Comments on: When Hell Freezes Over

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 06:07:38 +0000

We do need to work on moving the national discussion toward a more holistic vision for schools. The media may be starting to “get it.” Take a look at this article in the New York Times. The model you’re using might come in handy for me eventually. I bookmarked the post, and I plan to share it with my principal. My reservations with analytical tools like this is that they’re often presented without explicitly acknowledging their limits. We need to consider our aims as well as the means.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 03:08:26 +0000

Doug —

I agree with you on all points. And I didn’t think you were expressing an opinion of hopelessness — I took that as an expression of the frustration that so many of us feel in this current climate where policy makers and administrators are looking for quick-fixes. I believe it’s a miracle that we can all maintain some level of optimism or hopefulness that we will see (and maybe help create) real improvement in our educational systems.

As for the analytical models — you are correct in pointing out the limitations. I’ve yet to see any model that doesn’t have some kind of limitation. My purpose for presenting it and working with it stems from my frustration of seeing (literally on a day-to-day basis) excessive data analysis done outside of any kind of framework other than just “how did all of the sub-groups score on the test and which objectives are they missing?” This is usually followed by the decision to load the curriculum calendar with drill and kill instruction over those objectives that were the most weak. And all of this is done without consideration for other factors that may have had an impact on those test scores, which leads to decision-making that doesn’t address the underlying issues (some of which are in educators hands).

I also agree with the points made by Brian. The process of educating children is a very complex process and there are so many variables that affect our ability to help our students learn — and many of those variables are out of teachers’ hands. If we are to achieve the stated goal of leaving no child behind, then the effort has to become a community-wide goal that involves everyone — and simply analyzing test scores to death is not the solution.

Stephanie

By: Brian Crosby

Brian Crosby — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:39:05 +0000

Right on Doug - the people responsible for NCLB (or at least too many of them) needed to find someone or something to blame that they could seemingly do something about - schools and teachers just not doing the right things or not trying hard enough (because they are not accountable) is something we can work on by raising accountability - the general public can understand that and then those in power seem to be doing a good job. Dealing with the real culprits - poverty, child neglect and abuse, racism and the rest are EXPENSIVE and not easy to deal with and don’t fit with a cut taxes - less government approach so which approach was picked?
I don’t think ALL the discussion about treating the cause should happen away from school - I wouldn’t mind helping to deal with the underlying problems outside of school if it was agreed they were a MAJOR contributor to underachievement (curriculum-wise) and making changes in kids (and families) lives were seen as a step in their educational progress. 10 years ago at the very school I teach now we felt good about those students that we worked hard with just so they had the self respect and discipline to get through the day without being a negative influence on themselves and everyone around them and begin to engage and learn - they were behind in school, but now at least they could begin to catch-up - now they are able to do school without all the garbage in their lives that held them back - we used to celebrate that! Now … is that on the test!!!???

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:30:46 +0000

Stephanie, the analytical model you presented is preferable by far to the conventional approach. But a model shouldn’t be applied without an acknowledgement of its design limitations. If I left the impression of hopelessness, that wasn’t my intention. I am hopeful. I hope that the insanity of administrative myopia will one day be overruled by its failure to produce a meaningful difference. I hope that teachers assume moral responsibilty for making substantive decisions in their classrooms. I am hopeful that the data-driven dialog won’t have to include discussions about “off campus distractors” like child abuse, racism, or poverty. As Brian points out, treating the cause is a discussion that has to happen away from school. But it’s easier to farm that discussion out to school administrators who seem all too willing to make program adjustments that ignore the mountain of evidence kids bring with them when they come to school early for their free breakfasts.

By: Brian Crosby

Brian Crosby — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0000

Obviously the demographic categories are set to support NCLB which assumes that schools are ultimately in control of all factors related to student learning - I’m not sure that schools are in control of even half of the factors related to student learning, especially when NCLB pushes us (intentionally or not) to teach curriculum and not children and their actual needs.