« Zero tolerance or zero common sense? | Main | An ounce of intervention . . . »
December 7, 2007
Two wrongs don't make NCLB rightJohn Merrow criticized how states are using NCLB “loopholes” to get around the law and help schools make AYP in this editorial (registration required) in Education Week. The issues he discussed in the article – statistical tools, minimum subgroup size, etc. – are not news as other reports such as this one by the Education Sector have also focused on these so called “loopholes.” But Merrow’s assertion that NCLB should not be reauthorized until “the law’s blatant loopholes are addressed” sends a misleading message to parents, educators, and policymakers.
Whether states are justified to use certain statistical tools and subgroup sizes to affect AYP results remains in question, but BoardBuzz understands two wrongs don’t make a right. If states are gaming in the face of a severely flawed law, the loopholes would be created in an attempt to right the wrongs of the law. Educators’ hands are tied when it comes to how certain students are assessed under NCLB. For example, students with disabilities and those who are English language learners are required, under the law, to be assessed in ways that do not accurately measure their achievements. As a result, schools face sanctions because of the test scores that do not reflect the true performance of the student population.
Did some states over correct the wrongs with these loopholes? That’s a question to be examined. But not until NCLB is improved and becomes a more accurate accountability measure for student and school performance –through timely reauthorization in 2008 – would we be able to eliminate the incentives to use any loopholes. NSBA continues to urge Congress to renew the law next year so our schools will not continue to be mislabeled for another two or three years. You can check out NSBA's recommendations here.
Posted December 7, 2007 10:54 AM | No Child Left Behind
Trackback Pings
Comments(2)
Posted by: Karla Russell-McCreary on December 8, 2007 9:12 AM
I agree whole heartedly that our special education students (including gifted) are not represented or needs served correctly via these tests. Students w/disabilities or exceptional abilities learn differently and should be assessed differently and by protective Individual Educational Program goals as stated in current IDEA and PL94-142 laws. These students are already diagnosed or labeled below or above the "average" so why test a student when this information is already documented? This frustrates students, keep them from the lessons and settings they do need to progress and wastes tax payers money by giving educators extra tasks that keep them from teaching the lessons needed for children to be productive citizens, not just a test score! We can't even address the major social issues and prerequisite skills needed due to so much unnecesary assessments that pad the pockets of test producers and superintendants that benefit from following political guidance that know nothing about what the new millenium student or family really needs in a classroom. I spoke out against the need to adjust NCLB at school board meetings and my professional organization gives important and specific areas NCLB needs to be altered. Unfortunately educators aren't considered smart enough to know what students need but we are the ones on the front line in the classroom daily to see our students go without what they need.
Posted by: Fish on December 12, 2007 7:07 AM
*so why test a student when this information is already documented?*
Because, in the case of the special education students, the tests show how the gap widens grade to grade. I don't like that my son has to take a test he can barely read, but I find it rather offensive that on more than one occasion, it was suggested -- by the school principal -- that my son "stay home on the day of the test." There's a loophole offered by the school principal! No thanks.
Parents of IEP students think of these tests much the same as we think of report cards: secondary to IEP goals. At the same time, while NCLB is in place, I intend that my son take the test along side his peers to demonstrate that the chasm between he and his grade level peers keeps increasing. If that means bringing down the average score for the school, so be it.
BoardBuzz Feed
