Secretary Arne Duncan listens to faculty and staff at a roundtable discussion at Eagle School Intermediate in Martinsburg, WV.
Last week I went to Berkeley County, West Virginia, to begin an open, honest conversation about education reform.
I wanted to hear ideas about how we can accomplish President Obama’s goal of providing every child in America a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career.
As we prepare for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, I want to hear from classroom teachers and other educators, parents and students, business people and citizens. What’s working, and what’s not? What do we need to do that we’re not doing, and what do we need to stop doing – or do differently?
I will be going to 15 other places across the country to continue this conversation.
There is one more place I will be going to listen and learn. Here.
In the coming weeks, I will ask questions here. Topics will include raising standards, strengthening teacher quality, using data to improve learning, and turning around low-performing schools. I will be reading what you say. So will others here at the U.S. Department of Education.
Today, I want to start with a simple set of questions:
Many states in America are independently considering adopting internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards. Is raising standards a good idea? How should we go about it?
Let the conversation begin!
Arne Duncan
346 Comments
As an elementary library media specialist, I follow the standards for every single grade level, in addition to music, art, technology, and obviously, the national information literacy and 21st century learning standards. Generally speaking, those standards are outdated and do not hold our students to a very high level of accountability. Most teachers will argue that (wrong or right) the standardized assessments are what drives instruction. I believe one of our country’s weakest points in education is that the level of standards differ for every state. Wouldn’t a nation-wide standardized assessment truly be more standardized than the Iowa test in one state, the SAT-10 in another, the ARMT in another, FCAT in another, etc.?
So, YES, raise standards.
Having served as a member of a few standards and curriculum committees, and having experience with instructional design, I know that we are to begin any task of this magnitude with the end in mind. We need to make decisions about WHAT we want to see of our children (which are well-stated in the 21st century learning standards). I want my own children to have a chance to compete in the global work force, but then again my own personal knowledge of educational standards in other countries is very limited. However, should we merely copy Europe and Asia? No, American is a creative and inventive country, and should remain at the forefront of creativity even our educational standards.
Looking forward to reading results from this discussion!
Should we hold the highest expectations & standards possible for our schools, our students, and our school staffs across the country? Yes. Without question. However, such a reform idea cannot be done in a vacuum and must be partnered with other critical efforts (like maintaining real-time, accurate student achievement data, creating fundamentally accurate teacher/school evaluations, etc.).
An example may serve in the expansion of AP classes to challenged schools, particularly urban and rural settings. Of course having greater numbers of AP options will raise the standards of a school or district on paper. But if a school consistently posts averages of 1 & 2 for students’ AP test outcomes, maybe the focus should shift from expansion to supporting already existing programs.
Ultimately, the data should tell the story, and districts should not rely blindly on “raising standards” if student achievement data suggests that raising standards would merely bolster district perceptions. While perceptions may be important, the actual work of increasing student achievement, the boots on the ground, that’s the key to long-term success.
Raising standards is sort of a ‘non-issue.’ Anything to improve education and equity is definately a plus; however, it has been my experience politicians use education to further political goals, not actually do anything for education (the students). Keep in mind public education can’t take much more of political intervention and survive without putting dollars into any plan that is developed. And PLEASE reconsider “No Child Left Behind.” Take this monkey off our backs and let us get back to educating our students instead of giving them free rides.
Not only must we raise the standards, we must once and for all alter the relationship betwen student and teacher and the content. Assessment for Learning (AFL) is the alteration driver. AFL is no longer just a good idea, it is now embedded in the NCTM. Yet, schools and states continue to chase measures relying on summative data. So are we to just sort kids or are we to provide kids with experiences that meet their needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Want to fix high schools? Then meet those 3 needs and you get “active engagement.” The effect size for AFL is .04 to .07. Want to read about the empirical evidence, read “Inside the Black Box” by Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam. So what are we waiting for? The feds must say we are going to balanced assessment specifically using AFL. Support that charge with resources not just to states but to districts as they race to the top!
Yes, we should raise standards. But I would differ from your statement about the kinds of standards we should identify and to which we should hold schools accountable. We live in a democratic society grounded in the values of participatory decision-making, individual freedom, personal and community responsibility, and social justice. Therefore, let’s hold schools accountable to practicing those values and nurturing them in young people. Specifically, we might assess the extent to which schools:
- support the voices of students, teachers, parents, and community members in educational decision-making
- provide opportunities for young people to have degrees of control over their own learning
- nurture in students the skills of creativity, curiosity, intellectual development (which is distinct from memorizing academic facts), compassion, cooperation, and self-direction they need to be contributing members of society.
Let us not simply look at young people as adults-in-training to uniformly train into the future workforce. Young people are individuals with unique interests and rights, and the goal of education goes broader than career and workforce. It involves the growth and empowerment of young people to lead successful, happy lives and to be leaders and stewards of the values and rights that form the basis our democratic society.
Ultimately, the over-riding standard for schools in a democracy ought to be that schools are a beacon of democratic values and practice. How can we possibly hope for the strengthening of a more vibrant democratic society without creating spaces for young people to live and learn in democratic environments?
Parents in california have a great concern regarding
No
Or obscure regulatory language for parent to
Participate in the oversite mechanism of school
Site councils. As arra is implementing
Resources to schools there is no true oversite
To ensure proper decision making many
Lea and schools paper trail and use a
Parent to rubberstamp by signing documents
Parents have followed processes of filing
Uniform complaint for many years only
To get the runaround. Now with additional
Title I allocations and arra it is open
Season to sweep parent involvement under
The rug. The new tactic is to create so
Much negative pitting parent against
Parent race against race that policies
Are drafted without parent consultation
Where can a parent turn for accountability
Truth and transparency
Saturday I volunteered in a foster care event. One of the students was very disturbed over THREE shootings in his school area, verified today in phone conversation with the district, and as I spoke to the district, another incident happened.
In a later call back from the schools I was told they are doing some programs, but due to cutbacks they had to cut back.
I know for sure, having run Racial Tension and Gang Abatement projects for years, that there are answers, and many of them are not expensive.
I need to talk to someone, and there is nowhere on your web site to find anyone.
Secretary Duncan,
The President’s strong interest in a college education for all, reinforced by the Pell grant increase misses a strong point. We must first instill the desire & motivation that “College is Possible” for our first generation and low-income students. This can only be accomplished through more individual assistance & guidance through one of the most effective pre-college programs- that of the Educational Talent Search program. This program must have a funding increase to provide the support services needed for the disadvantaged students in helping them visualize a college education, and complete the necessary steps through high school to get there.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
The problems of our schools appear to be not understood by the government. Here in California, our high school dropout rate is approaching 50%, and it appears that additional Federal funds will be used to supplant State funds so that schools will have a net reduction of funds. My local school district has layed off school nurses, leaving a 10,000 student district with one nurse.
As a retired teacher, I see that the support system for students has been decimated, the music and arts eliminated and councelors not available to help students. Children need to be valued by the schools and Government.
YES, but not the standards for our state schools. Let’s start with our health care standards, our standards for incarceration (we have the highest rate in the world), and our standards for human dignity and ingenuity. If you want Americans to fail globally, then impose mind numbing, unproven, oversimplified, overly technocratic “standards” to every child.
Do me a favor and read The Giver by Lois Lowrey first. It’s a children’s book and has a great message regarding standards in the name of “equity.”
What cracks me up is your use of innovative in one breath and standard in the next. You can’t be innovative and standard at the same time. It’s like trying to be unique and normal.
If you want engaged, critical, reflective, doers, then begin where children are and help them move as far along as possible. I support longer schools days if students are spending time with amazing teachers meaningfully engaged with curriculums that help them recognize their strengths, maximize those strengths, and integrate those strengths with those who surround them.
As far as comparing American schooling to schooling in other countries, you need to be very careful about comparing apples to oranges. For example, I taught in South Korea and there’s no way I would want my child to experience anything remotely similar to what goes on in those schools…ever…EVER.
Yes, I agree that we need to raise standards, and that there should be more uniformity of standards throughout the country. Presently, I see standards vary greatly from district to district, not just from state to state! However, before we can accomplish this, I feel that we need better focus and organization of our entire public school system as a whole. As I can see from the responses above, we cannot even agree on what we want the public school system to accomplish for our children. Do we want to prepare them specifically for adult life? Or do we want a more traditional “liberal arts” education that they can do with what they will? What should be the focus at various age levels? What about the kids who do not want or are not really suited for a college education? Should we focus on basic reading, writing and math (which I, as a former teacher, consider a “bread and water education”) or should we consider the roles of art, music, history, literature, drama, etc. in the development of the imagination (without which we would not be human beings!)? (You can see my obvious biases here.) In other words, what do we want our kids to come out with, at the end of their public education? I think we need to address this before we can deal with everything else.
YES! Standards should be raised, we should have the highest expectations for our students as well as of each other. Educational standards for all levels of education need to be raised to meet the needs of our ever- changing environment. To change the standards in a way that will be accepted by many will call for a committee of educators (These educators will need to be at many different levels of understandings- there will need to be college professors, secondary teachers, elem. teachers,etc…) across the national to gather and to have in-depth dialogue about where students should and need to be at each level all the way through college level. The key to this process is that this form needs to be in draft- it needs to be revisited frequently and needs to change as needed. We can not use the same standards years after years just because it is easier for us, we must do what is right for our students.
After visiting Washington D.C. last week for a conference I have come to really understand that if all states followed the same standards then there would be less inequities for our students. By having national standards that are followed by all states and by having the same expectations for all students we would be ensuring that all students have access to a quality education.
The fundamental element here is that students are losing out right now and that we must act quickly to ensure the future of our country.
Thank you for your time.
Please read an article written by Matt Miller from the Jan/Feb 2008 issue of Atlantic Monthly in which he writes that since the NCLB leaves “standards and definitions of ‘proficiency’ to state discretion, it has actually made matters worse.” It seems only common sense that we should have uniform, national standards if we’re going to go the standards route. As a parent of a child in public elementary school, I would like to point out that because of all the testing requirements mandated by the state and federal government, teachers are spending the entire month of September each year prepping their students to take these tests, and then 3 weeks of October (that is, 3/4 of that month) is spent taking the tests. More standardized tests are taken in the spring. It seems to me such a waste, to lose 2 months of the school year to testing. There must be a better way …
I agree with poster Philip Kovacs who writes “If you want engaged, critical, reflective, doers, then begin where children are and help them move as far along as possible. I support longer schools days if students are spending time with amazing teachers meaningfully engaged with curriculums that help them recognize their strengths, maximize those strengths, and integrate those strengths with those who surround them.” He is referring to engaging the theory of multiple intelligences, when he speaks of curriculums that “recognize their strengths” and “maximize their strengths”. My child was a student at an arts-centered public elementary school up until this school year (2008/2009) because the school board saw fit to shut down the school (and thus, the arts-integrated program) in its zeal to consolidate buildings to save money. This program used arts-integration strategies to engage the multiple intelligences outlined by Howard Gardner. The closing of the school was a tragic loss for the students in my district, and after spending nearly a year with my child in a more conventional, more traditional neighborhood public school, I believe more strongly than ever that the way to truly transform public school education in this country is to put the arts at the center of the curriculum. Countless studies have shown, and my own experience indicates, that this works for the entire spectrum of students (low-income; English language learners; gifted children; children with learning differences; etc.) I hope there will be an opportunity to discuss this type of idea further as the tour progresses.
I think standards should be set high and looking at schools around the world is a good place to start. One major flaw in our NCLB Act is the idea that all of our students will reach proficiency in state standards.
We need the high standards but not all kids can meet them…at least not in the amount of time it takes an average kid to graduate. This leads to the notion of tracking. European students entering college are often well prepared and I would think that one reason is they are learning with others who are able to move at the same pace in a more competitive atmosphere.
We do need higher standards in all subjects including music, art, geography, world history, theater but if a child is testing below proficient year after year, instead of punishing schools shouldn’t we look at programs to train those children to become successful in a career of their liking? By tracking, we give kids that might excel in trade oriented learning the opportunity to do so.
Look at these facts:
The average reading level for adults in the United States, depending on the study varies from a grade 6.2-8 (Thomas G. Sticht & J. H. James (1984). Listening and Reading. In P. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, and P. Mosenthal ( Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longmans).
2003—number of college graduates 40,621,000 out of population of 306,200,000
(National Science Foundation, Info Brief, NSF06-304, December 2005)
Not everyone needs to be university bound–diversity is one of the strengths of our country as well as opportunity. We have programs for people of all ages and if a child who was not quite ready to go to college at the age of 18 is ready at the age of 36, we can do that here!Sure it’d be great to increase those numbers but we need responsible, qualified people to do the jobs that make this country function.
Want to keep kids in school? Give them a chance to take classes they can apply to a career…with reading, writing and math skills needed for that training and they’ll stay.
Educational Reform
In June of 2007, I retired after nearly 40 years in education–teacher, teacher educator, state program supervisor, university dean and two-year college president.
I am among thousands of educators that believe the last two years of high school are wasted years, especially for those students who are not focused on preparing for college or the workplace. In 1977, I completed the second doctoral dissertation in the country on the topic of articulation between secondary and postsecondary education. While some progress has been made, much more can be done, especially with appropriate federal leadership.
Specifically, I believe that true reform of public education needs to lead to an overhaul of the existing structure. Thus, I am proposing following ideas for your consideration:
Simply put–most courses offered at the junior and senior year of high school should be equated to community college level courses and lead to an Associate of Arts, Associate of Science or Associate of Applied Science degree.
For Teachers–qualifications would need to be higher (comparable to community college instructors) thus equating to higher pay.
For Students–these wasted years would provide the first two years of college, paid in full by local school tax districts.
For “under-prepared” Students–these wasted years could be refocused and dedicated to the preparation for a GED or preparation for a college or trade school.
If this concept warrants further discussion, I would be more than willing to visit with the appropriate staff. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
First and foremost, a truly transparent conversation must be initated with all stakeholders involved in our children’s education before thinkin about raising the standards or how to go about it.
At the school level is where all takes place. It is at this level where we must begin before initiating real changes. One size fits all is not the answer. We must become highly analytical when it comes to the future of our children. One aspect of our children that it is not taken into account is their opinion. Have we asked our children what they think about changing or elevating the standards? Another area that we must explore is the emotional component that drives our children. No matter how much we teach our children regarding math, history and other core classes, we neglect their emotional world. How can we raise the standars when our children do not even know how to deal with their own emotional problems. Let’s begin with them and see what they say about this issue and them we move to parents, community, teachers etc.
Standards should serve as a ‘framework’ rather than a monkey on everyone’s back: students, teachers and parents. Standards should encompass more than education; physical and mental health, building environment, nutrition, and general quality of life are just as important and, when quality supports are in place, educational achievement can occur. How can hungry students learn? Why should teachers’ have to count pencils, paper and books because schools are underfunded for these purchases? Fix the buildings, improve the nutrition, provide high quality supplies and materials, and create standards for everyone…not just the middle and upper class headed for a college education. Vocational and technical education is important for students who choose careers as chefs, electricians, masons, plumbers, and construction workers. Michigan is about to learn this lesson the hard way. The new standards are great for the college bound student but provide those who would like to choose another path nothing but an obstacle they may not be able to overcome.
On another topic, elimination of Even Start is a huge mistake. It is the only comprehensive program for uneducated families…and it works. Look deeper. The federal evaluations were poorly designed and executed. Local programs around the country have data on the outstanding outcomes occuring for families and children to break the cycle of generational poverty. You should visit programs, talk to the state Even Start coordinators, and look at the state and local level program data. The data demonstrate program effectiveness.
Raising standards is a good idea. We should have national standards, and national tests for accountability against those standards. If states or districts want to opt-out with their own standards and tests and assessing a statistical sample of their students with the national tests to show that they are matching or beating the national standards, fine. But the state or district should pay for that.
As the states-rights idealogues and the self-interested publishers and state and district standards “experts” give up the ghost and fall in line, we’ll see an explosion of honest conversation about which materials, methods, etc. work. We’ll spend less money for higher quality assessments and instructional materials.
The national standards and assessments will need on-going development investment, to ensure that new knowledge and skills (”21st century”) are incorporated, just as new words need to be added ot dictionaries. And I’m not sure how best to deal with the reality that all students won’t reach the expectations I’d like us to set for all students. One possibility is to classify expectations bands, not by grade level as we have done historically (why give any more support to the outmoded ideas seat time, Carnegie Units, etc.?). There could be basic knowledge and skills that are needed by anyone who will live independently, standard knowledge and skills expected of anyone who’s “educated” (roughly a high school diploma), and “productivity” knowledge and skills expected of anyone who’s really ready for the 21st century global knowledge economy.
Thank you for seeking answers from the people in the field working hard to help our students achieve. Raising standards is always a good idea but if students are not reaching the standards that states have in place we need to place our focus on nationwide consistent standards AND how will all students reach those standards. The idea of restructuring low performing schools is not a new one and it has proven to be unsuccessful in many cases. I readily acknowledge that there is room for improvement in all schools and in a world where the knowledge base is constantly changing, we as educators must keep pace and work as action based researchers and apply our knowledge in the classroom every day. With that said, if we are truly to help ALL students achieve then we must change our vision of what the school and it’s place in the community is. A student who has two parents with a comfortable income and opportunity for cultural and familial educational experiences in early childhood and beyond is not on the same playing field as the student who is living in extereme poverty and witnessing a very different world outside of the school. If we are to “fix” within the schoolhouse walls all that happens without, then we must make the necessary supports available from within the school community. I have taken students to the hospital, advocated for uninsured children to receive much needed medical care, and much more in my role as a special educator.I have many ideas on how this could done, in an economically feasible manner and would love a listening ear. In the long run we must note that tomorrow’s custodial workers, secretaries, technology innovaters, and yes, even tomorrow’s president, is sitting in a classroom somewhere today. Please, please, please see that the problems of many low performing classrooms include what happens in and out of the classroom and that BOTH need to be adressed. As a nationally board certified teacher, and an educator working in a graduate level class teaching on national teacher standards, I applaud the efforts to raise standards and beg you to listen and look for the full scope of the problems facing our neediest children. Thanks for listening.
I have read all comments and still no reasonable though or idea was given. In Kentucky, we are one of the lowest ranked in educational levels. Is it the parent,teacher,principal, or lesson plans, yes to all four. What ever happened to the basics the three R’s first? More attention should be given to HeadStart and Elementary education. We also need to give much needed attention to children with special needs children with ADD/ADHD would are capable of learning instead of sticking them in a special school without monitoring their education. We ned to provide then with the tools to succeed as well. Back to basic’s think about it.
Secretary,
As a teacher of students for forty years, I have experienced various efforts to improve student performance and learning. I applaud having high standards as that translates into high expectations of students and best practice instruction. HOWEVER, THE EMPHASIS ON HIGH STAKES ASSESSMENT AS IS (NCLB) IS DRIVING GOOD TEACHERS TO DISTRACTION. Any revision of NCLB needs to support teachers more rather than add to their heavy burden. Schools who are making progress but not progress pleasing to current NCLB standards are penalized. I know of a middle school principal who was successfully leading a school and improving instruction who came up one or two points below the requirement and was dismissed. What a travesty to destroy an effective and improving situation because of one or two points out of 22. That is my contribution.
Yes, adopting internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards is a good idea. How should we go about it? At the federal level, agencies that have any leverage should work together through an inter-agency working group to come up with a strategy for ensuring that they are all applying their leverage in ways that are supportive of the same goals and not working at cross-purposes. But I think the adoption of internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards should be from “the bottom up,” not top-down. Allow states, districts, even individual schools to make the decision to adopt these standards. Adoption of internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards is just a starting point. Implementation (instructional and assessment) strategies are where the “rubber meets the road” and we should allow states, districts, and individual schools the freedom to innovate in pursuing these new standards. Those that prove effective will have their strategies adapted by others. Right now, I am working with colleagues in Missouri to develop new statewide learning assessment policies. I believe we are at a watershed moment in Missouri and other states in terms of the willingness of K-12 and higher education communities to collaborate in P-20 (if not cradle to career) initiatives. Like many others, the new administration has increased my optimism that we can deliver some substantive improvements in education over the next four (eight?) years.
Raise standard, yes.
However, implement a discipline code that works and supervisors that don’t scold principals for following the discipline code. Students must be able to hear what is going on in the classroom ,as well as, teachers need the respect given to this position. Teachers are asked questions and questions ,if for example, the teacher catches a child cheating on a test. No longer are we respected for seeing what we see or our word taken for the truth not by parents or our principals.
Next make sure the standards are DEVELOPMENTALLY OBTAINABLE according to what teachers are taught in child development classes BY THE EXPERTS. For example, a foregn language is learned more easily before 12 years of age.
Children need time to talk with the teacher ,if their dog dies or grandmother dies. Now every minute of my day is planned with no time for my creativity to be displayed(or giving another way for the child to grasp the standard) or sympathy listening( as I am often the only safe outlet to express these feelings to)or helping a returning sick student with make-up work. Children become physically exhausted and mentally drained by work , listen, and work all day. No nap time for any age child just keep working.
Teaching is so much more than standards. We inspire children toward their goal,help them find a goal,excite them about their favorite subject, stretch students to try again with their most difficult subject. Not now, I must follow the schedule ,even if ,some students were beginning to understand the concept. Work is put away for another day and connections are not remembered nor pride in a completed assignment. This is not preparing for the future.
In conclusion, not only think standards but standards for developing children with developmentally obtainable standards for each grade.
Oh yes, I already work 56 to 60 hours a week grading, lesson plans, meetings, and conferences with no overtime pay. I’m not unique.
Secretary Duncan,
I’m a teacher of at-risk high school students in Georgia. Some students are poor, others are “medically fragile”, some have been passed along without learning, etc. I think they represent a good sample of the dropout problem, the problem with lack of job readiness, and the need for remediation in colleges.
My main input on the issue of standards is that measurement of school and teacher effectiveness needs to include the option of at least a 50% weighting for progress made per period of education — not just absolute scores. As an alternative, schools should be able to designate each student as either a “progress” or “absolute score” learner. “Progress” students would be expected to move forward at twice the normal rate per year. If a teacher helps a 10th grade student move from 4th grade math to 7th in one year, that should be considered an accomplishment by any standard. Is it? Why not?
If we want to attract good administrators and teachers to underperforming schools, we need to start measuring and recognizing the progress their students make. If these educators are able to drive student progress significantly, educational administration must avoid punishing them if test results don’t compare favorably with those from high-income schools. These educators have, after all, been willing to jump into the toughest of educational battles.
How long will it take before progress against the standard is recognized on par with the absolute scores? I know that high-performing schools in upper-class suburbs won’t want to risk their virtual lock-ins as “Blue Ribbon” schools, but we need to give much more credit for learning progress if we want good education for those students most likely to fail without good education.
I have much more to say on the subject of standards, but I’ll leave this brief in hopes that you can help focus the world of education on rewarding learning progress as well as absolute score results.
Thank you,
Lee Nicholson
Teacher and administrator training programs need to address standards. Until the teachers and administrators fully understand the complicated relationships between subject matter, student performance, technology, instructors, library, remediation, enrichment, motivation, etc.; more money or words in a document won’t lead to substantive change.
True change will take place when we no longer “teach the way we were taught but teach the way we were taught to teach.” That takes good quality teacher and administrator training programs and certified, qualified, trained teachers and administrators in classrooms.
Arne -
The way you posed the question is likely to be confusing to most people. You stated:
“Many states in America are independently considering adopting internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards. Is raising standards a good idea? How should we go about it?”
Those are two different, but perhaps related matters. So let’s clarify.
Yes, many states are involved, as you know, in cooperative efforts to work toward what they are calling a set of common standards. These may include curricular content, testing and assessments, accountability and data systems, graduation standards and more. In some cases, this may involve raising some current state standards, in some cases it may involve modeling on current state standards.
These coordinated state efforts were the focus of a recent House Education and Labor Committee hearing. Having listened to all the testimony from that hearing, I have to say the most comprehensive and substantive ideas came from AFT President Randi Weingarten (video here):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FIIRHCsG7E
A simplistic call to “raise standards” leaves the real goal of improving the quality and depth of public education for all… behind. Look, you can “raise standards” as we have now for years, with little or no effect. Simply doing more of what we’re already doing in schools — longer school days, longer school years — will not work, and it actually might make the dropout crisis even worse.
Instead of doubling-down on what “No Child Left Behind” pretended to address but couldn’t, I say:
* stop talking about the education of our youth as if it’s a competitive economic issue (we’re preparing young people for jobs that are… where?)
* unleash the creativity of teachers, educators, students, parents and communities to innovate in every school in the country
* work with teachers unions to create programs to allow teacher-aides to get accredited build a pipeline to certification so that teacher-to-student ratios are improved with public support
Yes, we should raise standards — but the standards we should raise are for the levels of innovation in our schools that truly create communities of learners.
For too long, the policy elites have determined the direction of education “reform” — while the democratic population of citizens, teachers, students, parents and lifelong lovers of learning, who have been way out in front on these issues, have been ignored.
You, Mr. Secretary, can choose to follow the same old course… or chart a new one that Americans will truly rally to support.
Secretary Duncan, I applaud your commitment to reforming our educational system. As a volunteer in our urban school system, I saw a need to incorporate a constructivist approach to learning that focused on our standardized tests. This approached allows students to see it, touch it, speak it, therefore, they are better able to create and disseminate their information. Students are given real life application and experiences that give foundation for higher thinking activity. Because many of our students are hands on , I believe that this type of interaction motivates the students to get and stay involved. On a trial basis, I coordinated a trip for several students to meet President Obama and Secretary Clinton as they were going through the Presidential Primary. The teachers informed me that because of the trip the children really got involved in the entire election process.
I created Teens On The Go! which is the travel camp. Teens On The Go! is a travel camp program which is designed to allow children the opportunity to explore the world through travel. My program affords children the chance to visit some of the people and places they read and study about. The travel camp offers experiences that will help students prepare for the required Virginia Standard of Learning exams, therefore, each trip will coincide with a Standard of Learning objective.
I had designed a summer enrichment program which would have begun June 22- August 14,2009. I wanted to offer this program free of charge to 800 – 1000, metro Richmond at-risk youth. Each child would have gotten to experience a week of travel that coincided with Virginia standardized tests. It might be hard to believe, but for many of these children, this would have been the only opportunity for them to leave their neighborhoods.
Because I have not been able to secure funding for this program it will be impossible for me accomodate the youth. I have will have to cancel camp.
I often hear you talk about the need for innovation and new and exciting ideas. However, most of the grants are made to state and local educational agencies. These agencies are more receptive to new ideas if they are already funded when we approach them. How do people like me with new and exciting ideas get included as you reform the system?
Thanks!
First of all, let me start off by saying THANK YOU for getting teacher and community input. I believe this is crucial as to the reality of ANY federal law regarding accountability. While I think the intention is in the right place, the lack of actual teacher input resulted in an unrealistic and almost “ignorant” way of how students learn best, and how success can be measured in a variety of different ways. I think the people who live through the high stakes testing will agree that it is an undue pressure that has gotten out of hand. Bad moral makes for a terrible teacher. Not to mention the pressure on the CHILD. I think we lost sight that these are CHILDREN we are talking about, and I think that an enormous part of our job is to make sure they love school and develop a love to learning. We also seem to have lost sight that one piece of a child’s performance NO WAY indicates a child’s TRUE working ability within the classroom. If a child is organized, responsible, does her required assignments, and makes goof grades, BUT she freezes during the TAKS test due to the amount of pressure placed on the students. She has shown numerous of times that she may know a particular skill, but when it comes down to that “horrific” day where your day gets turned upside down, and it is taken so seriously as far as the rules, bathroom breaks, the pressure of having to score well on THIS test even though you score well on classwork.
I do agree that students need to learn about standardized testing & the importance of that, but that is just one skill of many to make the students prepared for college or whatever else they may choose in their life.
I just feel like we are isolating those students who “fit well in the way school is structured and taught”. However, if you are not your “typical” learner than that is a huge disadvantage for that learner as well as a complete unfair representation of his abilities.
Our educational system is not working for at least a third to a half of the students in our country and the reason why is that we are educating them using a factory model (standardized tests: 1 size fits all) rather than a studio model(portfolio: focus on student and appropriate testing). The result of our present system is mediocrity rather than excellence.
Let students spend some time each afternoon further developing in the curriculum areas for which they have passion or talent. Admittance into these clusters would be only by student choice and not testing. Bring elders into the schools and let children learn from them. Bring younger students in and let students teach them.
Get rid of every workbook in American English, Science and Social Studies classrooms and replace with a blank notebook. Teach students how to debate ideas and respect the viewpoints of others.
Make it a felony for a teacher to talk more than the students in their class. Jail any teacher who puts a book or text in front of a child that is not on his/her independent or instructional reading level (read with 95% accuracy), depending on the situation.
Students being given texts that they can’t read, when appropriate texts absolutely exist or can be made, is the leading cause of school failure.
Ask the students themselves how they think the educational system should be reformed. Let their answers light the way.
We hold in our hands, our hearts and our minds the opportunity to remake the present American educational system into a joyous community of learners, with real opportunity for all.
Let’s not waste a moment.
Mona Voelkel NBPTS
Can we consider alternative state certification tests or a Masters Degree in a topic sufficient to teach as a professional?
I have earned an M.Ed, Reading, from Florida Gulf Coast University, yet I am prevented from teaching as a professional. I have also earned my reading endorsement, and have passed the state reading test for grades K-12. I also am a teacher whose strategies have helped my 6th graders to pass the FCAT (the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test)which earned me bonus pay, and administrative, student, and parental accolades, two years in a row. I have 3 yrs of teaching experience and a very successful track record; I have letters from my administration expressing their gratitude and respect for my abilities.
In addition, I have passed the entire battery of tests for the Florida certification exam (the GK)-EXCEPT the math portion. I have taken the test 7 times and some have taken it twenty times! I have been studying math for three years; I know more than most people but have not been successful on the test after taking many, many review classes and tutors. Sadly, the state provides no performance feedback and math is, needlesstosay, not my forte. I’m 55 years old and I LOVE teaching; I can’t imagine doing anything else. However, I am not able to earn a professional certification because of the math component of the General Knowledge (GK)exam (this is Florida’s certification test). Many “professional” teachers have never taken the FL GK test because it wasn’t necessary if you graduated from college by 2002. Many teach with only a bachelor’s degree, and some teachers are career changers with no education courses. Yet, if they pass the state certification test they are issued a professional certificate. Here I am with a masters degree giving these teachers reading strategies-that they haven’t learned- and I am not able to be considered a professional. Absurd, isn’t it?
Since Math is unrelated to teaching reading can’t something be done to provide me, and others teachers like me (I’m not the only one) an opportunity for alternative certification– or perhaps a master’s degree and administrative and parental kudos would be enough? I love teaching and want to teach. I have student loan and no opportunity to build senority because working on a temporary certificate in Florida allows 2 years of teaching with one year off. Our President states everyone should have a college education. I agree and earned my M.Ed only to find myself without earning power and without a “professional” distinction.
What part of your day is the math part? What part is the science part? Life is not compartmentalized! Life is planning and problem solving. School needs to be more like life.
Team teaching, block scheduling, with higher national standards that measure skill that are necessary for a successful life are the answer.
Start by giving every congressman and senator the 11th grade standardized test in their state. When they all fail maybe we will get off of the standardized gravy train and begin designing a assessments that measure creativity, communication, collaboration, problem solving and information literacy.
I agree with Mr. Duncan that the name “No Child Left Behind” is absolutely toxic. However, putting a positive spin on outmoded ideas is a lot like putting lipstick on a pig. For true reform to take place, greater faith needs to be put in our country’s most proficient educators, and they must be allowed to do the job that is expected of them. When educators are micromanaged and legislated to death, no real learning takes place. Statistics bear this out. In contrast, when we are given basic guidelines of what outcome is expected, and we are allowed to reach those goals using our own data-proven strategies and techniques, then students, teachers, schools, and communities prosper. True, some teachers do try to exploit the education system by getting into it for “a three-month vacation” or “those short workdays,” but these few misguided individuals quickly realize how demanding our profession truly is, and either eliminate themselves, or are eliminated by effective administrators. Speaking for those of us who make up our country’s professional teaching body, I implore our government: allow us to do the job you have charged us with, allow us to use time-tested and productive methods of our choosing, and you will see this country’s education system flourish.
Yes, we need to raise standards–studies prove that if you raise expectations of students, the students will meet those expectations. My concern, however, is the creation of a national criterion for what the teaching of these standards should look like. My state has a state-wide comprehensive curriculum that each district then has the authority to edit and manipulate, so that it really is no longer a state-wide curriculum.
I teach the standards and grade level expectations as addressed in the curriculum—among the plethora of other things I must teach in my classroom each day that have nothing to do with British literature—however, many my counterparts across the district, who supposedly teach the same curriculum I do, have a more lax view of what those standards and GLEs should look like when they are met. They expect the minimum from their students, and they get the minimum.
So, what good do national standards do us if there is no national standard for teaching them? We have teachers in our district who are blatantly racists, sexist, incompetent, and inept, but there is no way to get them out of our classrooms. So each year, they are given new groups of low-income struggling students whom they give the least amount possible in terms of an education.
Hold me and my fellow teachers to higher standards. Create a way to asses us. Make it easier to remove those of us who are ineffective or even counter-effective. Require us to have high, uniform expectations of each and every student we teach. Enforce the laws and guidelines for ESS accommodations to ensure that we are providing those needed accommodations. Make federal monies available so that we have the resources needed to help these children who have no other way to access these resources.
Hold us all to higher standards, Mr. Duncan. Please.
I am a parent of children who have graduated from high school and are pursuing their studies in college. I have been very active not only at the individual school level, but in many district committees and projects.
I am convinced that we will not see substantial improvement in the education of our students until all stakeholders re-define their roles in the process.
To begin with, government needs to change the way in which it relates to local school districts. Education has become a politically manipulated, distance-managed, and under-funded ordeal rather than the exciting learning adventure it should be.
Government, federal and state, must become more a partner to local school districts rather than the overbearing taskmaster it has become.
Parents must become better informed about their children’s educational needs and how to best support them. They must become, as a group, more supportive of the educational process.
Teachers and administrators need to not only be appropriately qualified to teach their subject, but must learn to create and foster a positive, engaging learning environment for their students.
In 2007, a group of about 70 parents, teachers, administrators and community members worked on and developed our version of some of the components of a “Model School District”. It can be viewed at
http://ptsa.dearbornschools.org
- click on the menu item.
Our report was sent to every legislator in Michigan requesting a reply. We received none. Not one.
Standards, benchmarks, guidelines and the like are all needed. However, education occurs in the classrooms and teachers must have the time and flexibility to teacher to the individual needs and styles of their students. If not, all the rest is just rhetoric.
Reduce the rigidity of curricula, substantially reduce the amount of required standardized testing, allow good school district the flexibility to adopt a curriculum that allows for flexibility and encourages innovation, reduce the reporting paperwork required of teachers to allow them more time to actually teach, fully fund programs and remember above all else that these students are our children – not numbers or abstractions.
It is important that you continue gathering input from interested, often invested, stake holders in our education system. All people residing in our democratic republic should be encouraged to participate freely in this discussion. I comment you for starting the process.
The focus on standards is concerning for several reasons but the five most important right are: 1) that federal and state mandates/policies/et. force districts to view them (standards) as ‘maximum’ objectives rather than minimum goals; 2) no person of any age learns in exactly the same way or comes to learning with identical life and language experiences; 3) most teachers are from the same socio-economic group – the middle class – and have limited understandings of those from other SES groups; 4) the NCLB removes instructional decisions from the professionals who chosen teaching as a career and have worked hard to create the learning environment the individuals enrolled in their classes need; and 5) reduce not only the amount of required standardized testing, but to actually use the results in a way that supports students as they learn. A standardized test should never be the deciding factor in graduating a child from high school, a grade, or for retention.
