Public Hearing on NCLB
I attended a public hearing in Boston yesterday about the federal legislation, "No Child Left Behind." Sponsored by PEN (Public Education Network, www.publiceducation.org ), they had community leaders, students and parents on hand to testify about what's working under NCLB, what's not working, what should be changed and what should the future of public education look like.
The general consensus seemed to be that increased accountability for schools has been a good thing, especially because of the disaggregation of data on subgroups; that is, the numbers pertaining to special needs children and English language learners now has to be examined separately and reported on separately. These requirements give more leverage to minority communities who are trying to make changes at the local level. Many people pointed to the requirement that teachers be 'highly qualified' as a positive one. Also, the parental involvement piece of NCLB earned praise, although no one could say how it should be accomplished.
Under the "Not Working" portion, came the complaint of "one size fits all" testing, testing that ignores the complexities of why children are failing and that actually leaves many children behind. If NCLB cannot or will not live up to its promise, then it becomes a "tool for dismantling public education." Senator Dianne Wilkerson from Boston highlighted the reduction in MCAS remediation funds statewide from $40 million to $0 (I've also heard that it went from $50 million to $10 million) and stated that the policy is totally disconnected from reality. Our own Phala Chea, Director of the Parent Information Center, gave testimony that got to the heart of the problem with the 'one-shot standardized test score used to determine whether students are learning and teachers are teaching.' She pointed out that "using this mehtod is contrary to all researched and respected evaluation methods, since evaluations should be done frequently and over a long period of time to get an accurate picture of a student's progress.' She went on to suggest that a "cohort analysis of test results is needed, rather than the current NCLB analysis for different groups of students." In other words, currently we are measuring the achievement of different groups of students (this year's 4th graders compared to last year's) rather than comparing this year's 4th graders to how they were doing as 3rd graders.
Some suggestions for improvement were to lengthen the timeline; that is, give struggling schools more funds for a longer period, don't just withdraw funds once a certain goal is reached. A longer school day was recommended to close the achievement and opportunity gaps for struggling students. More money should go to early childhood education as a proven way to give students a head start on their education, teachers need to respect families and children. There should be a more 'nuanced and intelligent way to use tests', children need to see themselves as learners and crucially, we need a "wider conversation;" people need to pay attention to policy discussions that are going to affect their lives. We've seen this on local issues as well - too much decision-making appears to occur in a vacuum and be cut off from the reality of people's daily experience.
The general consensus seemed to be that increased accountability for schools has been a good thing, especially because of the disaggregation of data on subgroups; that is, the numbers pertaining to special needs children and English language learners now has to be examined separately and reported on separately. These requirements give more leverage to minority communities who are trying to make changes at the local level. Many people pointed to the requirement that teachers be 'highly qualified' as a positive one. Also, the parental involvement piece of NCLB earned praise, although no one could say how it should be accomplished.
Under the "Not Working" portion, came the complaint of "one size fits all" testing, testing that ignores the complexities of why children are failing and that actually leaves many children behind. If NCLB cannot or will not live up to its promise, then it becomes a "tool for dismantling public education." Senator Dianne Wilkerson from Boston highlighted the reduction in MCAS remediation funds statewide from $40 million to $0 (I've also heard that it went from $50 million to $10 million) and stated that the policy is totally disconnected from reality. Our own Phala Chea, Director of the Parent Information Center, gave testimony that got to the heart of the problem with the 'one-shot standardized test score used to determine whether students are learning and teachers are teaching.' She pointed out that "using this mehtod is contrary to all researched and respected evaluation methods, since evaluations should be done frequently and over a long period of time to get an accurate picture of a student's progress.' She went on to suggest that a "cohort analysis of test results is needed, rather than the current NCLB analysis for different groups of students." In other words, currently we are measuring the achievement of different groups of students (this year's 4th graders compared to last year's) rather than comparing this year's 4th graders to how they were doing as 3rd graders.
Some suggestions for improvement were to lengthen the timeline; that is, give struggling schools more funds for a longer period, don't just withdraw funds once a certain goal is reached. A longer school day was recommended to close the achievement and opportunity gaps for struggling students. More money should go to early childhood education as a proven way to give students a head start on their education, teachers need to respect families and children. There should be a more 'nuanced and intelligent way to use tests', children need to see themselves as learners and crucially, we need a "wider conversation;" people need to pay attention to policy discussions that are going to affect their lives. We've seen this on local issues as well - too much decision-making appears to occur in a vacuum and be cut off from the reality of people's daily experience.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home