NCLB Seen as Curbing Low, High Achievers’ Gains

[ulysses]

A new study of Chicago students suggests that the federal No Child Left Behind Act may indeed be leaving behind students at the far ends of the academic ability spectrum—the least able students and those who are gifted.

The study by University of Chicago economists Derek A. Neal and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach lends some empirical support to the common perception that schools are focusing on students in the middle—the so-called “bubble kids”—in order to boost scores on the state exams used to determine whether schools are meeting their proficiency targets.

***

The post-reform pattern, in all cases, was consistent: Students in the middle of the pack made the largest test-score gains, compared with students in previous years. The bottom 20 percent of students made the least progress and, in some cases, even lost ground. The top 10 percent of students made either no academic gains or improvements that were smaller than those of students in the middle, depending on the subject matter.

For the least-able students, the situation was only slightly better in the post-1998 reform period. Those students’ scores improved more then, the researchers believe, because the standards had been set at lower levels. They speculated that teachers may be more likely to write off low-achieving students when the likelihood that they will ever meet the achievement target is more distant.

More at http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/07/16/43nclb_web.h26.html?levelId=1000&tmp=109925455&rale2=KQE5d7nM%2FXAYPsVRXwnFWYRqIIX2bhy1%2BKNA5buLAWGoKt77XHI2terRpWBSgktL4bXgTCDsilH6%0AwLgDZ7SLww06LywXax3Z8YXAvS7bPZ7h%2F9BFEakU7ZHII%2Fmu01CUEpLNhfZ%2FY5RTSAFMoROfwTsH%0AAsyDLJnT9czpjKHi7khQUPRB5iYdt%2FjFwa5k%2B7g9Kyon84wDg6Vx6AkVMdndcRsbxQyA6K0QVuhH%0ALzNDIc8X%2BI%2Fb8nt35Y3c3f7Wa73Sdf7%2FQqVGW0QGf8gsnKo2UZHII%2Fmu01CUZqeSJgz3EN%2FdSkZe%0AUJCg6XPTjff1HxAlFKD0MJ0mroT4ZH6ruEpl%2FeY7SA7W15cda2lX5fLXWW87lNsOsvyy8OT4qmpJ%0AonaHNHIG4grfnrFW6EcvM0Mhz6X9j%2BLoUNqfOyyrXc5CIQpiPADH6%2BFquOoRm%2F%2F5CeGAn7Wm4Fxn%0AoJ7FPvwtWnIzHmI8AMfr4Wq46hGb%2F%2FkJ4YBdhxsakm3yXgax6M3xCIjDVI2zBGZWBWNW6EcvM0Mh%0Az%2F0bJOLSyIHoGvXT14wy5yKq%2BH51Ovox2T0BGNeBh5Y2TsfjmitUy9lbOVO66yx1gxJClw8hmd4Q%0A7qY7QQQYZXaLPXiH4VxIWNmQlsDua%2BoMvZIDHGwAQihjDRFI%2FMHGZvp7AYn757AGK9k6PL7mOx6I%0AdQRI%2FY538uIqpXX%2Bogl%2Bkx0H6RyHBQFGIl5HAcnT57Wyxux5fkhUfLKloQV%2BHAHbEvUFceirUmn%2B%0Ax3kLdYfcenOk5pJ0nO0%3D, although I think Edweek is a pay site if you're not registered with them as an educator.

[Mass]

1. Surprise, surprise...

In addition, even the kids in the middle get less than necessary, because they are taught how to pass the test, not how to learn and think.

[ulysses]

3. there's that too, yes.

It's all about applying the proper shade of lipstick to the pig.

[pnwmom]

2. This was definitely my experience.

My son's 4th grade report card said simply that he was reading "at standard": in other words, at the level they expected of a 4th grader.

This surprised me, because I knew he was reading adult level books. Also, on a national test at the end of first grade, before they switched to the new state system, he had already tested at the 4th grade level in reading! I asked how they determined that he was reading "at standard," and they showed me the test. It was a reading passage at his grade level, followed by several questions. Since he successfully answered the questions, that meant he read at the 4th grade standard. (Of course, I could have done well at that test, too. By our district's measure, I also read at the 4th grade standard.)