One other important issue is on the alternative certification options for 2nd or more career teachers. Most of those who want to become teachers have degrees in other areas and may be teaching in non-public schools. There needs to be a way for life experiences to equate to student teaching. Most 2nd career teachers cannot afford to quit work to take methods courses to be licensed. This is not saying that the path should be easy but that there needs to be an effective and inclusive way to do alternative licensing.
It is my fervent hope that your ears and heart are as open as is the business side of this issue.
Your biggest priority as Secretary of Education should be to dismantle the Department of Education. First of all, there is no Constitutional permission for the Federal government to be involved in education at all. Secondly, Federal involvement has made things worse for children and teachers. Let each state set standards for themselves, get the Federal government out of the way, and watch our students improve.
Raising standards for developing student uniformity is the wrong way to go. We need high standards for nurturing PHD, positive human diversity. This can be accomplished by asking teachers to help students grow in 7 Dimensions of Human Greatness — Identity,Inquiry, Interaction, Imagination, Initiative, Intuition and Integrity.
With this focus, teaching becomes a true profession that attracts the brightest and best and involves parents in a meaningful way. Basic skills,reading,writing and math are learned as tools, not as ends in and of themselves and students achieve as individuals, not as standardized products.
As we attempt to close the achievement gap, which can only be done by eliminating poverty, education/reform policies are dumbing down learning, eliminating depth, creating boredom and tedium, and generally pissing off teachers, students and parents. Not a recipe for success!
Oh, and when you talk about statistics, please do it honestly, and inform you boss he should too!
Fund education. Don’t futz with it. Fund, not futz!
The public schools are failing because they are driven by getting the right answer not how to form the right question. Indoctrination to meet the needs of industry is not appropriate for the 21st century it it ever was at any other time. American Public schools train children what to learn and are incapable of teaching children how to learn. The distinction is lost on most educators. Cognition should be the foundation for educational policy and practice, unfortunately we have a vocational program masked as education. We need to shift away from an industrial educational system to a humane educational system devoted to the promotion of humane values rather than the unsustainable and competitive values of industrialism. NCLB, armed with standardized testing, underscores and promotes the reduction of human beings into mechanical parts that appear interchangeable and identical. Human beings are broadly diverse and unique and should be treated as such. Learning requires an ability to make meaning out of experience and every human being from birth is inherently capable of learning. Education should support and promote that inherent ability. Our public schools do not.
Rogier Gregoire Ed.D.
I am an Early Childhood Education instructor at a community college in NC and our typical students work in childcare, a few work for a State funded Pre-K program known as More @ Four. A few of them will go on to a four-year college to earn a teaching license for Birth-Kindergarten. I have noticed the following trends:
1. The typical student we service is attending college because the state has increased its Star Rating requirements for child care providers which is partly based on the education level of a percentage of the staff in a specific center. Persons working with young children should be qualified for the specific needs of children in this age group. More often than not, these people do not have any education or it is not in Early childhood education. We would not accept this in other fields such as the health field, accounting, or even as a public school teacher, why do we think it is ok for the youngest, most vulnerable population in society?
2. Another trend is for students who have not met the GPA requirements for other programs such as nursing will then enter our program. We seem to attack those who are lacking academically and are looking for an “easier” program.
3. One last thing I have noticed is the qualifications and experience of instructors in the early childhood education programs across the nation is that may do not have a background in early childhood education but rather a background in a different field such as psychology, Elementary Education or another so call “related” field and they lack the practical experience of working in a classroom with children. (For example, I hold an ECE degree but I could not teach in the psychology deptartment, but a person with a psyshology degree can teach in ECE) Why the double standard?
So, to answer your questions “Is raising standards a good idea and how should we go about it”, I believe that it is imperative to our county’s future to raise the standards on not only what we are expecting children to learn but on who and how we do it. To accomplish this we must first be committed to providing the Highest Quality early experiences possible for ALL children, including those who attend child care to those who stay at home with mom. We need to start by educating the public about the importance of high quality early experiences and what that includes. I suggest the following:
1. Begin a public education campaign not unlike the seatbelt usage and cigarette hazards that occurred in the 1980’s. Use the public service announcements and make it seem cool to focus on children and education. – This needs to include what parents should be looking for in a High Quality program. Too many parents assume that if a facility is licensed it is meeting all the standards and that the “Teachers” actually hold teaching degrees. We need to differentiate between those who do and those who don’t. People cannot be called or referred to as a nurse, police officer, lawyer or any other profession until they have earned that degree, this is not true for “teachers”.
2. Provide parents with resources and support that is not only helpful but timely and ongoing. The Parents as Teachers program should be expanded and made available to all parents and included in the public education campaign to make it “acceptable” and seen as a desired service among ALL parents. This can be accomplished by targeting the Middle-class. Companies who market to this demographic should be given a tax break it they sponsor these types of programs and advertise them.
3. Require all persons working with young children in any type of setting to have a minimum of an Associate’s degree and the directors/owners and lead teachers must have a BS degree in Early Childhood Education – NOT any other “related” field with maybe the exception of Child Development.
4. Educators in the Early Childhood field all institutions (including High Schools) should hold a degree in Early Childhood Education and have had experience working in a classroom with children. They should also hold a state teaching license in the early childhood area.
5. There should be minimum GPA and skill requirements for students to enter and remain in the Early Childhood Education programs at institutions of higher education just like nursing, engineering and many other fields.
From reading the previous comments, I can see the answers are out there. It will take years to fix public education. First, generations of people have been raised in poverty and ignorance. Few people are responsible for their poverty when they first start out. They are raised in a culture or subculture where education is of little or no value. This must be changed before people can see the need for an education. Second, not all school resources are created equal. We need to give students a level playing field in schools. Many students cannot benefit from technology. They do not have it had home and cannot get access from the public library and schools. Surveys should not ask, “How many computers do you have in your school.” They should ask, “How many working computers that have the latest components, do you have in your school.” Third, people need to stop putting breaking a teacher’s union before helping the children. Private charter schools have not proved to be the answer. There are state laws out there that are not being followed by school boards because the states don’t have people to police the rules. The states made rules for a reason. School boards need to follow them. Fourth, stop blaming the teachers when the parents, students, and people in politics are culpable, too. Schools cannot undo the damage many parents have done over the years. A number of parents teach their children how to be rude, lazy, and dishonest by example. Students have to take responsibility for their actions and education. There is something wrong with a system where a student does not bring paper and pen to class and the teacher is expected to supply it, daily, if need be. People making the laws should walk in a teacher’s shoes for a day. They make it so that teachers are allowed to be cursed at by parent and child. A student and parent can say about anything to a teacher and little if anything happens. Fifth, yes standards should be raised. However, testing the students will not help raise standards. I will stop here, because if I went on, it might look hopeless which it is not.
Setting the standards is actually the easy part. Much more complex and elusive and particular to each school is the ability to design and deliver schooling that makes it so that every child can actually attain the standards.
I’m interested in knowing what the theory of action of the Department is to support every school in this work. Everyone who’s ever taught knows that telling and commanding is easy but often useless. And in a punitive system, the ’student’ just pretends to be obeying.
On the other hand, guiding, being a critical friend, being a thinking partner, are all relationships that are much more likely to lead to good and honest analysis of the schooling we’re providing — leading to better school culture and climate, better habits of scholarship, better capacity of adults to serve the needs of the children.
The goal of education currently is to get good grades and to get high test scores. Removing standardized testing and almost all of NCLB will go a long way in making the goal of education resemble more of William Butler Yeat’s quote “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”
The industrial age is gone and we no longer need to stamp out students with the same exact education at the same pace. Many great thinkers and educators are pressing for more student autonomy and creativity in learning environments. Please do not keep stealing childhood away from Kindergartners. Play has been shown to be necessary and effective in development, so let’s not continue to ratchet up the pressure to read at ever earlier ages.
Look at models that are working (note the pure versions of this do not include standardized testing or textbooks): Waldorf, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, Sudbury/Free Schools, expeditionary learning schools, arts-based schools. There is no one-size fits all approach.
Educating for Human Greatness focuses on 7 Dimensions of learning:
1. Identity – Help students learn who they are – as individuals with unlimited potential, develop their unique talents and gifts to realize self-worth and develop a strong desire to be contributors to family, school and community.
2. Inquiry – Stimulate curiosity; awaken a sense of wonder and appreciation for nature and humankind. Help students develop the power to ask important questions.
3. Interaction – Promote courtesy, caring, communication and cooperation.
4. Initiative – Foster self-directed learning, will power and self-evaluation.
5. Imagination – Nurture creativity in all of its many forms.
6. Intuition – Help students learn how to feel and recognize truth with their hearts as well as with their minds. Develop humility.
7. Integrity – Develop honesty, character, morality and responsibility for self.
Advantages: When reading, writing, math and other disciplines are taught as tools rather than goals, students are more motivated and eager to learn, retain more of what they’ve learned and are better able to transfer and apply it to other areas of learning.
I’m a 41-year career educator that started off as a student teacher in 1968 in Hamilton, Ohio, the site of signing ceremony for No Child Left Behind. Having served as an Illinois public school teacher and principal from 1968 until my retirement in 2002, I now teach in the Masters in Educational Leadership program at Aurora University, Aurora, Il. Since my classes include promising students that will serve as future administrators and teacher leaders for many years, I feel it’s important to discuss NCLB and its pending reauthorization in my graduate classes. Aurora’s graduate students come from a large geographical area which covers the northern half of Illinois, and includes rural, suburban, and urban districts. Despite the diversity of the schools and students represented by our graduate students, I find that the following points are made over and over again relative to NCLB: 1. Unlike many previous initiatives in education, NCLB is “not going away.” Therefore, we should be looking for positive improvements. Reauthorization is a great opportunity to make those improvements. However, we’ve been waiting on reauthorization for several years! What’s the delay?
2. NCLB has accomplished some significant improvements in education. Schools are more accountable. Gains in achievement are being demonstrated. Educators are collaborating to make sure that planning, instruction and assessment are carefully tied together. Great efforts are being made to provide better opportunities for students that are not making the gains that they are capable of making. 3. Yet, it’s clear that NCLB has glaring weaknesses. Sometimes these outweigh the strengths of the law and cause students, parents and educators to resent rather than embrace the law. For example, NCLB has placed a very negative label on many schools and teachers that are accomplishing a great deal. Some students and groups of students are showing significant growth but cannot answer enough multiple choice questions correctly on high stakes test to meet or exceed standards. Why not focus attention on their growth?
What about the tendency for teachers to abandon creative lesson planning in favor of “drill and kill” and test preparation strategies? Another concern is the overuse of our wonderful, new computer labs and technological capacity for the purpose of test practice. Finally, we know that each of our precious students is a “whole child,” and is in need of a broadly based education including many opportunities in the arts, music, physical education, and social and citizenship studies. These vital areas now receive less emphasis because of the types of tests dictated by NCLB. As you take the lead in working for positive change in NCLB, please keep these things in mind. Thank you. Dr. Rick Carlson
Sure, raise standards. Why not? But let’s face some facts:
Emphasis on student performance on standardized tests has led to administrators placing all their attention on how to game the test because the administrator could lose his/her job if the test scores are not good. Along the way, emphasis on student learning got lost somewhere.
The only viable extracurricular program in many schools is sports. Evidence that music education helps students learn math, libraries help students learn to read proficiently, art allows students to express themselves and learn about themselves and others, free play encourages creativity, etc. all is ignored.
Too few principals seem cognizant of the need for them to be in the school, supporting teacher efforts to educate students, learning what it means to educate students to be competent, enforcing good discipline with students and staff, and generally playing the role of EDUCATIONAL leader.
Quit trying to hang it all on the teacher. Sure there are bad teachers out there, just as there are bad bankers, politicians, coaches, carpenters, etc. But a lot can be done to maximize what each teacher is able to do with students by giving teachers solid, consistent leadership. Try to rebuild the culture that makes education work by asking more of the teacher training schools, more of the administrator training schools, and more of the would be leaders in the schools. Lay out a plan. What do you want to see from students? Not just test scores, I hope. How do you plan to get what you want in your plan? NCLB is coercive and fatally flawed. It has no leadership component, just sticks to be applied when ‘goals’ are not achieved. That ain’t leadership.
Well, off the soapbox.
I lead work in the national offices of the United Church of Christ, a mainline, Protestant denomination with over 1.5 million members nationwide. Since the colonial period our churches have worked for justice in public education. While I surely agree that there should be basic standards in our public schools, I am more comfortable with a philosophy of education that rejects standardization.
Contrary to the dominant metaphor of No Child Left Behind, I do not view children as products to be tested and managed but instead as unique human beings to be nurtured and educated.
Our United Church of Christ’s General Synod has spoken on behalf of forming the whole child: “As Christians we believe that God desires for children the life abundant which comes from the fullest development of their gifts—physical, intellectual, social and spiritual.” This “whole child” philosophy of education has dominated among American education thinkers from philosopher John Dewey to psychiatrist James Comer to educators Rudy Crew and Deborah Meier to economist Richard Rothstein.
I believe that instead of increasing emphasis on regulation and standards, the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act should build the capacity of struggling public schools by supporting teachers through staff development that teachers themselves plan and develop, and by investing in reforms to improve school climate including smaller classes, less test-prep drill, more challenging and well-rounded curriculum, and more access to co-curricular activities for adolescents. I would like to see less testing and at the same time better testing that can actually help teachers assess children’s strengths and needs. These reforms will require funding driven to the schools struggling hardest. For that reason I am glad to see Title I funds increased through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and I hope those increases will be sustained.
I am convinced that the only way to improve public schools is to create s school climate that builds trust between educators and children and families. Of course basic standards must be present, but they are not the primary goal. I value strengthening the education process itself with less emphasis on standards and outcomes. It is a matter of better balanced reform.
Certainly standards are important, but more important is the “how”: classroom instruction and assessment. You can go into nearly every school in America and find well-written, well-intentioned standards, benchmarks, objectives, and learning targets. But all that “WHAT” is not as important as the “HOW”. We need to nurture and encourage students to be critical thinkers, collaborators, inventors, communicators, information managers–and to do it all with flexibility to adapt to changes in the world in which they will live. During my 20 years in the classroom we have had at least three different sets of “standards” implemented and/or updated–and those teachers with poor classroom instructional practices struggled with all of them, while those with good classroom instructional practices succeeded with all of them.
I’m a teacher educator. Teachers are given expectations that can only be met when they have cooperation from authorities, understanding from the public, appropriate levels of funding, good facilities, and students who are ready to learn. However, teachers rarely get any of those, especially in low-performing areas.
Using absolutist standards that everyone must meet is simplistic and not empirical. Teachers have to have realistic expectations. Society as a whole has to become more of a participant in making sure kids are ready to learn. You can’t expect a teacher to be a psychologist, social worker, mom/dad, and pedagogical wizard.
Also, have you listened to teachers themselves? Has President Obama? I see that he meets with Bill Gates about education. Is he an expert? Why doesn’t he meet with teachers and teacher educators?
This lack of respect is very offensive. Do you consult professional athletes about interest rates? No, you consult the experts. Do you consult military officials about how to shape health care policy? No, you consult the experts.
But with education, you don’t consult the experts.
I would like to build on comment 10 from Mr. Kovacs and point out that some 35,000 families have sold their children to U. S. families (as of a few years ago) to avoid the rigidities of the Korean system.
Millions of “alien” children in China are not in school. “Alien” is the word applied by city-dwellers to people who have moved to cities from the impoverished rural areas of China–often illegally. I’ve heard visitors to China call urban schools there anywhere from average to awful.
When I taught in Hong Kong, it was impossible to get advanced undergraduates to ask questions and discuss things. I tried, and failed. So I lectured, they listened.
In some parts of India, there are so many educated people that education counts for nothing. A low-level position at a police command opened up and thousands applied. EDUCATION DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, CREATE JOBS.
Saying the standards and performance in India and China arehigher than ours is hypersimplistic.
The link between high test scores and a nation’s economic health is weak if it exists at all. Think Japan’s miracle of the 80’s and it’s “lost decade” of the 90’s. It’s students still score high on tests but that doesn’t goose the economy–it is still in recession. Benchmarking to those kinds of standards doesn’t make any sense.
A book by European researchers pretty well destroys the validity of PISA, the Program of International Student Assessment. So much for those standards
I was excited to hear that President Obama would be bringing science back to the executive branch, indicating that his administration would heed the empirical research on, say, health care and the environment. I would urge the department of education to heed the educational research as well which suggests: (1) The deluge of standardized tests has forced teachers to teach to the test which is bad pedagogy; (2) These tests have forced schools – especially low-performing and/or resource-deprived schools – to sacrifice things like music, art, and recess; (3) The focus on tests has hurt the education of English language learners by forcing teachers to use unsupported language education methods (and thus ignoring the research).
I agree with Alex and I hope the administration will listen to educational experts.
I am not against standardized tests but the test writers will be the first ones to tell you that they should not be used as the sole educational benchmark. When they are used as the exclusive measure by which we judge student and teacher performance, they are being relied upon to do something they were not designed to do.
My aunt was an English teacher for 20+ years in Miami, FL. She won a city-wide award one year. She was, by all measures, a wonderful teacher. Yet, the NCLB requirements made her feel disempowered and disrespected.
I am a teacher educator and educational linguist. I do not think No Child Left Behind is all bad but I do think the focus on testing has hurt U.S. education by engendering bad pedagogy. Just because a student does well on a mathematics test doesn’t mean that they can build a bridge; just because a student does well on a reading test doesn’t mean they will understand Hemingway; and just because a student does well on a language test certainly doesn’t mean that they can speak the language! We need to think about a federal education policy that will train future leaders not good test takers.
I teach Freshman Composition at a state university. Previously, I taught English in a suburban high school in Southern California. I have had many years of classroom teaching. I have found that a group of teachers can agree on guidelines, standards, objectives, or whatever the jargon du jour is these days. It’s been done in the past when teachers were respected. However, whether standards should be “raised” and how that is to be done CANNOT be done by so-called “experts,” whose “expertise” has come from surveys, focus groups, journal articles, and other purveyors of panaceas and boondoggles. Many of so-called education “leaders” have spent little or no time in the classroom. Would you like to have a hospital administrator determine the procedures your surgeon will follow on your body?
Classroom teachers should be the ones to decide whether or not standards need to be “raised” because they are the ones who know what students need and how to meet those needs.
The phrase, “raising standards,” sounds as if the standards are too low. Whose fault is that? People with little or no classroom experience? Or, have teachers been forced to meet these standards with little or no input?
Would you like to have a hospital administrator to determine the procedures your surgeon will follow on your body?
We laughed at our professor in education courses, who later we found was correct, when he advised us to “start where the student is.” This piece of advise has served us well, but no one has ever thought to ask me or any other teacher.
Adopting a globally competitive, P-20 perspective is the right starting point in the standards discussion.
Through my professional occupation, I know of several states that are taking steps to understand the reading demands encountered in various post-secondary pursuits, which will bring new insights to the table when considering learning goals for reading in K-12. Other studies have examined the reading demands of various occupations, and similar things are being done in mathematics.
How does such information help? Working backwards from career and college expectations, a line can be drawn to interpret achievement and growth at any point from the context that ultimately counts most–are we preparing our students for opportunity? The answer (over time) will impact our nation’s place on the global stage.
As a parent of two young children who will enter public school in the years to come, I hope the U.S. DOE will take a similar approach in driving reform-—that is, look to the needs of the future while considering new expectations for the present. Then encourage imagination around ways to cross canyons, rather than simply building the same old bridges.
Supportive standards (perhaps higher) can play an important role in improving the effectiveness of education.
One of the positive things that has come out of NCLB is that it is ultimately clear, that one size does not fit all. We need to learn from that mistake. When setting National Standards, they need to be broad, yet adaptable to all the different situations that school districts across the country have no choice but to adapt. Creating a set of National Standards that all must obide by will be a daunting, and difficult task. So if you ask “Is raising the standards a good idea?” Yes as long as those standards are broad enough that all schools can adjust their curriculum to fit the National standards, yet still remain congruent and achievable in their situation. I agree the bar should be set high, but then the schools need to be given the resources to achieve those goals, and the professionals who are doing the work, need to be compensated accordingly.
“How should we go about it?” This blog is a good first step. Collaboration is key. Ask the professionals that work in the trenches. Back in the 1980’s when “A National at Risk” was presented to the public, and did nothing but unjustly demean and degrigate this Nations public school system, there was not one teacher who was involved in the research that drew the conclusion of that report. The teaching profession and the educational system has [unjustly] experienced a downward spiral since that report. So, create the standards, make them achievable goals, and collaborate, collaborate, collaborate.
Lastly, I have to add that if you are going to compare American Schools to public schools in Europe, compare all aspects. Time in class, required coursework (European schools must participate in the arts), foreign language requirements, AND teacher salary. Teaching in Europe is a highly respected profession. It is not in America. That is a shame, but what a statement it would make if the Federal government actually showed the American Public, that teachers are important, and should be respected and compensate teachers accordingly.
Low performing schools are usually a function of economically deprived student populations rather than a function of poor teachers. The research makes this fact evident. Arbitrary standards such as those imposed by state tests and arbitrary requirements imposed by the NCLB are means by which pass or fail decisions are made by a group of people who are not really interested in solving the actual problem caused by poverty and social deprivations.
Public education could better serve society if funds are used to uplift the economically deprived populations with early education programs. Also providing more teachers for the lower functioning students would be very helpful in schools where that type of population is fifty percent or more.
The present trend fostered by the NCLB education reform group is a subterfuge for an agenda that is different than what was the original purpose of public education and reflects more of an emphasis on interests that focus on business profits. Sincerely, Bill Archer (retired public educator, 39 years)
I have been teaching for 17 years. I have never felt as discouraged and frustrated as I do right now. My second graders are wonderful children individually, but the number of problems I handle on a daily basis is overwhelming. Amongst these issues: half of my twenty children come from broken homes, four have come from other primary languages, two have major health issues which impact their daily learning, several have an attention deficit diagnosis, one has autism, several are facing poverty and come hungry, three receive school counseling with another receiving outside counseling. Every day I do my best to make school fun and meaningful for them. The increase in standards based learning and a focus on raising test scores has them and me completely stressed out. I know how to differentiate and how to reach the high and the low. What I need is more flexibility and less ‘emphasis’ on raising test scores. My students just finished taking the California State Test and it made me feel like such a loser to watch my children bubble in wrong answers to skills I know they have mastered. I just wanted to sit and cry. Why did they chose the wrong answers? Is is because they are only seven or eight? It saddens me to see young children who need to learn basic life skills and socialization skills, yet I must spend the majority of my day on language arts and math standards. I feel guilty if I even let my students do an extra art activity or some ‘exploratory hands-on inquiry based learning’. Funny that their behavior is getting worse and parents are more apathetic. In my opinion NCLB is ruining the art of teaching and the enjoyment of true learning.
If we did an MRI scan of student brain activity as they sat in the typical American classroom, we would understand why our current answer-driven educational system, regardless of the standards used to measure it, is collapsing beneath its own dead weight. We’ve asked the wrong question–and because we have only the vague shadows of true “public engagement,” we cannot get there from here. Einstein’s axiom, “all problems must be solved at a level beyond the one that created it,” although over used, has never been more true. Only by stepping beyond our current meltdown, together, to the very edge of emerging possibilities, do we have any hope of the metamorphosis required. Let’s step to the edge…and watch the MRI screen light up!
State standards should be raised, but not through the means of standardized testing. Creative learning instruction and outlets should be provided to the students. Teachers should be given more say in what and how they teach their students. Standardized curriculum is not the answer here. More up-to-date technology should be integrated in the classroom and therefore allocated in the school budget. Students have to be prepared for the 21st Century-creatively and technologically. Education should captivate students and encourage them to problem solve in a creative manner; we should not be focused on how high students score on the ACT or SAT-these just proves how well students can take a test and do NOT predict student learning or success in higher education. Curriculum should be incorporating 21st Century Literacy and technology in order to nurture student learning and success. We should be focused on ‘well-rounded students’ by including more arts into their education. Students should be given more coaching on career selection and have more one-on-one time with counselors and those in the professional world. Co-ops and internships should be apart of each student’s education. Hands-on training can also help students who are more interested in technical school as a form of higher education. Students should be given realistic goals and schools should be rewarded for supporting students and staff. Students’ needs should be put first-not superintendent bonus checks/payroll.
President Obama is a popular leader. He needs to get out there and talk to kids at every age about how important education is. He needs to do this constantly and obsessively, and he needs to bring you along so that people can associate you with him. Then, after a few months, you should be the one going out there. The situation in our nation at the moment is this: the majority of kids have no interest in school because, for some reason, they see no connection between school and their future. You need to make it clear that this connection exists. ALSO, while school needs to be challenging, we need to make it more interesting to kids. You need to look at the learning theories of constuctivism, and implement them in all improvements in the system. In a nutshell: human beings learn from real life experiences.
Mr. Duncan,
I HOPE YOU ARE LISTENING. When you hear what educators have to say, it comes from experience working with children. We know what needs to happen. Those who sit in Washington are too removed from the work on the ground in the schools to come up with solutions. Create a team of real, caring educators to develop the plans that will result in schools we can be proud of.
I volunteer to be part of this team.
We should not be comparing our standards to other countries as they do not educate every child, handicapped included, as we do. If we educated only the “bright” ones and send the others out into the work force, our grades would be outstanding. How some children perform in high school isn’t an accurate picture because quite a few “roll” through high school, but when it come to college, they know they have to buckle down and get the job done because their life and living depends on it. Forcing children to perform well in high school or their diploma is withheld, does nothing but make a stressful atmosphere, everyone teaches to the test and more children drop out and get their GED. Trying to fix something that wasn’t broken, never works. We always come back to what worked in the first place — teach the basics; reinforce the basics and add additional information as children move up. We all have seen when there is a solid foundation, everything prospers. Teachers and administration need to show they care. School is suppose to be a safe haven where children can go to and have someone to talk to when they are having problems. The program “No Child Left Behind” has taken that away and has left many children behind. It has taken the “fun” out of learning.
Education needs to be recognized as birth to death not K-12. Right now we see so many adults losing their jobs and not having the skills needed to compete for the few jobs that exist. We also see young children getting late starts and needing so much help once they enter the school system. NCLB has many great qualities but the funding is not there and again it is focusing on k-12. How about no baby, child, or adult left behind? The federal government continues to cut funds for early childhood and adult education and the need and research is still there to say that money is needed. Adults can’t go to college or get training if they can’t even read a newspaper. Depsite the amount of money that has been put into the school system, dropout rates are still high. One last comment, although the low level learners in the k-12 system and adult system need help, gifted and exceptional learners should not be forgotten in the push to help low level students.
The idea of raising standards is an intriguing concept, but that alone will not fix anything. Instead of just raising standards there should be a four-pronged approach to fixing the education system. Without a multicfacitated approach all efforts are doomed to fail.
Prong #1 – Teacher Pay: This often cited problem with education occurs in every state. Consider this, the smartest, brightest, and most gifted of America’s graduates find careers that often pay into the six figures. If we raise teacher pay to match these fields think of the possibilities of new young teachers who will choose this career path. But with high pay should come increase teacher standards.
Prong #2 – Teacher Education: The corresponding raise in teacher pay should see a corresponding increase in the standards and difficulty in receiving a teacher certificate. Teacher programs could be created on the law and medical school model. After a four year degree students could apply to enter teacher programs thus making the programs selective and attractive to students who want to earn six figures and change the world for the better. Think about a classroom with a teacher that had to go through that kind of training. The possibilities are endless.
Prong #3 – Raise Standards: Creating a high national standard will solve many problems. Simply demanding that states continue to raise standards will never work. States like Mississippi have set the bar so low that increasing the standards is still far below even the most mediocre state. Require all students to graduate with the same standardize testing and curriculum standards will make our student competitive across the country and set a baseline to compare our students with international students for the new global workforce.
Prong #4 – Student Incentives: The reality is that everybody works better with incentives. How hard would you work if someone was offering you a $100K to complete the job. Students should be offered the ability to go on to college at little or no cost. Make it know to parents and students that from a very young age that if students score X on the standardize test and graduate with a Y GPA that college is free. I realize the vast expense associated with such a program but think of the benefits to our workforce and future. Most students will work hard everyday if college is now an option.
Without addressing all of these issues noting will ever be fixed.
Kyle
History Teacher in Texas
Dear Secretary Duncan,
The collected wisdom on this blog is certainly worth listening to. Please listen! I agree with so many others who have come before me, for example:
•Roberta: Those who sit in Washington are too removed from the work on the ground in the schools to come up with solutions. Create a team of real, caring educators to develop the plans that will result in schools we can be proud of.
•Noah: while school needs to be challenging, we need to make it more interesting to kids.
•Lisa Moloney: In my opinion NCLB is ruining the art of teaching and the enjoyment of true learning.
•Terry Guynes: One of the positive things that has come out of NCLB is that it is ultimately clear, that one size does not fit all. We need to learn from that mistake.
•Julie Rivera: We laughed at our professor in education courses, who later we found was correct, when he advised us to “start where the student is.” This piece of advise has served us well, but no one has ever thought to ask me or any other teacher.
•Dr. David Cassels Johnson: I would urge the department of education to heed the educational research as well which suggests: (1) The deluge of standardized tests has forced teachers to teach to the test which is bad pedagogy; (2) These tests have forced schools – especially low-performing and/or resource-deprived schools – to sacrifice things like music, art, and recess; (3) The focus on tests has hurt the education of English language learners by forcing teachers to use unsupported language education methods (and thus ignoring the research).
•Gerald Bracey: Saying the standards and performance in India and China are higher than ours is hypersimplistic. The link between high test scores and a nation’s economic health is weak if it exists at all. Think Japan’s miracle of the 80’s and it’s “lost decade” of the 90’s. It’s students still score high on tests but that doesn’t goose the economy–it is still in recession. Benchmarking to those kinds of standards doesn’t make any sense.
• Jan Resseger: I am convinced that the only way to improve public schools is to create s school climate that builds trust between educators and children and families. Of course basic standards must be present, but they are not the primary goal. I value strengthening the education process itself with less emphasis on standards and outcomes. It is a matter of better balanced reform.
I would add to Jan Resseger’s comments that I fear the “race to the top” and the desire to peg our standards to international benchmarks will take us farther and farther away “a school climate that builds trust” and farther and farther away from Julie Rivera’s injunction to “start where the student is.”
I see that happening for my two children here in Massachusetts, where our standards and MCAS tests are the envy of the rest of the country, purported to be the reason why we are “number 1 on NAEP” [rah, rah, rah]. What I see happening is the loss of the idea that a teacher’s first job is to find something to like about each student, celebrate and nurture their strengths (while working on their weaknesses), develop a relationship with each child. Who has time for that when we’re racing to the top and trying to match the standards of these imaginary realms where all children are above average?! And my children are fortunate to go to school in a district with enough resources and enough high performing children to be able to do more than focus myopically on raising test scores with endless test preparation (though we are no strangers to test prep!).
As Terry Guynes said, let’s learn from NCLB’s mistakes. Let’s not waste the opportunity and the unprecedented resources you have on perpetuating the same test-crazy, one-size-fits-none, disengaging school culture that is driving teachers and students first crazy and then out the schoolhouse doors!
In this discussion about “raising standards” and “national standards”, it seems that almost everyone has forgotten that various professional education groups once upon a time actually developed content-based national standards for their respective content areas. Like all standards, they were not perfect … but they were developed BY TEACHERS, and designed to be used by teachers. Those same organizations provided professional development around the standards they advocated, usually provided by other teachers and supported by grants from federal or state agencies. The grant cycle was, predictably, unpredictable and many a great professional network of content and pedagogical experts were left high and dry with no one to train and no programs to plan or implement. And then, in the late 90s, all were swamped and drowned when public education became a political hot potato.
There is definitely a need for standards. But summative assessment of student performance relative to “mastering” a list of facts and skills is counterproductive, especially in light of all the research demonstrating better ways to assess understanding, growth and progress. Dave Blackburn (Message #4) described Assessment for Learning (which encompasses assessment to inform the instructor and student about instructional strategies and lesson design, assessment designed to engage the student in self-direction and ownership of their own learning, and assessment designed to summarize what the student knows and can do), which needs to be incorporated in any meaningful restructuring process. It also involves use of actual student work to set instructional goals, collaborative work by members of the learning community (teachers, administrators, and parents) to assess progress and to design instructional strategies (or to modify them), and identification of unique local resources that can be utilized to strengthen the educational program.
Broad standards describe the goals, but all the heavy-lifting must be done locally. Empower teachers and administrators to ask the right questions, design their own personal and institutional learning plans, and then provide them the time and resources to actually DO that heavy-lifting, and you will be surprised at what they accomplish.
Simple case in point: the middle school where I worked, when we carved out the time through innovative methods, took the California Writing Standards and designed a year-round formative and summative assessment system that drove instruction. We designed appropriate prompts for each writing genre at each grade level, field tested the prompts (to revise them and simultaneously to design a useful rubric for scoring them, which in itself became a practical form of professional development for many members of the staff), and designed a series of units … integrated with topics being studied in other departments … to teach each of the genres. We then collected and used student work to modify the instructional units, to identify and target particular student weaknesses (sometimes modifying instruction for individual students), and to provide specific professional development for individual teachers or groups of teachers based upon their needs in meeting identified goals.
Standards should drive the entire learning community … not just be something on which a kid gets tested. Provide the standards, provide the resources, and then get out of the way. And, in the provision of standards, entrust teachers and educators to design them.
Sec.Duncan,
I must confess, that I do not have all the answers, but here are a few suggestions that I think will impact on better schools and better academic achievement.
1) Schools can not do this alone – teachers are working hard enough now!
2) Parents must be involved – If parents see education as important so will the children!
3) Middle school and high school student must see a connection / value in the way classes are taught and what is being taught – sitting in a classroom for 6-7 hours was great for you and I but I am not sure that what “todays” kids want or need, the society is different, they are different, just ask them. Our society has moved forward most of our school are still locked into seat work and lectures just like in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980.
4) Expanded Learning Opportunities and project based learning seem to be something that works for many students, as does a technical vocation setting.
5) Afterschool programs of all types need to be the third leg of a three legged stool (schools, parents, and afterschool) on achievement, they need to be able to do those things that schools and parents may not be able to do time alotted in the school day.
Thanks for your time…
I think we are asking the wrong questions.
What does it mean to “raise standards”?
Haven’t we been using data to improve instruction for years.
And duh! if you pay teachers as professionals, don’t we stand a better chance of having quality teachers?
The solutions could be this simple.
In the spirit of “less is more” let’s have fewer standards and expect their mastery. And of course, national standards for all.
Let’s take the power away from school boards and administrators. Make it an even playing field – then you’ll have the money to pay teachers fairly – and effective decision making.
Data and tests would be better used if educators were given up to date computers and software so that they didn’t have to waste time crunching numbers and collecting student info.
All I want as a teacher, of many years exp., is more money, supportive and effective administrators, the best computers, and to be an equal partner in all school decisions. That would be a great start.
Like so many things in this country, we have the money to do everything necessary to improve education, if only we could wrench the money and power from the grip of bureaucrats and corporations.
Sec. Duncan: The NCLB is nothing more than the Bush camp’s attempt to privatize public education. Check my book–”School Reform: The Great American Brain Robbery.” (Baltimore, Publishamerica, paperback, 2006.) In this work I carefully summarize and analyze studies and events related to educational reform. Centralization is NOT the answer. dump the entire NCLB and start with a respect for our !0th U. S. Amendment.
One last point testing kids until they dropout is UnAmerican!
The BEST thing we can do as a nation to insure quality education for ALL is to mandate day care for ALL children 3 months old of ALL low-income families receiving tax dollars for a parent in prison, for disabilites, and for medicaid.
Too many of the children of these families are our students not reading at grade level at the end of third grade when they begin their journey to prison. (Data shows that future prison projections are now being made based on the number of our children not reading at third grade level at the end of third grade.)
AND, if the parent does not bring the child to the day care center as law should mandate (just as all children now have to be in school for kindergarten), the child should be placed in a foster home.
I started a day care for low-income children in 1965 in Charlottesville VA when Virginia had no kindergartens. We went to pick up the children, and I was shocked that several families did not have their children ready because the parent/s were so disfunctional.
We NEED to make a difference for the lives of our low-income children and I believe eight-hour-a-day day care from age 3 months (when data shows learning begins) with food, reading, rest, love, and music will do just that.
I think the following would be great standards for all schools in the US:
No rewards & punishments – get rid of the carrot & stick mentality
Teacher as guide, not expert – The Guide on the Side, not the Sage on the Stage
Student-centered curriculum – student interests & choices before teacher & curriculum mandates (find student passions & explore them)
Change short subject chunks of time into large projects, themes, etc that involve all disciplines
Minimize competition – get rid of awards & honors/advanced classes, no tracking – all abilities should be together (unless severely special ed)
Promote true cooperation and sense of working together among students and teachers
Mix age groups (to learn from each other)
Homework is the exception, not the rule (and only when it is meaningful & turns the students on to learning)
Grading doesn’t exist in elementary & middle school
Standardized testing doesn’t begin until high school, and then only minimally
Assessments are performance based and not standards based
Give as much time & money to the arts as to the traditional subjects like English, math, science & history
Incorporate vocational training into high school years
No federal mandates tied to money, just federal guidelines or suggestions
Give parents more choice in where to send their children to school
I agree with most comments posted here, some more than others. I’m a Math teacher— I love math and I have a passion for it. I have four children, and all of them are good in Math, but they do not have the passion for it. Their passion is ART, in many different forms: I have two artists who love to draw and paint, I have two musicians who love to play several instruments, I have 3 actresses and 1 actor and they love the stage, and I have two singers. I know what you are thinking, this does not add to 4…see they have multiple passions and they are all multi-talented. All four of my children have been high achievers, top 10% and dedicated students. I truly believe that their exposure to arts (in its many different forms), and the great teachers they have had, have truly inspired them to be great themselves. When they were young, they loved to role play, they loved to invent games, and playing is how they developed their multiple talents which carried on to their succes in the 4 content areas. We need to raise standards, yes, but not at the expense of the social and emotional development. We cannot sacrifice the arts and playtime because in doing so, we chop off the foundation of learning. More and more schools are cutting budgets and the first things that go away are those which are not tested…mainly the arts, and the playtime. My husband works in a prison so I decided to research the cost of maintaining prisoners and here is what I found:
“Prisons cost taxpayers more than $32 billion a year. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs $22,000. States are spending more money on prisons than education. Over the course of the last 20 years, the amount of money spent on prisons was increased by 570% while that spent on elementary and secondary education was increased by only 33%.” This was in 2006, this cost has gone up since then and it might be more or less depending on the state.
Compiled by Manny Fortunato
Website © Copyright: 1997 – 2007 by Hearts and Minds Network
http://www.heartsandminds.org/prisons/facts.htm -
online May 21, 2004, latest revision September 26, 2006
After reading this, I began to question/imagine, what would happen if we put the money in the front end? You know, invest in their education to keep them out of prison, so that there wouldn’t be a need for prisons. I really like Kyle’s idea on offering student incentives such as paying for their college. Two of my children are in college, and they received some scholarships from their schools based on their grades–not enough to pay for everything though; since my husband and I work hard and make “above average” salaries combined, they did not qualify for any grants or student aide. They are still going to college, but we had to get student loans and they are working two jobs and going to school full time and still maintaining good grades in school. We have two more to put through college. We do not complain, but we know we will be in debt for the rest of our lives… we might die before we are finished paying off all the student loans.
Raising standards is good, but they need to be raised all around not just in schools. The support needs to be there, and we do need to re-think the educational system. Teachers are asked to differentiate, but the current system does not differentiate. Please read William Glasser’s “Choice Theory” and “The Quality School” and his ideas on reconstructing the educational system–no grades, no failures, intrinsic motivation, plenty of accountability, high expectations for each individual, fair, consistent, meeting the student needs, taking the child where they are and moving them forward at their pace, placing the responsibility on the individuals, and focusing on individual strengths to strengthen their weaknesses. Lots of good ideas that would never work with the current educational system. This system worked 100 years ago, don’t you think it is time to change it? However, this would cost a lot of money. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Can you walk the talk? Will your actions speak louder than your words?
Thank you secretary Duncan for allowing us to have input, and thank you for listening. This is a good start.
The last time I checked, we have not yet evolved into a Brave New World. Our children are not all raised from birth to adulthood in communal institutions where everything is equal. Many of the posts on this site have noted the poverty, broken homes and dysfunctional families that so many children of today live in on a daily basis. Can any of us reasonably expect a child who is hungry or lives with abuse to learn enough to pass the test? Parents, as their children’s first and most important teacher, need to be a partner in their children’s education if we want to see achievement in school. Unfortunately many parents have come from the same background that their children live in today. Research I have done has shown that parents with low literacy skills can help their children succeed in school, but they need to be taught how to do it. Unfortunately programs like Even Start that reach such a small amount of parents who need these services are constantly seeing a decrease in funds. If we don’t work with the entire family, it’s unlikely that we will ever see an end to the cycle of illiteracy and poverty.
Thank you for “listening.” I hope you will listen to teachers and other education advocates who have been critical of No Child Left Behind. Most of us voted for Obama because we were desperate for change in education as a result of the damage caused by NCLB. Obama doesn’t seem to get it, and I hope by listening, you will. He has said it was a funding problem – all the money in the world will not make a bad law a good law. The focus on test scores as the determining factor of school quality has created distortions and you must realize this in order to rectify the harm done to the public schools. Improving public education must mean providing for the needs of the whole child. I agree with the posts about arts and multiple intelligences. Many people, and you, I see, are calling for national standards. As someone has said, these exist already, developed by teachers in their professional organizations. What is scary is that the call is for mandated national standards which seem to be a precursor to a national test. Now if this were to happen, it would be NCLB on steroids, and this is not why we voted for Obama. Standards are fine, tests as the end-all and be-all are not. Let us develop and implement standards for what a quality school looks like – meeting the needs of the whole child. Do not be fooled by international test comparisons, you must be able to look at them analytically, not superficially. It is apples and oranges, and beware the fool who tells you otherwise. Look at the patent numbers, the numbers of inventions, the numbers for creative output in terms of art, music, film, literature. We do quite well. Look at the per capita prison numbers compared to other countries, and that is shameful. It is not because of standards, or tests. We need to be able to reach them when they are chidren, but it takes a lot more than mandating standards and tests. We need to shape public education in such a way that it will create a positive ripple effect that will decrease the incoming prison population. The only answer is finding a way into the child, through their passions, whatever it may be. You need caring, committed teachers and education professionals to do that. So release us from the shackles of testing, and let’s humanize our schools by calling for quality facilities that meet the needs of the whole child.
Secretary Duncan,
Establishing required standards in our schools is probably necessary and is an ongoing process, but manipulating them to achieve world equality or for comparison may not be useful.
My concern for our nation is not so much our in-school learning standards, but the degeneration of our home living standards which directly affects learning as well as other aspects of society. The Council of Chief State School Officers adopted as a published policy in 1999 “Early Childhood and Family Education”. Page 14 of that report has a paragraph headed ‘Parent Preparation’ stating “Each generation of secondary students is also a generation of future parents. The nature of their education shapes their disposition toward the way they will eventually raise and teach their own children.The quality of their overall education and the introduction they are given to their opportunities and responsibilities for their own children’s learning are of great significance.The schools have a major potential in helping prepare students for successful future roles in early childhood and family education.”
My concurrence with this conclusion coincides with an idea for a new educational initiative for the next generation. Parenthood is and always will be the most important vocation.The idea to satisfy this need is relatively simple and objective. It involves the addition of only one three level universal, uniform, and mandated course in all schools at the 7th and 12th grade levels and a post secondary course if appropriate to influence FUTURE parents how to instill life’s values as love, humility, honesty, compassion and others in their children and to emphasize at the first level (7th grade), the importance and ramifications of home formation and functional families.
This initiative also addresses the concern of Sister Marie Rose McGeady of Covenant House who opines that “I passionately believe the breakdown of the family unit is the single deepest ethical and moral challenge of our generation. Whether we respond to it will depend on the resolve
and willingness of all of us to commit ourselves to the care and protection of family life. The time for repairing endangered families and rescuing their children is not after they have fallen apart.”
The preparation and presentation of a three level course certainly appears feasible and result is predictably worth the effort and cost.A State trial may be undertaken within the stimulus program. A youth generation with more peer equality in values will be more useful than more education standards.
Your on-line forum is a God-send for this idea to be presented. A discourse on this,”My Child: For a Better World” has been given to Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and the question remains how to advance to meaningful implementation.
This was alluded to in comments # 5 and 55 also. My hope is that a section of your Department could begin developing this approach. Illinois may be a diverse State in which to try it. Thank you!
I’m a resident of Lincoln, MA and a school psychologist in Arlington, MA. Here are several critical changes that I recommend: (1) effective organizational pragmatics, skills and abilities must be taught beginning with kindergarten — it should be a separate course that is then intertwined with content work. (2)Standardized testing is going to continue for the moment, let’s face it and admit that much more grass roots work will be required before it is eliminated from the American educational system. In the meantime, civics, particularly in regard to the history of the American revolution and an understanding of the Constitution MUST be a part of the required knowledge of graduating students (google Sandra Day O’Connor, she’s working on this) (3) The excessive amount of paperwork in special education is very costly as it takes teachers away from teaching and results in students making less progress. Administrative personnel could manage much of the paperwork process, at a lower rate to the school system. The secretaries in the special education departments know the inside and outside of the paperwork trail. (4) Too many kids get full evaluations in special education. This is very costly to the school system and decreases much needed per pupil expenditures across districts. The law says that every parent who requests a special education evaluation should receive one for their child. This is not always in the best interest of the child and points to a major flaw in the law that does not allow specialists to assess the degree of testing needed.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
In order to fix our schools, please focus on how teachers are educated in the first place at the university level. Current teacher training and certification programs are a joke. They seldom instruct teachers in the best methods of *how* to teach, but instead focus on rules, regulations, and paper work. When they *do* try to present actual teaching methods, it is often counter productive. For example, there is a method of teaching children to read which has been scientifically proven to be effective: Phonics. Prospective teachers are often told that Phonics is not effective, or less effective than other methods which have been scientifically shown to be inferior.
If you fix the teacher training programs, many of the problems with schools will fix themselves. Build on what has been shown to work, not the pet theories of people who have never been successful in the classroom.
Thank you.
Raising standards is like saying that what we need to improve the system is more of the same system.
The sad thing is that no matter where the standars are set, they always serve to limit the students. In reality, every child has genius, but set standards hold them back. Remember the Animal School Fable: http://www.janebluestein.com/handouts/animal.html
The homeschool movement over the past twenty years is a result of caring parents that don’t see their children’s needs beeing met in a standards-based school. They are the prarie dogs of the Animal School Fable.
-Heather Martinson
I want the Department of Education to stop using the term “Grade Level” except in it’s legitimate form. Grade level is the AVERAGE reading or skills level for a given age group. You will NEVER have all students reading at grade level, because by it’s very definition, 50% of the students read below and 50% above: elementary statistics.
If we keep stressing that NCLB is working to get all children to read at grade level, we are further twisting the truth.
Let’s use terms correctly, and stop leading the public astray.
We can raise the standards for Math and Science all we want,but wihtout qualifed Math and Science people the standards can’t be taught. Many, many overly qualifed people would like to shift from the private sector to education, but know they would be taking an automatic pay cut due to the Social Security Offset.
We just laid-off a ton of these people in california and they could be shovel ready the second the current legislation to eliminate the offset is passed.
I’d like to comment on Special Education standards. There is no incentive to have quality special education programs in Michigan. At present there are only minimal negative consequences for failing to meet minimal standards. Quality programs are a magnet for parents and students with high expectations. The problem is that Special Education programs are more expensive for the districts than general education programs. A quality special education program will certainly attract parents and students with high expectations but it will also raise the special education costs to the district, added costs which are not reimbursed by state or federal education agencies at one hundred percent. Thus, there is a disincentive for providing quality special education to local districts. Fully funding the added costs of Special Education would be a giant step in the direction of quality education in the spirit of No Child Left Behind.
I am a high school math eacher. I strongly agree with raising the standard. How do you make students accountable for themselves. The reality is students are not held accountable and they are socially promoted from k-8 and all the blame is on the high school teachers.High school teachers are under the presuure of administrators about D and F rates,so many students are graduating from high school which they do not deserve.
Make students accountable from kindergarden.Adopte a national standard and national testing. Some students come to school everyday and do nothing all year, What will you do with those kind of students?
Standards need to be high, but that is only a tiny fraction of the problem. As long as test scores are the only measure of standards, we are creating citizens who have memorized all the facts necessary to pass tests but can’t use the facts in any meaningful way. I teach college, and my students only perform well on memorization activities. Even simple tasks that require a very small amount of thinking, like following a pattern or formatting a document, are almost impossible for 90% of my students. Standards need to be high, but not just in memorized facts. That’s what NCLB did for us. We need to rethink our system entirely. In particular, politicians, parents, administrators, and citizens need to treat education as what it is: a profession populated by professionals who have studied and know something about their subject. Give teachers some say in what happens in their profession.
My district (Illinois – NSSD 112) has been working on creating Power Standards and quarterly assessments to mark achievement of standards. One of the greatest problems is in testing students’ writing. The rubrics and expectations need improvement to avoid formulaic responses. In addition, because of the stress placed on teaching what is tested, the speech requirements, though still part of Illinois Standards, are generally ignored. We’ve drawn Power Standards from all standards for the state but focus on those being tested. Too many things fall through the cracks. Regardless of where we go with standards, assessments guide schools because all administrators care about is advertising the high scores achieved by our students.
Having National standards or 21st Century Learning Goals are only good if all states test students with the same test. In N.C., the testing program is (in my opinion) a disaster. We cannot tell tell if the students are growing or not because the tests keep changing. I vote for mandatory National tests that all states use and do away with “state written” tests. Not only could we compare scores across the nation, we could find out what programs are really successful. This would also get rid of a large waste of tax payer dollars at the state level since we spend tremendous resources on writing and rewriting tests.
Secretary Duncan
Thank you for offering this opportunity to comment on the direction of education policy. You pose the question of higher standards and the prospect of tying these standards to international norms. As far as higher standards are concerned, you won’t find many educators arguing with implementing them. However, the resources and support for raising standards were virtually non-existent during the previous administration. That suppoort must be firmly in place and should be tied to achievement. It is critical, though, for us to remember what it is that has made our nation great. Far from the uniformity of programing, it has been the encouraging of creativity, problem solving, and independence of thought. Are these not some of the core values of our democracy? I fear that we are already on a slippery slope towards standardization. The former administratio;s reliance on “standardized” tests as accountability measures served no one but politicians. We must get back to teaching as an art form informed by a strong body of pedagogical, developmental and content knowledge and stronger core values.
If there is one thing that we can do to return to these values it is moving towards the elimination of an underclass of citizens who are underserved by our educational system. Let’s put money into creating meaningful incentives for our most skilled and motivated teachers to work in hard to staff schools. Let’s fund improvements to these school buildings. Let’s create incentives for local folks to travel the path of teacher preparation and teach in their own community schools. Let’s name the greatest enemy to the quality of our nation’s schools—poverty. And let’s do something about it.
Let’s get this right while there is a man in the White House who understands these issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Eric Gidseg, Ph.D.
Kindergarten Teacher
Co-chair, NYS Standards and Practices Board for Teaching
With respect to Secretary Duncan & the U.S. Congress,
I deeply appreciate your efforts to help education/ecucators. But, our Congress is too removed from us even to understand. Until more of their children attend troubled public schools, they really can’t understand. For the same reason, they don’t understand Medicare and Social Security. They aren’t in the system!
The idea of a state test is an excellent one. My problem is that the responsibility of having all students pass is on the backs of just the English and math teachers.
There should be a test for social studies, beginning at the middle school level, that tests students’ ability to understand non-fiction passages, maps, facts, and to write essays. It does not have to be specific to certain periods or events in history. If social studies teachers were to prepare their students for a state test, it would absolutely help the English teachers in their mission to raise students’ comprehension and writing skills.
Similarly, a state science test would help math teachers with the analytical skills they teach students as they both exercise the left side of the brain.
With everyone working together as a team to improve students’ reading, writing and analytical skills, the children are absolutely going to benefit.
Secretary Duncan,
As a former teacher, trainer and instructor of teachers, and site coordinator for a program housed on south side Chicago, I am familiar with the complexities facing 21st century educators, and urban educators in particular. An antiquated educational funding system, generational poverty, and inequities for students to receive a quality education are seriously compounded, and dare I say promoted, by social injustices in 21st century America. All students deserve an intentionally focused curriculum that will enable them to become the informed citizenry that the founders of public education in our country envisioned. Our democracy surely rests on the success of this goal. These limitations, and the unrealized promise of our system, extend little hope for second language learners and minority students.
We have more standards than can currently be met by students, should they be in school 12 hours a day, year round, until they are in their twenties. Standards aren’t the issue, although I realize maintaining high standards is clearly important. The caveat here is that students need high standards that are achievable because they are taught by quality teachers, who know content, and can effectively deliver instruction. This should be every American child’s right for every year he is in school. Instead of reinventing wheels, and perpetuating the myth that testing students automatically increases achievement, please invest in productive and effective professional development for teachers. Ensure that true mentoring programs exist and are being utilized. Continue to give, and increase incentives for hands on partnerships between Colleges of Eduction and public schools, ensuring training that includes a coaching model. Encourage tripartite relationships between Colleges of Ed, public schools, and communities. Maintain high standards for Administrators and foster clear and fair evaluative processes for schools wherein remediation of those with potential, and counseling the unfit out of the profession (beyond pre-tenure periods), are standardized practices. Provide every child with a gifted education: relevant content, delivered in interesting and engaging ways, with clear and well-designed assessments identifying those standard of which you speak.
So Secretary Duncan, don’t further muddy the waters by creating more unfunded mandates, or rewriting standards that already exist, (many of which are based upon national models like the INTASC Standards, for example). Look to districts where “the system is broken” and concentrate on fixing things there. Leave effective districts alone. Let them do their jobs, and unburden them with the unfunded mandates of No Child Left Behind. It should be repealed and the whole scope of national involvement upon local governance of schools be re-examined. One size doesn’t fit all for kids, teachers, districts, states, or the nation.
Finally, a short comparison that makes sense to me is: weighing a cow doesn’t make it grow, it simply measures how well the farmer is doing in providing what the cow needs to cause it to grow. How equally true this is in education! Standards should be consistent, and achievable. Testing should be done judiciously and selectively. More focus should be given to the components that lead to growth and progress (quality teachers, administrators, and tripartite partnerships). Please, bring about vital and lasting change to our educational system by attacking the real problems and put a crazed standardization behind us. Don’t let education continue to be a national, political football! Thank yo for the opportunity to share our views. I hope that they are really reaching you.
Cheryl Witucke
My experience in Colorado school systems is as a tutor and a teacher. Both positions allowed me an isight into what needs to be done to improve the chance of success in the educational enterprise. It’s CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE. Some call it classroom management – an attempt to put the onus on the teacher. However, without the tools to implement the sort of discipline that makes student management possible, the teacher is like a builder without a hammer – an essential tool is missing.
Time and again teachers’ efforts are frustrated by a few miscreants who are determined to destroy opportunity for other students. This is especially so at the Middle School level and later. Time and again I’ve been in a classroom where two or three students rob the others of their right to an education.
When we figure out a way to remove habitual bad behavior from the classroom, and provide alternatives for the offenders, we’ll be on our way to greatly improving the educational experience – and the success rate – of the majority.
The idea that raising standards necessitates imposing rigid standard assessments on students is an interesting one, but not one that has the growth of children’s learning potential at its heart. It shocks me that the desire for one has led so many to unquestioningly adopt the other. The move toward standardization of assessments is shaping curriculum development. No question. Does this model “work” at Roxbury Prep? Yes. No doubt. Are their graduates going to be creating women’s health clinics in Tanzania? No. They will be entering the world of finance and policy making. That is, if they make it that far. We have to decide what we are educating our students for. Vision will give way to the business model we know so well if we aren’t careful. As I am increasingly told that a “benchmarked” assessment will measure what my students know and can do, I move closer and closer to leaving the public school I have loved for so many years, and the amazing children it serves, for a pilot program that serves fewer children, children who will become active citizens, some who will become the elite. And those students who currently get my full attention (and I mean full attention) will be left with a rigid, packaged, easily transferable curriculum that will prepare them for complacency over risk-taking. As a nation, we will deserve what we get. By all means, let’s get on the same page–and let’s pay absolutely no attention to what’s written on it, to the people who wrote it, or to their motivations.
With more federal money funding education, the federal government needs to ensure that this money is spent efficiently, effectively and supports high academic standards. This cannot be done unless the federal government establishes and enforces uniform standards that better gauge student success. The current hodgepodge of academic standards, many of which are not upheld due to funding constraints or increased drop out rates, needs to be examined and fixed. More standardized testing is not the answer either.
Please, Please remember that we need US citizens who have knowledge and skills in a a hugely diverse set of subjects. We must be very careful to set standards so that students still have incentives to try a wide variety of subjects.
Standards must leave room for the variety of knowledge that makes America great. DO NOT set standards in one or two subjects so high that students don’t have time to learn other subjects well. If a student achieves very well in music, he should not have to meet very high standards in math and english. Merely competent in math and English would be fine. Likewise, if a student achieves great results in science, don’t require him to be a stellar writer. Let him be merely a competent writer. We need US citizens who will become experts in a wide variety of languages, science fields, arts, history, anthropology, business, and on and on.
We must be very careful to set standards so that students still have incentives to try a wide variety of subjects.
Standardization sometimes quells innovation. If we meet the standards, do we feel like we’re doing enough so there is no incentive to do better?
We must be very careful to set standards so that students still have incentives to try a wide variety of subjects.
In California, we’ve had fairly high standards for years. If anything is done about standards on a national level, it seems only fair that they be equalized. If our states are being compared with each other in regards to Adequate Yearly Progress and Academic Performance Indicators, it makes no sense to compare across state boundaries if the standards, testing, and performance bands are not the same. In California, the ‘powers that be’ determined 8 years ago that the 5 performance bands are Far Below, Below, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. If you were to give those a letter grade, they would be F, D, C, B,and A. OK, you say, what’s the problem with that? Well, the same ‘Powers that Be’ also determined that only Proficient and Advanced are passing. Students who score Basic (a C in common parlance) are NOT at a passing level. Despite all the work we’ve done to raise our student performance, we will ALWAYS have kids who perform at a BASIC level. We don’t all live in Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average. MOST of the kids in high poverty schools are lucky if they can make it to basic. It is my understanding that in other states, BASIC is considered passing. So in California, we feel we’ve been dealt a double-whammy. We have HIGH standards, compared to many other states, AND our kids have to reach a higher benchmark on the test. They all have to score PROFICIENT, rather than BASIC. They all have to reach a B average.
And then there’s the matter of the exponential level of performance EVERYONE is supposed to reach by 2012. Or we’re ALL in trouble. Which we all will be. There is NO WAY our performance can improve at an almost vertical angle. We do still have CHILDREN we are teaching, more and more who are coming from increasingly disfunctional families. More and more of our kids (about 30% in many schools) have at least one parent in jail or prison, usually for drug-related crimes. More and more have parents who are unemployed or underemployed. Fewer and fewer have two-parent families, and a great many go home to abuse, violence, and terrible neglect. Televisions and video-games are what are raising these children. They are fed microwave meals or fast food. They have no extended families, and a family outing is going to Wal-Mart. Our education system is in serious trouble, and our nation is in serious trouble, because our FAMILIES are in trouble, and raising the educational standards in our schools and districts is NOT what our conversation needs to be about. I have no problem teaching standards, as long as they are fair and reasonable, and can conceivably be taught in a school year. I have no problem with testing. Both formative and summative testing have their place and are useful instruments for instruction. What I have a problem with is being PUNISHED for not making continual progress every year.
As many people have said in the previous postings, flogging education and blaming everything on our schools is a common blame-game among the politicians, but I’d like to see even ONE politician spend a day in our at-risk, low-income schools, in one classroom,teaching children who cannot pay attention (for a ‘bazillion’ different reasons)and attempting to reach mastery of even ONE standard. We HAVE made progress. Quite a lot of it. Our scores are WAY higher than they were 10 years ago. Are we going to make it to EVERY child proficient by 2012? No way. SHOULD WE HAVE TO? That’s the real question. IS the problem in the schools? Or in society? In families? In the lack of real parenting our children receive?
We already do so much more for our kids than schools did in the 50s and 60s, but we cannot solve every problem. NCLB does NOTHING to solve any of those problems, but only exacerbates them by putting undue pressure on schools and teachers, on education in general. Who in their right mind would enter this profession now, given all the constraints we now have, all the constant blame that is cast our way, and the low level of support we receive from our state and local governments? It’s not like teachers are compensated anything close to what they should be based on their education.
If you want to improve education, extend the school year. Virtually every other first world country has a longer school year than the US. We teach for 180 days. Most other countries (Great Briain and Japan come to mind) teach upwards of 200 days a year. Some countries even more. If we want our schools to be world class schools and our children to be learning world-class standards, we need to be comensurate in many things, not just standards.
I am so pleased that the government is finally getting some common sense on this standards thing. I believe the public has been completely in the dark about what goes on with the standards from state to state. We, as educators, know that one state may have a bar that is set high and another state sets the bar extremely low. Why don’t we save some money in every state and just use the nationl test that is already out there. Most subjects are already alligned to these standards, as well as text and support materials. We are jumping through the most ridiculous hoops, creating our own state tests, getting text book companies to align with our individual state standards. Does anyone know how much each state spends on these tests? Check out Michigan’s test, it is a doozer, bar quite high. The best part, is they have pilot groups take the national test, which they have to pay for, so that they can then compare Michigan’s test with the national standard. Waste of money and doesn’t make one bit of sense!
Teachers being highly qualified is the biggest joke to this law. Does anyone realize that colleges/universities all over America make their own criteria for teacher education graduation and then the government comes along and lays the smack down on what kind of teacher can teach what subject. There is absolutely no common sense in this portion of the law. It is about as sensical as the standards portion of the law. The goverment might want to consider making the same curriculum for teacher education in ALL colleges/universities across America.
Also, there needs to be a parent responsibility component to this law. Teachers should be able to report parents that are neglectful and down right irresponsible. Teachers all across America document parent contacts and cannot be solely reponsible for the academic success of every child, we need help from every child’s parent. The government needs to take a look at the downfall of the American family and do something about it. I will soooooo take on President Obama’s merit pay, but only if I can weigh in on neglectful parents. Parents should be held accountable for attendance, teacher communication, homework help, and school involvement. Kids are not products that are rolling off an assembly line, but humans that are touched by, not only teachers, but their home lives as well. This directly affects all of this and I am tired of No Child Left Behind not addressing this standard……….parents should be held to standards of the human being their chose to bring into this society and world!!!!!
I’m with Dana Bennis on this. No Child LEft Behind operates under the incorrect assumption that the most critical learning happening in our schools is measurable, and then falls into a deeper logical hole by measuring it with a multiple choice test. Learning the value of speaking out, & finding one’s voice, learning how to treat others and how to work with them, learning the beauty of diversity, striving to improve, recognizing the wonder in every human being, acting responsibly and benevolently, learning that violence is never the right answer: this is a tiny list of the huge, significant, and absolutely immeasurable things we should focus on teaching. Content standards may be the waters we swim through while approaching that glorious immeasurable shore, but what matters is reaching the shore. High standards? Absolutely, but we’re working with human beings, & measuring anything so complex as a human being is absurd. We need to inspire our teachers to apply their passion for learning, teaching, students, equity, art, science, thought… We need to inspire & then step back & watch the magic.
In my life I fortunately received a classical education at the University of Chicago and had the opportunity to study under some of the most brilliant minds in the world. This experience inspired me to engage in a life time of serious learning. During my thirty-five years of teaching high school students I have tried to share some of this excitement for learning.Unfortunately, administrators, education professors,NCLB nonsense have all come together to create the perfect storm for the destruction of the the passionate joy of learning.These people pretend to know what education is and continue to spin their webs of illusion. Education is more mystery than knowledge. We can not get into the head of a student.Learning can not be quantified with phony data. No can honesty say how much a teacher ever taught them. Please let us acknowledge this basic reality and stop the number nonsense.
I graduated from high school in Wyandotte, Michigan in 1962. Whatever “standards” were used then and there WORKED. Why can’t we cut through all of the baloney and “noise” and just find out exactly what the TEACHERS, repeat, TEACHERS of that time did, and do that. Again: IT WORKED!
There is no question that ALL children should have the opportunity to be exposed to high standards. The more they learn the greater their choices availing opportunities to experience freedom. The real question is: Who should be responsible for creating and deciding what constitutes high standards? How are those standards quantified? What defines high and to whom are they high? Is it the Federal Governments charge to create these standards? Do the people working in Washington or State Departments of Education truly understand what teaching children is really about? Children have the ability to rise to high standards even after they have been deemed limited. Many adults have judged a child’s ability, continuing throughout their development to expose them only to those stated judgments and opportunities are lost as a result. The data that exists, however informative, if not used cautiously, creates a metaphoric educational cast system.
It is frightening to hear educators insist that certain children cannot participate in higher leveled classes. What if that child simply needs more time to understand? Maybe if they had been exposed their understanding of higher level thinking appears later in the workplace or while attending a college class. All of a sudden the light sparks and they understand. Why do we shun this opportunity. In Massachusetts there is a charter school that my daughter attends. This school is housed in an old furniture store without a gymnasium, cafeteria, spacious classrooms or manicured campus. The schools mission states, “IB for All”. The curriculum is called International Baccalaureate (IB). Every student participates in high level classes regardless of their educational profile. The premise is that EVERY student can achieve. If the Federal Government insists upon dictating what they deem necessary for success than Secretary Duncan should consider taking a look at the IB curriculum and visit Sturgis Charter School in Hyannis, Massachusetts.
As a teacher who has worked most, but not all, of my career at Title One schools, I’ve got some ideas about what works to close the achievement gap. For one thing, schools with a large population of low-income, transient students have to provide their children with more stability and consistency than middle class schools. The level of coordination that it takes to make this happen requires teachers to spend more hours looking at data, planning, and collaborating with one another. A really good teacher at such a school is an asset, but not a solution. What these students need is a really good SCHOOL. The idea of merit pay implies that poor teacher motivation is the primary cause of the achievement gap. Do people really think that? With resources as scarce as they are right now, I hope we will use them to pay for schools to do what works for students, not to dole out merit pay.
I’m still teaching after 30 years. I teach High School Sophmores and Seniors in US history, economics, government and career development; which is integrated into the senior government/economics class.
As a Social Science teacher, with a primary responsibility of teaching our children ‘how to think critically’, in the 24/7 information age we’re existing in, I get very cynical when ‘ANYBODY’ says they have the best anything! The best teaching strategies, the best assessment strategies, the perfect curriculum for every child, at every grade level and that all states and individuals must follow the Feds., even though for 210 years the Constitution made it clearly a state right. The basic freedom to teach our own children. This is much too 1984 true and opposite my thirty years experience in the high school classroom.
“We take ALL the blueberries, we can not sort them. Some are sociopaths and psychopaths who are heavely medicated. Some are tall, smart, athletic and handsome. Some are small, low IQ, not athletic, has a communication disorder. Many young guys and gals are sexually active. They are from divorced homes, foster kids, suburban kids, rural kids, christian kids, muslim kids, atheist kids, wiccan kids, mentally retarded kids genius kids, kids using all kinds of drugs, kids with no friends or no good friends, kids with no home, no insurance, dad has no job, they are depressed, can’t pay for their American Dream, etc, etc, WE TAKE THEM ALL!
They all must be given chances in key assessments from a variety of strategies. Written testing can often be the most useless assessment for many high school students learning style. Allow for some balance beside a test. Are all students in PE going to have to high jump 5′11″ to get their degree?
Does every student need the same level of writing, reading, mathmatics, science, vocational classes, art, music, to be a succuessful and prosperous citizen? Our own history says there are many ways to the top, let’s continue to allow the state to be the labratories for democratic change. It was a brilliant idea of our founders.
The personality, charisma, content expertice, communication skill, and have an optimistic view of human nature, are the most important characteristics in a child learning.(other than the BIG NUMBER ONE, PARENTING!)
Relationships and a passion for your content area, is the number one variable for success. The kids can smell a fake or a poor teacher in minutes, for sure in days.
Classroom management is the number two variable for classroom success. I Teach 6 sections of 30+ students everyday. Regardless of any degree a person can earn, or any endorsement, ‘nothing’ can prepare you for the ‘waiting madness possibility’ of every high school classroom. Without a ‘master’ at keeping kids focused without yelling; without an adult who can ‘close the sale’ NOTHING gets done! Even with two PhD’s teaching one teaching a high school English class the other a math class, the kids destroyed them both and I thought they were pretty darn good adolecents. They both quit the profession of teaching 14 to 18 year old students.
Also as a history, government, economics teacher so many social sciencesare in flux. We definately DO NOT want ‘State/Government’ history tests that are universal. That’s what Hitler succeeded in, and Stalin and Mao and the Mullahs.
“Those that write the history are also writing the future!”
Content expertice is number three in teacher success in the classroom. It takes the longest to aquire as it’s a life long endeavor, but if you don’t have number one and two in order, it is not worth the time it took the teacher to learn everything!
Unfunded federal or state mandates will ALWAYS fail. It’s why the bureaucratic communists failed at their 5-year plans; they never considered their people on the ground who would have to carry out or sabotage the ‘top down plans!’
It’s past time the States and Federal governments put their money where their goals really are, not where they wished they would be. We all know the so-called standards&accountability movement is to destroy our public schools.
The schools that educated George Bush,& Bill Clinton.Bill Gates and Paul Allen. Almost every US President and congressperson of the 20th and 21st century. Literally, almost every single influential person of the last 100 years were educated in the public school system, which is part of the commons.
Let’s not let an experimental movement, mess with a system that provides an education for EVERY CHILD, but definately NOT THE SAME WAY! I’ve seen the PhD’s fail with their utopian ideas, because without enormous funding increases from government (WE THE PEOPLE) their thesis papers just fall away like every other ’so-called’ new method…Ha, repackaged maybe, but not new and improved!
Have National meetings on video conferencing with Arne Duncan speaking to us in our classrooms.
Help teachers build a path of responsibility and please take away blaming the teacher. I do not like merit pay, I am for National Certification, National Standards, National Training, Nationalized Districts and all states pay their share, and National Pay Rates and Salaries.
Have we been doing everything in Public Education incorrectly? What about the state Frameworks? These kinds of documents will allow every state to find a common language. Compare the state Frameworks, look for similarities and differences.
I agree with politicians that our students have been improving. But the cost is awful; you have cookie cutter schools and no way to honor creative thought and academic freedom. I fear with standards for measuring only two tests and the amount of time spent in the elementary schools to teach to reading and math tests; we are not teaching interest in science and social studies.
I fell in love with ancient myths because my social studies teacher loved history. I got an A in his class because of the effort I put in to my studies. I received D’s for the same reason. There should be no merit pay for teachers when the effort to succeed lies on and in each individual citizen of the United States.
Everyone should begin to see how making the system similar in a national way, will make things much more fair, and hopefully more productive for America in the long run. Put in real help, get rid of the dead help like administrators and superintendents. Why does education support these people at all? Our superintendent makes 250,000 a year, and we have five assistant superintendents, too. Their salaries including health benefits is more than 2 million alone.
Coaches and student tutors will provide learning models for the entire population at these schools. Librarians, psychologists, speech pathologists, Head Start and many programs that are already in place need to be available for more than a few days a week.
Let teachers plan during the day, give us time to collaborate. Give us more teachers and aides, great technology, rooms that can take us on virtual field trips with astronauts, biologists, divers, astronomers, and web cams at Crazy Horse. The way to help is to give, not take, and do not give money; build libraries, laboratories for computers, science, kitchens, mechanics, and wood work. Hire helpers and offer them health benefits and full time jobs. Continue excellent training and professional development to teachers through university demonstrations and lectures by experts. Give kids apprenticeships and fields of vocational education.
So much needs to be done. Do not ask us to perform on tests. Our district went test happy. Ask Hillary Clinton for advice and let us know what she thinks as well.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
First, please look closely at the speed with which these changes are put into effect. Too many times new requirements are put into effect and the students in high school are placed under tremendous pressure to immediately meet these new standards. Please phase in any new requirements so that students have adequate amount of time to meet these new requirements.
Second, if there are voucher programs please require that the schools receiving these vouchers meet all the requirements of the public schools so that when we compare their results it will be an equal comparison.
Third, please make the results based on a growth plan, this will present a real picture of status of the school.
Fourth, since research shows that it takes 3 to 5 years to acquire the Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills and 5 to 10 years to acquire the academic level of a language, exiting ELL students in three years is unrealistic. Please insure, that all new requires also are based on solid research and reality.
Thank you Mr. Duncan for listening to the heart of education, the teachers, leaders, parents. As a 40 year veteran teacher and being Nationally Board Certified I agree with so many of the astute comments listed, have questions raised by many of them and would like to comment on some ideas that are missing.
Standards yes, but how do we standardize or equalize the opportunities for students who are trying to meet the same standards? Standardized buildings, financing, materials, resources, highly qualified teachers, experiences??? There are many areas of standardization that must be addressed.
College preparation, of course but how do we provide for those students who have different visions, talents, abilities and technical skills. Only college prep emphasis leaves those students who want to work with their abilities or creativity feeling diminished and under served. Certainly all students need to be proficient in reading, writing, math, social studies and science, but students who are not proficient in the arts for instance are never labeled as needing remedial art or music!!!!More often than not, these students are prohibited from areas where they are talented or may have a future career because they need remediation in a “Core” subject. Perhaps teaching them core content through an integrated curriculum that teaches the whole child is a better solution. I agree with the comments on multiple intelligence based education, arts integrated education, real wold connected, cooperative and problem based learning, and an education for students that is experience based and that compels them to become life long learners.
Teacher effectiveness directly impacts student achievement.
Teachers continue to have increased class sizes,student challenges, and more expectations at the district, state and national level every year that they remain in teaching. They are overworked,underpaid, stressed out. Is it any wonder then that creative, focused, reflective teaching that impacts student learning is not a reality? When we talk about standards these areas should also be addressed so that we attract the brightest and retain the best teachers. And lastly addressing these issues would provide teachers the quality of life and teaching that would foster the continual desire to grow professionally and to improve their practice throughout their career. National Board Certification is the best professional development that teachers can pursue to impact the learning of their students. Instead of looking at how to improve the students thorough behavior modification or punitive measures,teachers first look at how to improve their pedagogy to reap the desired student results. The process is proven to bring about positive change in student achievement and ultimately school improvement. However current teaching conditions do not foster an environment where all teachers are capable of participating and reaping its benefits.
I have taught middle school students for 20 years. It seems that our standards and “approved methodology” have changed so many times that it is impossible to see if anything actually “works!” My primary concern now is that we have so many sets of standards that there is not enough time in a normal school day to address them properly or in-depth; we just have time to skim the surface and hope something sticks. Our students will have 1/2 of their school day next year in reading and math; I understand that. But try squeezing “all the other standards” in to 1/2 a school day! Science, social studies, writing, arts and humanities, practical living…there is just not enough time. Our kids get twelve periods of physical education – 45 min each- PER YEAR! The standards-setters must take time into account, also allowing time for character-building, anti-bullying, drug prevention education… how can we do it all in the allotted time?
Having taught for 37 years in a rural community I’ve noticed the federal or state formula for funding of education favors the richer districts. It seems if you spend more you get more?
I also know that the pendulum keeps swinging back and forth. A program with one name years ago reappears with a new title 20 years later. We don’t need to raise bench marks or give up another day of learning for testing.
I’m not sure what the answer is except that hands on and no lecture type of education works best!
Gil Oberdas
Secretary Duncan,
Thank you for your listening tour. As a recently retired teacher, I really hope you are successful in rebuilding our public schools. I have given a lot of thought, during my career, about what it would take to better educate our kids and make schools work better. Here in California we have had very high standards for some time…and while they are important, I want to be sure you know it will take much more than just ‘fine-tuning’ standards to make education right.
So, what follows are my thoughts about what you should REALLY consider, if you truly plan to make our public schools the envy of the world (which would be my goal).
Number One: Publicly apologize to teachers for scapegoating them in recent years. You need them on your side (and they aren’t right now). In 2001, under the Bush Administration’s Education Secretary, Rod Paige, teachers (unions, specifically) were called terrorist organizations. For the last eight years, NCLB has done nothing but blame public school problems on ineffective teachers (probably because they prefer vouchers). There has been almost NO recognition for eight years of the job teachers do. The general public has NO IDEA what the job entails and our leaders have worked to make that WORSE for eight years. A better start would be a HUGE and LOUD apology to the teachers of this nation who have dedicated their lives to teaching kids. Most with little support, either financial or in respect.
Number Two: And then ask teachers what they think, and make THAT public. What a difference that would bring! Much of the public and many politicians (who rightfully want to improve public schools) have no real idea of what is wrong with them. So they try ‘canned solutions’…like merit pay…most of which are the wrong thing to do. JMHO. Merit pay is divisive…just like NCLB was. That doesn’t mean it can’t be a tool for improvement if done in the right way, but it HAS to be done fairly. Example: NCLB has good things in it, but it became bogged down because it used AYP to pit schools and districts and teachers against each other..instead of helping us to work together toward a goal we all share: Improving education for kids. I think ANY workable solution will require input and support from teachers…not just unions…teachers. In all the talk of fixing public education and schools…which I wholeheartedly support…the idea of involving teachers in this process is never brought up by anyone in a position of authority. I’m glad to hear they may ‘rename’ NCLB and start to include a ‘progress’ measure for accountability…but talk about putting lipstick on the proverbial pig.
Number Three: My reform ideas, with the underlying prerequisite that teachers MUST be involved in designing a program in order for it to be successful…
1. For teachers, stop demeaning them and start treating them professionally. Create career paths for them. Very few exist now, because teaching used to be a ‘traditional woman’s job.’
2. Integrate curriculum. Learning makes more sense to kids when connections to other knowledge can be made. We have lost that in the era of NCLB. And we can still keep standards to meet…just not in isolation.
3. Create multiple pathways/goals for students’ graduation…all of them rigorous. Have it kick in at about age 10 or so…be flexible until age 12 (to be sure the child has made a good personal choice)…and then be the student’s committed choice after that. Some kids may choose science/math, others may go into writing/journalism, others to a third choice. It’s important to design these pathways well…for areas students will need to work in in the future. When they finish, they are job-ready or college ready…but THEY have some buy-in to their future goal (not just their teacher or their parents).
4. Ungraded schools at the elementary level. As some have said here, mastery of concepts should be required to move on. It’s WAY more complicated than that…but clearly passing kids from grade to grade does not work.
5. Find ways to involve parents in their child’s education…ie. Student Led Conferences, Curriculum Fair, technology, etc. The list is endless.
6. Testing for accountability shoud be streamlined. Under NCLB, the testing has become all-consuming. It leaves little time to teach.
If the only test given was for NCLB…once a year…I’d cheer. But, in my county, tests are given three times a year…in reading, math and writing…to be sure state standards are met…in addition to NCLB. We start the school year…we test. We get to Christmas…we test. We return in the spring…we do test prep and test NCLB. After NCLB, at the end of the year…we test again. That’s what I mean. And anyone who has taught knows you don’t just test one day…you have all the hassle because kids are absent/makeups, etc. And then there’s the focus on scoring.
Teacher energy needs to be on the kids and teaching.
7. Use data fairly. Measure growth.
Example: At the start of a new school year, student A reads at 4th grade level. By year’s end, student A reads at 6th grade level. That’s two years of growth, and it is easily tested. Let’s say student A is in a 4th grade classroom. The teacher does well, both on growth…and currently on NCLB. That’s because NCLB wanted that student to read at 5th grade level by the end of the year…target met.
Now, take student B. At the start of the school year, student B reads at 4th grade level. By year’s end, student B reads at 6th grade level. Again, that’s two years of growth and it’s easily tested. But student B is in a 6th grade classroom. The teacher has done well on growth…two years. But the teacher is ‘iffy’ on NCLB, because the target is 7th grade level (ready for middle school).
And then, take student C. At the start of the school year, student C reads at 4th grade level. By year’s end, student C reads at 5th grade level. That’s one year growth, and it’s easily tested. But student C is also in a 6th grade classroom. The teacher has done okay on growth (one year for one year of instruction) by the student can’t meet the NCLB target of 7th grade. That teacher is PUNISHED by NCLB.
That is the part that is unfair. And many excellent, dedicated teachers in underperforming schools are being targetted because of it.
Another example:
Let’s say there are four second grade teachers. Every one of them produces an average of 1 to 3 years growth in their class of students. But they are very different as teachers…one complains about *certain* students placed in their class every year, another teaches ‘GATE’ students (and they get averaged into the total class improvement), another regularly takes kids the others don’t want because of a belief that you work with students as they come to you, etc.
Thanks to the current focus on ‘data’ and ‘results’ (which does have a place) at the end of the year, these four teachers get a number (data) showing average growth of their class. IMO, data is important, but it is ONE measure of each teacher. Remember, ALL these teachers added value. ALL these teachers are good teachers. But administrators…under great pressure as ‘at-will’ employees…see this data. Some (really bad ones) make the data public by handing it out at staff meetings. This pits one teacher against another when we should all be working toward the same goal.
Data is a tool…but only ONE tool. Anyone who has taken a class in statistics will tell you you can twist data to make a case for anything. That’s what has changed under NCLB…successful teachers who help their students grow are NOT rewarded, they are punished because sometimes even 3-4 years growth is still below standard.
Thanks for listening! And good luck to you, Secretary Duncan…I KNOW our country can do better.
Secretary Duncan,
Yes, we should raise standards. But we don’t need international standards to guide us nor compare our students to. We need to measure our educational goals, schools, teachers, administrators, students, and students’ parents in the context of the society that surrounds them. What standards are evident in America today? I believe the decline in the quality of our educational institutions simply mirrors the decline in values we as a culture once promoted: creativity, intelligence, diligence, equal opportunity, and honor.
We can all blog until we’re blue in the face, Mr. Secretary, but until our society truly embraces the ideals of hard work and fair play again, we will remain mired in the decadent swamp of sub-prime loans, “reality” TV, wars of self-interest, and “gotcha” politics.
I became a teacher four years ago, at age 51, to serve my country and help improve public education. I joined a group of dedicated professionals when I did. I work sixty hours a week because I need to, not because I’m paid to. I go to school every morning with every one of my students’ needs in mind and wrestle with their deficiences and apathy every night. Every day, every quarter, every year, I strive to raise the standards of my students with concentrated effort, constant refinement, and an undying idealism. Every year my students’ standards of achievement rise.
If you really want to raise the standards of public education, Secretary Duncan, reject the notion that “the schools are to blame” and refocus the discussion on the standards that have dropped out of our national syllabus: concentrated effort, constant refinement, and an undying idealism.
Best wishes,
David Casey
When I attended school, classes were designed to accommodate the learning abilities of the Child. Now we have classrooms with children who are disruptive being integrated into the classroom. And you wonder why the learning standards have gone down. It is not a mystery. The teachers dealing with these children who should be in a special classroom with others like them, spend their entire day trying to bring them up to the abilities of others in the classroom. It is easier for the bright ones to be brought down, than it is to bring those who are not able to learn or are unwilling to learn, or those with special needs up. Stop holding children back with this rediculous requirement.
Also there are some kids who will never be scholars. Instead of forcing this on them, have classes to accomodated making them suitable employees someday. Teach them what they like to learn, even if that happens to be digging a ditch. At least then they would have a trade. It would be nice if you folks would bring back the apprentice programs of the past. They seem to be working in Europe, an area you seem to worship.
I supported the basic tenants of the NCLB Act long before they were organized into a program. However, re-authorization of the NCLB continues a program that creates overhead instead of directing resources into the classroom. If you look at preparing a student to be competitive in a global economy, there is more to my subject area than our test measures. If you look at helping inner city schools, there is still the need to direct resources into the classroom… not into programs that point out a problem we all knew was there to start with. In addition to the NCLB, there are other programs developed at the national, state, and local levels that take up energy and resources needed for learning. These programs should be set aside until the classroom learning needs are met. They are just overhead.
If we are to accomplish President Obama’s goal of providing every child in America a complete and competitive education we need a different approach.
After graduating from college, I worked in industry for several years. As I helped build a business, our first goal was to put the right people in place and give them what they needed to do the job. With those two factors a priority, the business became very successful. The entire team helped develop and implement the business growth plan. Now that I am pursuing a teaching career, why should it be any different?
After several years of teaching high school, I chose to teach middle school science. Currently, I can only count on $100 of BEP funds entering my hands to cover over 180 days of science activities and experiments. I don’t have what I need to do the job. I see investment in overhead that could be redirected, but I am not a part of that decision-making process. I am currently preparing to teach a newly-adopted science curriculum. I see areas of concern with the curriculum but, once again, no teacher from our school had the opportunity for input before the decision was made.
Provide goals for the end result of education, but trust to qualified people and not programs for the results. Put the right people in the classroom by offering competitive starting salaries and you won’t see highly qualified young people going into industry instead of teaching. Ask them directly what they need to do the job and you will see a dramatic increase in results… much more so than initiating programs developed primarily by people who are not in the classroom.
Not every student is college bound! Not every student wants to be!! Bring back the music, shop, home ec. Lets stop going a mile wide in subjects and only a 1/4 in deep. We need well rounded students that can be creative and problem solve. Not all of them will have college degrees but there are many jobs out there that we can train students for that would meet their interests. The students that need these other things are the ones we are loosing. You want a better America??? The only way we can get that is to have better education for our students. Only the educated (in all fields) will compete in the global economy. So I say raise the standards but raise them for all students not just the ones that want to be college bound. Let the other students grown and shine in all areas.
I hope that any consideration of standards and general direction for educational improvements will include improving access to and length of study of world languages. So many of the countries that our students will encounter in the job market of the “flat world” do recognize language skills as an essential tool for its citizens and provide eductional requirements and options for their students. Let us help our own student to speak the languages of the world and communicate what we have to offer.
Since April 14, 2009, many things have happened that have intensified my concerns about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA]. The district in which I teach along with many others are even more embattled now due to continuing economic dislocations than it had been previously. Massive imbalances are emerging in our finances and drastic cuts in staff and programs are being contemplated. Accordingly, much of my thought and effort has been invested in advocating for a more adequate and equitable funding approach to public education in Pennsylvania.
Nonetheless, the economic turmoil provides a suitable backdrop for what I see as the harmful impact of the ESEA. The growing and alarming economic inequality that has come to characterize our society, along with the current economic and financial problems both adversely affect student preparation for and student performance on high-stakes tests. These two phenomena combine to make matters worse than either of them would alone. In this context, high-stakes testing is the equivalent of kicking people [and school districts] when they are down.
The slogan commonly associated with this law, “No Child Left Behind”, implies the original intent of the law may have been benign. A slogan, however, is not a solution and this phrase may be nothing more than a marketing ploy. Whatever the original intentions of those who enacted and signed the law, ESEA now has a history and it now has a record. This history and record are the focus of my concern and basis of my challenge.
The savage economic inequality now pervading our nation and the raging economic troubles now ravaging our lives have deprived thousands of students of a fair chance and destroyed any semblance of a level playing field. Imagine an arena full of students who stood at varying distances from the main exit. Imagine further that these students were given the direction, “Take two strides forward and touch the exit doors.” Those students at small or moderate distances from the exit doors could confidently undertake this task and most of them would succeed. All the students at large distances from the exit, however, would be defeated before they began. Now imagine that the students farther away faced an increasingly steep slope between them and the exit. This would increase the probability that they could not succeed in this simple task. This situation confronts thousands of students and hundreds of school districts on an annual basis through the high-stakes testing cycle. Year in and year out, students take and districts administer standardized tests in conditions that are anything but standardized. The disparate results of these disparate situations are then used to extol some schools and demean others. Given that too many students in too many schools begin the process without a fair chance and persist in the face of an uphill battle, declaring winners and losers based on the outcomes is grossly unfair to the disadvantaged students and their beleaguered schools and districts.
Even if the high-stakes testing process was unquestionably equitable in all respects, the product should not be a list of succeeding and failing schools. It should be a set of useful recommendations and an array of helpful resources that encourage, enable, and empower all students, all schools, and all districts to move forward. No matter where students, schools, or districts appear to be at any given iteration, the best performers can always do better and the poorest performers always have something to build on. If the high-stakes testing process and its data cannot generate such a set of recommendations and such an array of resources, then its utility is open to question. Furthermore, high-stakes testing misdirects our efforts and emphasis toward producing a contrived result measured by a dubious methodology rather than producing an authentic outcome measured by demonstrated competence over time. High-stakes testing has not yielded such lists and arrays; it has merely anointed some schools and districts as successes and branded others as failures. This process ignores the fact that most the successes could have been predicted in advance and obscures the fact that the failures have many pockets of proficiency that are dismissed as undeserving of mention. In fact, a 400 student school, could have a 40 student disaggregated group that did not achieve sufficient proficiency as a group and the entire school would be labeled a failure. The punitive consequences of such labeling would then befall all students in the school. This is a genuine injustice and it is repeated in numerous schools on an annual basis under the high-stakes testing regime of the ESEA. This needs to stop and it needs to stop soon.
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby request an exploration of ways to improve this law so that it is beneficial and not punitive. I emphasize the importance of doing so before the reauthorization of ESEA; the time is long past for a return to a positive rather than a punitive approach. If financial institutions can almost wreck the national and global economy with their recklessness and greed, only to be assisted rather than accosted, why are public education entities under attack for doing a vital and arduous task with barely adequate resources? Let us quit coddling these latter day robber barons, and begin investing in our most precious resources the children of America.
I work in North Carolina where we were recently furloughed by our governor and ordered to take a .5% cut out of pay we had already earned with less than a months notice. I agree that standards are important and offer a decent guideline for teachers to follow, but it is really hard to think about it seriously when we are wondering if we are going to have jobs or have our salary cut with no notice or representation. It seems like a lot of money is spent on revamping standards every 4 years in this state. At this point in time, since the state politicians are showing great desire to increase class size, decrease teacher salary, and lay off teachers regardless of their campaign promises, it seems that there are more important issues in which both state government and federal government should be actively involved.
The people closest to their own children know best what is best for … their own children.
International, national and state standards should be abandoned — all that really matters is the quality of education demanded by parents through their LOCAL school boards.
Adoption of more educratically defined standards and the move towards a national curriculum will, in fact, further degrade the actual education of our children … and will further turn real teachers into bureaucratic robots.
NCLB should absolutely NOT be reauthorized and a discussion on real education reform should be started — not yet another fake discussion that merely devolves back to pleas for more money and more centralized power over schools.
Thank you so much for taking the time to “listen” to educators. You are, no doubt, hearing a common theme, that standardized assessments are deeply flawed and should never be used to make high stakes decisions regarding school and student achievement. Since their inception, the biggest predictor of achievement on standardized tests has been socio-economic class. We could, I suppose, assume that poor children are simply not as smart, or that they come from dysfunctional families, or that they attend dysfunctional schools. Those conclusions, however, are too easy and too damaging. The first thing we must question is the accuracy of those tests. And, the second thing we need to look at is the way in which test results are driving narrowed approaches to teaching and to curriculum.
We know from the research that, traditionally, children in lower socio-economic areas are required to do more rote memorization, worksheets, and drills than their more affluent peers. We also know that since the inception of NCLB, even more affluent children have been subjected to this narrow approach to learning, all in the name of test scores. Schools, in essence, have become test prep factories rather than institutions where deep and meaningful learning takes place. We cannot sustain this kind of schooling. It is costly, not only because it fails to support creative and critical thinking, but because it misuses already strapped resources that should be used for, among other things, improving school and classroom libraries and supporting rich learning experiences for children.
We must stop handing over control of our nation’s classrooms to testing companies, textbook publishers (who often own the testing companies), and test-prep companies (again, who are often owned by textbook publishers) and put teachers back in charge of instruction and curriculum.
As a teacher educator who chairs a literacy studies program at a mid-western university, and as a former classroom teacher with almost 30 years of experience, I can tell you that teachers, the very people who should be able to make meaningful decisions about how they should teach, have been excluded from making those decisions. And motivating factor for this is profit. Teachers with masters degrees are forced to follow commercially developed scripts that have little to do with the needs of their students, but have everything to do with creating a false urgency over the need for standards, standardized curriculum, and “scientifically based learning.”
Nothing could be more false than “scientifically based learning.” Policy makers have been duped into thinking that textbook, standardized testing, and test prep companies have the inside track on what is scientifically valid when it comes to teaching. They only have the inside track on what is profitable, and they have created a climate, very deliberately, that undermines teachers, undervalues their decision-making abilities, and, in the process, numbs the minds of millions of students.
If we are to heal the damage that NCLB has inflicted on children in this country, we must make learning relevant to the needs of individual students. And, we must remove profiteers from the classroom and place teachers and children at the heart of our efforts. Teachers, as do all other professionals, need constant professional development, plus time and respect, in order to address the individual needs of their students. No curriculum developed in a cubicle in California can address the needs of a child in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It’s time to put educators in charge.
Raising standards sounds wonderful. But we already have national standards. The national English language arts standards are excellent, by the way. We can raise standards all we want, but if by doing that we continue to keep the gate closed for millions of children, then we have once again raised a lot of meaningless words and fallen on our own petard. And future generations will shake their collective heads and wonder at our folly.
I am a teacher of students with Severe Emotional/Behavioral Disorders at the high school level in Warren County Kentucky. I am a member of Kentucky Education Association, Council for Exceptional Children and President Elect of Kentucky Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
Students with special needs are often forgotten. Many of my students do not want nor need to go to college. To have my students spend school time on upper level math and language courses discourages them and increases the possibility of drop out.
We need career and technical education for these students. If they are unable to find a job directly out of high school, we have failed. NCLB forgot that not every child needs nor wants college. NCLB also forgot that we need skilled labor to make our country great.
Bring back career and technical classes. Schools are successful when students are successful. Right now, NCLB has left this very important population behind.
Students do not need the same standards. Each child is an individual; their educations should reflect that.
Thank you and I’m very pleased with the direction that our administration is going with these discussions. Please keep the lines of communication open.
I agree with #77, Susan. The bell curve has validity and normalcy. To falsely support the notion that the curve does not exist, or that the curve should exist only in the 95-99% range is insane.
My district uses a pacing guide and benchmarks. They have a taken a logical order of teaching math, whereupon one skill builds upon the previous one, and shuffled it so that we may meet artificial benchmark scores. This is further aggravated by the pacing guides and the overwhelming volume of standards that the children are expected to master. I am teaching math slightly behind the pacing guide, and the majority of my children have failed tests all school year. I am not truly teaching them. I am throwing material at them with no time allowed to reteach lessons. The majority of my students need 50% of the pace and 50-70% of the curriculum that we currently have. To do this, however, would place my students behind other students at other schools (such as my own personal children) that are meeting grade level expectations. This would mean my students would earn a failing grade even if they did achieve mastery of all the standards in a reduced curriculum.
However, I do not feel it is fair or equitable or strip all the resources from the high performing schools and give them to the lower performing schools. My children succeed because we help them. My students do not succeed largely because their parents cannot or will not help them.
It is wrong to say that the schools are failing when it is families and society that are failing. I suggest a mandatory afterschool remedial program for students AND their families when failure is an issue. Lets put the responsibility where it belongs. The schools have no authority to assume the role of parents, even when parents are failing their children.
I am a career switcher moving from corporate scientist to high school science teacher. I have lived in communities where as a parent I would say – yes raise standards. In that sheltered view of a community of well-educated, involved and caring parents where I send my children to public school it seems easy to say that we should raise standards. My own children and those around them are very capable of being pushed to even higher standards.
Now in my 3rd year of teaching at a low income high school, I see things very differently. The students I teach do not have supportive parents. Most parents do not even come to award ceremonies for their own children who do well, let alone support their children doing homework or attending school on a regular basis. Conferences, back-to-school nights, open-houses held by the school have very poor attendance by parents – which is in direct contrast with the school my own children attend which has parking issues whenever anything like this happens. Many of my students tell me they don’t care about school because their parents didn’t graduate and it doesn’t matter, school doesn’t matter, they just come to be with their friends. These same students come into high school with 2nd and 3rd grade reading and math levels. Parents who I am able to actually talk to (most have to be tracked down by administration because the information I have in the computer is incorrect as my students move continuously) say they don’t know what to do to help or control their children’s behaviors or schoolwork. Raising standards will not help these students or their parents. We have to change society, we have to educate parents so that they support school as a valued thing because they themselves value school, we have to educate parents on how to help their children in school – and not just by sending home flyers that never get taken out of the backpack or if they do, just thrown straight into the trash. We need to teach responsibility.
Right now we have a system of “take responsibility or fail”. Many choose not to take that responsibility, remembering that in our society we have the right to choose. You cannot complain about the achievement gap or simply force more or higher standards, until society recognizes that it takes some work to reach high golas, and that people are willing to work towards that goal. Most of the students I teach tell me that the work is not worth the gain. They want to take classes where they don’t have to do much work and can get an A, and they will take classes they have to that may be harder, but they don’t try to achieve anything beyond a D. We have to change the mindset, not the standards.
I have been an educator for….well let’s just say a long while. I would like to say that in large part, i do not believe that approaching these issues from a “raising standards” angle brings the most out of our students or out of us. Rather, if we could change the dialogue/the question – if we could ask what can we do WITH our students to empower them and to promote real learning – these “standards” that we speak about, would evidence the power of the more grassroots if you will — the bottom up (rather than top down) change. If we continue to lead programs and policies by asking questions which begin, not with the students, or the teachers, but with the standards as the factor that must be changed —- it disempowers those involved on the front-lines (students/teachers/administrators)and does not promote motivation etc. to move towards those standards.
I do strongly beleive that it is IMPORTANT to measure growth/achievement for a variety or reasons. I believe we need to be more creative and utlize multiple measurements of those constructs, rather than to merely “raise standards”.
Thanks all.
K.
State legislators should not engage in meaningless standards-raising, unless there is solid evidence that the states content standards and performance level descriptions are too low. I currently can not think of a single state in that category.
It’s foolish to set standards that few students can achieve, and then think that we have raised standards. What we need to do is raise school achievement, not simply the mean, but raise all children to the level of Proficient. That requires work by teachers and schools, not just pontificating by state legislators or passing meaningless declarations creating new more demanding standards.
Ultimately, the worst thing that one can do to harm standards is to raise them. If you put them out of reach, you discredit both the standards and the schools. No one benefits under such circumstances. Let’s get back to the task of preparing all students to meet existing standards.
Our rural school is in an idyllic setting, but has big city problems. I like to think of it as poverty…with a view! Over seventy percent of the students attending this K-6 school are getting free and reduced lunches. There is inadequate access to basic daycare. Although there is Head Start 9 miles away, there is no funding for to provide transportation to get these high needs kids the early start that they need. We see 5 year olds coming in not knowing any numbers or letters. One day I saw a Kindergarten teacher picking her students up from recess. She said, “Be sure to collect your jackets.” I was amazed when one of her students asked, “Teacher, what is a jacket?” The reality is that students in poverty have a much lower vocabulary when they enter school. Our school should be getting every federal and state dollar available to help these kids.
Our dedicated staff frequently spends evenings taking classes after school to meet the needs we see. It is truly overwhelming, and sometimes we need a little hand up, rather than to be judged for low test scores. Most years our small school has met the requirements for adequate yearly progress under NCLB. However, last year we did not. It is possible for a few low (or conversely, high) students to skew the curve in small schools. An improvement to NCLB would be to base AYP on the data for a band of three years. This would help small schools that sometimes see an influx of low students, and is only reasonable, since in basic statistics we learned that the broader the sample, the better!
Secondly, I am all for a national standardized test. Our state is recognized as a leader in testing. It really bothers me that some states have simpler tests that do not include problem solving. If we are receiving Federal dollars, the playing field needs to be leveled.
Last, our school has adopted the RTI model. Now students can get extra help in reading and math without having to go through rigorous special education testing. Early intervention is the key to turning lives around through education.
How refreshing to see comments focusing on solutions, rather than tearing down our democratic public school system! As a retired elementary teacher and current substitute, I agree with so many of these comments;Susan#71;Diane#72 and Charles#73. PLEASE help change the tone of this great nation’s leadership to speak of the positive aspects of public education rather than undermine it by creating more levels of bureaucracy with charter schools, private tutoring companies, home-schooling supported by federal funds channeled through local districts,etc. I was recently told that each home-schooled student in our small rural district has an IEP and receives $1500 for “supplies” with no accountability. They also enjoy classes taught by certified staff to 5 science students rather than over 30 in our high school. We also need to put major education decisions back in the hands of professionals through our State and Federal Dept. of Education rather than the politicians who don’t have a clue about education best practices nor the time to find out. Thank you for this wonderful opportunity to be heard.
As I was reading through the different postings, I started making a list of like minds such as post #26,29,31 and 43. But the list got long and decided to summarize with one word, “creativity.” All this talk about NCLB and standardized tests is a double edge sword that limits and restricts innovated and creative teaching. I highly recommend reading “The Global Achievement Gap,” by Tony Wagner. I Found “The Global Achievement Gap” an eye opener. It was disheartening when I saw my school climate in this book, teaching to the state test and obsessed with the numbers. At our “Team meetings”, we are regularly shown charts and graphs on where we are compared to other schools and state standards. Our Principle informed us the other day that the new Superintendent will require a Principle to resign if she/he doesn’t increase her/his test scores within one year even if they are already a Blue Ribbon school.
I am out there in the trenches and I know we need to reinvent the wheel because the wheel we have isn’t running smoothly, in fact I feel at times we may even have a flat. I am glad that I teach art at my school because I am able teach the seven survival skills (I was already teaching these skills before I even read the book) listed in the book without having to have the pressure of our state test looming over me. These are the seven survival skills in The Global Achievement Gap:
THE 7 SURVIVAL SKILLS by Tony Wagner:
1. Critical thinking and problem solving
2. Collaboration across networks and leading by influence
3. Agility and adaptability
4. Initiative and entrepreneurial ism
5. Effective oral and written communication
6. Accessing and analyzing information
7. Curiosity and imagination
These would be great standards to meet by teaching in a holistic,cumulatively and coherently environment instead of by compartments and by rote for the sake of grades and test scores.
It is a monumental task to just develop standards in my content area, business, in the state of Indiana. The standards may be too low or too high. We should not copy but lead in the standards we choose and they should be relevant to the communities in which we live. We should find the common ground, globally, and build from there.
I find it disheartening that some of my 9th grade students can’t round to two decimal points, don’t know their multiplication tables, don’t know how to count change or use correct subject/verb agreement in English. Teach them how to use their brains and not rely so much on computers/calculators. By the way, I teach computer technology.
I am 45 years old. I am a former 4th grade reading and writing teacher, and now a PE specialist. I have 16 years of educational experience. I have 2 teenagers in public education. One of my teenagers has Attention Deficit Hyper Disorder. My younger sister is a former 3rd grade math teacher with pre-school children. My older sister is a former TA/school secretary, and her husband is a High School English teacher. They have two young adult children. My brother is a postman/youth minister that has dyslexia. He had special needs while attending public school. He now has elementary school age children. As a family we represent almost every aspect of public education. If you would like to speak to pleasant people with big opinions about No Child Left Behind it would be our pleasure to assist you.
Susan Junkroski is SO right! Reading “at grade level” does not raise the standard, it signifies a complacency with status quo. Thanks Susan. Finally the dialogue is getting at some substantive and erroneous notions.
We should expect the best education for our children. But as I college student going to school to become and elementary school teacher and as a mother, I see what is happening. Teachers are drilling only the information that is on these standardized tests in fear of losing their jobs. Students are memorizing facts and that way of learning results in lost information by the following year. There is no hands on experience, which is how children learn best. Schools are taking away recess time and field trips to allow for more time for teaching what is on these tests. Our students are not robots, they are human beings who need experience. The answer is to require certification for all teachers, as we do here in California. To become a teacher, I have to go to school for 4 years to get my Bachelors Degree and another 1 year of graduate school to get my teaching credential, where I will also be student teaching. I also have to pass the CSET tests, which show my knowledge. What this means, is that if someone were to got to 5 years of college to become a teacher, where pay is not that great, they probably have a passion to teach. We can help our children by making sure they have teachers that are educated and passionate. I want to inspire my students to dream, learn, and remember, not drill my students to memorize….and forget.
Raising standards? Nationalizing standards? Standardized Testing? NCLB? Thanks for asking.
First, I hope you’ll consider the fact that there are way too many standards to teach well. At a recent educator’s conference in Portland, we were told that it would take YEARS beyond 12th grade to teach all the standards on the books.
Instead of debating how high those standards should be, we should first of all realize that, it’s not the standards, but what we do with them, that helps or harms students. Currently, standards are a weapon used to thrash teachers, students, and the system when students don’t reach them.
The answer isn’t to raise them or lower them. It’s to use them differently. Standards should be high. They should be few. And they should be goals to reach, not tools used to coerce curriculum and instruction.
Set the goals high, and leave us to work towards them. Whether or not each student reaches those goals is another issue; students are not standardized factory parts being assembled in factory schools. Working hard to get as far as we can towards those high standards will get us a lot farther than settling for low expectations. When there is no threat involved in keeping expectations high, for student or teacher or system, we can celebrate all the learning that happens, and all the progress we make towards our goals, without fear that we “failed” because we only traveled 5 miles this year instead of 8. Those are 5 miles of success, not failure.
Here are a few good goals; we don’t really need any more than this:
1. Literacy
2. Numeracy
3. Critical, creative, flexible thinking.
4. Empathy
We don’t need volumes of minutia, with the above standards broken down into discrete shards. That’s authoritarian micromanagement, and it’s a blueprint for failure.
We also don’t need high-stakes testing. Standardized testing is not a god we should defer to. It is one measure, not the only measure, and not always the best measure, of a student’s performance.
Standardized testing is also not an appropriate measure for teacher performance. Public education, school districts, school sites, and teachers do not control all of the factors that affect standardized tests. Holding us accountable for results when we don’t control all the factors is corrupt and contemptible.
High stakes testing, and the suggestion that it somehow “grades” schools, is a practice that should be extinct.
So there you have it: a very few national standards, dump the multiple state versions of minutia, and dump high stakes testing for good.
Finally, get rid of the provision that requires schools to to release the names, addresses, and phone numbers of high school juniors and seniors to “military recruiters,” “post secondary educational institutions,” and “prospective employers.” The law should require, not an “opt out” form, but a permission form signed by parents to allow schools to release any information about any student. If necessary, the FERPA should be adjusted to strengthen the family’s right to privacy.
Expecting every child to meet a grade level standard is unrealistic. It denies the unique qualities of every child. In the public elementary school where I teach, we have many special needs children who will never be able to achieve the same standards as those without special needs. Yet, they learn and progress, and most will become highly functioning adults, who will contribute in their own unique way to society. Set academic standards, yes, but recognize that those standards will not be appropriate for all students. Learning how to learn, adapt and grow is what is most important for success in life.
Ever since “A Nation at Risk,” teachers and public schools have been vilified in the press and by politicins. The result is that the public also vilifies us because they are sure that becaus they hear it from “important” people it must be true. I am tired of being blamed for every ill that exists in this country! Most people have no idea about what goes on in our classrooms. Did it ever occur to anyone that the students come into the classroom already convinced that their teachers are inept and don’t deserve their respect and attention? Every one of the foreign exchangestudents that come to our school comment on the lack of respect for teachers. Also there is a perception that every school in the country is failing their students, which can’t be farther from the truth.
It is time to reverse the trend of making teachers scapegoats by starting a national PR campaign to emphasize the VALUE of education and to acknowledge that there are teaching professionals who are dedicated to leading their students to success. I am not saying turn a blind eye to the problems that exist. I am saying it’s time to put things in perspective. If you have one rotten tooth do you pull the whole set, or do you fix the tooth and polish the rest?
That said, I agree with others in this blog that reforms so far have been initiated from the top down. Our children and their classrooms have been vicitimized by politicians who have their own agenda and who have no real understanding of education theory and practice.
Let me give you an example: In MN the first big move was outcome based education. Millions of dollars were invested in promoting this idea to school administrators, training teachers and documenting what was being done. Teachers spent more time doing the paperwork than actually developing more innovative ways of educating students. Outcome based education in and of itself was not a bad idea and is still used to an extent by most teachers. It was not, however, a silver bullet.
Next came millions of dollars pumped into working with employers to find out what is lacking in the students that come to them post graduation. They wanted students who could use higher level thinking to be innovative, who could work collaboratively, and who could articulate their ideas well. Thus was born show what you know. It was actually a great idea and given time could have been refined into something useful. The problem was that the people who planned its implementation were overzealous. The program was cumbersome and got bogged down ih paperwork. Every teacher in every grade in every subject had to come up with a way to measure how students could apply what they were learning. The problem was that the model ignored it’s own goal of collaboration where the teachers were concerned. Having teachers collaborate in developing cross curricular projects and in leading project seminars would have made it more useful to the students and a better measure of how well students could function in future employment. Teachers and students became frustrated at the immensity of the whole thing, but instead of refining it, it was thrown out lock stock and barrel in favor of standardized tests. Millions of dollars had been wasted and thrown down the drain once again because politicians didn’t work with the people who were trying to implement the policy.
NCLB is the worst example. We have a governor who wants to start teaching algebra to all students in 5th grade! Never mind all of the research that puts the development of abstract thinking at around age 14. He wants all students college ready. Not all students want or need to go to college. Many who choose technical colleges do very well. Our goal should not be students who pass standardized tests. Our goal should be students with the tools to learn and the knowledge of how touse them. Should we throw out testing all together? Probably not. Should we look at how to better use it to guide learning instead of creating anxiety in students and displacing innovation in the classroom? I think so. Don’t throw out millions more. Use what’s been learned to make testing useful.
Should we have standards and benchmarks? Of course! But as others have said, we already have them. In my classroom I have copies of the standars developed by the American Council on Teaching Foreign Language and also those developed for English/Language Arts. Textbooks are already written using those standards as a guideline. Instead of wasting all of that effort, lets take a look at what we have and go from there. We don’t need to start all over. What we need is time to figure out what we are already doing well in our classrooms and time to work in improvements.
Every year I go to graduate classes and workshops looking for ways to improve as an educator. I often come back excited about what I’ve learned and eager to work it into what I’m already doing. Sometimes I succeed in doing that, but most often the demands of the classroom don’t allow time for reworking curriculum. Handouts pile up and great ideas collect dust. I work on pieces of it every chance I get, but there’s precious little time and even less support. I truly want offer the best possible education to my students. I work hard to that end, as do the majority of my colleagues. It takes time to implement change. It can’t be done between classes and during lunch.
It is also easy to get bogged down in the what and how of the classroom and forget the who. Every now and then I have to remind myself to step back and take a good long look at my students. All of this push for reform often leaves them out of the picture. When I look at their faces and soak in their personalities, creativity starts to flow, I start seeing more clearly what their needs are and all of the theory and reform flies away. The ART of teaching takes over and my students blossom. Some of the best learning has been during those times I saw a “teaching moment” initiated by a student and allowed it to take the class in a different direction. At that moment, the students took over their learning experience and it took on great meaning to them. How can you mandate something like that?
My comments have been mostly anecdotal because teachers and students are not statistics. Their stories need to be told and listened to. It’s clear to me by the number of comments already posted on this blog that there are teachers all over the country who are passionate about teaching, who care deeply about children, and who are dedicated to their profession. I campaigned and voted for President Obama because of his efforts to return to a government that functions from the ground up. His willingness to listen to and hear the needs of people gives me hope for this country. I sincerely hope that this model is used when his administration looks at how to best nurture change in our educational system. There are innovative teachers all over this country chomping at the bit to have a voice. Make use of the professionals who are in the classroom every day and who want to see REAL improvement. Many of us are stifled by the traditional structure of schools that doesn’t allow time for collaboration and doesn’t give teachers a voice. Teachers want change more than you may think. In order for that change to happen we need a REAL voice in the decision making and creation of educational policy.
I don’t think children should be measured by passing a standardized test. Multiple choice tests are questioned based on validity because some students are good guessers but can not necessarily solve a problem or possess the skills to solve a math problem or answer a reading question. Based on NCLB my job depends on my students passing a test. If my students are mad at me or didn’t get enough sleep the night before they can and do blow off the test and receive a low or non-passing score. I think there should be a pre test at the beginning of the year and an identical or similar post test at the end. If the child shows substantial growth, then that’s it.
Positively NO! Standards should not be uniformly set for a global education system. That’s ludicrious! I am a high school teacher, and have been in the education system for 25 years. I also have lived in 3 regionally different states, and can tell you I agree with everyone who is against this proposal, for many reasons.
First,now more than ever would this be impossible. The collapse of our economic system is causing even more of a disparity between the rich school districts and the poor ones; so much so, that the lack of funds is already resulting in the majority of school districts across this land to be scrambling for just the bare neccessities. My school is part of a large city district and these last two years we spent most of it without a copier, paper, and even pencils! Shoot, the money for our text books (of course-had to have those NEW textbooks!) didn’t come through until it was so late we were two months into school before they arrived! But, like most teachers, I’m a highly paid professional, I can meet all those mandated requirements without any tools to do so-that’s our job!
Every day on my way to school, I see these empty school buses and ask myself, ‘why are they all empty? Where are they going?’ That’s right, it’s the “no child left behind” fiasco-10 to 20 empty school buses running all over God’s creation every day, and at a time when gas is $2 to $4 a gallon….anybody see red?
Instead of ‘higher standards’ to be demanded of our kids, how about a bit of ‘higher stan-dards’ and intelligence for the idiots who are running the system we have now!
The second reason I’m against the idea is because you can’t have diversity and be standard at the same time. Every school has a student body different from the next, even from neighborhood to neighborhood, city to city, area to area, and state to state-each has their own unique needs and problems. I teach in a very poverty stricken, gang invested neighborhood and my students haven’t had the same upbringing or experiences that students from just 3 miles away have had, let alone across the world. Most of my kids have hunger on their mind, or worry about getting a safe night’s sleep, and desparately pretend to be someone they’re not–there’s very little money for food and clothes—so as you can see, homework is the last priority on the list of what’s important in their lives. And now you say the Feds want to mandate that these kids meet a learning standard equal to all others students in the world?! I’m not saying that some couldn’t compete, I teach some very brillant minds, but the majority of these kids are 3 to 6 years behind in areas of basic knowledge and skills. Is it fair to ask them, and we teachers, to have learning outcomes comparable to students who have far different (normal to affluent) backgrounds and experiences? Could anyone accomplish it? Try doing it in a school having only 24 computers on top of no paper and no pencils.
If you really want to help the school system as a whole, cut the requirements/mandates for the at-risk schools. It ties our hands. Don’t blackmail at risk schools with requirements on attendance, because it prevents them from discipling students. At risk schools are unable to suspend or eject students who need to be disciplined but they can’t, they must meet the numbers game to get the money; therefore, it’s all a game. If at risk schools could be consistent with the consequences for discipline then the kids wouldn’t see all the hypocrisy that fills our current system, oh, they play it for all they can–after all they learned it well from the best of teachers: our government.
Yes, we should raise standards across the board so that all children in the US are working toward the same standards tested in the same way. We should also test the same populations as the countries we are comparing ourselves to. For example, the USA tests and tries to educate ALL students regardless of ability level. That is NOT true of all countries. I get really angry when I am compared to countries that only test their best and brightest students!
When we speak of raising standards, mathematics has been in the forefront. Thinking back to 1980, when NCTM published and disseminated An Agenda for Action, the educational landscape was established for mathematics. The teaching of mathematics should focus on students learning to solve problems, to think mathematically, to communicate mathematically, to make sense of mathematics and develop confidence in their ability to do mathematics. NCTM followed through on their problem solving focus for mathematics teaching and learning, when in 1989, the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics was published. This document comprehensive in scope and depth, was in the vanguard of educational change. Following the development of the “Standards” other professional organizations such as NCTE, NSTA also developed and published rigorous standards as a guide to what students should learn and how they should learn it. The focus changed from a teacher centered approach to one revolving around the student.
How far have we come in mathematics? Textbooks have changed to accommodate the problem solving focus, assessments have changed to reflect the type of instruction required in a problem-based mathematics classroom. What hasn’t changed proportionately is the quality of the teaching of mathematics, most notably at the elementary level. Elementary teachers, in the main,continue to be inadequately prepared to teach the rich and diverse content of elementary mathematics in ways which provide students opportunities to make sense of mathematics. Through no fault of their own, preservice teachers have to meet minimal requirements in schools of education to be certified to teach mathematics. Much more is expected of teachers in the language arts – listening, speaking, reading and writing. So much research and so many published articles continue to emphasize that the poor preparation of elementary teachers in mathematics contributes to the lack of significant progress students in the US have made over the last several decades. More disturbing, however, are the hundreds of thousands of students who, by middle school, have been filtered out of the pipeline of many career opportunities which require a strong background in mathematics. This is especially true of women and minorities.
In a large percent of elementary classrooms, mathematics continues to be taught as a set of isolated concepts and skills, with the focus
on memorizing a plethora of rules which make no sense to the students.
Is it that we as a country are afraid to allocate the necessary time which would allow students to make sense of the mathematics they are trying to learn? Are we concerned we won’t cover the curriculum each year? The fact that the elementary curriculum is largely repeated throughout its six years strongly suggests that we are not doing a good job in providing opportunities for kids to construct their own justifiable strategies
to do problems, thus not making their own sense of the mathematics being “taught.”
We know what the problem is – why don’t we address it head on? We need to get everyone on board to do this – our administrators need to rethink the amount of time allocated to mathematics instruction at the elementary level. I have worked in schools where 2 1/2 hours a day is devoted to reading instruction and 30 – 45 minutes to mathematics. Yet the high stakes testing required by the majority of the states in the United States under NCLB allocates equal emphasis to improving scores in reading and mathematics.
President Obama has inspired us in many ways during his short tenure as President. His call for volunteerism should extend to those of us who are mathematics educators, especially the many highly qualified retired mathematics educators who are throughout this great land. Let’s join forces with Secretary Duncan and President Obama and create a cadre of mathematics educator volunteers who will go to school districts and provide outstanding professional development to the elementary teachers in our public schools. We need the support of school districts, superintendents and other administrators who will provide the time and teacher resources. There are so many ways to serve our country – we are battling a terrible war right in our own country – the inadequate education of our elementary students in mathematics. This situation can be improved if our elementary teachers understand the mathematics they are teaching and develop their owbn confidence in their ability to do and teach mathematics well.
IE
I have been an educator for 21 years as a math teacher. I’ve seen many “new” things come and go. However, one thing that I’ve seen go is the ability of the student to have mastered the basic three R’s. We have thrown a calculator in their hand and have developed a less efficient individual due to their calculator dependency. We have lost their ability to make decisions and problem solve by eliminating the need for them to do fractions manually and mentally. The simple concept of solving fractions demands the student to determine what he/she needs to do to complete the calculation. If the sutdent does not possess these basic skills, when they enter rational expressions in Algebra, I have to stop and teach these skills. This limits and stops the flow of the course and leads to core content getting left out because of time constraints. A STUDENT DOES NOT NEED A CALCULATOR UNTIL HIGH SCHOOL!!!!! And then only after they have learned to graph lines manually. Let’s get back to basics and dig deep into these basic concepts to ensure the student knows what they are doing. Not just scratch the surface and move on to the next unit! In the elementary and early middle school years are the “sponges” developed. They learn more at this age than any other. Let’s feed them basics, basics, basics to ensure they can talk the math talk. Students are more “afraid’ of math now and truly have more math anxiety than any other time I can remember. Let’s get them comfortable with math by developing their skills early and remove their fears of math.
You’ve got to be kidding!!!
Until we, as a nation, are ready to discuss the huge negative issues that impact education such as health care, poverty, environmental issues, ‘raising standards’ becomes just one more whipping post for education. It somehow implies that teachers are holding back on pushing students to reach their potential.
No child left behind, raising standards, rti, it is all the same political mumbo jumbo to avert talking about the real issues in this country…the widening economic discrepancies between those who have and those who do not.
The current discussions, including this one, are confusing two very different issues under one name (”standards”). The “standards” that we have been debating since the late 1980s are often called “content standards” because they deal with the content of our curricula–WHAT we teach. The assessment of whether or not students have achieved those standards is a different issue. The emphasis on standardized assessments that has accompanied the standards-based movement in the U.S. and England has had an overall negative impact on teaching and learning–especially in the U.S. since No Child Left Behind. In the name of teaching the standards, elementary schoosl across the nation have abandoned the teaching of science and social studies in order to “prep” students for NCLB tests in reading and mathematics. Not only has this negatively impacted the teaching of science and social studies, but it has resulted in less background knowledge on the part of elementary students which negatively impacts their reading comprehension as well.
Ms. Duncan,
In my opinion, NCLB has served more to enable students to give less than their best than to encourage them to work harder to succeed.
Students with learning disabilities are more challenged to learn than others. I know this because I am both dislexic and have ADD. I have served for several years as a Special Education Teacher and in my experience, the Special Ed. labels have served more as excuses to give poor effort than to define processes to teach.
Teachers need to reach out to challenged students as well as to students of different races and ethnicities. But the students (and the parents) need to understand that they need to reach back. Getting an education has to be the student’s and parent’s responsibility as much or more than the teacher’s or the school’s. GETTING AN EDUCATION simply needs to be more important in our culture.
I am a coach and our coaching team has consistently created very academically successful students as well as successful athletic teams with a simple philosophy. That being we will not allow our players to use a learning disablility, personality conflict or anything else to be an excuse to be unsuccessful. If an athlete wants to play bad enough, they’ll get to tutorials and study as much as necessary to succeed, period. Further, our teachers support them and us 100% in our efforts. The rest of the rhetoric about what’s needed to offer a quality education is just that, rhetoric.
We have less than a 4% ineligibility rate due to failure among our athletes and our school has been ranked Exemplary in Texas every year since they started rating schools. We succeed because we choose to succeed. It is more important to us than anything else. Wanting to succeed and refusing to accept failure, more than anything else, is what is needed in education.
Thank you.
Dear Arne,
As an educator of over 20 years, I strongly believe that we should unite and begin conversations as much as possible at the local level. I’m sure you can understand the differences and issues faced by districts as they deal with new populations, NCLB, and countless other differences that hold us separate and different from the “norm.” I am currentlay the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction at Niles Township High School District 219. As we struggle with students who not only come to us below grade level, but students who have spent most of their lives in refugee camps and never even attended school, we must deal with the ridiculous ramifications of NCLB, the “failing school” designation, and the difficult public relations resulting from all of this.
I remain a strong supporter of the new administration. However, through my connections with Illinois ASCD, the national ASCD, NSCD, and other professional educational associations, I am more than willing to help out in any way I can on issues relevant to children and their future educations.
Regards,
Anne Roloff, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum & Instruction, Niles Township High School District 219
Skokie, Illinois
Of course high standards for student achievement are important. However, they need to be used to serve the purpose for which they were intended. Standards should be used to plan instruction and to ensure a level of consistency in what students learn at each grade level. I also think it is appropriate to test students to see whether or not they are mastering standards. They should not be used to limit student learning.
I resent the fact that politicians continue to call for high standards and yet are completely unwilling to supply the funding necessary to help students meet these standards. I teach in Kansas. Two years ago several districts filed a lawsuit
against our legislature for inadequately funding our public schools. The case went all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the school districts. The Kansas legislature was forced to increase funding to our schools and for the past two years we have seen vast improvements in technology, class size, early childhood programs, teacher salaries, etc. Our legislature ordered a study on whether or not the increase in funding has impacted student achievement.
They were shocked and dismayed to find out that indeed it had. In fact the study concluded that there was a direct correlation between each additional dollar spent and a significant increase in student achievement. We are now facing cuts that will take us back to the level of school funding prior to the lawsuit.
I do not mind being held accountable. I feel that as a professional I should be. However, I feel that until legislators hold themselves accountable for properly funding America’s public schools, they should not criticize our efforts.
Of course high standards for student achievement are important. However, they need to be used to serve the purpose for which they were intended. Standards should be used to plan instruction and to ensure a level of consistency in what students learn at each grade level. I also think it is appropriate to test students to see whether or not they are mastering standards. Standards should not be used to limit student learning.
I resent the fact that politicians continue to call for high standards and yet are completely unwilling to supply the funding necessary to help students meet these standards. I teach in Kansas. Two years ago several districts filed a lawsuit
against our legislature for inadequately funding our public schools. The case went all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the school districts. The Kansas legislature was forced to increase funding to our schools and for the past two years we have seen vast improvements in technology, class size, early childhood programs, teacher salaries, etc. Our legislature ordered a study on whether or not the increase in funding has impacted student achievement.
They were shocked and dismayed to find out that indeed it had. In fact the study concluded that there was a direct correlation between each additional dollar spent and a significant increase in student achievement. We are now facing cuts that will take us back to the level of school funding prior to the lawsuit.
I do not mind being held accountable. I feel that as a professional I should be. However, I feel that until legislators hold themselves accountable for properly funding America’s public schools, they should not criticize our efforts.
In theroy, NCLB sounds good, but at as special educator I see big problems. Grade level is a hard to term to meet when not everyone is the same. Not every student in every class will make grade level.
Also, as the demands get higher, it takes more resources to make struggling kids come as close as they can to grade level. These resources tend to take money and if schools who aren’t able to meet government standards get cut money, then how are they supposed to improve their education? Now that we are saying that all kids can learn, then I think that we need to take into account that they all learn differently and achieve different levels. We should celebrate that our special education students are apart of the school, not have them as a burden because they may not always be at grade level.
It concerns me that when the talk of raising standards or expectations begins, many believe that bringing subject content material that was once a part of a higher grade’s course work down to lower levels is the answer to our education problems. I have heard educators and policy makers suggest that teaching content material earlier, faster, and in greater volume, will actually prepare and challenge students making them more successful. I believe this to be quite the opposite and very damaging.
As a kindergarten teacher for 17 years, I have seen changes in the early childhood curriculum but nothing quite so dramatic then since the inception of NCLB. This trend is a disservice to our nation’s youngest students and may in fact set the stage for frustration; widening the achievement gap and eventually leading to unsuccessful school experiences and failure.
A discussion on raising standards and expectations should begin with the individual child, teaching children how to learn, a curriculum rich with meaningful learning experiences, a dedicated supply of resources to achieve learning, and a passionate, knowledgeable teacher to help navigate the adventure.
Each year I am asked to be accountable for OAT test results for about 125 8th grade social studies students. I am expected to make sure that these young people pass an achievement test based on content covered over a 3 school year period. I have no trouble taking responsibility for student achievement given my student’s academic levels,socio-economic situation, and family apathy- I work hard each day, I make use of the best educational practices known, and continually keep up to date with new and innovative ideas. My love of history insures excitement and enthusiasm in the classroom. However, I do have a difficult time understanding why I am expected to be accountable for results when so much about the lives of my students is out of my control. Many are very troubled and often called from class for services, missing even more class time. Students are called out of class for discipline issues, counseling needs, hearing, etc. They come to class upset, dirty, tired, hungry, scared, confused, lonely, and unloved. I have to try to find ways to interest them in content. No time to listen, help, comfort, care. The only thing of importance is passing the test. Many just miss school all too often. Please stop blaming teachers for all the problems with education in our public schools today. A great job is done by many teachers every day. Press conferences blaming teachers and public schools for student failure is not helping. Someone needs to stand up and speak the truth, Parents are failing the young people of America, not teachers. Schools where parents care, have educations themselves and recognize the value of learning perform better every time. Surprise! Society as a whole is failing our kids. An America where kids go without health care, homes without toilets, filth, wayward parents, drugs, hate, all take there toll on kids. I know its the parents that vote and its politically dangerous to place the blame where it belongs, with them. But someone must stand up and lead. Its not about standards, Ohio has challenging standards, its about parents doing their job, and and politians respecting the job teachers are doing, and helping them overcome the many parental and societal short comings that get in the way.
Keep standards high! The problem is that we keep forgetting that parents play a major role in the education of students. Whatever plan we have parents must be held accountable as well. I have seen teachers who offer before school and after school tutoring, call/email parents with resources to help their children and to no avail. Many times parents want educators to perform miracles when their children have no foundation to build upon.
Education needs to be completely re-evaluated in light of the jobs of this century. This recession may be a indicator that the nature of our economy is shifting, hopefully a caring revolution is in process (Real Wealth of Nations by Riane Eisler). Production has been streamlined and efficiences in place that drastically changed the nature of the job outlook… we can no longer produce workers for the production model. We should not try and emulate our foreign competitors; what made America great was our resourcefulness and ingeninuity. We need to go the EXACT opposite direction of our competitors and reclaim our Greatness… foster CREATIVIY NOT MARGINALIZE AND DESTROY IT!!!!
One model that has a history is the Montessori Method. That movement appears to be making some shift toward Democratic School model. We should also evaluate some of the European models of education, which set a career track earlier in schooling, specializes earlier but retains options for higher learning. Why do we strive for the status quo for our children? We our not fostering the true potential of our children, which cannot be reduced to test scores… yes, easy to evaluate but misleading. Society has jobs of meaning and purpose for all levels of ability; why not foster greatness, validate all forms of employment, and restore our Humanity????
I believe we should hold students to high standards but I also believe we should educate the WHOLE child. I taught in Chicago when you were Superintendent. I admired your concern for students but I think you and NCLB put too much emphasis on test scores. I remember being told at some teacher meetings that if it was not tested, don’t teach it. As a result, spelling and grammar were put aside along with health, handwriting, art, and music in many schools. Eighth graders would sometimes tell teachers they did not have to do their work because all they had to do was pass the test in the spring to graduate. The de-emphasis on meaningful learning activities and the report card grades and the overemphasis on a test taken in one day has created this monster. If you really are interested in raising standards give teachers back the power to educate their students. Make report card grades and teacher opinion of the student’s progress count as much as the one day test score when it comes to passing. Also, give seasoned teachers credit for on the job experience. I knew teachers who were doing an excellent job teaching in their subject area and had done so for years and yet because of NCLB, letters were sent home to parents telling them their child’s teacher was not highly qualified for his/her job even though he/she had been doing it successfully for years.
I agree that teacher training and keeping up on the latest trends in education is important. Even though I retired, I still try to keep up on those trends. I believe you have to test students but testing can also include evaluation by the teacher as well as standardized testing. It is emphasized so much that in some schools principals have weekly practice testing for the ISAT. Instead of all this testing, teachers should be allowed to be spending their time on meaningful lessons based on the needs of the students in front of them at the time. They then should be allowed time to evaluate the students on what has been taught that week not some meaninless practice test. NCLB is a great Public Relations scam that made it look as if something was being done to improve our schools and it has failed at that. Put the money directly into the classroom and the community instead of wasting it on bureaucratic nonsense.If you are really interested in improving schools, give your teachers the tools they need: good materials,smaller class sizes, the right to discipline with the backup of the administration, and some teacher assistants who are properly trained to help the teacher. Give the students what they need: an education that includes both the cognitive and affective areas of learning as they are not a manufactured product–they are children and each and everyone of them is unique with different styles of learning and different interests. Give the parents what they need: support and parent education so they can help their children succeed. I hope you read this and respond Mr. Duncan. I am proud to say I did my part even to the point of supplying my classroom with a library of books out of pocket. Many of my students have become successful in life. I am happy to be a small part of their success. I am sure you have the children’s best interest at heart. Remember it is about them not just a bunch of statistics. Kathleen L. Kuna
I teach 8th grade language arts and social studies in a district with high test scores and high free-and-reduced-lunch averages. If the United States–the last bastion of truly democratic education–is going to require students to meet standards that compete with worldwide scores, then we need to make authentic comparisons. Many school systems in developed nations siphon students into academic or vocational tracks, so that we are comparing our students’ broad range of talents to a more selective international group. If we are to honor the spirit of public education, I think we need to take competition out of the equation, foster the creativity that ALL teachers have (not just charter school teachers), and allow our students to succeed in the complex and sometimes unconventional learning that propagates thinkers instead of robots.
I like the idea of nationaled standards, that way we could “see” where all students stand instead of comparing one state to another. I also really dislike the idea of always looking at how students are meeting standards. As a special education teacher, this becomes an issue every single day. In the State of CA where the standards are some of the most stringent standards nationally, I watch as more and more students fail, and not get a diploma. Every year, more and more doors shut for these students. Graduation becomes a game of creativity and personal interpretation of the regulations on how you test students to meet the requirements. And, as you well know CA is in a state of financial decline, the likes I have never seen before. How can the state and national government impose higher reaching standards when we don’t have the resources to get the kids to the level they need to be now? Also, we need to find a way to help the Special needs students reach their maximum level of success without demoralizing and humiliating them through a test, such as the Ca. High School Exit Exam. We need to develop more ways to determine success for all, not just for some. And, with the movement towrds inclusion, placoing the majority of the SPED students into AP classes is also very difficult. Yes, we need AP classes, but we also need basic classes. All aspects must be considered prior to this movement. Increase student ability, provide ways to accurately assess which does not always include being measured through tests, provide opportunitites for ALL students, and give the teachers the ability and gift of time to go back and re=teach what the students didn’t get. Most of us are so tied into the state assessments, that we have to litereally leave student learning behind to make sure that we cover enough ground in class to ensure the students have at least been “exposed” to whats on the test. Exposed is not teaching, it is cheating the students out of learning!
Elementary school teachers need to be the front line of education. They need to be proficient in all academic subjects and be paid for this. Currently, elementary schools work with dedicated teachers that are extremely caring but many lack the academic range to provide a good foundation for all students in all areas. Higher salaries are instead spent on administrators and college professors, advisors, and consultants.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
Please reform the testing requirements for NCLB for students with special needs. As a special education teacher, I have seen the upside and the downside of NCLB for my students. The upside is that educators are held accountable for educating all students. All students are tested, and all students are expected to make progress. The downside is the inappropriateness of the assessments for students with cognitive disabilities and severe learning disabilities.
States are allowed, but not required, to design tests that are appropriate for the bottom-performing 5% of students. My state, Tennessee, has a portfolio assessment that is appropriate for all but the very lowest-performing students, but it is only used for the bottom 1%. A fourth grade student with MR may be just learning to count while his grade peers are learning long division. A kindergarten math test would be appropriate for such a student, but because of his chronological age, he is required to take a fourth grade standardized math test, which includes multiplication, long division, and story problems that require multiple operations to solve.
Our state’s standardized tests are administered over a 4-day period. Every morning during testing week, students come in for a test whose importance their teachers and administrators have strongly and repeatedly emphasized. And every morning students with disabilities are faced with questions they know they can’t answer correctly. To be expected to perform at such an inappropriate level for such an important test gives students a profound sense of failure that takes weeks to undo, if it can be undone at all. It gives children an expectation of failure, resulting in learned helplessness.
In some cases students guess at every single question. One year, a student with mild MR made designs on his bubble sheet…and purely by chance he scored proficient! How is that assessing his progress? How is that holding his teachers accountable?
The portfolio assessment used for the lowest-performing 1% of students has its strengths and weaknesses. Its strength is that it helps to focus an educational program for very low-performing students. Its weaknesses are that the performances it measures are typically inappropriate for the very students who qualify to take it, and it takes an inordinate amount of time to administer.
A student who is not able to walk, talk, feed or dress himself should have goals to improve self care skills. These are not among the choices of goals offered by the alternative assessment in our state. They should be.
Even if a portfolio assessment is appropriate for a student, it may be inappropriate because of the amount of time required to administer it. Special education teachers already spend extra time with paperwork. A portfolio assessment takes so much more time throughout the year than a standardized test that it cuts into teaching time for the student being tested and for the other students the special education teacher works with. Portfolio assessments should be designed with strong input from those who administer them, special education teachers and paraprofessionals. Assessments should then be piloted and educator and paraprofessional feedback should be used to alter the test’s design.
Surely it is possible to design tests that hold educators accountable, accurately measure the progress of students with moderate to profound cognitive disabilities, are appropriate for the students they are designed for, and do not place unreasonable time constraints on educators. Please ensure that an effort is made to do so. Thank you.
Sir,
I teach high school English. I started out as a classroom aide and have worked with all grades at some point or another, and I have seen the same apathy in education from the students and parents. I do believe that standards need to be raised and that we should have high expectations of our students; however, it all starts at home. What good is learning to a child when his/her parent de-values education? When the child is failing but the parent cusses and fusses loud enough that the teacher is told pass the student just to avoid dealing with a law suit? What good is raising the standards when rules are not followed? Why should I have to provide paper and pen to a student who comes into my class wearing $300.00 sneakers? Schools are for academic learning not parenting everyones child, there is not enough hours in the day. Fix the parents and then look at what is really wrong with the school system.
Who would argue in favor of lowering standards? High expectations is an assumption for quality education that everyone knows is effective. However, when framed by the accountability and testing craze of today it generates repulsion and anxiety in students, parents, and teachers. If we want to continue letting science and business infiltrate the social domain of education, we have to answer the following question first: What defines a master teacher? To answer this question and many others you may want to visit http://www.algebra.org and read about The Algebra Project, where art and science are integrated to create social justice.
Secretary Duncan: Thank you for finally opening public school debate to those most qualified: public school teachers. I’m a 17 year veteran whose former career was in manufacturing. When I first came to education, the most important question was, “How will I know that my students have learned?” In business, I felt very secure “in numbers and data” to give me that answer, but education deals with the human beings not material goods. “Numbers and data” do not always have the answer, but I have discovered that they are part of the solution.
We must have standards.
I have lived with “standards” through out most of my educational career. I teach in a middle school in Texas that borders Mexico and has a majority of disadvantaged and English Language Learners. I have seen standards both used and misused in education. Standards have forced most teachers I know to reevaluate and change their practice to reach more of their students and ensure their success. I also know firsthand the pain of individual students who diligently apply themselves and make, sometimes even astronomical gains, but just cannot seem to pass “the test.”
Americans do not value uniformity. We are diverse and ever changing and evolving. We must ensure that if we adopt uniform “standards”, we must have uniform funding, programs and quality teaching staff that ensure all students have opportunity to achieve those standards. Although our school should not be achieving because of demographics, it has and this is the result of the collaborative effort our teaching staff and careful use of educational funds. All has been hard fought, time consuming and collaborative. No one should be educating in a vacuum in the 21st century!
Finally, we must, as a nation, elevate the status of both teachers and education. Teachers are revered in most other countries of the world. In this country we are second-guessed and undermined at every turn. Those who do well in school are labeled as “nerds” or “geeks.” Raising standards must address these underlying attitudes and guarantee that all who come through our free public educational doors have their learning goals met and, more importantly, that their parents and the public know we have met those goals.
I’ve been teaching Developmental Math (pre-college level)currently at Oregon State University and formerly at Linn-Benton Community College here in Corvallis, OR. I have also taught towards the GED at the community college. I’ve been teaching math since 1979.
I think it would make a tremendous difference if students in grades 5-12 were actually required to pass a math class with at least a C before going on to the next level. No excuses!
I see too many students who cannot handle fractions, don’t understand how to work with decimals and percents, and can’t operate with many concepts because they don’t know their multiplication tables, causing them to be unable to recognize the factors of numbers needed in many mathematical computations in algebra and beyond.
I wish I could be a math specialist in a middle school or elementary school, reaching both the teachers and students with hands on math that facilitate understanding of basic concepts. I believe that we need roving math specialists to supplement what many teachers do in the classroom.
I also believe that there are too many distractions to instructional time, mainly because of multiple mandates of required time on a regular basis allotted to things like nutrition, fire drills, etc. These things are important, but when an elementary teacher says that she only can find 20-25 minutes on a daily basis for math, something needs to be balanced! Math needs at least 45 minutes on a daily basis, not 20-25 minutes a day or as some teachers have done to cope, math in longer periods on some days and not at all on others.
Maybe when I retire I can volunteer lessons in the lower grades! It could be very rewarding, provided the staff could find adequate time for math.
Sincerely,
Sonya Richardson
From my 25 + years as an educator, now retired, I wish to add my voice to the collective wisdom of my colleagues, particularly those listed below:
Posters 10 and 14: As # 10 says, we must “begin where children are and help them move as far along as possible”. I agree with #14 that tracking is an excellent means of meeting all children at their level, then moving them along. Tracking, done appropriately and with flexibility, allows the late bloomers to grow at their own pace while early bloomers are not held to the lowest level of achievement, stewing with resentment and ultimately losing their spark and drive. I fought for tracking in the Foreign Language courses in my school, and when we finally attained it, we saw greater student achievement and pride in both tracks, and greater retention from both tracks to the next levels of language! The classroom became less threatening for those who needed more learning time, and less boring and more challenging for quick learners. American education has steadily moved away from tracking over the last 30 years, resulting in the mid-point mediocrity we now struggle to overcome. Just read how many of these posts mention the daily struggle to meet the needs of special education, gifted, emotionally damaged, average, and behavioral problem students, all in one classroom!
Posters 14 and 53: I like #14’s creative approach to school reform! Articulation between secondary and post-secondary education is almost non-existent. We can restructure the secondary education program to meet the needs of those who are ready to move on to a pre-college/college level while also encouraging those who still need to develop the skills and knowledge in the secondary curriculum. Curriculum should be a flow, not a series of blocks. As #53 pleads, yes, raise standards, but be flexible so that the realities of place and context are acknowledged and become part of the teaching process. Any teacher knows that the demands are different (not more not less, just different) in a low income, low education community as compared to a high education, high income community. Back to # 10’s statement: “Begin where children are…” Both of these posters recognize that basic tenet of education.
Poster 30: Any school reform must begin with reform of the certification and evaluation process! As #30 states, where is the logic that keeps good teachers out of the classroom while affirming others as “highly qualified” based on the number and titles of college classes! We can find a way to measure quality teaching, not based solely on student scores, but on a combination of student scores, educational preparation and those so-called intangible characteristics such as inspiration, nourishing, challenge, creativity, leadership and love of teaching and children. We all clearly remember specific teachers with those characteristics. The collective experience of students, colleagues, parents and administrators can be used as benchmarks of excellence.
Finally, poster # 62 is correct. As long as our society sees education as the “default” job rather than one of the most important professions in our nation, teachers will be undervalued, underpaid and unrecognized for the heroes they are. We need a new vision of teachers that values them, rewards them and attracts the best to our honorable profession.
Secretary Duncan;
President Obama has stated that “no amount of money can buy achievement” and I believe he is right. It is not about money. As a former school board member, teacher, and administrator I think it is time that the President’s statement be given some teeth.
What it is about is the manner that adults treat and supervise children. When kids are neglected and taught priorities that are not related to achievement the results are clear.
