I’ve had my fair share of criticism for District 150, but I think any critic has to admit that they’re fighting an uphill battle when it comes to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements. The Journal Star reports that, even though many of District 150’s schools have made gains in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the NCLB standards have risen this year:
This year, 19 of the district’s 30 schools improved in both reading and math. That is compared to last year, when only nine showed improvement in both areas.
But many quickly note that fewer schools – 13 – met federal “adequate yearly progress,” or AYP, versus those that did not, which this year increased to 18 schools. That’s compared to 16 schools that met AYP last year and 14 schools that did not.
So what’s changed?
Federal testing standards. This year the threshold increased by 7.5 percent – from 55 percent to now 62.5 percent – meaning more students must meet or exceed the threshold to meet AYP.
And it’s only going to get harder. Next year, the threshold increases to 70%. Then in 2010 it goes up to 77.5%. By 2014, the standard will be 100%, at which point District 150 will most likely have only one school making AYP — Washington Gifted.
I appreciate and even welcome high standards for our students. In fact, I think it’s making a difference, as evidenced by the higher test scores many of the schools in District 150 have achieved. And I certainly am against the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” But 100%? That seems a bit unrealistic, doesn’t it?
For instance, they expect special needs students to make adequate yearly progress at their physical grade level, not their mental grade level. Are schools supposed to work wonders of nature now, too?
The other problem is a bit more fundamental. I was always taught that I’m responsible for my learning. The school provides the opportunity, but I have take advantage of it because no one can make me learn. But NCLB puts the responsibility for learning completely and totally on the shoulders of the school. That’s unfair.
If you have a student who has no support at home from his or her parents, has been brought up with little discipline, and shows no interest in doing the work that learning requires, why should the school be blamed when he or she fails? The “soft bigotry of low expectations” in that scenario is coming from the parents, not the teachers or administrators. The government apparently expects schools to be surrogate parents, something they’re not designed or equipped to do — nor should they be.
On the other hand, I’m not saying that District 150 is doing everything right and their low test scores are all the government’s fault. But I do think the federal/state standards are rising too fast, and that their final goal is not realistic.
Great topic… and it is so true. Check out Charlie Rose online. He has an entire Education Series regarding these same issues. It takes time to watch the videos, but well worth it. What scares me is how they are making the teachers responsible. Granted, we need good teachers, but what they have to deal with today is so much more than just teaching.
http://www.charlierose.com/features/the-education-series
…and the parents that are nowhere to be found would present themselves in a heartbeat if the school/teacher that is apparently responsible for their child’s learning tried to discipline the kid.
All the responsibility, none of the authority! Winning combination!
On the flip side- please listen to this podcast from 4-24-08 Smart City Radio where Dr. Jeff Howard believes all children can learn and will learn and there is plenty of evidence to prove it:
http://www.smartcityradio.com/smartcityradio/past_shows.cfm?showsmartcityID=389&PageNum_getsmartshows=3
Dr. Jeff Howard is founder and president of the Efficacy Institute in Lexington, MA, where he works with school principals, teachers and parents throughout the county to set high expectations for students and achieve far better results. Jeff is a Harvard-educated social psychologist and is also the founder of J. Howard and Associates, a corporate training and consulting firm
Beth — First, Dr. Howard does not say “all,” but “vast majority” and “most.” He’s very careful to say there are indeed exceptions. NCLB, on the other hand, requires 100% by 2014.
Second, of course children can learn. The question is, at what pace? Many special needs children must go at a different pace than those without special needs, based on their physical and mental development.
Third, of course children can learn, but what about those who won’t learn, who choose not to learn? We’re going to put the blame on the teachers for that? Doesn’t the student have any responsibility anymore?
Like I said in my post, I’m not saying that there’s no room for improvement in D150. There certainly is — a lot of room for improvement, frankly. But unrealistic standards like 100% by 2014 are not the solution.
Of course, as CJ has said, all children can learn. I don’t think that was the point here. CJ has correctly indicated that NCLB is fundamentally flawed as an educational mandate. It’s ideas SOUND good, but in practice are less than ideal. Can all children learn? Absolutely. Can they all achieve at grade level 100% of the time? Very likely not. It’s absolutely no wonder that nine different states have considered or introduced legislation to reject federal education funding in order to NOT comply with this law.
