This Week's Fordham Factor: High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB

[murdledd]

There is so much misunderstanding floating in the wake of NCLB... When data are reported in percentiles the predetermined ceiling makes it easy to make huge advances on that ceiling (nay, "roof") if you start in the basement... impossible if you begin in the attic. The issue of whether the skill-set we test has even a remote relationship to the kinds of thinking that lead to "inventing innovations," etc. merits some real consideration before we give much credence to these predictable findings.

[murdledd]

We're not doing right by our children in ANY achievement band. Even if we did start bringing them "half the distance to the goal line" each year, raising their scores won't indicate a real solution. Teaching to these tests would snuff out every last vestige of worth from our schools.  And, no "there are not enough really brilliant teachers to meet the challenges of teaching the top 10 percent," and it's got EVERYTHING to do with crappy salaries. Preserving teachers' jobs is a non-factor.

[arflech]

I hear you on "crappy salaries"; just one reason of several that I will not become a public-school teacher even though I may have made an excellent high-school math teacher.

[murdledd]

Most of my teacher friends boldly resisted major societal forces to join the profession. The fact that they are anomalies among grandmotherly/paternal control/ego freaks, smothers them professionally. When they (almost inevitably) drop out, it's because they don't get paid enough to tolerate the mediocrity. THEY DON'T. Zip your "merit pay" lip because you can get paid for a 40 point increase for low achievers, but who's going to shell out for that insignificant jump from 97 to 99 percent?

[Mimizhusband]

Too much is made of test data. People are desperate for data, so tests get used, but 1) student ability is not always and consistently reflected correctly in the tests and 2) the tests look for very discrete bits of knowledge that may or may not be evidence of success in the future. For example, we have had basically horrid test data for decades and yet we have 95% employment, so those people taking those test do in fact find a place in the economy when the time comes.

[alicepaul2]

Teachers/administrators reject the better classroom groupings because of the challenges involved in getting teachers to work with struggling students. They preserve the old grouping model as a "shared pain" workplace ethos.

Additionally, there are not enough really brilliant teachers to meet the challenges of teaching the top 10 percent.

Far too much energy goes to preserving teachers' jobs.

The ugly truth is it has very little to do with the kids.

[alicepaul2]

The information provided is critical. Unfortunately, the "musical" introduction significantly detracts from the presentation.

The growth model coupled with letting go of the age-grade connection would create a MUCH better public education for our brightest kids.