To improve education in this country we need to “educate” and insist that the adults that are in childrens lives, primarily parents, focus on the subject.
Schools, particularly secondary schools need to move off the “juvenile social hall” theme and become places devoted to “learning”.
One only has to look at schools such as KIPP where the motto is, “there are no shortcuts” to see that almost all kids can learn, and will learn, if there are no other favorable options.
Schools need to be uncomfortable for the slacker and not allow them to be seen in any positive light.
We have used all of the carrots to no avail. We now have cell phones, game boys, twitter, etc as the highest priorities of our youth. The results are pretty clear.
As a retired public school principal I believe that our public schools have done an excellent job educating our children under sometimes difficult circustances (large class sizes, inadequate funding, mandates, uninvolved parents or parents who make unreasonable demands). Having said that, I am certain that we can do a better job. Some of my suggestions are as follows:
1. Standardize high stake testing nationwide. Massacusetts has perhaps the most difficult test (MCAS) yet when compared with other states which have much easier tests MA. is in the middle when measuring the number of passing/failing students. On standarized national tests MA. is usually on top. One national test would solve this problem and cause those states with easy tests to raise their standards. It also increases fairness and is a better standard for judging the quality of education in a state.
2. Make it easier to dismiss poor teachers.
3. If an incentive pay formula is to be initiated for teachers it shuold be based on multi-criteria with a maximum of 10 -20% of the eligible teachers receiveing the additional pay. If receiving incentive pay is too easy, or based on the judgement of one or a few individuals, the idea will be a mockery and will result in public resentment.
4. No unfunded mandates. Fully fund NCLB after it is modified.
5. High stake testing should only be on of many criteria to determine a student’s graduation from high school. Currently (in MA) only the MCAS scores are considered.
6. Make community college tuition free.
7. Pass the DREAM Act.
Senator Duncan, thank you for your interest in education. I am a retired teacher who spent most of my career serving children in low socio-economic status schools. Raising standards that all children are expected to attain is unrealistic. The teachers can only do so much when the home environment does not promote education as a necessity. My children went to the elementary school in which I taught. By the time they left 6th grade, both were reading at the post high school level as measured by the standardized tests used by our school district. Most of the other students scored below the fourth grade level. All these kids had the same teachers. What was the difference? The home environment. I hope you can figure out a way to make parents accountable. Thank you for your time.
Standards are not a panacea. They also come with many problems. I believe we first need to rethink the *criteria* for a good education. What does it looks like? What should an education do? Too often we assume these answers and head into standard setting without really getting to the heart and soul of what education in a democracy means. Standards often make education seem more concrete and measurable than it actually is. They often act as a fig leaf for poor education. Should we even have standards, or is there something even better out there?
Dear Secretary Duncan,
Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. I too read the postings from the educators from all around our country and what struck me most was how common the themes were even though each state has its own standards and legislated guidelines. We need to listen when teachers say the creativity has been taken from the classroom and replaced with minute by minute lesson plans. That NCLB has created a very different classroom from the past does not mean that it has been a positive change. I have watched elementary students panic over high stakes testing and their parents react in much the same way. The inequalities of the experiences that children have cannot be made up in a classroom. We need to be realistic about what our children need to learn and creating standards to match that of other countries is not the answer. We have high standards in this country, but micromanaging is not the answer to meeting them. Thank you for your time.
On looking through the comments posted here, a great many good suggestions are available on ‘THINGS TO DO’ to improve the educational system. What’s NOT readily available is a systematic process to ‘put them all together’ in such a way as to create an effective Action Plan to accomplish President Obama’s educational Mission: “To provide every child in America a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career” – and then to implement that Action Plan effectively.
Remarkably enough, practical means are readily available in the seminal contributions to systems science of Professor John N. Warfield (Emeritus Professor, George Mason University) – more information about Warfield’s work is available at: http://www.jnwarfield.com and at the “John N. Warfield Collection” maintained at the library of George Mason University: check out http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaead/published/gmu/vifgm00008.tp.
A simple but uniquely powerful aid to problem solving and decision making called the ‘One Page Management System’ (OPMS) has been developed that enables any individual or group to articulate an appropriate Mission (such as President Obama’s educational Mission) and then to put together their current ideas into an Action Plan to accomplish the Mission. The Action Plan so developed is bound to be effective over iterations as the system enables people to correct/ improve their current ideas in the light of the reality confronted. (There’s a little learning – and a fair bit of ‘unlearning’ – involved in using the OPMS effectively). More information about the OPMS is readily available, just write to gs (underscore) chandy (at) yahoo (dot) com.
GS Chandy
1. Until vouchers and charter schools are the norm and in abundance, the teachers’ union will continue to have an absolute stranglehold on our kids.
2. Someone must be responsible for what happens at each school and this includes the academic performance, not just behavior.
3. Kids that get good grades should in general not be flunking the state exams or doing average on SAT or ACT tests.
4. Forget about political correctness and use whatever method is necessary to improve academics. This would include single gender classes, uniforms or a strict dress code.
5. Elementary school should start ealier and high school should start later. This would follow the sleep patterns of the two groups.
6. Foreign language teachers should be in elementary schools rather than in high schools.
7. Eliminate most of the group projects! If a student does not know the basics of a subject, he is of little use to a group.
8. Our parents are the ones that developed the TV, transitors, remote controls, space travel and more and they did it using so called out-of-date textbooks. We need to get those books back. The new textbooks lack text, have too many pictures and emphasize feelings. Our students feel good about themselves and then get crushed in international competitions.
9. I’m tired of teaching young adults (18 – 40) that do not know their multiplication tables, have never diagramed a sentence and are not real sure what century the Korean War (not conflict) was fought. Why should I have to explain the three branches of government to voters before teaching insurance law? (Oh, and most of them don’t know how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights.)
10. Parents must be in control of the schools again, but this won’t happen until – See number “1″.
Dear Secretary Duncan:
Thank you for soliciting inputs on what I consider one of the most important issues that this administration faces. Most of the inputs so far appear to be from those close to the education system. I am a first generation immigrant, worked briefly as a university faculty, and spent my entire career as a high tech researcher/manager for a high tech company, before retiring early. Having spent equal time in India and the US, I believe I can bring a fresh perspective to this thread, starting with the following three reasons:
First, I think the US stands in the most critical point in its history, when decisions made can affect the future generations for decades. From what I gather, the total debt (public+private+individual) currently stands at above $50 trillion. Projected unfunded obligations in social security and medicare, plus growth in federal debt, also are projected to be over $50 trillion. These are both over three times our GDP. Never before in our history have we faced such a challenge, not even during the great depression. But it is our children who will be stuck paying the bill for this decades long party. It is our solemn duty to equip them with the best education on earth before they face a life vastly more perilous than what their parents and grandparents did.
Secondly, we are no longer the leading nation when it comes to getting children ready for what lies ahead in the 21st century. Those in the education establishment may argue otherwise, but I have had to hire, train and supervise multi national employees for over two decades. I have seen how other nations prepare their workers better in science and technology. Many multi national high tech companies have already moved their R&D centers off shore, where most of the intellectual property is developed, and all the high paying R&D jobs with them. As far as I am concerned, we have a lot of catching up to do here.
Third, I think we are on the wrong end of demographics when it comes to training young graduates into high paying jobs. We are an aging nation. Growth through immigration is coming from the bottom end of the pay range. So, in my assessment, each student in the pipeline now will have to carry a larger burden compared to the previous generation.
So, do I think we need to improve our standards? You bet. In my mind, it is not a matter of choice any more. In my humble opinion, here are some things I would do:
1. I would start with the most stringent worldwide standards to be our national standards to begin with, and then challenge the states to match them. I feel this is a necessary first step.
2. High standards will be meaningless if the same system of training, evaluating and rewarding our teachers continues. The best performing nations choose their best to go into teaching, and then give them rigorous training to do their jobs. The same cannot be said about us.
3. Parents and community leaders need to espouse academic achievement as a priority over extra curricular activities. Too many dollars today get spent on things that have no effect on student achievement, and the popular culture seems to encourage it. You and your boss have done an admirable job of elevating this issue and bringing it to the public limelight. Please continue to hammer the message in.
4. We need the equivalent of a national emergency action to pull out all stops on STEM education. Math and science have suffered greatly in what you refer to as “the race to the bottom”. What passes for some math curricula today will be considered trash in just about any other nation today. Many teachers who teach elementary or middle schools do not have degrees in math and science. Our ability to generate new intellectual property will continue to be hammered due to lack of proper math and science education, especially in early grades.
Once again, thanks for soliciting our collective inputs.
I think I have differnt openion about it. I would differ from your statement about the kinds of standards we should identify and to which we should hold schools accountable. We live in a democratic society grounded in the values of participatory decision-making, individual freedom,.
Yes. raise the standards, but don’t forget the children need social and emotional help. Also, DON’T compare the U.S with other countries that don’t allow “disabled” children to even go to school, with other countries that put their “disabled” in orphanages and forget about them, with countries that have a different type of teaching system than the US. This is like comparing “apples to oranges!”
Mr. Duncan,
When Mr. Obama was running against Ms. Clinton in the primaries, I was forced to vote against him due to his stance, or lack there of, on NCLB. Ms. Clinton was prepared to scrap one of the worst things that has ever happened to education. I note with sorrow that Mr. Obama has not followed suit.
Why?
More standardized testing is NOT an answer to anything. More charter schools only draws financial resources from public education and puts it into the pockets of corporations and individuals who are in it for profit. These schools also avoid the very standards that you have held up as essential.
Your standardized tests are a poor attempt at analyzing a schools effectiveness. A test does not measure the personal interaction that teachers and administrators have with the students we nurture. Standardized tests do not note the richness of the culture of a school. Standardized tests do not measure the value a school has on the individual and community. Standardized tests seek to make education a science. It isn’t. These tests will never be able to assess the individual student in a realistic manner. And they do not measure the stress and tension they cause all of us in education.
In recent months we have seen what deregulation did for our financial system. The proposals for charter schools and vouchers (when might you begin supporting those?) smack of an attempt to deregualte and privatize public education in this country. Our founders knew the value of an educated public and hence saw fit to encourage a free and open educational system for ALL. Charter schools and vouchers fly in the face of this vision. Standardized tests do as well.
Why do politicians ask for teacher imput and then ignore it? Why do YOU not truly talk to and listen to what we can tell you? If politicians left education alone we could actually do our jobs! Laws are passed that have little or no hope of being workable but politicians can then turn to their constituents and claim to have done something. Studies do not tell it all. But if you want a study look into the value of portfolios as compared to standardized tests and see if you do not come to understand that a portfolio is the best way to analyze student progress. Do you really want to do that or is it all just to play to the crowd you are trying to impress?
And how can you support a law, such as NCLB, that punishes a school even when significant progress is made? THAT is simply unfair.
I voted for Mr. Obama hoping that he would address this horribly flawed law in a reasonably and proactive way. Instead he, and yourself, sound like you have gone to the George Bush school of education! Where is the difference? I have yet to see it!
Come to my school. Talk to the teachers honestly. Spend more than one short visit. Spend some REAL time in a REAL school and see what these impossible laws are doing to public education. If more politicians actually spent serious time in the schools laws such as NCLB would NEVER exist!
Thanks you for your time,
Jay Frederick
Molina High School
Dallas (Texas) Independent School District
My opinion about teaching a foreign language and being successful comes down to one fundamental thing: class sizes. I know that the economy does not allow us to work with smaller classes however I believe a maximum of 20 students per class would cetainly help tremendously our students’ performance. Less people means more focus on all kids, more opportunities for the students to participate in the target language, fewer disciplinary actions, less crowd-control and more positive interaction between students.
Thank you.
Just an idea
I am a high school special education teacher who teaches Algebra to emotionally disturbed students in a public special education center. Our students are now held to the same standards as their mainstream peers. Unfortunately with ED students, there are so many external problems that have to be addressed, there are times when academic education takes a back seat. I do believe that we have to raise the standards for our mainstreamed students, we need to encourage them to develop their math and science skills if we are to be competitive in the global economy. However, I think we also need to keep in mind that we have extremes to that bell-shaped curve, and those extremes, especially the special education learning disabled, emotionally disturbed students need to be planned for also. Why can’t we have some good non-college academics that my students can you in their everyday lives. Yes I can teach them algebra, but they won’t remember enough to prove proficient on the High School Assessment they have to pass as part of their graduation requirements. I think the special education portion of our educaton system gets neglected when we talk about changing standards or adopting national curriculum. These students feel left out as it is, we don’t need to make them feel any less included then they already do.
I believe that we already have standards and there is no need to raise them. Conversely, we need to hone the ones we already have and make all persons involved in education accountable for them, including our students. If we do not let our students understand how important it is to enjoy the process of learning (that is to exert effort and work through challenges), they will never be able to set goals.
Every body of knowledge that is taught in school is never going to be easy or always enjoyable, but there is always pleasure in discovery. Give them all students a liberal dose of all courses and let them discover.
Standards are inportant but what standards? I am a High School Tracher to often we apply the standards at the end or in high school. The students have not been prepaired to meet the standards in earelyer grades we can not continue to dump the standards load on the 9-!2 grades every time a new need is determined . Start at the 1st grade move the standard up each year this will make real change yes, it will take 12 years to fully implyment but the change will be real. The problenm in the past has been that we change every 4 years because progress is slow. Progress is slow because the students do not have the backround for the new standards.
I teach special ed in Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), Indianapolis IN. Most teachers I know are so tired of teaching to the test. My district is inner city, and shrinking. We are closing schools and laying off over 400 teachers this year. Through middle school, the kids are simply passed on, most of the time. I know because I spent 15 years teaching in middle school. If a kid was too old or had failed a grade before, he was passed on, to the disgust of the teachers. I now work in a high school. The freshmen still believe they will be passed on, like in middle school. They don’t realize they must pass the classes to get credits. Our administration in the school buildings are working with their hands tied because the administration in the main office has strict control over what they can and cannot do. Our schools are violent and unsafe. We have police officers in all high schools and middle schools. IPS even has its own police department. They are well trained and are full-on police officers, not guards. They are definately needed, and they carry loaded weapons. So do I think we should raise standards? NO, NO, NO!! We should take back the schools, let teachers and principals do our jobs, teach content, not to “the test”. And the biggest thing: Special ed kids should not have to take the same standardized tests as regular students. Especially the lower functioning ones. But we make them do it. They are counted in when our schools are judged, and placed on probation because not enough students passed the tests. More and more kids are being labeled special ed these days. That means more students are not passing the tests. Most teachers I know have low morale and are disgusted with what our administration is doing. Why should we keep raising the standards when the students can’t grasp the already high standards we set?
In response to the question about standards, yes we do need to raise standards as a Nation. In order to compete globally, educators, administrators, parents, non-parents and students must consider where academic rigor needs to be reintroduced. This will come at a price, so each individual state should ensure that school systems have adequate funding to reach minimum benchmarks throughout the school year.
Q: Should we raise standards?
It depends on who “WE” is and what you mean by “STANDARDS”.
Since it is highly unlikely I’ll be getting any clarification on those two points, I’ll proceed under the assumption that by “we” you mean the Federal Government and by “standards” you mean the type of vague and abstract “objectives” that drive the TAKS tests here in Texas.
A: No. And we should NOT reauthorize NCLB either. It cannot be fixed, we need to start over. NCLB has killed reform. It is like using a jackhammer when the job requires a paring knife.
The federal government needs to give back the power to set standards and teach students to localities — high stakes standardized tests are killing actual education in this country and turning more and more kids off of “school” because it doesn’t apply to real life and many of them are stuck in cycles of failure brought on by high-stakes tests.
My fourth grader here in Texas already feels that it doesn’t matter what he does, how hard he works, or how many times he makes the honor roll (every grading period except one since second grade when they start assigning grades), all that matters is the test, and he doesn’t “meet standard” on those.
There is no accountability at all. When he didn’t do well on the writing test this year (he was so burnt out from the “editing” questions, which they DEMAND that the students do first, that he wrote nothing on the essay part). The Texas Education Agency just told the school not to count his test — how is that holding anyone accountable for anything? On the other end of the spectrum, we have schools being closed and teachers losing their jobs because they didn’t meet AYP, even when the improvements being made are astounding…it is totally out of control.
I live in Austin, and last year, after being told “we are just doing what the state tells us to do, go pitch a tent on the capital steps” (that’s not accountability, that’s passing the buck), I had to fight to get him into fourth grade. My argument was that he earned STRAIGHT As in 3rd grade, and they were not going to hold him back because he didn’t pass the TAKS test — either they had taught him what he needed to know or they didn’t, but by holding him back, the ONLY person being “held accountable” was my 9 year old son.
They haven’t done much better this year, even though they’ve subjected him to myriad “interventions,” he gets pulled out of the classroom for reading “intervention” (thereby causing him to miss other subjects) and he’s gone to after school tutoring — and they’ve managed to raise his WPM on Diebels (another idiotic assessment) by 3 whole words a minute since September. Every year, they keep raising the score needed to “pass” these tests. If my son had taken his 3rd grade reading test 3 years ago, he would have earned a “commended” instead of a fail.
They have spent pretty much every single instructional day since February on these tests — my son loves science but he says he never gets to do it at school. Will next week’s question be about what we can do about our students’ “dismal” math and science performance, I wonder?
Raising standards in mathematics is a good idea. Putting raised mathematics standards into place must be preceded by two actions.
1) Adopting excellent, thought-provoking,engaging, student-friendly mathematics curriculum suited to the local area, for use beginning in the early grades and continuing through secondary school.
2) Providing all mathematics teachers,beginning in the early grades and continuing through secondary school, the professional learning, the materials, and the encouraging atmosphere to teach well the new material in the ways children enjoy learning it and believe they are gaining from it.
If these conditions are not met, raised standards will only produce more dropouts.
I’m absolutely convinced that we really need new standards in teaching innovative thinking. This country did not become great on having students learn to memorize dates – mundane procedures – facts, we became great because we challenged students to examine, evaluate, and create new thoughts. A few people think we need to teach all students the same set of facts, algorithms and procedures and then students will be good innovators. While we may need a core of common understandings, society really demands that we allow students to see new creative ideas that will expand their thinking. In mathematics this implies connections such as recursion, fractals, 3rd and 4th dimensions, transformations of functions, statistical, algebraic and geometric modeling. The goal must be to enable students to solve significant problems including non-standard ones. We really need a strong percentage of our students who excel beyond the ordinary. We need students who specialize in higher order thinking.
Buying into standards that are international makes sense to me. My major concerns is who gets included, what happens to the data, what funding is available to put these standards into place and to support teachers and learners working towards them, how much “teaching to the test” is going to occur.
I teach in CA and work with Engliah Language Learners. After their first year in school their scores are included in the school’s ranking. As a result the schools’ rank is in an inverse proportion to its number of ELLs. This is unfair to the teachers, learners and particularly the ELLs who get “blamed” for pulling the scores down. As a result non-ELL parents pull their kids from schools with a high % of ELLs and many teachers don’t want to work with them.
If ELLs were to be included, the only fair way to do this, is to assess their progress on English Language Development tests. This is much more realistic than having them take a test they can’t possibly succeed on. In CA, the ELD test is supposed to become part of the group of tests used to rank schools but this has not happened yet.
The other group that is counted without differentiation is those who have serious neurological issues and who cannot improve the same way a non-disabled learner can. They are expected to make annual progress which may not be fesible for them. Their scores are included in the schools’ ranking which puts the schools with more special ed students at a disadvantage. Their programs are state and federally mandated in a way that ELD programs are not and their teachers are more appropriately and rigorously credentialed.
I do not have any problems with rigorous standards but I have a large problem with the assessment and, more seriously, what is done with the assessment data in terms of punishing the learners, the teachers and the administrations.
As a Special Educator, I have watch the drop in love and enthusiasm of my regular education peers. The NCLB is a crippling and severe education system. Please remove this program that has been so negative to our schools. It is a monetary drain on education at a time where is there appers to be very little in the budget to improve schools.
Anne, if you are really listening, you will not reauthorize NCLB. The amount of money we can save if we reduce the national testing to just every other grade level or every 3 years!
Please listen to us about NCLB!!!
I have been teaching in low income Hisoanic schools for 30 years. I have witnessed many bright and gifted students who have gone on to brilliant college careers. We used to nurture these students and help them to succeed in every way. Since the advent of NCLB, we have ignored those students and focused ALL of our attention on the low achievers. This is what is occurring in the big box high schools across our community. Last year I left the school I had been in for 14 years because they killed the GT program and they quit supporting the Dual Credit program.
Now I teach in an Early College High School. We have rigor in the curriculum and we nurture and care for these bright but economically disadvantaged students. They do an excellent job on the state mandated test despite the fact that we don’t “teach” the test. In fact, 23 Juniors have already received their Associates degree from our community college. They will go to the university next year and get 24 hours by the time they graduate from high school.
NCLB Is cheating many of the students in our city and state. Please change to a different accountability system. Thank you.
I believe we need to let the colleges and universities choose their standards for accepting students.
I beleive it the responibilty of each State to set their own standards for kindergarden to 12th grade. The local
Boards of Education will over see the schools in their local districts.
I believe the Federal Government should be involved only with helping the financing of each State Educational Program.
Each State’s Educational Program should be involved in the financing and standards of each School District.
School Districts will also be responsible for financing.
To Whom It May Concern:
Mr. Secretary:
Standards? Yes.
International standards? No. National standards (OUR nation), instead.
Benchmarked for career and/or college entry? Yes.
Rigorous? Yes, BUT let’s carefully define rigor, in detail (Professor Jeannie Oakes of UCLA has.). Let us make sure that the standards have depth, as opposed to “an inch deep and a mile across.” By the same token, let us limit the number so that teaching them is actually possible, at any given grade level.
The question of “raising standards” presumes the present ones are set too low. In the case of California English Language Arts Standards, that is simply not the case.
How do we go about it? Basically, the committees THIS time should be made up of teachers, people who have actually spent years teaching the specific subjects in the classroom. No one, in fact, should be on such a committee unless s/he has had substantial teaching time at the elementary and/or secondary level.
Bill Younglove
38 years secondary classroom teacher in CA and MI
presently, Teacher Educator at California State University Long Beach
I had an oppportunity to hear you speak on television one day recently and I appreciate that you are opening the dialogue to make improvements.
With respect to standards, we need to move beyond the minimum standards set by the states. Too many schools get caught up teaching to the test, creating students who can memorize facts. We need to work with students to help them become self-directed learners who take responsibiliy for their education, to provide students with opportunities for in-depth, critical thinking and problem solving in the 21st century.
For many years, little attention was paid to the importance of the development of 2nd language skills. If our students are to compete in the global marketplace, world language skills and cultural tolerance are critical. Students should begin the study of other languages at an early age. When students start studying other languages in late middle school or high school, their ability to acquire real competency is limited with most students fulfilling the minimum requirement for college if there even is one. I can’t tell you how many adults I know who say, I took three years of Spanish and can’t remember a thing.
Let’s make languages a priority. Let’s have a national articulated language curriculum from Kindergarten through High School. I teach French K-5 in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Our county has an initiative by 2012 to offer all elementary students an opportunity to study a second language. My school is in its 6th year of the program. Students’ language skills have developed to a point where they can have short conversations, negotiate content in math, science and social studies, and have increased their vocabulary in English as well. Last year we hosted a group of French elementary students for two weeks encouraging cross-cultural awareness, tolerance, and real-life opportunities to speak the language not only for our students but the greater community as well. We are fortunate that this is happening in our county and we language teachers lobby constantly to keep language at the forefront for students. I hope you will too.
Currently AYP is measured by proficiency at grade level. Students receiving
special education services can make as much as two years’ growth in a year but
remain below grade level across the curriculum. Progress should be the measure,
not grade level proficiency. It’s likely that a student with a 60 IQ will never
perform at grade level. Students with perceptual reasoning in the 60s, even with
average IQ, are not likely to perform at grade level. Let’s determine AYP- and
merit pay- according to progress- at least one-year’s gain in one year- not an
impossible standard. Special education should be exempt from AYP, except for the
Gifted exceptionality.
Care is necessary in formulating “college-ready” and “career-ready” standards. My specialty is in mathematics, and I see a rather strong disconnect between my state’s idea of “college-ready” in mathematics and the mathematical profession’s idea of “college-ready.” Although the state has announced new initiatives to coordinate the standards, I am fearful that this will mean forcing colleges to accept an official definition of college preparation at odds with realities in post-secondary education.
For example, to my state and apparently to ETS, “college-ready” means “capable of taking a college algebra course with at least a 50% chance of passing.” If a student enters a university ready to take college algebra and passes it in the first semester, timing has already excluded that student from finishing most technical majors in eight semesters, and made almost all others extremely difficult. Such a student would find an engineering program difficult to finish in five years, and would find most mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology programs — especially the most up-to-date ones — difficult or impossible to complete in four years.
I recommend that high-level (perhaps national) standards of “college-ready” and “career-ready” be established, that the initial formulation of these standards include the perspectives of college faculty (for college-ready) and employers (for career-ready), and that each standard be validated by studies of college performance (including graduation and time to degree) in a wide range of disciplines (for college-ready) or of career performance (including appropriate certifications, employment, compensation, and advancement) in a wide range of career paths (for career-ready) prior to any normative use.
I am a first grade teacher in Boise ID. Our state Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) sets our goal as first grade teachers to have our students reading at a 54 wpm speed. Developmentally, for some of our students, it is an impossible task. Some of our students are second language students and some are from very poor, and very unsupportive backgrounds. We teach to the best of our abilities and use assessments to tailor the education to each child. We have excellent intervention programs and do the best we can. I am never one to back down from a challenge, but I do disagree with our results being published in the newspaper by grade level by school. If we have a group like this year who are behind developmentally we struggle to get to our 70% passing level. We like to be much higher than that but there arechildren who are not ready developmentally to be reading as fluently as needed. The bar does need to be set high. Anne Marks, M.Ed
THE INDUSTRIAL, MODERNIST SCHOOLING PARADIGM IS THE DISEASE; A PARADIGM OF PERSONALIZATION IS THE CURE
All of the conventional critiques of American schooling proffered by our political leaders miss the central problem with our schools.
Our schools embody an industrial, modernist paradigm of structure and culture. The conventional schools that we have today were created during the first two decades of the 20th century and were intentionally structured according to the following concepts and values:
1. Knowledge exists outside of the human mind. The purpose of schooling is to move that knowledge from outside of the mind into the mind’s long-term memory.
2. Everyone learns (or should learn) in the same way.
3. All children who are the same chronological age have the same level of cognitive development.
Each of these concepts is a pre-scientific description of human nature, dating from the 19th century. Considerable research in cognitive psychology has demonstrated that children come to school with significant knowledge bases and that learning involves the interaction between what the person already knows and any new information.
Equally significant research in cognitive and developmental psychology has demonstrated both that human beings learn in many different ways and that children develop any particular capacity at very different and personal rates.
4. The teacher has knowledge, which she/he must impart to the child. The child comes to school ignorant.
5. Learning takes place in the classroom, not in the world.
Both of these elements in the industrial school paradigm, which did have significant validity early in the 20th century, are antiquated and no longer valid. In 1920 it was still true that children came to school with very little knowledge of the world other than what they had learned in daily life in the family. However, in today’s world of electronic media, children learn from many forms of media both at pre-school and school ages. Children also learn as much or more outside the classroom as they do inside.
6. There are smart kids and dumb kids—and kids who are smart are those who most quickly learn to manipulate the symbols of literacy and numeracy.
This is another pre-scientific bias. There are many kinds of human intelligence, and the conventional industrial school privileges one kind and ignores and stigmatizes others. Also, the speed of a child’s development of any particular form of intelligence in no ways reflects that child’s capacity for intelligence and competence as an adult.
7. Knowledge is organized into categories called subjects, and these subjects are the best vehicles for organizing knowledge of the world.
Our subject categories are historical artifacts both from medieval society and from 19th century academia. In the lives we live, almost all phenomena and almost all problems and challenges and tasks involve interdependent systems and are, thus, interdisciplinary.
8. The authorities in society determine what children should learn in school. Children’s interests, questions, and curiosity are irrelevant to the schooling process.
This is another pre-scientific notion. Research in psychology has demonstrated both that motivation to learn is a central force in promoting effective learning and that interest and curiosity generate motivation better than any other engine, better than punishments or rewards.
This industrial, modernist school paradigm is neither some sort of malfunction nor an accidental outcome. It is functioning exactly as was intended by its creators.
Rather than tinker around the edges of the paradigm, as some “reformers” suggest, or further intensify the paradigm’s command and control mechanisms, as the standards-and-testing and teacher-merit-pay advocates demand, we need to implement a new paradigm of schooling, a post-modern paradigm for a post-industrial era. The key elements in such a paradigm are already in use in post-modern schools all across the nation:
1. Personalization of learning
Multi-year relationships between students and teachers as the norm, with teachers gathering much more profound knowledge of each child and assuming much greater responsibility and accountability for the success of every child.
Engagement of students as co-designers of their own learning so that interest and curiosity are supported and promoted in every learning endeavor and motivation to learn is enhanced and put to good use.
Much more detailed assessment of student learning, conducted primarily for formative purposes.
Children’s differences are valued, and schools no longer strive to homogenize children’s intelligence and creativity.
2. The school as community, not as factory
Schools are sized so that all of the students are known well by several adults and so that all of the faculty and administration can sit around a table together and have a conversation.
Schools become much more permeable in that families, friends, and neighbors are connected to children’s lives within the school on an everyday basis.
3. The curriculum includes the conventional subjects, but the organizing principle for the curriculum is “big questions” that are generated as much by the children as by the teachers and that are fundamentally inter-disciplinary in character.
4. The insights from recent science that the mind and the body are profoundly interconnected and are actually one system are central to the school’s curriculum, so the arts of all kinds, physical education, and experience outdoors in the natural world are all intimately woven into daily life in the school.
5. The school calendar abandons the September-June 19th century format and instead engages students throughout the year.
Dear Secretary Duncan:
I teach a vocational course in a Southern California desert rural area. Standards are necessary as they give us a target to work towards. The problem with standards at state and national levels is we then must make the assumption that all teachers teach at those same levels. NCLB was already implemented by the time I started teaching. In the six years I’ve taught, I have never witnessed any two students receiving the same instruction demonstrate proficiency at the same level for any one occupational competency standard. How can we be so naïve as to think that any two teachers would perform any differently?
As we consider reauthorizing the NCLB, we need to consider our inability to meet the NCLB standards for the past eight years. Eight years! This would mean if we had been successful the students that started in kindergarten who are now in seventh grade would be performing well. News flash – they’re not! Now enter into the mix current budget cuts and a continuing downward spiral of student behavior. Do we truly believe that if we increase the standard level we would meet it under current conditions?!
By trying to raise the bar in education up to the standards of other countries, we neglect to realize these other countries only meet these standards with an elite group. If we truly want NO child left behind, then we need to implement standards that every student will be able to attain. Otherwise, we must resign to the fact that not every child will benefit from the education we offer – contrary to our verbalized goal.
It would be hard to suggest starting over, as any introduction of any new “system” would most likely be met with the usual criticism. People are tired of systems. What about going back to the basics? What about the idea of simplifying the pathway to success – which by the way cannot be defined internationally – so that our students can make choices that lead to successful, fulfilling lives? What do we really want our students to be able to do upon graduation from high school? How do we impress the importance of these goals upon students so they embrace it for themselves? First, you have to care. Do students really believe that we care?
In an attempt to “raise the bar” I have seen the morale of esteemed colleagues plunge. Relationships between administration and teachers, as well as between teachers and students, suffer because now it’s a huge “test” of performance for everyone. And due to NO accountability, all pass the buck.
There are no easy answers. What I do know is the current “system” isn’t working. And even after eight years of NCLB we need to recognize that nothing gets better overnight. While I’ve always quoted the old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” – I think we’re broken. With our plummeting economy we truly need to reconsider what the “ultimate goal” is for our students.
I work in an elementary school in Salem, Oregon. It takes the entire staff of our school to help students succeed. Therefore, I believe it should not just be teachers that are included in the conversations with the Education Secretary. There should be representatives from all staff groups: teachers, education support professionals, and administrators. This is the respectful thing to do and will also give a more accurate picture of what is happening in our country’s public schools.
Mr. Duncan,
When Mr. Obama was running against Ms. Clinton in the primaries, I was forced to vote against him due to his stance, or lack there of, on NCLB. Ms. Clinton was prepared to scrap one of the worst things that has ever happened to education. I note with sorrow that Mr. Obama has not followed suit.
Why?
More standardized testing is NOT an answer to anything. More charter schools only draws financial resources from public education and puts it into the pockets of corporations and individuals who are in it for profit. These schools also avoid the very standards that you have held up as essential.
Your standardized tests are a poor attempt at analyzing a schools effectiveness. A test does not measure the personal interaction that teachers and administrators have with the students we nurture. Standardized tests do not note the richness of the culture of a school. Standardized tests do not measure the value a school has on the individual and community. Standardized tests seek to make education a science. It isn’t. These tests will never be able to assess the individual student in a realistic manner. And they do not measure the stress and tension they cause all of us in education.
In recent months we have seen what deregulation did for our financial system. The proposals for charter schools and vouchers (when might you begin supporting those?) smack of an attempt to deregualte and privatize public education in this country. Our founders knew the value of an educated public and hence saw fit to encourage a free and open educational system for ALL. Charter schools and vouchers fly in the face of this vision. Standardized tests do as well.
Why do politicians ask for teacher imput and then ignore it? Why do YOU not truly talk to and listen to what we can tell you? If politicians left education alone we could actually do our jobs! Laws are passed that have little or no hope of being workable but politicians can then turn to their constituents and claim to have done something. Studies do not tell it all. But if you want a study look into the value of portfolios as compared to standardized tests and see if you do not come to understand that a portfolio is the best way to analyze student progress. Do you really want to do that or is it all just to play to the crowd you are trying to impress?
And how can you support a law, such as NCLB, that punishes a school even when significant progress is made? THAT is simply unfair.
I voted for Mr. Obama hoping that he would address this horribly flawed law in a reasonably and proactive way. Instead he, and yourself, sound like you have gone to the George Bush school of education! Where is the difference? I have yet to see it!
Come to my school (which is an inner city, Title 1 school I might add). Talk to the teachers honestly. Spend more time than one short visit. Spend some REAL time in a REAL school and see what these impossible laws are doing to public education. If more politicians actually spent serious time in the schools, laws such as NCLB would NEVER exist!
Thanks you for your time,
Jay Frederick
Molina High School
Dallas (Texas) Independent School District
High school elective courses can reinforce core academic standards.
At Oswego High School in Illinois, two rigorous Family and Consumer Science courses meet 22 Illinois English Standards. This was determined with the collaboration of the current and past English Department Chairpersons. In 2004, Oswego’s School Board unanimously approved a proposal for students to earn 1/2 English elective credit for each course.
As part of a grant this spring, colleges and universities in Illinois were contacted to see if they would accept these two Family and Consumer Science elective courses, Early Childhood Education 1 and 2, as ENGLISH ELECTIVE CREDIT for admission to their institutions. So far, the following colleges WILL accept the credit: Eastern Illinois, Illinois State, Millikin, Monmouth, Northern Illinois, and the University of Illinois.
This process of documenting the reinforcement of core concepts across disciplines to meet standards can be replicated.
Arlene Smolich, Teacher
Oswego High School
Oswego, Illinois
There are so many different views on the aims of education, that it seems that trying to create national standards might just be a waste of time. Creating a national education mission statement that all educators can work freely under might be easier and more unifying.
As a nation, I think we can agree on what we want for our children – big picture things like being responsible, honest, caring citizens with personal motivation for achievement and contributing to our community. Educators and parents have a responsibility to teach children how to be good and thoughtful adults – exactly what that looks like in a school is too complicated and depends on too many local factors and individual needs to attempt to standardize it.