Our educational system, which most assuredly has its issues, supports the notion that all children are capable of learning with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA allows for “a year’s growth in a year’s time” as being appropriate for students with special needs. A year’s growth doesn’t always mean achieving at grade level…a distinction that is missing within the NCLB Act. It’s been interesting to me for years how these two pieces of legislation — IDEA and NCLB — seem to be totally at odds with each other in a number of very important ways.
And, another thing that just makes no sense to me…from year to year, AYP is measured on a different group of 3/4th graders using a different test (the versions change from year to year). In no way can this be considered a valid practice.
My son currently attends second grade in a district 150 primary school. We’re very happy with most aspect of the curriculum, the quality of the teaching/admin staff, etc. But, I do think it says alot about the culture of public school education today when he comes home and says things like, “I can’t wait. I get to take ISAT next year. We’re already starting to work on practice problems to get us ready.” Yikes. I would hope that there’s more to look forward to in third grade than a standardized test. And, it’s not just happening in District 150, although they are arguably more pressured to increase performance than other local school districts.
Gotta hand it to the worst President of all time… his “No White Child With Both Parents At Home, And Having A Household Income of Over $150,000.00/Year Left Behind” plan has pretty much doomed a hopeless situation that had just a smidgen of sunlight on the horizon.
We can only hope he and his upper-crust brethren are voted out come November.
Prego — You do realize that the No Child Left Behind Act passed Congress 381-41, right? That includes Democrats like Biden, not just Republicans….
The primary author of NCLB Act was the hero of the left (and I would assume, pregoman), Teddy Kennedy. Of course, I doubt anyone even remotely close to him has been a student in a public school in several decades. Public Schools are for us peasants.
The Teachers’ unions are VERY powerful lobbies.
Roger that, kcdad.
With Hinton and his crew putting too many demands and short-lived initiatives onto principals and teachers its a wonder they have time to actually focus on their real job: student achievement.
Yes, the special ed sub group does keep the scores down and with 25% of the total student population being special ed that hurts 150’s scores. Most districts have around 10% to 13% special ed population.
However, with the current special ed director who was suppose to be an expert in Response to Intervention (RTI) has not done her job. She has failed miserably getting the plan implemented. I don’t think the principals even have a good understanding of the process (if at all). The director sent all the special ed folks off to be trained in RTI, when in fact she should be the one training and doing workshops for the district.
If the district would get someone with some organizational skills and decent communication skills they could work on decreasing the special ed population along with implementing RTI with integrity.
Serenity,
I am proud of you. You do much with local issues concerning education – than with politics.
62.5% must pass the standard… isn’t that a failing grade? Why is there any school still open that couldn’t meet the 55% number?
Why should the schools be judged any differently than the students they pretend to educate?
Serenity, they got rid of the special ed principal, someone who had been in the district over 17 years. If I understand it correctly, that principal used to do her job and the director’s job. When she told them she could not do both jobs any longer, they hired O’Brian. I looked at the job page for Dist. 150 a week or so ago and there were 9 job openings in Special ed and only 2 in regular ed. Good teachers are trying to get out from under this woman as fast as they can.
25% Special Ed ? Sounds like D-150 is thowing way to many kids into special ed, then using that as reason to not pass the test.
I think what they are doing is mainstreaming most of the special ed which may be the reason the test scores are down.
D 150 is working to integrate Response to Intervention as it’s special ed model. It provides support in three different tiers…some in the classroom, some in traditional special ed. It’s the new “best practice” in education (IDEA’s reauthorization in 2004 allocated 15% of special ed funds for such services…called early intervening services in the language of the law). I’ll be interested to see how it plays out in 150.
RTI is a good thing. Its just that many districts large and small are much further along that District 150 and the current special ed director is doing a poor job. Very poor.
So I hear. And, yes, RTI is and can be a very positive thing…if it’s managed correctly, which is my concern and your point, Serenity! 🙂
I heard that 150 brought someone in last spring to “inform” principals about RTI. O’Brian, the directer, was not even in attendance. She should be “teaching” principals about RTI and how their roles will be changing in regards to it. She does not know what she’s doing and lacks the people skills to do any type of professional development.
Parents of children w/special needs need to put their antennas up in what is happening in SPED with O’Brian.