So IF they were right about his level when he finally reached 4th grade, that would have meant that he had made ZERO progress between 1st and 4th grade. And that didn't bother them a bit.

All they care about in Washington state is that as many students as possible meet the standard. The ones who will never meet it get some amount of extra help. But the ones who exceed it must follow the same curriculum as everyone else, no matter how inappropriate.

[BanzaiBonnie]

4. This is the problem with everyone being "standardized"

If you meet the testing standard, there's nothing more.Thanks NCLB.

[pnwmom]

6. I gave up and put him in a private school.

His older siblings were lucky enough to go through the system before NCLB . I wasn't going to watch him suffer anymore.

[ulysses]

5. the pressure to meet the minimum requirements, and thus

avoid the penalties for not making AYP, is enormous. It's ridiculous that a child reading well above grade level isn't pushed to achieve even more, but under the current system, if you want to keep your job, you'll likely focus on the kids who are either *almost* to standard or *just at* standard. My old system started putting all teachers in subject areas where scores were below expectations on "professional development plans" - which are supposed to be tools for improvement but are used punitively - no matter the ability of an individual teacher.

Thanks for your post - as a special ed teacher, I sometimes forget about the above-average kids.

[pnwmom]

8. Most of the best teachers at our elementary school left their jobs

within a few years of the new system. Our district went from one with an emphasis on individualized learning to the cookie cutter approach, and the really skilled teachers were extremely frustrated.

The young teachers that were left were very energetic and meant well but they were brainwashed, in a way. They were 100% focused on those standards and nothing else.

[Trillo]

9. I think you're dreaming if you believe that kids with above

grade level reading are ever 'routinely' pushed to achieve more.

40 years ago in private schools, my 'anecdotal' experience was that it wasn't done then (I was tested with college level reading comprehension going into the 7th grade, but English teachers, by the 8th grade, had convinced me I couldn't read or write).

I've come to the tentative conclusion that the longer any school keeps a kid in school, the more money the school (and the rest of the corporate support structure) makes. It's all about maximizing revenue.

[ulysses]

11. I had a different anecdotal experience.

:shrug:

Besides which, the answer is to keep at it with a punitive system that requires that teachers only address the needs of those in the middle, and then only at a cosmetic level?

[pnwmom]

14. That's a nice philosophical position, but I don't hold my kids hostage

to my politics. I didn't have to watch my son suffer through the rest of his school years, so I opted out.

I still volunteer for the school levy, write letters to the editor in support of the schools, happily pay my school taxes -- but I'm not sacrificing my child.

[ulysses]

15. I'm not after you for putting your kid in a private school.

My point is that we need to get out from under NCLB so that public school teachers can teach *all* students.

[pnwmom]

17. I support that completely. NCLB is worse than a joke.

It's a disaster. What's going to happen when no school is meeting its' annual goals (since they get higher and higher)? Is that when we close the doors on public education?

[ulysses]

19. what's going to happen indeed.

We need to be honest - we're not going to make 100% of American children reach standard. We aren't, because it's impossible. Now, it's a very good thing to aim high, and I don't want to go to a system in which some kids are largely ignored because they have disabilities (on edit: I mean ignored because no one expects them to be taught - they're already being ignored if their scores are outside the bubble range), but there are too many factors in play to turn all children into high achievers.

But it's a very appealing soundbite, and so provides great cover for those who would like to privatize the system, cut off opportunities for poor kids, and thus cement the inequalities in the nation.

[pnwmom]

21. I think that's exactly what it is -- great cover.

Anyone with any brains knows that you can't set a high standard -- which is good -- or even a moderate standard, and then realistically expect 100% of students to meet it, no matter what their disabilities, language barriers, etc.

But this has never been about reality. It's about setting up impossible goals and then using them to "prove" that public education has failed.

