Petition Against Reauthorization of NCLB Act

Submitted by an LD OnLine user on

Read the petition, and sign if you agree. Currently, 10,380 persons have signed it.

http://www.petitiononline.com/1teacher/petition.html

Anita learntoreadnow

Submitted by demarti on Thu, 03/08/2007 - 8:11 PM

Permalink

I’m going to regret I posted this, but this topic has really been bugging me.

I just don’t understand why so many people are so passionately against NCLB? I totally agree that it needs to have some changes, but to completely get rid of just baffles me? The comments on this petition really frighten me. I hope that those who are strongly fighting to get rid of it, have a proposed solution in it’s place vs. just abandoning?

I personnally like the state testing (I even used it as one of my dd’s targets in her IEP - to be proficient in the writing portion of the test. It was more objective than ‘teacher observation’ in my opinion). It gives me another vehical to see where my dd is performing next to her peers.

In our district, our teachers teach to a set of standards. I don’t see them teaching to the test? Everything is standards based. My kids are both going through CSAP testing right now and it’s been very low key. There is no studying/prepping ahead of time. Only notes encouraging parents to help their kids get plenty of sleep and eat a good breakfast. If teachers are only teaching to the test and not teaching to a curriculum, this is a district or state problem - not a problem with NCLB.

As far as accountability goes, sure NO ONE wants to be held accountable in their job. But the fact is, the rest of us in the working world have had to step up to this for the past decade. This is nothing unique to require it of teachers- it’s a very common practice outside the government.

There are ways to make Pay for Performance work, I just don’t think it’s been implemented fairly/effectively. Both my kids have some great teachers. They should be encouraged and rewarded for their good work. We also have a couple very bad ones! They are lazy and have no incentive to teach. My 16yr old is particularly frustrated with a couple of his HS teachers. Contrary to what the NY teachers union says - there is such a thing as a bad teacher! I can see a bad teacher opposing this, but I really don’t get why a good one would not embrace it? Who doesn’t want to be rewarded for their good work and make more money? (and I do understand that it’s not necessarily working this way - this is an area of reform.)

The basic intent behind NCLB is a good one. It’s meant to prevent so many kids from falling through the cracks. Prior to NCLB, too many kids were graduating from high school who could not read or write. The schools doing this need to be held accountable!!

As a parent of a child who was high risk for falling through the cracks (as is are most LD/ADHD kids) I just don’t understand how getting completely rid of NCLB helps my child. Reform yes, getting rid of NO.

Submitted by anla on Tue, 03/13/2007 - 2:53 PM

Permalink

I taught elem school sped for a number of years. The students were tested with individual achievement tests each year. They were taught at approximately their grade level, using concrete, multi-sensory techniques. My goal was always to help push each students reading, writing, and math levels at least one year, and more if we could do it. The students were included with the reg ed students as much as each individual could handle it, emotionally, socially, physically, and academically. Sped was available when they needed it, and most students needed at least some assistance with language arts and math. Each year, after assessing each student’s progress, we planned carefully for the next year. The teacher was always accountable for the progress of the students. If my lang arts and math students would work hard for the whole year, they would make at least a year’s progress the first year. After the second year, many would be very close to age/grade level.

But, since NCLB elem sped has changed. Now all students must be taught at grade level, and tested using grade level criterion reference tests, or alternatively assessed at grade level. There is no time to teach sped students the missing skills. So they are read to, and taught to comprehend material, and they learn to use calculators to complete math assignments.

That is not the way I want to teach. So I am currently teaching hs sped students reading, spelling, and writing skills. Most of the mandates for NCLB are in K-8 at present. But, our non-educational (that is, no training or experience in education) leaders in the present administration want NCLB to cover hs as thoroughly as the other grades in the near future. I do not agree, so I am attempting to keep it from spreading any further.

I have always been, and always will be, very accountable to my students and parents. That is what sped is for.

Anita learntoreadnow

Submitted by anla on Sat, 03/17/2007 - 3:01 PM

Permalink

Discussion of NCLB is in the news now. Lots of thought is being given as to whether states must continue to test, test, test. Some ideas to make states’ participation in NCLB voluntary.

28,000+ persons have signed the petition at www.petitiononline.com/1teacher/petition.html .

Anita learntoreadnow

Submitted by demarti on Mon, 03/19/2007 - 2:15 AM

Permalink

I guess we can agree to disagree on this.

You wrote:

‘But, since NCLB elem sped has changed. Now all students must be taught at grade level, and tested using grade level criterion reference tests, or alternatively assessed at grade level. There is no time to teach sped students the missing skills. So they are read to, and taught to comprehend material, and they learn to use calculators to complete math assignments.’

Is this really Federal NCLB or how your state (or district) has implemented NCLB? Who defines ‘grade level’? It’s the state who does this and the state who creates the questions on the tests. Our states solution to this (and a questionable solution) was to lower the testing standards. Both my kids told me CSAP was VERY easy this year. My dd has passed the writing mechanincs portion the last 2 years and she can’t spell worth beans! Grade level is at least 2 years lower so if this was in your state, you would be in good shape! LOL

My dd was in SPED both pre and post NCLB. Pre-NCLB my school pushed back on providing reading services in 1st and 2nd grade. They wanted to wait until 3rd grade when she would be more than 2 grade levels below. So I had to get trained in MTC and taught my dd on my own before she got too far behind. (Still bitter over that battle) Post NCLB I do know our elementary school is doing alot more early intervention with targeted intensive programs. And, I don’t see teaching to the test in our district.

As a parent, I still vote that I like the testing as a means to know where my children stand as compared with their peers vs. the subjective feedback that you get on your IEP goals today.

If you kill NCLB, then we have taken a step backwards IMO. How do you hold schools accountable for passing kids who can’t read and write? The School Districts need to provide the adequate resources to identify and remediate these kids.

I still content the basic principles behind NCLB is good. It just needs alot of loopholes closed and reformed at the State level.

Submitted by anla on Tue, 03/20/2007 - 8:23 PM

Permalink

Yes, the schools will do anything to keep the federal money. To me, therein lies the problem.

I know people have had bad experiences with how sped is implemented. IDEA was changed to add response to intervention in order to help with that problem. I think sped reform should be done within IDEA. At present, the NCLB strictures seem to me to be in opposition to IDEA, at least if the student has serious learning problems.

I just hate it that, although I have much training and experience teaching elem sped, there is no longer a real place for my training and talents at that level, as long as NCLB is in place. And the ironic thing is this: after I suggested to our fed sec of ed (who has a degree in political science, and no training or experience as a teacher or principal, etc), that norm referenced, statistically sound individual achievement testing should be used to show progress for sped students, she came out with that edict. She told states that they could propose to and show more than a year’s progress with sped students in reading and math, instead of the crazy criterion-referenced SOL tests. But states are not interested now, because they have figured out how to manipulate the SOL testing to their advantage.

See why I hate NCLB?

Anita learntoreadnow

Submitted by Marmelade on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 1:47 PM

Permalink

I strongly agree with demarti. NCLB makes schools accountable for their SPED instruction in a way they never were before. Our district is now waking up to the fact that they have to actually achieve RESULTS with sped kids. It’s a strong remedy for the low expectations that continue to create a self-fulfilling cycle in which it’s assumed that disabled kids can’t be taught up to state standards and no serious attempt is made to do so.

Submitted by lakeshore on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 3:48 PM

Permalink

Thank you Marmelade! I am so tired of hearing time and time again that my LD son can not be expected to read at level, and I should be happy with ANY progress he makes! And they think I am nuts because he “qualifies” to have all tests read to him- but instead of having everything read to him, I want the Spec. Education teacher to help him learn to read. My 4th Grader’s so called special services are to pull him out, place him in a resource room and teach his LA at a 3rd grade level- every time I ask for specialized reading programs such as Wilson or Lindamood- I am told I have no right to make such requests. My son has a high IQ 130 performance, 85 Verbal 107 full scale- but very poor articulation skills. Without accountability, my son will continually fall further behind.

Submitted by Marmelade on Sun, 04/08/2007 - 12:55 AM

Permalink

Lakeshore, may I suggest that you ask the school in writing, with follow up at an IEP meeting, exactly what specialized instruction they are providing to address the verbal v. performance discrepancy and allow him to access the general ed curriculum, progress from year to year, and attain proficient scores in the state tests mandated by NCLB. Make sure the reading goal(s) in his IEP are measurable and align to grade-level curriculum and state tests, then ask them to report in writing on his progress. Since he’s not progressing adequately, ask them to specify in writing how they’re going to change their programming to obtain appropriate progress, using research-based methods. Rather than asking for a specific solution, keep holding them accountable for the problem—the failure to progress by reading at grade level. Your son is obviously a very intelligent person and CAN learn. In fact, the FSIQ is not an accurate measure of his ability because of the wide scatter between performance and verbal.

Submitted by anla on Tue, 04/10/2007 - 5:44 PM

Permalink

Lakeshore, I hope you are able to make the school personnel teach your child to read at age level. I fear that instead of doing that, they will get permission to test for comprehension at grade level. Student is read aloud either a grade-level, criterion-reference test, or an alternative assessment at grade-level. Then student answers comprehension questions, which are also read aloud.
It would be better if parents would insist that each sped student be tested to assess age level using a nationally-normed, statistically-sound, standardized individual achievement test. (Which is how it used to be done). But NCLB does not require this. NCLB requires that every student in grades K-8 will pass grade-level criterion-reference tests.
So I’m teaching hs students to read, spell, and write.

Anita learntoreadnow www.learntoreadnow.blogspot.com

Submitted by Kathryn on Sat, 06/23/2007 - 12:34 AM

Permalink

First of all, I just want to note that this was a “bi partisan” bill. It’s not “the current administration” like someone else mentioned. This was Ted Kennedy’s bill if you recall.

Also, having spent the last 2 years on the School Site Council, listening to what all these testing #s mean and also talking with teachers, all of our teaching is standards based and they do not do any prep work for the CA State testing. It’s all like the other parent said “Make sure your kids get a good nights sleep and eat breakfast”. Also I have heard our principal say over the loud speaker for everyone to do their best and not to worry about the test. My daughter is about one grade level behind in reading and did not meet every standard in math this year, so I’m sure she did not score well on the test, but no one at school seems to care about that too much. They just feel that it is another hoop to jump through and would rather spend their time teaching rather than test taking, but they do teach the standards and say that as long as they teach what kids are supposed to learn at each grade level they will do fine on the test. And we are a school that has generally not done super well on their test results, because we have a lot of English Learners, and a lot of parents who don’t do much of anything to support their kids with homework, but we also have a lot of intervention programs going on so that the kids can learn.

One thing I questioned with my daughter in special ed is that her IEP goals were so low and they could have been higher. I don’t expect her to be at grade level in every subject, but it seems as if they set some of her goals as if she can only learn about a half year’s worth of material in a year. Like her addition and subtraction goal. Her baseline was that she could add single digit numbers, so her goal was to add double digit without regrouping. Why wouldn’t they have said that the next step is to learn regrouping! Everyone else in her class was learning that, so she should have been learning that as well. I ended up teaching her that at home and on her report card the teacher commented “WOW, 3 digit addition with regrouping!!!” Why was this so amazing? I told them at the IEP meeting that she could learn that too and they didn’t want to push her I guess. Yet, they hold her to the same standards as everyone else, but they don’t even bother to teach it to her.

Anyway, as to the bill, I don’t know all that much about it and how it relates to special ed students, but I’m with whoever said that they should be learning as close to grade level as possible. I do know that we had the option to not do the state testing, but I figured what the heck. I would rather her have spent the time with an SLP instead, but oh well.

One thing I noticed when it came to accomodations of the test is that every accomodation catered to kids with reading problems, like having things read to them. But when everyone was being read to, there was no accomodation for kids who have auditory processing problems, like allowing a child to have a copy of the directions to read to themselves if auditory processing was an issue. On the other hand, I don’t think our state (CA) even aknowledges auditory processing disorders at all, so it’s not surprising.

Kathryn

Back to Top