What are some circumstances in which No Child Left Behind will fail to have 100% students passing by 2013?

Question

No Child Left Begind requires 100% of all students to reach proficiency by 2013-14. The argument is made that previously instruction bar was lowered for students with disabilities and that NCLB will force teachers to make increased efforts and intense instruction. What circumstances would lead to less than 100% student proficiency and what responsibility do educators have to those students?

Answer 1

The problem here is the definition of "proficiency."

First, grade level standards were set by what AVERAGE, non-disabled, native Engish speaking learners could gain, through standard large-group instruction, in one school year. An average 3rd grader's reading level is what is considered "3rd grade level."

This is very much like Procrustes' bed... if you're too short for the bed you get stretched, and if you're too tall for the bed you get your legs chopped off.

Then, NCLB set a standard that ALL students, including those whose environmental impacts (e.g. non-English speaking home, physical/physiological disabilities, abusive homes, low-income homes, etc.) interfere with their learning rates, be able to perform at that "grade level" marker set by students who are not contending with these other variables. In other words, NCLB, with that "100% of all students will read at grade level" goal, demands that the following children all read English at grade level by the age of 8:
--a child with severe learning disabilities, who cannot naturally and efficiently process visual symbology into language like his/her peers can, due to physiological wiring issues in his/her brain
--a child with mental retardation, whose natural learning rate is 200 to 1000 times slower than the "average" child
--a child who is blind and deaf
--a child in a persistent vegetative state
--a child whose first exposure to English was that year, and who never speaks English at home
--a child who has been through severe emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse, who is unable to concentrate due to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder

and so on.

Each and every one of these different, "non-average" children CAN LEARN....but at their own potential rates, not at some "average" marker. The whole purpose of Special Education, ESL programs, etc. is to help students whose situation is outside the "average" learn to their individual full potential.

Teacher accountability should require consistent demonstrated, reasonable levels of growth in ALL their students (no plateaus or regressions), at those students' levels of potential. Average kids should be expected to make at least one grade-level gain. Gifted children should be expected to make at least 1.5 to 2 grade level gains each year. Special education students should be making gains commesurate with their IQ scored potentials combined with developmental expectations (e.g. children with learning disabilities are often not developmentally ready to learn fluent reading until the age of 10 or so....small gains in some skills can be made until the developmental "leap" happens). ELL students should make gains in their English skills based on "foreign language" learning rates, not native speaker rates.

Portfolio documentation of student progress from August to May, an 80% (B) passing grade rather than 60% (D), no cap on retaining students in grade level, automatic referral for special ed services if a student has been held back 2 or more times for not earning a B average in the regular ed setting (if not already identified and tested/admitted to specialized programming earlier), real accoutability laid on parents rather than schools for student attendance and discipline, teacher professional development based on real student need and not political considerations/program adoptions, and smaller teacher/staff to student ratios in all areas and categories to give each student more individualized instruction time, would be truly effective.

NCLB as it stands appears to be an attempt to cut education from the federal budget while using teachers as scapegoats.

Answer 2

That answer says it all! These tests are ridiculous and force teachers to take time away from teaching that is meaningful and purposeful, for both SPED and 'regular' education. Here in NJ we have the NJASK 3 and 4...politicians were asked to take the test and some of them didn't pass! If adults can't pass why are we asking our students to!

Answer 3

I on no account, ever, ever desire to feel that I'm infallible. I refuse to feel I recognize the whole lot, or some thing, fairly, and it is this mind-set that makes me desire to be trained. Because you cannot be trained if you know, proper? Because I feel perfect expertise of any and all truths is the perfect well, I refuse to consider I've ever reached it. Because what if I have not, and I quit looking to be trained? What if I stagnate?

Answer 4

WOW spedusource, you know your stuff!! good answer!!

Answer 5

Spedsource said it all. Thanks Spedsource!!!