Standards for high achieving schools are unnecessary because they are often exceeded. Standards for low achieving schools are unnecessary because the schools most likely do not need a test or standards to realize their students are in need of help. And neither tests nor standards help solve the problems those students or schools are having.
In short, I think the way to unify our nation in an educational sense is to create an educational purpose that is easy for all of us to agree on, then leave it up to local schools to determine the detailed work that goes in to educating our young people. Following that, there needs to be trust in the educators. They need to be given what they say they need to achieve their goals.
Proof that we have succeeded in educating our young people would not be a series of tests but a nation of people that treat each other well and work toward their highest potential.
I would appreciate knowing the schedule of the listening tour (places and times).
There doesn’t seem to be another place to ask this question, so I am posting here.
I applaud your desire to talk to those who are working in schools, but I do think that so much has been written about the problems with NCLB that you have enough information to begin to rework that legislation NOW. So many schools and districts are in crisis that relief must come sooner than later. Teachers need to be freed to teach the students they have what those students need, not what some test maker thinks they should know or be able to do.
While I agree we must prepare students for the changing workplace by changing the way we teach, I do not agree that we judge this readiness based on a test. Those of us who teach inner city students know not all of our students will make it to college. We would like for them to, but the reality is many of them simply drop out. We must have a plan in which students will stay and at least finish high school. Some students need alternatives to traditional education. We cannot keep failing them because they don’t pass a test. At my middle school we have students who have been held back so many times they can drive to 8th grade. I’m sorry but 16 year olds do not belong at the same school as 11 year olds. That is what NCLB has accomplished. The business people should tell the colleges what skills students need, the colleges should tell the high school, the high school should tell the middle schools, and the middle schools should tell the elementary schools. We all need to work together to revamp the education system and I mean educators working with business leaders, not more political grandstanding. Please know NCLB does more harm than good.
Mr Duncan,
Higher standards for our children must begin with higher standards for our teachers. In this regard NCLB hardley meets the challenge- Highly Qualified says almost nothing about high quality. As a profession we know the best ways to implement high quality instruction, yet too many teachers refuse to accept the responsibilities of a professional by learning and using these best instructional practices. In many colleges of education student teaching is a weak example of an internship, and professional development at the district level rarly touches on the day to day struggles teachers experience.
High quality teaching comes from a well monitored, rigerous, personalized internship where perspective teachers spend multiple semesters observing, reflecting, practicing, assessing, and evaluating effectiving teaching. High Quality teaching also comes from professional development in a well designed program that meets the same goals as described the internship.
I have solid examples of inbedded professional development that, against the odds of socioeconomics, is raising test scores because the students are learning content that matters in a strong learning environment. Please contact me if you want to know more.
Ken Jensen
Secondary Math Coach
Aurora Public Schools
Aurora Colorado
Higher Standards are of course necessary. Some good things have come out of NCLB but children are not raised the same nor do they have the same parents or start with the same cognitive skills. It is ridiculous to expect a learning disabled student with an IQ in the low 70s to be able to pass a grade level assessment without non-standard accomodations. This is the kind of thing that NCLB has brought to our schools. We may not be leaving children behind but we sure are beating them up with their disabilities.
I have read many of the comments, but as I appear to #185, I haven’t read them all. It’s a school night, after all, and I’ve got papers to grade.
Should we raise standards? Well, who’s going to say “no” to that? With all due respect Mr. Duncan, it’s not the right question. It simply invites too many platitudes about theories of education.
One problem is that we don’t all agree on the meaning of the word “raise”, I can guarantee you. It does not necessarily mean “add more”. I have taught high school mathematics for 17 years and will confine my comments to the California Math Content Standards. These standards need to be rewritten by educators and ONLY educators. Politicians and textbook publishers should be locked out of the process. I don’t mind having national standards if they are clear and succinct, and uncluttered by the need to “cover everything”. It should be assumed, for example, that a college-bound student will have an opportunity to take 4 years of math in high school, and doesn’t need to have every square inch of Algebra covered in three years. The famous description “mile wide and an inch deep” bitterly and accurately describes our approach to math education. Our math standards need rewriting and to be made more realistic. To me, that would qualify as “raising standards”.
Unfortunately, NCLB’s version of “raising standards” means simply raising the threshhold for program improvement status. Our educational system has seriously devolved since the introduction of NCLB. Slowly, schools have realized that playing the testing game is a matter of survival, and the pressure is growing. Soon, a majority of schools will be deemed failures in the eye of the public because of the arbitrary and completely disconnected way NCLB continues to increase the unfunded demands made on schools. As other commenters have noted, we have substituted critical thinking, analysis, synthesis and creativity for filling in the right bubble on an “answer document”. We don’t teach, we test prep. We don’t teach, we give test taking strategies. We don’t inspire our students, we incentivize them with bribes to be motivated to actually try on the blasted tests. Our whole system’s credibility rests not on the successes our students have in the classroom or after they leave us, or on the lives they create, but on “answer documents”! NCLB, as an accountability system needs to be totally scrapped. We’re fooling ourselves if we think we’re improving education just because our standardized test scores went up.
Mr Duncan, I commend you for asking educators’ opinions. Now, what are we going to do about it?
Dear Secretary Duncan,
Thank you so much for opening Pandora’s Box by asking for comments from educators regarding education. Our country has slid into a crisis in education for years and it is only by talking with each other can we determine the best course of action for the future of our democracy.
I recognize that you are addressing pieces of the entire system to make the conversation manageable, but there are such domino effects in changing one section and that fact has, I think, been ignored whenever the school systems have been tinkered with. I can only hope that you consider everything that the subject of raising standards touches. More questions than opinions are raised with your simple question regarding raising standards, and I am sure that you are addressing them, but from this teacher’s perspective:
As far as the actual standards:
Whose standards are you considering raising? Massachusetts’? Mississippi’s? Will it be a minimum standard or a goal to achieve, and who decides? Will ACT/Achieve decide the standards with surface input from educators, or will it be a group of experienced teachers and standards coordinators from across the country? Will the NBPTS and/or NSDC standards be considered? What if a state likes its own standards? Will federal money be withheld unless it proves that its standards meet the “common” standard? Does this apply to all content areas, even the most often ignored such as history and the arts?
To raise standards, one must have teachers who are prepared and supported and willing in order to teach those standards. College departments of education will have to become more rigorous in many cases to graduate teachers who are truly prepared to teach those higher standards. Who will pay for that and how will you get those colleges on board? What about the teachers already in the system? How will they be assessed to determine their abilities to teach to the standards? What about the teachers who are not teaching in their subfield but are qualified to teach in the general field, e.g. social science vs. US history or middle school science vs. biology? Who will pay for increasing their content knowledge and pedagogy skills in their area? When will the teachers gain this additional knowledge? At night? On the weekends? In the summer?
To raise standards, assessment has to be considered simultaneously. How will the standards be assessed? will it continue to be a one-shot deal, or will performance or formative assessments come into play? Will educators be involved or will assessement be completed by an outside source? Since you have to acknowledge that many students are not achieving even the lower standards, how can we convince the public that these students will rise to the higher ones? How will schools be helped to ensure that they have the means to successfully implement these higher standards WITHOUT WAIVERS!
Our dropout rate is atrocious and getting worse, placing untenable burdens on our welfare and prison systems. How can higher standards be implemented and not increase the students who just fade away into the system?
What does “higher standards” really mean? Does it mean that, instead of 216 knowledge and skills that a teacher must teach, now it is up to 300? Or does it mean that the amount of content is less but the depth is now plumbed?
As a skeptic, I cannot support higher standards until I see the whole package and believe that all the threads have been caught up and accounted for. Frankly, changing one part of the education system while keeping the rest the same is a ludicrous as adding a new HVAC to a house with 1920s ducting. It will cost a lot of money and look good on the outside, but the output will not be efficient or satisfactory, and everyone will say that the HVAC is flawed and demand another overhaul.
As a foreign language teacher I recommend teaching a foreign language in the elementary schools and the classes should not have more than 15 students.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
Thank you for opening up the conversation about public education. Althought I could write more than one would care to read I want to comment on two issues. First, in regards to AYP, I hope you can see that 100% of everyone cannot meet a predetermined standard 100% of the time. I hope a growth model is put into place to measure what like students do from year to year. This is a better measrue of the question, are children learning? Notice, I am not advocating a decline in accountability. Just a different way in which we determine if a school is teaching children or not.
Secondly, I am a superintendent in a rural school district 90 miles straight south of Chicago. I can tell you that one of the reasons why we are doing well is the REAP Grant. This allows small rural schools to still have money for the much needed workshops and the like that allow our teachers to continue to grow. I must also say however, that school districts in rural areas need help with their physical plants. We cannot continue to tax our people the way we have been. We are using a 90 year old grade school and a 100 year old high school. And yes, we are still using the original boilers for both! Our kids are learning and growing sir and I hope you spend some time in rural America so that you can feel good about what happens outside the invisible walls of urban America.
Thank you,
Dale Hastings
As a retired teacher , I find myself , I think , seeing the forest better ,instead of just the trees : N.C.L.B. has reeked havoc with creative teaching . Generally speaking , the requirements are debilitating enough , but then those requirements were never fully funded by the federal government . N.C.L.B. is a slap in the face of the professional expertise that I witnessed in my schools .
Regarding testing , minimum standards , etc., I believe that the public schools are a symptom of a problem , NOT the cause of a problem . I firmly believe that if corporate business in this country was required to pay a living wage for ALL jobs , 70% of the problems in the schools would be solved . Each family would have the option of one parent staying home to rear the children . I also believe that the constant rant about ‘ good ‘ and ‘ bad ‘ scools is wrong . Teaching staffs in general are very similar in the quality of professionalism . They are , however , not magicians and are able to work only with the ‘ clientele ‘ in front of them . Children from affluent areas are different from children of depressed areas ONLY in their level of opportunity . Given an ‘ equal ‘ first five years of rearing , the situation would be vastly improved . ( See corporate requirements above )
Much of the criticism of our public schools started in the 1980s with the Carnegie foundation’s funding of ” A Nation At Risk ” . Many well-meaning ” experts ” took this book as gospel . What they didn’t read was ” The Manufactured Crisis ” By D. Berliner and D. Biddle . This book completely disproved the contentions of ” A Nation At Risk ” , but it was too late : the genie was out of the bottle !
Sincerely ,
John Cramer
Thank you for giving me a voice in this process of deciding the pivotal issues facing our esteemed institution. I have been a teacher for approximately twelve years; however, I have had various jobs throughout my life. I have been a sailor, a sales associate, a truck driver, a retail manager, a food service worker and a receptionist. Teaching is my vocation of choice, and I am appreciative of the opportunities that I have had to serve in this capacity. I apologize for the length of my correspondence, but I am both obligated and compelled, by my very nature, to express candidly my experience in our public schools. Let me begin by emphasizing that the observations I make are consistent with both public and parochial schools – as I have had the great fortune of teaching in both.
Raising standards for student achievement will prove disastrously ineffective unless we first raise the standards for student discipline. Test scores, class ranks and individual achievement mean nothing unless the students are intrinsically motivated and exhibit a positive work ethic – this is a rare and endangered specimen in our current public school system. This phenomenon is only slightly different in the parochial schools, since administrative limitations are fewer and parent-involvement is required. Regardless of the degree of similarity, the point is, to what do we attribute this commonality? The fact that students lack the requisite characteristics to prove successful in academia may not be entirely their fault. For it is the public institutions that fail to teach to the students’ needs. Rather, we consistently ignore trends in career preparation, technological advancement and basic student aptitudes that guarantee their interests and genuine effort in the classroom. The antiquated methods of instruction that teachers continuously employ were for students of a different time period.
To effect the change we desire, we first must insist that student achievement is the student’s responsibility. Yes, a teacher is a motivator and facilitator, but let me remind you of the old cliché about the proverbial horse and his water. The Department of Education, in cooperation and collaboration with the legislative and judiciary bodies, must make more stringent laws that hold children – especially teens – accountable for their incorrigibility. Government offices, in their ignorance of the real problems, are too quick to craft laws that increase accountability in the staff (which is fine when necessary and applicable) but what about the students? We have a responsibility to teach, but what about their responsibility to learn? I can’t tell you how many times teachers, auxiliary staff, other students and the parents of delinquent youths all over this country have been verbally and physically abused by the “reluctant learners” who suffer from nothing more than an unwillingness to be civil and receive their education. They are intelligent enough to improve outcomes, but do not possess the fortitude, attitude or interest to do so. The question that must be addressed is why are they allowed to remain in the classroom and to terrorize their peers and school personnel? The answer I am consistently given is that ‘we must keep them in a general-population classroom because the abusive students are protected by the law’ – regulations that the students manipulate to their own belligerent ends.
What is broken within our current system is not our standards and benchmarks. If the students were properly motivated to their appropriate level of achievement, they would achieve by their own merit and of their own volition. Much of the instructional time a teacher spends in the classroom is thwarted by or diverted for addressing the most reprehensible disciplinary problems. For example, a student in one of the schools in which I’ve taught defecated on a teacher’s desk and was allowed to remain at the school because “he had problems.” I am not a brilliant person, but I am smart enough to define this animalistic behavior as that which is devoid of even the most primitive of social skills. Behavioral modification programs, in instances like the one I’ve just described, do not help because many of them are delivered in the same manner in which the “reluctant” student has already rebelled against. Outside programs like Ombudsmen do little to avert the undesirable behavior as well, since they do not possess the punitive power to enforce the compulsory obligation of the student – nor the bars to keep them there and correctional officers to ensure that they do. Instructional staff assigned to these special classrooms do not have the ‘clout’ to affect the desired change in these students. What’s more, many students use schools as a social forum for activities that have nothing to do with education and may even be criminal. Schools – even those with cameras – cannot enforce the simplest of rules let alone the more egregious offenses because the perpetrators are so clever at hiding their crimes. Other students are powerless to help in the cause due to fear of peer retaliation or their ‘teen code’ that prohibits them from being an informant. Teachers cannot even remove a child from a classroom on suspicion for fear they will be sued, fired or both. The teachers, administrators, law enforcement officials and community are ensnared by ridiculously ineffective procedures for dealing with delinquents in our schools.
Disciplinary procedures must be carefully considered. Militant procedures were – and I do mean were – once an effective means of control, but today that authoritative approach is met with obstinate consternation if not an immediate and aggressive, physical retaliation, because students have their First Amendment Rights – which they perceive as the right to say and do as they please, as well as the right to come and go as they please. Now that student rights dictate classroom procedures, teachers have little ability to affect a change in student behavior. Iron-fisted parents, administrators, laws and law enforcement officials are our only allies on the front-lines. If you think this is not a battleground here, someone has deceived you. But if the militant approach is not the answer, there has to be another way. Isolating students from the general population is the “vacation” these kinds of students crave, and yet, we consistently cater to that very demand and thereby subjugate our own intent to intervene and change the maladaptive behavior. The only answer is a separate, lockdown facility for students who WILL NOT comply.
Just as the department of education must find remedies for student behavior, they need, likewise, to address our current instructional methods before augmenting the standards and benchmarks. By the time the studies concerning new teaching methods are published and disseminated to those of us who need them, they are already antiquated. The same is true for electronic classroom technology. Explore innovative delivery methods such as avatar-based learning and stop wasting money on technology that is already archaic to our students. Allow students to use PDA’s and I-Pods in the classrooms as educational tools. Begin technological research in the classroom. Permit elementary, secondary and post-secondary staff to pilot new programs they have proven locally to be effective and manageable without additional allocations of instructional dollars. Better yet, divert funds from those proven to be ineffective to pilot new ideas. Don’t wait for administrators to tell you what students need – they are often so busy with their own level of concerns that they forget the classroom dynamics or remember them from a by-gone period in their own lives that is no longer anymore valid then the technology of their day. Their wisdom and experience are invaluable at the administrative level, but classrooms are a teacher’s forte. Therefore, solicit input from teachers on a regular basis via a delivery method in which everyone’s ideas are considered and respected. This one is good, but only if a real person responds with a hand-typed, personal return email – not the automated kind many people find diminishingly impersonal and downright offensive.
Education is guilty of exacerbating the problems that we face due to our own resistance to change. We would not want an attorney, surgeon or law enforcement official practicing their respective crafts applying the laws of antiquity, so why would we allow it in our schools. For all of the effort spent ‘teaching us old dogs new tricks,’ most revert back to classroom instruction by lecture and silent, segregated seating arrangements just to keep the peace and avoid confrontation between students and staff; even though, we are ALL fully aware that this is not the proven, best method of instruction. The real problem of classroom management is not the teacher’s lack of expertise in execution; rather, it is the sheer size of the classes. There are too many students – most with special needs – for one teacher to instruct, at least not with 20 to 30 students in a classroom. Because many students require individual accommodations, differentiation of instruction, and one-on-one time with the teacher in order to grasp certain concepts, teachers do not have adequate time to devote to each student with the current class size numbers. It might behoove the department to set an across-the-board formula for class size based on the number of special needs students, rather than use a formula that allows certain individuals to manipulate numbers to their own wills and agendas. For example some states have a formula for class size that says one special needs student equals three students without special needs. Such a formula guarantees that teachers who must work with these students have the class size reduction to facilitate individual needs-based instruction.
There is a mountain under this institution’s carpet we’ve all been sweeping there for years. It is time to stop denying the obvious truth of our dilemma and grab ourselves by the short-hairs and actually do something forward-thinking and effective to change the lack of interest, motivation and discipline in our nation’s students. Many districts have alternative schools that are, for all intents and purposes – prisons. It’s a sad system of intervention within public education, but a necessary one nonetheless. The laws that dictate the consequences for maladaptive behavior must possess the teeth with which to take that ‘bite out of the crime’ that our Interventions and preventions mean to assuage. This is a pervasive problem that WILL NOT go away by ignoring it. We’ve been trying that for decades. It’s not working. It never has.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts on the matter. I apologize for the acrid tone of my pontification. I appreciate having a voice in this process.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Lorianne Mellendorf-Oxley
ELL Teacher, KWHS, Florida
Why would we go with a strategy of one size fits all in regard to standards and who is actually going to be on a committee to determine what the standards are and how to assess them fairly and what is their expertise in this field? Why are we killing the creativity in all children attending Public Schools with this over emphasis on TESTING? Private school parents would never put up with this behaVior for their own children, so what is behind this out of control attitude toward pressuring educators to teach to a test and worse there is no accountability for the students in this game we are playing with their lives and futures so their behavior has not had to change. Are we trying to change their student’s behavior and performance level without holding them accountable in any manner? We will see that as we have fewer creative thinkers and other countries start to
have more patents for new ideas and we lose the biggest advantage we had, then it will be too late to gain back our advantage in the IDEA field. As one person said, why would we want to do what second and third place economies do?
How about writing standards for politicians and testing them to death?
NCLB and high stakes testing do NOT add value. In fact, NCLB and high stakes testing have been huge distractions regarding learning.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
I am a parent of a special needs child and a highly capable (gifted) child. We live in Washington State, and though I am all for higher standards and pushing each child to be their best, I must object to the way it is currently being handled through the NCLB law. As it stands now, all children, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, are being held to the same standards. The world is made up of all sorts of people, and not all people are the same when it comes how they learn, or what they learn. To expect that all children learn the same things, at the same rate, is unrealistic.
When it comes to special needs children, not all can attain the same level of knowledge as a child without special needs.Some may eventually reach the same level, just months or years later than their peers. Others may never learn the same level of knowledge. To expect them too, and when they fail to meet that goal, punish the school for not teaching them enough, and punish the child by “telling” them they are a failure because they couldn’t pass a standard achievement test is just wrong. For example, our son has dyscalculia and is unable to learn math past the 3rd grade level (he is now in 12th grade). He has been taking our state math test every 6 months for the past 3 years of high school, and has yet to pass it. He already has a low self esteem about his math issues, and to fail this test 5 times in a row has blown his self esteem right out the door. Unfortuantly, in our state it is required that they take the test every 6 months until they pass it or graduate from high school, which ever comes first. If you don’t do this, you’re not allowed to graduate. My son is learning his math goals and objectives in the time frame decided upon by the IEP team. This is why we should be focusing on whether or not the child is achieving the goals on their IEP, and holding the schools more responsible for actually teaching to these goals, instead of teaching to the standardized test. Have the child tested to their knowledge of those goals, and if they pass, then we know they are learning. They’re just learning at their own pace. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that because the IDEA law exists, schools follow the law. They don’t. They don’t have the funding by the federal government to be able to administer the IDEA law the way it was meant too. Instead they cut corners hoping against hope that they won’t be sued by a parent for not following the law. It’s a gamble, but one that usually they win. This only further hurts the special needs population of children.
On the other hand, to deny a gifted child from reaching their full potential because a school has sunk all their resources into the general curriculum to make sure that the majority of their kids can pass a certain standardized test is also wrong. We are denying these children the potential ability to excell and maybe one day be that next Albert Einstein. There should be a federal mandate, with funding, to all public schools k-12 to offer AP classes. At least in the basics of math, science, and english. For example, our son is gifted at science, math, and english. However, our middle school doesn’t have a gifted program. Sure a kid could take 7th grade math or english as a 6th grader, but that’s it. There is no option for science, and no ability to take a higher level of math or english than one grade level. If it were mandated to offer these classes, we would be allowing gifted childen the chance to reach their full potential, not being stuck only learning to the level the district can afford to offer.
To recap, I feel that the federal government should adequately fund the IDEA law, and institute a law that would require all public k-12 schools to offer AP classes. In addition, the testing requirements for special needs children should be changed to focus on each individual childs IEP goals and objectives, and whether or not they are being learned. Lastly, I would like to say that I think there should be only one standardized test for the general population of students to take and show what they have learned. It is awful hard to compare students from state to state, when each has their own test, and those tests are testing to different standards.
Thank you.
I am a high school math teacher at a suburban school in Illinois. I definitely support having national standards and national tests. Having each state give different tests does not give a true picture of the educational achievement of students. I would love to be able to see how my students compare to national standards and even international standards. It would be great to have agreed upon national standards at each level. I like the idea of having at least a majority of the test for NCLB be the same for each state and then perhaps leave some amount that could be up to each individual state. That might be a good way to compromise between national control and more local control of the curriculum.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
Thank you very much for providing us the opportunity to express our opinion about this topic. Every time I hear President Obama talking about education, I want to be next to him to explain how I feel about our education system. Three years ago I decided to become a teacher because I felt it was what I really wanted to do in life; and I was right. Even though I cannot say I am an experienced teacher, I listen to my co-teachers and their opinions are very similar to what I am about to express.
Every time I have a staff meeting or read an article about education, I feel everybody expects me and my colleagues to save all the students (and the world!). Even though that motivates me to do my best every day, it also makes me feel that I am failing because it is an impossible goal. I am aware that there are some teachers that should not be allowed to teach (I have seen them), but there are many who are really dedicated. After experiencing our standardized test for the first time, I came to the following conclusion: standardized tests exist because school districts and administrators lack supervision tools when evaluating teachers. If the bar was raised when hiring teachers and supervision in schools was better, our students would be well prepared for college.
I believe we need a way to measure what students are learning in the classroom but I am not sure if a “one fits all” test is the solution. Should the standards be higher? Yes, I believe so, but when and how are you going to make parents understand that, when teachers and administrators are doing their job well, they are the only ones responsible for their kids’ education? How can you make a student responsible for their grades when some subjects offer an online course that students can complete during summer and replace an “F” with a “B” (without having a reasonable excuse)? We keep comparing our education system with countries like China. In China, people learn to obey and do what they are told to do. Our society is not the same. Our society takes many, many things for granted and (thanks to God) opportunities to study and succeed are provided to all citizens. If the standards are raised, students should understand that they have to work and be disciplined to achieve success.
I do not agree with standardized tests because we are working with human beings and it is impossible to get the same results from everybody. If we keep solving all the problems only with tests, are we going to start feeding the students with techniques on how to pass them and stop teaching in a creative and motivational way because that is the only way the school will get more money? Why do we measure intelligence with I.Q. tests or keep talking to teachers about multiple intelligences if we believe everybody is smart and have the same skills? Every day our classes grow in number and we keep getting more students labeled under the 504 plan. How do you plan to raise the standards for them?
When creating a plan to improve our education system, if you really believe in globalization, please require our future professionals and workforce to be knowledgeable of other cultures and learn a second language starting in early school years. As a second language teacher it is very disappointing seeing students having no empathy or understanding of other cultures. People feel pleased and appreciative when others learn to communicate in their native language. This will definitely open new doors when looking for business in other parts of the world. It is time to open our minds and stop thinking the whole world should learn our language when we can become bilingual as well.
Once again, thank you for asking our opinion.
I’ve always believed that standards need to be at high levels in order to prepare students for their future. I believe in providing challenging curriculum at every level and in all core subject areas. However, as a former alternative education teacher and leader, I also believe that we cannot overlook the cultural and socioeconomic level of the students in our communities. Students who have lower skills need to be instructed at their skill levels in order for them to increase their proficiench in each core curricular area. Too many of our young students are entering school below grade levels in reading. This area needs to be addressed prior to raising standards for all students.
Higher standards. That term has come to have such negative connotations with most of the teachers I work with and know. It has become negative not because we don’t expect our children to achieve, but because it does not recognize the individuality of the child. In fact, NCLB as a whole does not recognize children as individuals. I have come to the conclusion through my own personal experiences, that politicians and the individuals who work in the government offices have long forgotten that we are dealing with CHILDREN! I have worked with a wide range of abilities and backgrounds during my 22 years in the classroom. When all the grand edicts come down about the children need achieve at certain levels and there will be no excuses, the powers that be are ignoring the fact that these are human beings with emotions, desires, differing personal backgrounds, etc. Tell the child who comes to school concerned because her brother went to jail last night that she must master adding fractions today. Or how about the child who spent the night on the floor at someone’s house because the family was evicted. Is that child going to concentrate on mastering the comprehension skill of the day? And what about the child who is doing their best, but just can’t crack the code to become a great reader? Do we label all these children failures because they aren’t meeting arbitrary standards that some people in an office somewhere have decided are what needs to be mastered? And what of parent responsibility? Are we saying that the people who created these children and brought them into the world have no responsibility for how well they do in school?
Do we need high EXPECTATIONS? Absolutely! Should we punish children for not meeting those expectations if they are working to their best? NO!!! What we need are basic skills which need to be covered at each grade level that will allow children the opportunity to leave high school capable of functioning in society. Those children interested in going to college should have higher level classes available. But in our society, we need people to do all sorts of jobs. We need landscapers, construction workers, fast food employees, teachers, doctors, lawyers, businesspeople, painters, artists, writers, taxi drivers, pilots, security guards, etc. Do all of those require a college education? No. Do they require basic math, reading, and writing skills to successfully do their job and function in society? Yes. And yet, our policy makers have decided every child must master the same skill set, or the schools will be punished. so we have forced our schools to begin producing “Good Test-Takers.” Gone are the days of being proud to produce well-rounded individuals. Our focus is test, test, test.
Before any changes are made and before any standards are raised, I challenge all those involved to actually spend some MEANINGFUL time in a classroom. A low income classroom. Several weeks, not a few token minutes. Actually come and do a teacher’s job. Plan lessons and attempt to implement them. Talk to the children and their parents. Really find out what you’re talking about. My school is an underperforming school. I invite Secretary Duncan or any of his “people” to come spend some time with us. Walk the walk.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
As far as national standards go, I do believe that it would be a useful tool for teachers in all curriculum areas. There are some basic concepts that all high school graduates should know, regardless of where they live in the nation. What makes this difficult is the fact that not all schools have the necessary resources to help every student to succeed. How are schools supposed to improve student performance when they do not have proper books, functional computers, or other resources? Often money is alloted to schools that continue to do well. This is great, but at the same time, how is the lower rated school supposed to magically improve everything when all of their materials are outdated?
I agree that teachers and the entire school establishment should have high expectations for their students. They need to push themselves instead of accepting mediocrity. While much of NCLB makes the school or teachers accountable, you must realize the need for STUDENT’S Accountibility to be increased. Many students come from bad home situations or a home where education is not important. If a student didn’t have breakfast or is afraid to go home because they are dealing with abuse or any other random situations, it should not be the teacher’s fault that they are not performing well on tests. Some students dislike school and are totally apathetic to assignments and tasks no matter how creative or ingenius a lesson is. You can lead a horse to water but cannot force him to drink it. All children have the right to a free education – they also should have the right to choose not to partake if they choose. Obviously we all as teachers and parents hope that our children take the opportunity for a free education, but the truth is that it will not always happen. Let them get their GEDs when they finally realize the importance of an education if they choose that path. Finally, while reading, writing, and arithmetic are the most frequently ‘used’ after high school, it is still important for children to get a well rounded education. That means NOT cutting programs in the arts simply because they’re “extra” and won’t be on “the test.” Even in the senior high, these are still Kids. They still need opportunities to use their imagination or think outside the box without being necessarily ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ all of the time. How would we have new inventions without people thinking outside of the box?
The stress on high performance testing has caused many educators to “teach to the test” and cut curriculum to the core – eliminating some truly wonderful pieces of literature, experiments, and more simply to prepare for state mandated tests.
I wish you luck as you work to revise NCLB and hope that the government truly listens to teachers, parents, and students as you make your reforms.
What does work with NCLB: are the mandates to make the schools be much more aware of the learning needs of our children and the idea that state schools are required to be accountable.
What does NOT work: the unreasonable conditions that the schools and the teachers are working under; the time restraints are unreasonable, the money/funding is not consistent and the professional staffing is unreasonable, inadequate or simply not appropriate; too many teachers employed with out truly knowing how to teach.
What issues are contributing to the teachers’ inadequacies are the issues surrounding the process of certification and re-certification. There are so many people in this nation who are being recruited from other businesses and work forces (change of careers) to teach in classrooms and they simply cannot teach, yet they are given special treatment because of their previous occupation. Well, those of us who are teachers, have been taught to teach and did not take “short cuts” are being passed over for employment opportunities by these “change of career teachers”; children are not being given proper instruction because of it.
We teachers and administrators have so much to deal with in regard to serving the whole child, not to mention the baggage that children bring to school; from poverty to dysfunctional family issues; being raised with close to no ethics, no morals and no values.
I’m a teacher in the south suburbs of Chicago. I’ve admired many of the reasonable and realistic changes and improvements that Arne Duncan sanctioned while working with the teachers of Chicago. I pray that he will make those reasonable and realistic differences for our nation.
I have for the past seventeen years given leadership to the community organization, One Church One School, A Community Partnership Program. I have also taught children in a public school system and served several years as a school principal.
I agree with basic standards in our schools.
However, I know that it is so very important to have a culture and climate that is nurturing to the whole child. For, whatever, the academic discipline, the well being of the child’s total humanity will be the greatest determinat to his academic, social and personal development.
When the status of the school and the future of the student is solely dependent upon single test scores, the achievement and accomplishipments of that entire school community is depressed.
This whole child philosophy, extending from John Dewey to many present day educators has done well by American school students.
As a teacher, I participated in the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In my expierience, I have found that those times when the Act supported this whole child philosophy, and multiple assessements determined success, the American citizenry thrived.
Lastly, One such project that is a model for the new ESEA is Project CANAL (Creating A New Approach to Learning). Although it began in 1988, like Dewey’s philosophy, its impact remains with students, parents, teachers, administrators and communitites today. It took a whole school community approach to educating its children and supporting its teachers.
The reality is (once one walks around the west/south side of Chicago) inner-city students have higher than the average needs….stop studying the “problem” and take 10 minutes to walk around the west-side….the solution is so incredibly obvious! Lower class sizes dramatically and offer “Conflict Resolution” as a core/mandatory subject as being able to express one’s feelings constructively is as important as learning how to add and subtract/read/write. Oh, also, provide many counselors per school as our students’ need to be able to talk to someone to help them cope with their many issues (self-mutilation, violence, stealing, confusion about right and wrong, etc.)
Be real about providing an education and stop hiding behind excuses and budget constraints. Make school districts dramatically smaller (CPS has 600+ schools????) and provide conflict resolution techniques to the teachers….
Thank you for listening as this is refreshing and best to you!
At my earlier comment (No. 161), I had offered some suggestions to help ensure that the many good suggestions here are actually taken heed of by the powers-that-be, and subsequently that they are represented in the ‘Action Plan on education’ that the department must present in order to realize the ambitious Mission: “To provide every child in America a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career”
Herewith, directly following my signature, I list some of the ‘elements’ that I’ve culled from a few of posts that have come in thus far.
What’s needed is to create an effective Action Plan from those elements. Powerful (but very simple and easy to use) tools are readily available to help do that – I’ve provided some brief information about these tools in my posting at No. 161.
GSC
LIST OF SOME USEFUL ELEMENTS EXTRACTED FROM SOME OF THE RESPONSES APPEARING THUS FAR:
+++
MISSION: “To provide every child in America a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career”
1) To set *workable*, *effective* standards both nationally and locally to meet all needs of a sound educational system
To develop excellent AP courses in all disciplines
2) To ensure that the negative connotations associated with ’standards’ are properly handled
3) To ensure that the cultural and socioeconomic levels of the students in our communities are never overlooked in our efforts to improve education
4) To require our future professionals and workforce to be knowledgeable and adequately respectful of other cultures
5) In our ‘drive to test’: to ensure that our system takes full cognizance of the fact that each human being is unique and different from others
6) To ensure that our gifted students are not prevented from reaching their full potential because their school has sunk all its resources into the general curriculum to make children pass standardized tests
7) To provide for a federal mandate, with adequate funding, for all public schools to offer excellent AP (advanced placement) classes and special classes for gifted children
9) To ensure that children are not stuck only learning to the level the district can afford to offer
10) To develop appropriate standards and tests for politicians and bureaucrats – and ensure that they live up to them!
11) To channel funds from programs demonstrated to be ineffective to innovative, *workable*, *effective* new programs
12) To Explore innovative delivery methods such as avatar-based learning
13) To stop wasting money on technology that is already archaic to our students
14) To ensure that iron-fisted parents, administrators, laws and law enforcement officials do not have powers that they do not deserve over our students and student careers
15) To Begin technological research in the classroom
16) To Permit elementary, secondary and post-secondary staff to pilot new programs they have proven locally to be effective and manageable without additional allocations of instructional dollars
17) To ensure that administrators NEVER forget the role of “classroom dynamics in the real world”
18) To solicit input from teachers on a regular basis via a delivery method in which everyone’s ideas are considered and respected
19) To ensure that each student is properly motivated to his/her appropriate level of achievement
20) To ensure our public school teaching is not limited to the antiquated ‘lecture type’
21) To ensure that our children get a truly well-rounded education
22) To ensure that parents take adequate interest and responsibility in their children’s learning
23) To provide challenging curricula in all core discipline areas
24) To enable and ensure that students lacking needed skills are brought ‘up to speed’ as needed
25) To ensure that administrators actually “walk the walk”
26) To ensure that teachers at all levels are properly motivated to perform
27) To ensure that basic needed skills are imparted to all students at each grade level
28) Federal government: To adequately fund the IDEA law
29) To ensure real accountability at every level from all involved in education: teachers, administrators, parents, students – AND politicians!
30) To ensure we have enough qualified teachers at each level of the school system
+++
I sent the following to President Obama and had no acknowledgement.
I am a teacher educator in a PA liberal arts college. I recently gave my students (pre-service teachers) an assignment in my Social Foundations of Education course to compose their recommendations for the new administration’s policy towards education. Social Foundations of Education is their first course in the College education department. They are just starting their journey to becoming teachers and already have strong thoughts and feelings about the changes needed in K-12 schools.
My students’ recommendations are as follows. They hope that you will take their views seriously and embrace them as part of your educational policy. All of the recommendations are in some ways related to the 2001 elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left behind:
1) Multicultural Education/Culturally Relevant & Responsive Education
•Urge school systems to provide equal attention to all school subjects (content areas), whether subjects are part of the core curriculum or not.
