Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB - (Page 8)

Data Systems Don’t Keep Pace with Real-Time Instructional Needs However, not all teachers have access to data that allow for the immediate and comprehensive applications that Betsy describes. A number of Teacher Leaders Network members noted that standardized test data, even when potentially helpful, were rarely received in time to be instructionally applicable. Many of these expert teachers were kept “in the dark” about what is really on the test and what it takes to get the “right” scores. Renee Moore from Mississippi noted: The data generated by our state tests has been too generalized to really help teachers in the classroom. It is useful to some extent for looking at larger statewide curriculum and sequence issues, but on a classroom or individual student level, the reports only identify broad categories or strands. For example, on the English test, a report will indicate that a student is strong or weak in “Mechanics,” which includes punctuation, spelling, and capitalization, but the results don’t drill down much beyond that. Some of the categories are even broader. Generally, students are weak in multiple categories, which makes focused instructional intervention harder. “Some school systems I know are now playing a numbers game — rezoning to keep the troublesome subgroups in one or two schools.” - Susan Graham, discussing one of NCLB’s unintended consequences Other TLN members discussed how they continued to discover errors in the standardized tests themselves, or in the calculations done to report achievement gains for their schools. In fact, this past spring in Illinois (where several Teacher Leaders Network members teach), local newspapers reported that NCLB tests had “at least 13 mistakes in different versions.” The problems pushed the state to renegotiate its five-year, $45 million contract with Harcourt Assessment Inc., which develops and scores the tests.vii In addition to data challenges, the TLN teachers discussed the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) rules requiring schools to meet academic performance goals for each subpopulation of students. In Minnesota, where the state’s 8th graders lead the nation in mathematics and perform at levels comparable to peers in nations with whom we compete economically, more than 80 percent of schools are expected to fail to meet the AYP requirements of NCLB in years 2011-2014. AYP Highlights the Good, Bad, and Ugly of NCLB Schools serving English-language learners and special needs students are especially vulnerable to the most dysfunctional aspects of NCLB. Perhaps most vexing is the NCLB provision that removes special needs students from their subgroup once they meet standards, leaving their schools in an endless cycle of always having a subgroup not meeting its proficiency benchmarks. Kathie Marshall, a literacy coach in Los Angeles, shared the frustration that such a system can create: My middle school serves 2,200 mostly Hispanic youngsters in a community known for its poverty and crime. Our core academic classes average 40 or more students. Even so, students are mostly well-behaved if not eager scholars, and there is a positive sense of community here. We have exceeded the California API goal set for us every year since 1999 and are outperforming 70% of similar schools across the state. Unfortunately, though, we cannot meet our AYP goals. This past year we did not meet our AYP goal because one subgroup, our ELL students, fell below the benchmarks for proficiency. Similarly, one nearby high school got an exceptional new principal three years ago, and after her first year in charge, the school’s API score was 56 points higher (most high schools are lucky to go up one or two points per year). The accolades for this astonishing improvement didn’t seem to feel quite authentic, however, when, according to NCLB, the school was a failure. Page 8

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB

Executive Summary The Future of American Education in the Making It is Time to Align NCLB Intentions and Consequences The Teacher Leaders Network Encounters NCLB from the Classroom NCLB Demands Results and So Do We Attention Alone Does Not Equal Effective Accountability Standardized Tests Fall Short of 21st Century Demands For What Future Is NCLB Preparing Students? As Testing Expands, the Curriculum Shrinks The Drive for Data Presents Potential for Significant Change Data Systems Don’t Keep Pace with Real-Time Instructional Needs AYP Highlights the Good, Bad, and Ugly of NCLB Does “Highly Qualified” Set the Teaching Bar Too Low? Teaching Quality Must Be More Than a Number Every Student Deserves a Highly Effective, Well-Trained Teacher Conclusions References

Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.