The Education Wonks
Is there *anything* in the law that identifies or even *mentions* "underperforming teachers"? Or was that just a little bit of exaggeration?
No exaggeration.
Read the Secretary's speeches.
She talks incessantly about holding "schools" accountable while there's hardly ever a mention of the need for parents and students to also "step up" and put forth an effort.
And while the law doesn't mention "underperforming" teachers by name, the benchmarks that it sets requires that schools' (and by inferrance teachers) get 100% of America's public school children to "proficient" or "advanced" ability (at grade level) in math, reading, and science.
And that includes students with severe learning disabilities.
Like we said, "Secretary Spellings uttered that remark with all the confidence of someone who would never even think of going into the classroom herself."
Since so many schools aren't reaching their federally-mandated benchmarks, maybe someone should hold Margaret Spellings accountable for her failure to achieve 100% success and send her back to the private sector that she so publicly professes to worship.
While I believe that President Bush enacted his education "reforms" in Texas and as NCLB on the national level out of a sincere concern for kids, those of us teaching in Texas struggle each and every day with the unintended consequences of that concern. Among the most pernicious of the problems brought about by these policies is the idea that every child will be able, by a date certain, to perform on grade level. This seems to be one of Ms. Spellings' favorite pronouncements.
To imagine, let alone to repeatedly assert that it is even remotely possible for every student in America to accomplish any task at grade level indicates one--or possibly all-- of three things:
(1) Ms. Spellings has no idea whatever of the nature of human beings, in any stage of development. (2) Ms. Spellings is simply stupid.
(3) Ms. Spellings knows better but, as a politician (in essence if not by virtue of election), is simply engaging in a politician's usual casual relationship with reality in pursuit of their agenda.
Here is a partial list of some of the kinds of children, who will, despite the mandates of Ms. Spellings and whatever federal law she hawks, be left behind:
(1) Children who are developmentally disabled.
(2) Children who are brain damaged, congenitally or through accidents.
(3) Children with low IQs.
(4) Children who, though otherwise normal, don't speak, read or write English, or do so poorly.
(5) Children who, though capable, have little or no parental support or encouragement.
(6) Children who, having no parental handicap, simply choose not to pay attention or do their work.
(7) Children involved with drugs or alcohol.
I know teachers who work daily with special education students, some so disabled that they cannot speak, write or reason, and for whom the act of correctly using a spoon is a major accomplishment, yet the state mandates standardized tests for these students. Some are, in appearance, normal, but because of various disabilities, can't understand even the most basic math concepts such as understanding that 5 is less than 10. Some can read out loud more or less flawlessly, but the words mean absolutely nothing to them; they derive no meaning whatever from what they read. Yet each and every one of these students will, and to Ms. Spellings' way of thinking, be able to perform on grade level.
One has to wonder about the wisdom of putting in charge of the Federal Department of Education--an organization that has less reason to exist and that contributes less to society than say, mosquitos--a woman who doesn't understand the concept of the average. Perhaps a teacher left her behind? Oh dear! She might be right!
Secretary Spellings brings to mind an old three letter military acronym we should perhaps adopt to describe herself and folks who share her point of view...HUA. (Hint: has to do with placement of head.)
How can you say you weren't exaggerating, and then admit that the law doesn't say anything about underperforming teachers?
It's clear you don't like the law. That's fine--we can disagree about that. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts. The law doesn't say anything about underperforming teachers, and the fact that you italicize that phrase and say it does is just plain wrong.
Sorry, we feel that you're wrong on this one.
The federal law puts the responsibility for pupil progress solely upon the schools.
Even though though NCLB doesn't use the term "under performing teachers," it's clear that only schools (and by inferrance teachers) are being held accountable for pupil progress.
Read Spellings' utterances for yourself. Can you tell me at least two occasions when she cites the need for parents and students to at least do their part and put forth an effort to acheive success?
I'm a traditional conservative.
But just because of that, I don't have to support the free-spending deficit-running record-setting-pork barrel-spending Neo-Con Clique that currently controls the Executive Branch (and recently the Legislative Branch) while masquerading under the label of "Republican."
So no. I don't like the law. And come to think of it, I don't much care for a National Bureau Of Educational Policy Compliance (Other known aliases: The U.S. Dept. of Education; The Kingdom Of Spellings; The Federal Bureau of Education Truth and National Education Policy; The National Education Mafia; The Department of Centralized Testing; The Federal Office of Punishments for Classroom Teachers Whose Students Don't Pass Tests 100% of the Time; The National Organization of Education Sinecures for the Friends Of George Bush, The Federal Bureau of Non-teaching Teaching Experts, as well as any number of other monikers that can be applied to this most over reaching of federal bureaucracies) either.
Ronald Reagan was correct: The U.S. Dept. of Education should be abolished.
But it won't be. Federal bureaucracies (and boondoggles) are forever.
Mike,
Look carefully at the law, and look at the provisions and exceptions made for severely cognitively disabled students. Kids for whom holding a spoon is a major accomplishment are excempted from the NCLB requirements. You wrote that "the state mandates" testing. Individual states may, but federal requirements do not.
NCLB is far from perfect, and the current administration makes me want to puke my guts on a daily basis, but neither ourselves, nor our kids are well-served by hyperbole that does not match the reality of the legislation.
All schools will eventually be labeled as failing if this law continues. No industry requires 100% success because it can't be maintained. Privatization is on its way.
Dear TMAO:
In Texas, and in other states, there are few or no exemptions for disabled students. I know of students who are so disabled that in order for them to take--and pass--their state mandated tests, their teachers must resort to what is commonly called "hand on hand" techniques where if a test item requires a student to mark one of three items or place an object in a given place, the teacher accomplishes the action by guiding the student's hand with their own, thus allowing them to take and "pass" the test. This even though everyone--except apparently the educrats--understands that this is madness, helpful not for the student, not for the teacher, and certainly not for society. But apparently, in the world of magical, educratic thinking, these students are taking tests and are not being "left behind." What I wrote, and its implications are unquestionably true and accurate, not in any way exaggerated, thus, your label of hyberbole is, at best, inaccurate.
Let's also consider that a significant portion of the public falls into what is considered normal intelligence, but for a very wide range of reasons that include having low normal intelligence, not doing work, or being otherwise distracted, a significant number of students will never perform on grade level in any given year, 2014 or otherwise. Again, no hyperbole, but fact.
I have indeed read NCLB. All of it. It is indefensible as an abomination against democracy, federalism, against rational education policy, and against the best interests of American students. If we truly wish to serve the best interests of education and the kids, the discussion should focus on how best to return control of education to educators and local communities, not about how best to perpetuate federal schemes and all of their mandates, explicit, implied, covertly or overtly coerced.
Is Darren a sad sack? Perhaps a left-winged loon? Many teachers are. I remember a CTA conference where the left-winged, loon, Mike Farrell, was the keynote speaker. He blamed all of the woes of education on the teachers. The majority of the teachers attending and listening to the keynote speaker's gobbledigook applauded him. Sad Sacks all....So, perhaps, the majority of the left-winged, loon teachers are now getting what they deserve.
I'm been called many things in my time, Quintilius, but "sad sack" and "left-winged loon" have never been among them. Kudos for lowering the bar of discourse to simple name-calling.
Perhaps you should check out the title of my blog before questioning my political leanings. Actually, I've generally thought it was the left who resorts to name-calling straight away--have I been wrong all this time?
Is it not possible to ask the questions I asked without being a "sad sack" or a "left-winged loon"?
Commenting by HaloScan.com
