Our classroom projects! =)
- Thread starter Gr8KarmaSF
- Start date
stingray94;1822464; said:
1st grade
channarox;1822540; said:
- That makes me so sad! Creativity and critical thinking is actually slowly being taken away from our current curriculum, its very discouraging. In the awful wake of No Child Left Behind, I dont get to teach art, science, or social studies like I used to.FireMedic;1822550; said:
yup!!!!!!! i remember i had a shoebox art project when i was about 5-6 yrs old...i made fish tank with a lot of fishes.!!! hahahaha
i did something like this in second grade, except mine had dinosaurs, mine was pretty much the best in class
thoseare really good though
thoseare really good though
Gr8KarmaSF;1822812; said:
I hate that too!!!! I'm more than likely going to get a masters in education to go with my Studio Art major. My grade school teachers always encouraged creativity and look at how I ended up, I'm selling my artwork all over the place! The No Child Left Behind act chould be called Every Child Left Behind, because that's what's happening.
Anyways, I like this project, tell the kids I like their work and to keep working on artwork.
Albel;1823217; said:I've heard mention of this U.S program "No Child Left Behind", but what does it consist of... and why is it so not working?
cause the schools who fail to meet standards get less money than the schools who do..
the dumb get dumber...
plus it doesn't take into account any special needs children (physical and mental handicaps) so a school of all 'special kids' would get basically no money at all
there are 1.5x as many complaint with the system than pros...
Claims made in criticism of the ActCritiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:
'Gaming' the system
The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to employ creative reclassification of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).[17]
Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations.[18]
The incentives for an improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.[19]
Problems with standardized tests
Critics have argued that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding that can readily be transferred to similar problems.[20] For example, if the teacher knows that all of the questions on a math test are simple addition equations (e.g., 2+3=5), then the teacher might not invest any class time on the practical applications of addition (e.g., story problems) so that there will be more time for the material which is assessed on the test. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test."
However, Wiggins & McTighe (2005)[21] point out that many teachers who practice "teaching to the test" actually misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. On two state tests (New York State and Michigan) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) almost two thirds of eighth graders missed math word problems that obviously required an application of the Pythagorean theorem to a novel situation. The authors blamed the low success rate on teachers who anticipated the content of the tests, but assumed each test would present rote knowledge/skill items rather than well-constructed, higher-order items.
Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores.[22] A 2007 study by the U.S. Dept. of Education indicates that the observed differences in states' reported scores is largely due to differences in the stringency of their standards.[23]
The practice of giving all students the same test, under the same conditions, has been accused of inherent cultural bias because different cultures may value different skills. It also may conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which states that schools must accommodate disabled students[24]. For example, it is normally acceptable for visually impaired students to be read test material aloud. However, on a NCLB-mandated test, a group of blind students had their scores invalidated (reported as zeros) because the testing protocol did not specifically allow for test readers[25].
The practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.[26]
Incentives against low-performing students
Because the law's response if the school fails to make adequate progress is not only to provide additional help for students, but also to impose punitive measures on the school, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher[27] and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether.[28]
Under the NCLB act schools that do not meet certain established standards are given additional funds in an attempt to boost scores. Critics argue that schools have less of an incentive to do better if they are already receiving more funds. However, schools are also given bonuses for meeting yearly requirements. Since these requirements are given each year, schools are less likely to rapidly increase their scores, as a slow and gradual improvement would be financially better. Another part of the NCLB act gives schools that perform well awards and special recognition that opponents argue would encourage schools already doing well to push out disadvantaged students even more.[citation needed]
Incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students
Some local schools are only funding instruction for core subjects or for remedial special education. In other words, NCLB forces school programs to ration education in such a manner as to only guarantee mandated skill levels in reading, writing, and arithmetic to all students. All other programs not essential to providing mandated skills to regular students or remedial special education students are being gutted by those districts. [29] While Federal law is silent on the requirement for funding gifted programs, the practice can violate the mandates of several states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education.
State refusal to produce non-English assessments
All students who are learning English have an automatic three-year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must normally demonstrate proficiency on an English language assessment. However, the local education authority may grant an exception to any individual English learner for another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis. In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers). The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.[30]
State education budgets
Several years of weak tax revenues, particularly in sales tax and capital gains taxes, have forced most states to make deep cutbacks in many areas, including education.[citation needed] The extra funds provided to a school under NCLB's provisions may be more than offset by budget cuts at the state level, leaving them with both lower revenues and higher expenses.
Narrow curriculum
NCLB's focus on math and English language skills (and eventually science) may elevate scores on two fundamental skills while students lose the benefits of a broad education.[31]
A study conducted by the American Heart Association and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education contends that diminishing physical education in school has contributed to rising levels of childhood obesity.[32]
Surveys of public school principals indicate that since the implementation of NCLB, 71% believe instructional time has increased for reading, writing, and math (subjects tested under the law), and decreased for the arts, elementary social studies, and foreign languages.[33][34][35]
In some places, the implementation of NCLB during a time of budget restraints has been blamed for the elimination of classes and activities which are outside of NCLB's focus area.[36] "It hurts me to give up art, but it hurts me even more to have kids who can't read," said school principal Kathy Deck in Indianapolis, Indiana.[37] These restraints may have affected humanities and social studies curricula as well. Common Core, a group that encourages a broad inclusive curriculum, recently found that many American high school students lack basic knowledge in history, civics, and literature. The group blamed NCLB for not including these topics in its focus.[38]
Narrow definition of research
Some school districts object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, anecdotes, personal experience, or other forms of qualitative research are generally excluded from this category. Furthermore, the inability to employ random assignment for important educational predictors such as race and socio-economic status may exclude a large amount of quasi-experimental work that could contribute to educational knowledge.[39]
Limitations on local control
Some conservative or libertarian critics have argued that NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Libertarians and some conservatives further argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional: States need not comply with NCLB, as long as they are willing to forgo the federal funding that comes with it.[40]
Facilitates military recruitment
NCLB (In section 9528) requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested. Students or parents can opt out of having their information shared, and educational institutions receiving funding under the act are required to inform parents that they have this option.[41] [42] Currently, many school districts have a generic opt out form which, if filled out and turned in, withholds students' information from college and job recruiters as well as the military.
Some students may not learn as well
Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is.[43] While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of a student who has below-average capabilities.
100% compliance
The Act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. In fact, the "all" in NCLB means 95% of students.[44] Recent regulations allow schools to use alternate assessments to declare up to 1% of students with disabilities proficient for the purposes of the Act.[45]