What I can't understand is why Ted Kennedy ever got involved in this. It's an embarrassment.

[Trillo]

23. I think my point was that, while your OP was addressing

a supposed manifestation with the new NCLB program, the phenomenon was occurring prior to NCLB's implementation.

Now the schools apparently don't give tests that are beyond grade level, so the profit system of years ago versus now is today somewhat more evolved in its deception.

Addressing your title, I believe it's a common fallacy in our system, that since our culture supposedly rewards those who were most successful in the past by promoting them to higher positions, that those who end up in positions of authority and control were well served by the existing system, so when presented with that system's problems, those individuals cannot identify with those problems: this seems to represent (or manifest as) some kind of institutional denial. The broken system therefore continues.

[ulysses]

25. I'm not saying it never happened before.

I'm sure it did, although it wasn't my experience. The point is that NCLB all but codifies the practice.

[pnwmom]

13. I went to dreary schools but also a couple WONDERFUL schools,

so I held out the hope that I could find a good place for my son. And I did. He's in 9th grade now and I've seen his book list -- it's fantastic. He'll have a great year.

[Trillo]

24. Life itself is a mix of good and bad!

Keep loving your teenager. That alone can help smooth some of the rough spots.

[pnwmom]

12. I think that's why one great teacher left.

She was so good, the former principal had been in the habit of giving her some of the most challenging kids, and often a 4/5 split. But when the new system came around, there she was "stuck" with all the challenges, and suddenly this wonderful teacher with 20 years experience (and a fledgling principal) was on a professional development plan.

[LWolf]

7. This is an interesting article, to be sure.

I'd like to comment on the common perception that schools are focusing on students in the middle—the so-called “bubble kids”—in order to boost scores.

Of course that's what schools are focusing on. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY ORDERED TO DO.

We are told to focus on the students who will make the difference in AYP, since that is where the threat is coming from.

Outraged about that? I'm not sure why. When you present a group of people with a statistically corrupt goal, and threaten their livelihoods if they don't produce, they'll do their best to find a way.

There are reasons why that bottom section is at the bottom. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with what is happening in school. Therefore, schools cannot, by themselves, wave a wand and make the bottom quartile magically disappear. Of course, no matter how many gains a bottom quartile makes, there will STILL BE a bottom quartile. Statistically speaking.

There are reasons why the top section will not make the same statistical gains. Oh, they can do plenty of learning. It just won't show up in the scores. When you are already testing out at the top, there's nowhere in the TEST to go. If there were, the "average" wouldn't look so average, would it?

The only place to make the gains required to keep the federal sharks fed is in the middle.

It's not that teachers think this is the "best" professional practice. It's what they are ordered to do. I personally sat, about 4-5 years ago, in a meeting in a school in CA. The school was in a large district. While this school's scores were not a problem, there were some schools that did not make AYP and/or API. So the whole district was hauled in front of "trainers" who told us to focus on the numbers, not the students. Who pointed out the bubble kids who would make the numbers happen. Then we were ordered by our principles, who were ordered by district admins, to keep the focus on those "bubble" kids.

I left the district, and state, a few years later. Not a coincidence.

The study that this article is citing is "Left Behind By Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability." I believe the title is a take-off on the well-received book by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe.

That book is about planning and writing curriculum units to foster student understanding. The study discusses the statistical effects of narrowing curriculum and instruction to the middle. Here's a link:

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20070716_NealSchanzenbachPaper.pdf

[ulysses]

10. right.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY ORDERED TO DO.

I should have made that point more explicitly. :)

[pnwmom]

16. Thanks for the informative post, Lwolf.

You're right about everything. I don't know how good, conscientious teachers stand it.

[Skidmore]

18. Margarate Spelling should be tried for treason.

[Igel]

20. I wonder how many of the schools that do this track students.

I used to fight with a friend over tracking. He thought it reprehensible. I thought it a great thing--as long as there's a really good way of "retracking" students that are put in the wrong group.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Rhetoricologist needed STAT! It don't make no sesnse to "leave behind" someone who's AHEAD.