NCLB-LMCB Stats Aren’t Encouraging: Cal Thomas

In a syndicated article by conservative commentator Cal Thomas, he makes the point that No Child Left Behind (leaves many children behind–or LMCB) is wishful thinking. He says after five years, there has been an increase in children who read below the basic level and cannot perform math at a basic proficiency level.

An excerpt from Cal’s column:

 I asked U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings about this. She told me half of the states waited until the 2005-’06 school year to do an annual assessment, but that 70 percent of the nation’s 90,000 public schools “are meeting the requirements of NCLB. But for 1,800, which are chronically year after year failing our kids, something more dramatic has to happen.”
    That “something more” has included local government takeover of some school systems. In New York and Chicago, as well as in the state of Florida, which Mrs. Spellings describes as a “leader” in education improvement, interesting things” are being done. Washington, D.C., is also debating whether government should take over its poorly performing schools. Mrs. Spellings said “the state of affairs” in Washington schools is “not encouraging.”

No matter what your political ideology is, you still have to agree that NCLB is LMCB. It does not take rocket science to figure that out.

E.C. 🙂

Another Example of NCLB-LMCB (leaves many children behind)

Illinois State Achievement Tests are being given this week in the Prairie State and state education officials are conceding that there are mistakes in the exams…oh geez, here we go again. See today’s Chicago Sun-Times for more.

This blog writes itself, my friends.

An excerpt from the article:

This year’s mistakes follow a host of problems to last year’s elementary tests, including test booklets that arrived late, with missing or misprinted pages.

This year’s tests contained 13 errors — nine in tests of third-grade reading and math; fourth-grade math; fifth-grade math; sixth-grade reading and math; seventh-grade reading; and eighth-grade math, said State Board of Education spokesman Matt Vanover.

Four other errors occurred in the instruction manual, a sample question and a Braille test, Vanover said.

In seventh-grade reading, booklets mistakenly directed students to answer one question on the wrong page. In sixth-grade math, a pilot question was listed in centimeters, but all the answers were in inches.

Two questions will be tossed, five items will be “fixed in scoring,” and two pilot items will be disregarded, Vanover said.

But more important is this last paragraph:

Illinois’ repeated snafus are “further proof that the testing industry is overextended and cannot be trusted,” said Bob Schaefer of the testing watchdog FairTest.

Wow…

E.C. 🙂

GCS Friday Spin for March 16

Click here for last week’s Friday Spin from GCS. I’ll begin posting these links on a regular basis.

E.C. 🙂

NCLB Sustains a Permanent Underclass: edNews.org

In a white paper published today by edNews.org, columnist Daniel Pryzbyla describes the current No Child Left Behind-leaves many children behind Act as creating a permanent underclass, especially when it comes to Title I schools. And he has an interesting take on this.

An excerpt:

Nowhere in the Title I document does it mention “high-stakes testing” to be the sole “accountability” factor in determining “adequate yearly progress.” Leaving out the details in the 12 items in “Statement of Purpose” proved necessary for President Bush’s new pro-privatization education department, now under the tutelage of pro-religious schools Margaret Spellings. Its final item Number 12 proved a godsend for its wordsmith. On its content meaning, who would even raise an eyebrow? “(12) affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children.” This is pro-privatization code meaning, “We will have numbers of charter, private charter, private and religious schools and their representatives available to help you get out of the ‘failing’ Title I public school by any means necessary.”

The article continues:

Missing from NCLB or any accompanying law for “disadvantaged” students is “Improving Economic Security for Disadvantaged Families.” Ignoring family socioeconomic and racial factors in NCLB deliberations was tantamount to heresy. Parent(s) and guardian(s) involvement in a student’s academic and non-academic life has been seen as the pillar for potential successful child development. This is evident in non-Title I schools where economics and family involvement play significant roles in a child’s social and education development. Since a vast majority of “disadvantaged” students were also in custody of “financially disadvantaged” single mothers, NCLB was a socioeconomic sledgehammer aimed specifically at Title I public schools. These impoverished single mothers are left to the mercy of the low-wage job market, having to work night shifts while trying to juggle “family obligations” too. Was it surprising to hear of young siblings taking care of younger siblings when their mother was working 2nd or 3rd shifts? No, not at all. Was it surprising to have low attendance when school/community meetings or report card conferences were held after school? No, not at all. Did this mean all single “economically disadvantaged” mothers didn’t care how their child or children were doing in school(s)? No, not at all.

With everyone getting on the bandwagon to either reform or drop NCLB-LMCB altogether, will it actually happen? We can only hope and speculate, because it is doing nothing but destroying our schools.

E.C. 🙂

Fuzzy Math on Grad Rates Again

Haven’t we been down this road before?

GCS, again, revised its graduation rates to a point where they now SURPASS the state’s average?

An excerpt from today’s N&R:

“On Monday, Guilford officials said 74 percent of freshmen who entered the district in fall 2002 graduated within four years. That revised rate puts Guilford above the state’s 68.1 percent rate and on par with or better than other large districts. The state this month reported Guilford’s 2006 rate as 63.5 percent,” the article says. See the complete article here.

So who’s telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I’m suspicious.

UPDATE: See the GCS News blurb and link to the hard numbers here.

E.C. 🙂