Why I hate NCLB

Here's the main thrust of why I hate the No Child Left Behind law. I
tried to do this without resorting to F-Bombs, but I failed. I just got so
mad.
Allow me to begin by quoting my district's Interim Superintendent:

Our district has entered Year 1 of Program Improvement (PI)
under federal accountability requirements outlined in the No Child Left
Behind law. While we saw gains at every grade and among every group of
students, we did not increase performance sufficiently for two groups:
African American and English Learner pupils. In each case, we missed the
target by one percent or less.

See that? We gained in every grade and among every group of
students, but we didn't gain fast enough for the bureaucrats
in Washington. And because of a less-than-one-percent lack, our entire
district enters PI status. My school isn't actually in PI, but the
district's status affects us. Now I'm going to have to go to a bunch of
chickenshit training days on how to get African American and ELL students up
to par, which basically means a lot of teaching to the tests, and ignoring
important things they'll actually use in their lives in favor of how to
decode tests.

Now, PI 1 isn't that big a deal. But the fundamentals of NCLB are far more
pernicious than PI. Let's look at them.

The biggest beef I have with NCLB is that it has as its main goal that ALL
students--100% of students--will score at the "Proficient" or "Advanced"
level by 2014. Now, unless you live in Fantasy Land, that's just not
possible. Even if every single teacher in America was an incredible
educator, it could not be done. There's just too much outside of our
control. If I teach well, but a kid never, ever does his homework, and thus
never builds the skill, guess who the government blames? That's right, me.
It doesn't matter how much I try to get the kid to do his work, it doesn't
matter than I work closely with his parents, it's all on me if he chooses
not to partake of the offers of assistance I make him. And I've had
students like that.

Second, students do NOT, for the most part, take these standardized tests
seriously. We never see their scores until the next year, so we can't give
them any grade on the test--and they know that. Since the test score
doesn't affect their grades, they don't care about the test, so they just
randomly fill answers in. I've seen it happen--students will breeze through
a two-hour test in 30 minutes by randomly filling in little dots, and
nothing I say and no threat from either the administration or their parents
will get them to do otherwise. I've had kids tell me straight up they just
guessed on everything, even though they're A-level students who routinely
give me excellent work.

And that, right there, is the main issue I have with NCLB: It's too
dependent on standardized tests. If CST tests required students to, oh,
write an essay, it might be meaningful. But it doesn't. It just
asks them to read a section, then answer a bunch of questions about it.
There's no incentive for them to do their best other than pride, and in the
school I teach in--and, if my colleagues at "better" schools are to be
believed, their students aren't any better.

The problem with Standardized tests is, they don't test what is important.
To quote Alfie Kohn,* "reading comprehension exams usually consist of a
concentration of separate questions about short passages on unrelated topics
that call on students to ferret out right answers rather than engage in
thoughtful interpretation." These tests aren't about testing the ability of
students to meet the standards of education (of which California's are the
most stringent in the nation), they're about testing the ability of students
to pick the right answer out of several possibilities. So we end up
teaching "winnowing" strategies, where they eliminate answers until they get
the proper one. If that's all we need, then let's end high schools now and
get on with it. Just teach them to read, then teach them to take tests,
then let them become the undereducated lower class that the government seems
so desirous of. Well, I say Fuck that. We need to take back
our schools. LOCAL control. There should be no higher control on
California schools than their local school district. Thank you for your
funding, State of California, now SHUT UP. NO, Federal Government. Kindly
sit down and shut up. No, really.

For those of you who are, even now, reaching for the mouse to click "Reply"
and tell me I ought to teach in a Private school, please, shut the fuck up
right now. With, I admit, some exceptions, Private school teachers do NOT
make decent wages; even compared to public school teachers, they get paid
crap. One of the teachers at my school left the Private Waldorf school here
in town after 12 years because he wanted to earn "a real living"--because
even after 12 years, he made significantly less than he does now in the
district. Another moved here from Arizona because he relished the
opportunity to teach in a "private school mentality while earning a decent
wage."

The one thing I love about this school is that I'm allowed to teach the
meat of my subject even as I teach the side-dishes. Explain that
metaphor? Of course I will, thanks for asking!

One of the more common things you'll hear high school teachers say about
teaching is that "It's not about the subject, it's about the kids and their
skills." In other words, in most public schools, English Lit isn't really
about the stories, it's about writing a sentence, and grammar, and how to
write essays. More and more school curriculae are getting away from using
fiction altogether; they use newspaper articles and other non-fiction, often
below the grade level of the students, to teach skills.

Here, I'm still required and expected to teach the skills, but I'm also
allowed to teach the literature. I teach them to write an essay by
teaching them about the American Romantics and having them write about it.
I teach them spelling while I teach them to read--not to decipher writing,
but to read, to appreciate the imagery and symbolism of the work. My
old principal would have frowned on that; my new one adores it. If I decide
to remain here after this year, it will be because of that.

---

*I may bitch and moan about educators who quote Theory wonks, but I
can do it with the best of them. The difference is, I don't think quoting
Alfie Kohn gets me off the hook for original thought; too many other
teachers can ONLY quote.

Stupid things said on American Idol

Despite my better judgment, I watched the premiere of American Idol. I watched Season 1 all the way through, and ever since, I just watch the audition episodes and then stop. I don't really care who wins AI, I just like watching people make fools of themselves.

Anyway, here are some of the stupid, stupid things I heard while watching, with commentary:

"I don't know what they're looking for."

Really? Really? Honey, this show's been on for seven years now. Have you not watched a single one of them? Because if you had, you'd know you're not, in fact, what they're looking for.

"And I got a lot of tattoos so I'd never be forced to sit in an office all day."

Child, there aren't any OfficeCops whose job it is to force you to sit in an office. There are, in point of fact, many, many other things you can do with your life, without getting a body full of ugly-ass art. But, ok, you took your path. Now, what are you going to do if your music career comes to a screeching halt before you turn 30?

Well, at least you can sing.

"I just need someone to tell me that I'm great."

Then get a dog, because man do you suck! Whiny little brat.

No quote, just singing

Dude. When you sing, we're not supposed to picture you sitting on the toilet squeezing one out. Seriously.

I had more, but my daughter took my attention for a while--and rightly so--and I forgot them.