•Provide guidelines that encourage teachers not to censor what they are teaching. Teachers should give students both sides of arguments so they can make educated decisions. This teaching strategy supports higher order critical thinking. Teachers should also be aware that different teaching theories lead to different outcomes for students.
•Develop culturally responsive and relevant, multicultural teaching and learning strategies that support students’ different learning styles in the classroom.
•Develop guidelines that encourage states and school districts to allocate an equal time frame within the school day for all types of school-related programs to encourage universal participation.
•Urge states and schools districts to place more importance on a well-rounded education, incorporating the arts and social justice, rather than schooling students for competitive purposes that serve the economic system in general and corporations in particular.
Adequate Yearly Progress
•Review and change, as opposed to reform, No Child Left Behind.
•Cutting funding/punishing to schools that do not meet AYP is not working. Support students and schools that are “failing” by increasing funding to these schools, and distributing money more equally and efficiently.
•Schools should be held to standards that meet the needs of their students, rather than imposing the same standard on all schools, in “rich schools districts” and in “poor schools districts.”
High Stakes Testing
•Decrease dependency on standardized tests in order to assess whether students should move to a higher-grade level.
•Reduce the frequency of high stakes testing and encourage individual student development/Put less emphasis on high stakes testing in order to allow for more individual student assessment.
•Develop multiple, and more creative means of assessment than standardized testing. “Education” as opposed to “schooling” is complex and, in the main, uncontrollable. You cannot measure whether or not a student has been educated by a standardized test.
Highly Qualified Teachers
•Whether or not teachers are highly qualified under NCLB, they should be assessed by peers who have been able to engage their own students in the educational process and develop their students’ critical and creative thinking. These peers should come in and observe the teacher rather than assessment being judged by the results of high stakes tests taken by their students. There is a better way of deciding whether or not a teacher is effective in the classroom.
•For their certification, have elementary teachers take a complex exam in an area of expertise and a general overview of their sub-fields that requires critical and creative thinking, as opposed to taking a multiple choice high stakes test.
•Reduce the costs associated with certification and increase teachers’ salaries if you are to encourage more low–income people and people of color to go I into teaching/We urge the government to establish a fair and equitable salary for those employed by school districts/
Federal v State/Local Control of Education
•We note the growth in federal control over education. We recommend that federal and state governments allow for more localized control within school districts to direct individualized educational structures, within the above federal guidelines and oversight.
Rationales:
Group One
The NCLB policies regarding Adequate Yearly Progress are not benefiting America’s schools. We feel it is necessary to evaluate and review these policies. The rationale that “failing” schools are failing because they are not trying to improve is unfounded. Consequently, it is important to support “failing” schools by providing them with additional funding and teacher support rather than taking money away as a punishment. For schools to improve, they need money that is allocated equitably and efficiently.
Group Two
There is no evidence that suggests that taking money away from struggling schools actually benefits the schools that have their funding taken away. The idea is that the risk of losing funding will motivate schools to improve. However, schools cannot improve regardless of how hard they work because they do not have enough funding and/or NCLB has resulted in their not being able to pursue critical multicultural teaching and learning policies. This approach only creates a vicious cycle of failure. Instead, our government should be giving more money to those schools that are struggling to help them succeed, and support alternative teaching approaches. Continuing the current policy will only lead to more school failure. While some may believe that this would be acceptable in order to motivate schools, we do not believe that the majority of Americans would agree.
Group Three
The federal government should develop a set of broad foundational standards but allow local governments to adjust those standards to fit the needs of their students. In theory, local school districts and schools know best the issues associate with culture, socioeconomic class, race, gender etc. faced by students, and thus can better fulfill their needs. The local government can also better assess their students’ learning, especially in ways outside of standardized testing.
Group Four
…Because a greater emphasis should be placed on students’ overall academic progress over the course of a year rather than the results of one test.
…Because students come from diverse backgrounds with various learning strengths and weaknesses. Assessment should mimic this diversity.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
I’m a mom, a certified teacher, and currently represent a curriculum supply company so I am in dozens of schools every week – public districts and charters plus private schools. I have a child in a private school and a child in a neighboring ditrict through a school choice program. So, I have the unique opportunity to be an educated observer and user of all education providers.
I’m very concerned about the proposed solution for low standards and low performance of giving parents a choice of schools with the explanation that because of competition, schools will have to raise the bar. First, I think there is now evidence that school districts’ performance has not gone up in response to competition with each other or charters. That makes sense because if their revenue is cut through declining enrollmnet, their ability to provide the best education is cut. The answer to that is consolidating school districts and constantly reorganizing them to utilize the funds they have well but schools are not like car companies – that can constantly restructure and still provide consistent product.
In my observations, what I see is that parents have choice but not much choice for anything better yet – it may be different but not better. It’s like Walmart competing for business with the old main street stores – the consumer may have more options and lowering prices for a while but eventually, the main street stores just can’t compete and you end up with just Walmart and I don’t think that is the level of education we want to achieve. (Hope you followed that analogy and I have nothing against Walmart in general.)
A concern that I do not often hear expressed is this – schools are the heart and soul of our communities. As I am not participating in the schools in my local community, my family is disconnected from our neighbors. I feel that parents shipping their kids to a variety of different schools based on what is the best available to them at the time pulls apart families, neighborhoods, and communities. I would rather keep my children in the neighborhood school and focus my efforts on supporting and connecting with my community.
Final points – kids should not have to constantly move schools seeking the best available education as that cannot be best for their overall development and well-being. I barely feel qualified to select the best schools for my children and I have some basis for making a good decision. I don’t think most parents have the information or background to judge what school is really the best for their children without some very specific direction. Schools of choice seems a problematic solution and I hope for a better solution for my children, my clients, and our nation’s future.
I am a product of Prince George’s County Public School system. I have two children attending schools in the county and am very, very disappointed in the system. I have found the following to be true:
Teachers:
I do not think that persons who fail to meet certification should be allow to teach our students. It is unfair to the students and to the community as a whole. If an individual wants to be a teacher then he/she should have the ncessary crendials to enter into this field of expertise. They should be made dress professionally so that parents can recognzie the teachers.
Testing:
Our Public Schools are so intensive with making sure students pass the mandatory testing, to ensure they receive federal funding, that they are failing to educate our children with the basics. Everything is on time schedules. If a students has not grasp the concept the he/she is left behind. There are no resources to assist students who are struggling. To make testing a mandate in order to receive a diploma is ridiculous. Some students carry a 4.0 gpa and still can not pass the HSA which indicates a break down in the system. I think teachers and administrators alike should be given the test to see if they can pass. If a they fail then they should be FIRED. If you can not pass a test for which you are suppose to teach the students, then you are not capable of teaching that which you do not understand. If it can stop our children from receiving a HS diploma then it should stop persons who are not capable of passing from teaching out students.
School bounders:
Every year PG County has changed there bounders for school. This the bounders only disrupt the students and break down the system further. Right in Capitol Heights they are literally trading students between William Hall and Bradbury Heights. To many of the students it is their second home and they are familiar and comfortable with the teachers/administrators of their school. Now for what appears to be no reason they are being up rooted and shuffled across the street literally.
I find it unfair to send students who have accomplished the right to move on to the upper grades to be made to return to elementary. (i.e. 7/8th graders) It is a right of passage to move on as an upper classman. It has been earned an is well deserved. Students have nothing to look forward to when you will attend the same school through the 8th grade. They need to return to 7-9 graders being in middle school.
The leaders of Prince Georges County do not listen to the parents,students or teachers in PG County. I am thinking of moving out the county for this very reason. Educations is very important to me! Our children are our FUTURE and PG County is FAILING OUR STUDENTS AND CHILDREN!
I urge you — and anyone interested in school reform — to read _So Much Reform, So Little Change_ by Charles Payne.
Lively prose, keen insight, vital information.
Mr. Secretary:
Several earlier comments have responded to concerns about existing inequities in education, fundamental inequities which have historically existed. Please carefully think about and address the basics involved in communities and foundational to effective public education (HEADSTART, SCHOOL NURSES-COUNSELORS-SOCIAL WORKERS, ADEQUATE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES, EQUAL ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS APPRENTICESHIPS, SCHOOL-TO-WORK PROGRAMS, CLASS SIZES, ART & MUSIC PROGRAMS, TECHNOLOGY & CAREER HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS). Once all neighborhoods and communities have equal access and school facilities that properly support students and teachers in reaching “standards,” maybe the government and all stakeholders would see more valuable growth.
Let me comment on a specific of the Obama platform: merit pay. PLEASE rethink merit pay! Why in the world would you want to create division within schools/districts? Those who actually work day in and out with students know that teachers work in varied teaching situations–special education resource rooms, deaf education, librarians and media specialists….and unfortunately, tracking still exists especially in high schools. So please tell me how merit pay can be initiated fairly? How can a 10th grade English teacher of the so-called “regular” (I hate that term) level students expect performance equal to another teacher’s group of AP (accelerated program) students? And how can special education resource teachers of severely handicapped students be rewarded for their work? Again, merit pay will be devisive.
One other note of concern. Teachers are experts on the way people learn things–that’s their business. Just as doctors look at patient history and ask the relevant, pertinent questions and provide avenues for action to prevent illness and maintain health, teachers build background knowledge, enact learning theory and brain-based learning events to provide and create avenues for learning. Pedagogy is not to be undervalued. Content knowledge, is of course crucial in our work, but foundational is knowledge of how children/people learn things. Teacher education programs (I’m a teacher educator) provide that knowledge to teacher candidates very well, and we are being waylayed left and right by rhetoric from those who don’t really know. THOROUGH and RIGOROUS accreditation procedures are followed in Colleges of Education around the country and continuous reflection and research is conducted. So please know this and don’t assume it is NOT being done.
THanks for listening!
Many of the states currently have high standards already in place. Instead of replacing these standards with new ones, it would be better to allign the standards. There should be set of shared,common standards across all states.
Yes – raise the standards, but just as importantly unify states standards. In addition, we need to drop the idea that all children will reach those same standards! Although I fully agree with high expectations/goals for each student, we need to take into account a child’s IQ. I find it very frustrating to see a child with a 59 IQ with other medical considerations is expected to score the same as a child with a 100 IQ. Currently our system punishes these students and teachers for not reaching the same standard as their non-disabled peers. Shouldn’t we be celebrating their realistic growth? To truly evaluate a child’s achievement, we really need to look at a student’s growth through pre/post assessments. I would rather see a nation wide assessment (pre/post)judge a student’s growth rate.
Until we effectively acknowledge that there are some discrepenacies existing within our education system, especially for our african american student who are deemed numerically insignificant per data. How do we quantify high standards when we are not inclusive of all students? How do we acknowledge the right thing when wrong continues to happen to our children? African american children being murdered in an alarming rate even in the backyard of President Obama, and it continues to be a taboo to talk about the plight of the african american child. Drop out rate continues to skyrocket as well as the number of african american males geared for the penal system. We take on the mantra of Marian Eldman Wright, yet do not take on the plight to address the specifics of real life experience for the children. What are the expectation of this nation for our african american children?
Raising standards has never been a bad idea at all.
How should we go about it? I will start by sharing with you my background. I am originally from Uganda and went to college and post graduate school here in the USA. I am currently an administrator with Detroit Public Schools(DPS) Office of Adult Education. Prior to that, I was an Auditor and had the opportunity to visit most of DPS schools. I have taken time to learn, listen and understand most of the challenges faced by the schools.
Not to long ago, I wrote to Secretary Anne Duncan a letter with suggestions on how to address some of DPS’s problems.
The Ugandan education system is the same as the British system. There are pros and cons. The one and most important I appreciate about the Ugandan education system is NOT having the MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS all the way from elementary level. This encourages thinking and reasoning. Which is the opposite of what we do here in USA. Multiple choice questions are the standard all the way even in college. With multiple choices, a lot of students just take wild guesses. In my own opinion, this should be phased out.
The disadvantage is Uganda being a low developed nation like most of Africa, most of the education is theory and not practical. It is important to study what standards will/wont work in USA before adoption.
In the USA inner city schools, there are the major areas of concern. Raising standards will work if the inherent problems are also addressed. Problems like the culture of not valuing education. Young men being able to make a living selling drugs and feel like going to school is a waste of time.
Get rid of Unions in inner city schools. This allows teachers to do their best knowing that they can be fired for poor performance.
Focus on Adult Education to raise the skill levels of the illiterate parents who are the parents of most of the kids who are failing.
Then slowly you can raise standards to the international levels. It has to be done gradually.
I have been reading everyone’s comments and find it both sad and comforting to know that it’s not just me!
Our education system needs such an overhauling that I sometimes wonder if it can ever be done in time to save the next several generations of our children. We have the financial means and the willingness of teachers to stop this downward spiral and take our children’s future back. It would take far less money than is now being spent.
Government MUST not continue to make our children pawns to be used in political venues that have NOTHING to due with the actual education of our young. They should not be considered a money making venture or a political platform item. They are our FUTURE! We are reaping what we plant.
Teachers must stop being punished for the education crisis. We are not the policy makers. We have no control over the curriculum, not even how it is taught. We are promised funding for successes that we bust our backs to achieve and then are told the State is broke and so sorry, try again. We constantly are using our own funds to off set the failure of the district, state, federal government dictates. We are physically and verbally abused by students, parents and even incompetent administrators with no recourse. We have terrible retirement plans, terrible benefits, no unemployment,no disability, no longer any tenure protection and if you are a teacher coming back from the private sector, you lose all your social security benefits AND your spouse’s too! We teach because we LOVE it. We are dedicated to the children. We of all people know what a wasted mind really means and how it comes back to haunt us.
Our local districts funnel the money up, NOT down. A good start Secretary Duncan, would be to follow the money and see where most of it lands. NOT in the schools and NOT for the children’s actual educational benefit. STOP mandatory spending of annual budgets. Let the district or school plan and save for something they want or need or use for rainy day problems. Don’t punish schools by taking away money not spent and then shorting their budget the following year. Save and disburse funds as needed.
Okay, I’ll put away my soapbox for the time being. The question pertained to standardized testing, benchmarks etc. I just jotted some points down here and did not elaborate too much. I’ll save some angst for other postings.
1. Parents MUST become more involved and be held responsible for their children’s education and behavior.I will teach your child, but remember I’m not the one who gave birth to them.
2. Every school, every district, every state is different and changes constantly depending upon their demographics. There should be uniform, across the country agreement on what skills or goals need to be mastered in what grade, that should be used as a framework or guideline. HOW each school achieves those skills or goals needs to be left to each individual school and they should be allowed to vary or deliver their own curriculum as needed to suit their changing demographics.
3. These skills or goals MUST be developed with input from in the field teachers AND child cognitive development experts. In California, many of our benchmark goals are over the child’s cognitive development age. We are forcing our children to learn answers to questions on a test that have no real cognitive meaning for them.
4. Curriculum needs to be developed NOT by the publishers who also write the high stakes testing!
Talk about conflict of interest! Assessments need to be kept to a minimum. Most schools in my district spend 1 FULL DAY of EVERY WEEK to administer some kind of test. Scoring, reporting, recording the results has added an additional 10-15 hours PER WEEK to the teacher’s at home duties. No compensation either.
5. The newest thing in California is that every same grade teacher in every school should be on exactly the same page of the same lesson on the same day….this is rewarded! What happened to teaching to the needs of your children? Again, work within your framework, but teach to your student’s needs. It changes daily, weekly, monthly, yearly…..get used to it! If not, just put the 80 first graders in one room with a television monitor showing a teacher deliver the lesson.
6. Special education also needs revamping. Let’s simply start with nationwide standardized IEP forms.
I can’t read IEP’s from other districts, much less other states. As a teacher I need to be able to receive a child from another area and IMMEDIATELY be able to know exactly where they are and what they need.
7. Make these frameworks/skills straight forward and assessment friendly to ALL levels of students and no student is given a free pass to the next level unless they pass the minimum acceptable. Maybe even do away with grades completely and teachers would teach the skills within the framework regardless of age. It would be easier to mainstream children with special needs into regular classrooms and it would allow a teacher to use a rich and varied curriculum with creativity and expertise. It would allow children to be able to spiral up rather than level out and become bored. It would give EVERY child a chance for success regardless of need and it would develop a sense of goal and achievement.
8. Beware the RTI model. Used as intended it is a powerful tool, BUT used by Bean Counters or for political means, and it will deny children with special needs the help they need. I have heard two administrators and a special consultant already refer to it as the way to get rid of the drain of special education….along with those teachers too.
9. College education is a goal and should be made available to everyone, BUT not everyone wants or needs to go to college to be productive, successful and happy citizens. We are constantly telling our children that if they don’t pass the tests or don’t go to college that they are failures. Is it no wonder our drop out rate is 50%….is it no wonder our gang and crime rate is so high….is it no wonder our children turn to drugs, suicide, killing sprees……. We are telling them from kindergarten that if they don’t “fit the mold” they are failures.
What are we doing to our future and the most important question is….WHY?
I hope and pray that school districts across this land will invest in district-wide electronic databases and union catalogs for students to develop online searching skills, which are directly transferable to academic and public libraries.
Without equity and access to electronic databases, some students will not understand how to find the kind of information they will need as they grow and learn. Not only will students lack the skills to better prepare for their academic lives, they will also lack the necessary skills to learn, unlearn and learn again. That is the 21st Century skill. With technologies developing and changing at a fast clip, students not exposed to these technologies will have little chance to catch up as adults.
In my state, NYS, some districts do not have union catalogs or even provide the technologies to allow the state’s students to access the available state-provide databases and union catalogs. All learning cannot come from a textbook. All learning can not be one format. All learning must become interactive.
After twenty-five years as a school librarian, I still see students going to elementary, middle and high schools without ever having access to a school library or librarian. This is an educational crime.
I am posting again in support of poster #222, ‘Terry Toops’. Thank you for your post. I am also in California and share your frustration with what we have been dealing with here. I also worry that we can act in time to stop the downward spiral. I hope we are heard.
One thing you said struck me:
“Teachers must stop being punished for the education crisis. We are not the policy makers. We have no control over the curriculum, not even how it is taught. We are promised funding for successes that we bust our backs to achieve and then are told the State is broke and so sorry, try again. We constantly are using our own funds to off set the failure of the district, state, federal government dictates. We are physically and verbally abused by students, parents and even incompetent administrators with no recourse. We have terrible retirement plans, terrible benefits, no unemployment,no disability, no longer any tenure protection and if you are a teacher coming back from the private sector, you lose all your social security benefits AND your spouse’s too! We teach because we LOVE it. We are dedicated to the children. We of all people know what a wasted mind really means and how it comes back to haunt us.”
I think most people don’t know this truth. That is VERY sad and needs to change. I agree with you that it is sad things have come to this, but reading these posts is comforting, because others in education who DO understand are speaking out. Is anyone listening?
As a teacher educator, I believe standards are a good thing, but NCLB has set impossibly high standards, done little to help states meet them, and then punished the schools that “failed.” The whole punitive approach of NCLB seems intentionally designed to undermine public education.
After eight years of federal power grabbing under NCLB, we need to step back and reevaluate the role of the federal government in public education, keeping in mind that the Constitution does not grant the federal government any power whatsoever in this area. I believe the best approach would be to return to the original intention of ESEA, which was to help equalize resources spent on rich and poor, and return the decision-making power over our schools to states and local school boards where it belongs.
Further my postings made at Nos. 161 and 212, I gather herewith some more ‘elements’ that posters believe should be incorporated into the Action Plan that the ED is expected to launch. (There are many, many more such elements).
1. To ensure that teachers are not punished for the educational crisis
2. To ensure adequate funding for all real educational needs
3. To ensure that promises made to teachers by policy makers, bureaucrats and politicians are accounted for and properly kept
4. To ensure that teachers do not have to spend money from their pockets for the things that the educational policy should deliver
5. To prevent the physical and verbal abuse of teachers by students, parents and incompetent administrators
6. To provide teachers with realistic and realizable retirement benefits, disability and employment insurance benefits, tenure proteaction
7 To ensure that teachers returning to the public school system do not lose their social security benefits
8. To ensure that our educational system does not create the ‘wasted minds’ that are all too common today
9. To ensure that the powers-that-be LISTEN to teachers (and students and parents)
10. To ensure that school children (at each level) will have all needed access to libraries and that they are provided with the skilled help that could ensure they are able to make effective use of all available library facilities
11. To ensure that all learning is made properly interactive so that students can learn more effectively
12. To enable students to use effectively in real life what they learn in school
13. To understand properly that all learning cannot be in one format
14. To understand properly that all learning cannot come from our text book
14. To create truly effective educational systems
15. To ensure that school districts invest in district-wide electronic databases and union catalogs for students to develop online searching skills, which are directly transferable to academic and public libraries
16. To enable students properly understand how they can obtain the information they need to conduct their lives effectively (much information is readily available, but students not enabled to access it)
17. To ensure that all school districts have access to the information in union catalogs (with the needed technologies to use this information)
18. To ensure that parents become more involved in their children’s education
19. To enensure that parents properly understand that they are responsible for their children’s education and behavior
20. To ensure that our educational system proper caters to the fact that every school, every district, every state is different
21. To create effective overarching standards that should be applicable across the nation
22. To arrive at real working agreement on what skills or goals need to be mastered in what grade, that should be used as a framework or guideline
23. To ensure that Government does not make our children pawns to be used in political venues that have NOTHING to due with actual education
24. To ensure that the government money allocated for education is actually used to educate
25. To ensure that schools are not *punished* by taking away money not spent and then shorting their budget the following year!
26. To save and provide funds as really needed
27. to ensure that goals for student skills are developed from input provided by field teachers AND child cognitive development experts
28. To ensure that all planning is done with proper participation of teachers, students, parents, administrators, politicians and others interested in education – and to ensure that the ’spoilers’ aren’t allowed to create roadblocks to effective education
29. To ensure that our educational systems are properly overhauled to provide for the real educational needs of now and the future
30. To ensure that all teachers are properly enabled to teach to the real needs of their wards
31. To ensure that curricula are scientifically developed for the real educational needs of students – NOT by the publishers who also write the high stakes testing!
32. To ensure that children with special needs are provided with all the special help they really need
33. Etc, etc, etc…
…
I have articulated 30 elements previously (I believe) in my posting at No. 212, all generated from issues expressed by posters here. Above are 32 elements. There will be hundreds (even thousands more). All such elements – and all ’sound’ elements that may be available to people who are seriously thinking about US education – all such elements MUST be included in the Action Plans to be launched for the nation’s educational system.
HOW TO DO THAT?
It’s a big job, no question about that, but by no means is it impossible: we need to find out just how these elements may “contribute to” each other AND to the Mission expressed in the educational Mission as articulated by President Obama: “To provide every child in America a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career”.
When that is done *effectively*, then you will have a true ‘consesnsus action plan’ to accomplish that Mission.
John N. Warfield, Emeritus Professor at George Mason University (mentioned at my first posting at this thread), has developed the ’systems science’ needed to accomplish the above very effectively indeed.
– GSC
INCREASING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS UTILIZING ARRA FUNDS
As an instructional coach in a large urban district (over 90,000 students) I WISH I could share out how we are measuring the impact on student achievement of effective professional development! It is my area of focus in my Master’s work and a critical component of school reform.
What I can share out is that the “gap” is increasing in what is recognized as effective professional development (thank you NSDC for a new definition) and what we will be “receiving” in the 2009-10 school year. We have less PD days, stacked before the children even arrive, and canned PD’s (including powerpoint presentations, handouts, and ‘what to say’) to deliver to teachers on school sites. This will be the 2009-10 professional development!
I believe the key wording in the ARRA April 24, 2009 guidance for utilizing funding is under bullet 3 of the “Increasing teacher effectiveness …” section. It reads, “Redsign teacher professional development and school schedules to ensure that teacher learning opportunities are sustained, job-embedded, collaborative, data-driven, and focused on student instructional needs”. It doesn’t seem it would be too difficult to create a rubric for districts to fill out on their “redesign” efforts and insist on REFORM in order to receive ARRA funding.
We could also utilize the work done by Rolf K. Blank and Nina de las Alas in December 2008 published as “Recommendations to State Leaders from leading Experts” at the CCSSO conference to develop systems of measurement of PD effectiveness.
PLEASE DON’T LET OUR STATE AND DISTRICT LEADERS use this important school reform money to do more of the same – which is NOT working. Or “new” efforts that are not aligned with the new NSDC definition of professional development and AARA Reform and Improvement efforts.
Why does it seem like everyone is focusing on the wrong question? The problem isn’t HAVING standards…of course we need standards…but the real problem that American teachers face is the current standards that we have!
Everyone bemoans that the United States keeps falling further and further behind other countries–especially in math and science. So are we looking at what these countries are doing differently? Of course not, because if we did, we would see that it is our standards that are the problem! In a recent AFT article “What’s Missing from Math Standards?
Focus, Rigor, and Coherence” by William H. Schmidt, he reveals international research from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) that “In the early grades, top-achieving countries usually cover about four to six topics related to basic numeracy, measurement, and arithmetic operations. That’s all. In contrast, in the U.S., state and district standards, as well as textbooks, often cram 20 topics into the first and second grades.”
(check out the entire article at http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring2008/schmidt.htm)
Our kids aren’t learning because they simply don’t have time to really LEARN and develop deep understandings of content. As a middle school math teacher, I spend so much time reteaching things that students should have mastered in much earlier grades…but who has time for mastery when teachers are pressured that they have to ‘cover’ ALL the standards? So they race through content, giving them ‘tricks’ so they know HOW to do problems and often oversimplifying ‘rules’ that eventually create HUGE misconceptions for students that are really difficult to undo later on.
I understand that deeply ingrained in the American psyche is the belief that ‘more is better’, but in education, ‘more’ standards are what’s holding us back and causing us to fall further behind.
Secretary Duncan,
As a classroom teacher for 27 years, the author of a comprehensive book on education and an activist for the overhaul of federal education policy, I believe that standardizing the mentality and behavior of young people perpetuates a mass society in the United States that is set to destroy the great promise of our heterogeneous democratic “culture.” More and more, young people are fearful of expressing their singular uniqueness; timid in expressing their inherent creativity and neurotically self-conscious about behavioral conformity. As many voices have tried to make clear over the past century, secondary education in the United States should be a “finishing school for democracy,” not a factory that makes young people ready consumers for the expensive machinery of “higher education.” The best way to do that is to completely overhaul our fundamental ideas about curriculum.
The efforts to sustain the ideology that American democracy is the highest achievement of the linear, historical continuum is no longer tenable. We should teach young people to participate not just in the political, social and economic “processes of democracy,” but to become fully aware of themselves as carriers of the “culture of democracy.” That, indeed, is the “promise” of the United States, yet the term is not clearly defined. Reinventing the curriculum to define and teach the “culture of democracy” can be achieved by teaching a cultural education curriculum, instead of a curriculum that glorifies America’s historical accomplishment. This should become the main priority and newly stated goal of the Obama administrations policy on K-12 education.
There are some important notions in the discussion to reform NCLB, namely 1) equitable funding of schools and 2) ideas about teacher training that should be retained. But a mass society and a democratic culture are opposing concepts. This administration should do everything it can to make sure that the distinction is clearly delineated and that it is the culture of democracy that is taught in our schools.
Secretary Duncan – I am a retired California Pupil Services Administrator hired back one year after retirement to provide counseling to high rish youth at a continuation school. I have seen the pendulum swing from career education and a low drop out rate in the 70’s to the current NCLB that leaves many California youth without a diploma or a salable skill when they leave the system.
Many of the children and families who live in the San Joaquin Valley are struggling and need support. Most of the support services that were put in place during my tenure in the 80’s and 90’s have been decimated and drop out rates have soared.
Comprehensive high schools send students to my continuation school to increase their graduation and attendance rates. I see too many youth drop out of my school without a diploma. We have two sessions so we can house all the kids sent from the Ccomprehensice sites. Our school has little to offer….no formal PE program, no careers classes, only a few electives. When a student does not attend regularly, we drop them so another student can enter. These kids are not just a problem for education, they are also a problem for community agencies…law enforcement, mental health, social services, and health care.
I invite you to come to my school and see the inequalities, tour our campus, talk to my kids. My students don’t need algebra, they need job skills, they need support services, they need hope to see their future.
I attended training for the AFT “Thinking Math” program this summer. It was wonderful-research based, thought provoking, classroom ready teaching strategies. It was sad to hear the teachers from West Virginia questions why they were “cheated” in their education. They never took a math class past Geometry, yet they graduated from high school and college in West Virginia. It was obvious to the teachers from around the country that where you live determines how well you are educated. We desperately need national standards.
NCLB needs modifications before it is reauthorized. The testing for ELL and special education students requires input from education professionals. Currently, it is way out of line with the research in education for these students. Special education students should NOT have to take on-grade level state testing if they are not at that level mentally or academically. Their testing needs to be based on their IEP’s and annual goals. The research for ELL students needs to be reviewed to fairly test these children. Many of these children can speak our language after one year, but they are not comprehending written language that soon. They should not take state mandated written testing for three years. The ELL testing should be sufficient for them until then. These two areas make the testing unreliable and unfair for these students. Also, the goals that all children will have 100% achievement on the test by the year 2013 is unrealistic.
Thank you for your consideration and continued improvement on this law.
Sincerely,
Lise Triggs
I believe standards are very important. Educators need to know and understand what students should be learning.
The problem is in training educators to teach to the standards and assessed student understanding of the standards. Educators typically teach to the textbook that is adopted for their courses, not to the standards because it is the easiest and least time consuming to do.
Educators need time to meet and discuss the standards, share lessons, watch each other teach and design intervention programs. They need to learn how to assess “for” learn and not “of” learning.
The bottom line is what happens in the classroom, just having standards isn’t enough. KNOWING how to teach and assess standards is the way to help make every child successful.
Many states in America are independently considering adopting internationally-benchmarked, college and career-ready standards. Is raising standards a good idea? How should we go about it?
There are a lot of “good” ideas out there on how to improve our education system and certainly international standards would be helpful in helping individual teachers decide which standards to focus upon…..however, we have to some day take curriculum OFF the plate! The other countries get that Algebra One only has a dozen or so objectives……we have over 100! So sure, give me some international standards, but please demand that is the ONLY thing I teach….not all the other stuff too.
You have to understand that teachers will do what they are told….all of it! We are list oriented folks – we will finish everything because we have been trained that if we don’t….we fail.
Dear Secretary Duncan,
Thank you for visiting Cedar Falls, Iowa and sharing your vision and direction in education. We do need to transform education. Extending the school day and making a national assessment database are something to consider, however, I do not think that they are transformational. I would propose that transforming education within the school by overhauling how we teach is transformational. We should be exploring innovations such as using technology as a tool for student empowerment for making them competitive, digital citizens. I look forward to what is ahead and encourage some real transformational thinking. Thank you for your commitment to student learning.
Standards: We have them in California and they are some of the most unrealistic I have seen (7th grade history and English). Why? They were not designed by teachers or college professors but by people who haven’t seen the inside of a classroom for I don’t know how long. California’s standard are some of the most rigorous in the country and so when our scores come out, we look bad, but that’s because our country does not have national standards.
I think we should have national standards, that all states shoud follow. In fact, many of the national organizations have them in place already, no need to reinvent the wheel.
So other important suggestions: Kindles and music. For textbooks, we could reduce costs by every child having a Kindle. Smart huh!!
We have to bring music and art back to the ciriculum. With all the tests and such, we are losing our ability to create and invent and secondly, music is fundamental to math.
NCLB and regional efforts like MCAS in Mass., where I live, seem to have done little but raise the stress levels of students, teachers and administrators immensely, reduced the amount of creativity and imagination teachers can use to keep their students engaged and interested in the material, and forced a “teach to the test” curriculum that forces arbitrary standards to be shoved down the throats of kids.
As the local PAC leader in my community, I’ve also lost count of the number of times I’ve been told by parents that their special needs children have magically “passed” the exams even though they’re incapable of doing regular schoolwork. Even if alternate tests are being given to children with limited academic skills, it sounds to me like the numbers are being padded just to keep the department of education off the local district’s case whenever possible.
I am referring you to this article, eight years old, but which states my views about standards eloquently.
BOSTON GLOBE
June 10, 2001
One-Size-Fits-All Education Doesn’t Work
By Alfie Kohn
People who call for national education standards may have either of two ideas in mind. Both are intuitively appealing, but neither survives closer scrutiny.
The first meaning of standards has to do with outcomes: Here’s how well we expect students to do. Of course, all students deserve a quality education. But declaring that everyone must reach the same level is naïve at best, cynical at worst, in light of wildly unequal resources.
Consider the current accountability fad, with its callous “no excuses” rhetoric. It demands we set the bar higher for achievement, but fails to address underlying inequities. The idea is essentially to bully students and educators into better performance. A wry bumper sticker captures this model of school reform: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”
Worse, demands for tougher standards often assume that better just means harder. More difficult assignments and tests, which more students will fail, are supposed to represent an improvement. In fact, many schools in low-income neighborhoods have been transformed into test-prep centers. The quality goes down as the scores go up.
The other meaning of standards concerns content: Here’s what everyone will be taught. Over the last decade, most states have drawn up frameworks and objectives to which all teachers are supposed to align their lessons. Rich and poor; urban, suburban, and rural: It’s a one-size-fits-all education. Now some are arguing that this doesn’t go far enough, that we need a national curriculum.
This prospect has raised hackles among those who value democracy in its fullest sense as well as among those who simply distrust the federal government.
Critics point out there is no evidence that a national curriculum would raise achievement. You may have read that eight of the 10 top-scoring countries on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study had centralized education systems. But you may not have read that nine of the 10 lowest scoring countries did, too.
And what if we go beyond test scores? There is no research to show – and considerable reason to doubt – that a curriculum even more standardized than what we currently have will help students to tackle controversial issues skillfully, think more creatively, love learning, participate actively in a democratic society, become moral and compassionate people, and so on.
On another front, those who list what every Nth grader should know have been challenged for emphasizing the literature, culture, and values of the dominant culture. Those who prefer the status quo, however unjust, and lack defensible reasons for doing so, have responded by simply labeling the critics “politically correct.”
Other educators have added multicultural window dressing: If we stick Toni Morrison on the reading list alongside Mark Twain, one size really will fit all.
Unfortunately, as Harold Berlak, a former professor of education at Washington University, has pointed out, “Multiculturalism is not primarily about the content of the canon.” It’s about “who has the power to decide” and by what criteria. “A state-mandated multicultural curriculum is an oxymoron.”
Educationally speaking, standards are even more problematic when three things are true. First, when they consist of lists of specific content, teachers must adopt a “bunch o’ facts” model of teaching that discourages depth of understanding. Vast amounts of material are covered that even many successful students will not remember, care about, or be able to use. Thinking is messy, while standards documents are nothing if not orderly. When Harold Howe II, who was President Johnson’s commissioner of education, was asked what national standards should be like if we had to have them, he summarized a lifetime of wisdom in four words: They should be “as vague as possible.”
Second, meaningful education is compromised when standards are chosen on the basis of whether they lend themselves to measurement. Linda McNeil, who teaches education at Rice University, put it well: “Measurable outcomes may be the least significant results of learning.”
It’s easier to quantify how many semicolons are used correctly in an essay than how many wonderful ideas it contains. Those who make a fetish of “specific, measurable standards” end up dumbing down the learning.
Finally, we should beware of standards that are top-down mandates. Current standards-based reform may well be the most undemocratic movement in the history of American education. Mandating uniform standards for the entire country will only make things worse.
One of the morals of this discussion is that talk of national standards must be informed by pedagogical insight and not just political principle. We shouldn’t just argue about what knowledge all students ought to be taught. We should challenge the outdated model of instruction on which that question is based – namely, that students are empty receptacles into which knowledge is poured.
Before we get into a philosophical discussion on whether national standards are good or not, I think our children would benefit the most by an overhaul of the system.
In my experience, it is not the underfunding of school districts that causes the main problems in programming. The ATTITUDE of school districts that has