A Case for Reinventing Public Schools
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Leaving Children Behind

Again I am struck by the dichotomy that exists in public education – and that rational, thinking, and caring people continue to do things that harm children.

On the one hand there is ‘evidence’ (please note I am saying that with tongue in cheek!) that incentives are good and help raise test scores. In that same hand there are programs where students are being paid to get good grades or test scores and there are programs to ‘incent’ teachers to raise test scores by giving them pay raises or some kind of bonus. There are people that point to statistics that these things are not only working but they are good. I can imagine these things ‘work’ for some short-term gain but it’s another thing to say they are ‘good.’


Tying Cash Awards to AP-Exam Scores Seen as Paying Off
Is there anything wrong with receiving $500 for a test score? What if that inducement seems to help pull up SAT scores and college-enrollment rates among disadvantaged students?

In the other hand we see recent research that shows this focus on high stakes testing is causing a shift in teaching behavior that results in leaving lots of students behind.

At the same time some recent research shows that this high stakes testing system imposed by No Child Left Behind is actually leaving lots of students behind – by incentivizing teachers and administrators to focus on their ‘performance’ they are ignoring the real needs that young people have. Learning is on the back burner or non-existent. Performance is key. The students that might need extra help are ignored and abandoned. Children are being left behind.
No Child Left Behind is one of those political sayings that has no reality attached to it – in fact, the reality is actually the opposite. 


Snippets from an article about the report
The report focuses on the repercussions of accountability systems that tie rewards and sanctions to the number of students in certain groups who cross a predetermined proficiency threshold. The report suggests that accountability systems that place great weight on students who score in the middle provide few incentives for teachers to focus time and effort on the least and most able students. According to the authors, “Schools may find it optimal to ignore students who have little or no chance of reaching proficiency without intensive and costly intervention … and to limit services for gifted children who are likely already proficient” (p. 9).

In addition to problems associated with effort allocation, the report lists a number of other concerns:

The choice of the proficiency standard will determine how much time teachers devote to students of different ability levels. In fact, “raising standards may actually increase the number of low-achieving children who are ‘left behind’ by increasing the number for whom the standard is out of reach” (p. 5).
The goal of 100 percent proficiency does not constitute a “credible threat” in forcing schools to effectively address the needs of their less able students. This goal could actually make matters worse for students who are far below grade level in reading and math.

Although NCLB may have narrowed some achievement gaps in Illinois, many black and Hispanic students “were likely not helped and may have been harmed by NCLB” (p. 5). In the Chicago Public Schools, this may amount to more than 25,000 students.

Although NCLB calls for highly qualified teachers, the law makes it more difficult for disadvantaged schools to recruit and retain good teachers.

“Contrary to its name,” the report notes, NCLB “is not designed to make sure that no child is left behind” (p. 6). In fact, taking into account other U.S. cities that educate large populations of disadvantaged students, NCLB is most likely leaving hundreds of thousands behind.

Graduation Rates

0 comments

There are no comments yet...

Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment