will mean that some students excel and others fail.
This is all well and good if failing is considered OK. But in the U.S., that’s not the case.
While it seems reasonable to have some output-based measures (e.g. give more than zero advantage to the slower students) I share your belief that we have gone too far in this area.
6.
jamiek619 | June 19, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I share the same concerns from an instructional paraprofessional perspective. In the elementary school where I work, there is definitely more emphasis in helping students who struggle academically than those who are higher achievers. Some of these students end up with behavior issues because they are bored or they think that being smart isn’t cool. Earlier this year, I was working daily with a group of 7 students from a third grade class who were considered to be high achievers. It took some time to motivate them to learn as they were not used to being challenged or having extra attention. We were studying different types of non-fiction. We finally started moving forward and their enthusiasm was building when a boy with special needs entered the school. I was pulled out of my work with the achievers in order to work with the boy who was struggling with other issues. They were really disappointed and for a long time, asked how long it would be until we could continue. The school year ended without an opportunity for those 7 students to move ahead as a group. They were, in essence, left behind. It may well be that when and if another opportunity arises for these 7 students, attitudes of cynicism may prevail.
7.
Flintcitylimit | June 26, 2007 at 8:56 am
In my experience in an underfunded school district with multi-problem families, the potentially high achievers, as well as the competent middle get shunted aside while attention is focused on “the bubble kids”–those who might possibly meet standards on the test. Then there is special education inclusion with minimal classroom support—including the emotionally impaired who can wreak havoc in an instant.
8.
patrick | July 5, 2007 at 8:33 am
i am presently doing a research on differentiation in a math class and couldn’t agree with you the less in any way. you’re damn right.
9.
helensorenson | July 31, 2007 at 9:37 pm
NCLB just sucks. I work in a comprehensive high school with special education students who are mainstreamed, for the most part. However, there are kids who threaten others (verbally and physically).who will NEVER be successful in this setting. All the academic in-services and administrative pep talks in the free world will never change that. Read E.M. Standing’s -Maria Montessoi, Her Life and Work. Then go back and read Dr. Montessori’s books (there are many, choose one). She has some very good principles that the traditional schools could benefit from.