Um, so what? I'm sorry Joseph, but this sounds like a lot of bitching to me. The Federal Standards are tougher than State Standards. Cry me a river. We're still not asking the public education system to part the Red Sea here: "Under the federal rules, schools had to test at least 95 percent of their students and have 13.6 percent of elementary school students and 11.6 percent of high school students be proficient in English and language arts. About 10 percent of high school students and 16 percent of elementary students must be proficient at math." As far as "diversity" goes - what is the alternative? Do we apply a different standard for each different skin color? I can see it now: "We want 13.6% of white elementary students to be profficient at English and language arts. But you hispanics, you're not so bright. We only require 7% of you to be profficient at English and language arts. And you blacks, forget about it. We won't even use the word "proficient, because due to the color of your skin, you most likely cannot understand the word. Y'all just git yo readin' on." Or perhaps we should all think like this moron: "Fuller's study recommends that education officials shift focus from punishing schools that don't meet the benchmarks to a plan that rewards schools that are doing well." I say you do both.
The whole idea that you can "punish" public schools is bizarre. I would love some specific, concrete ideas on how one goes about "punishing" a public school system.
Make them listen to an endless loop of Ashcroft signing his "Eagle Soar" song? Anyway, what Nutmeg seems to have missed is that the Federal guidelines apparently already applies a different standard to different groups because it penalizes a school on the basis of its least proficient group. Let me repeat this guy's statement: "When you pair up schools with equal achievement overall, the one that is serving more diverse students is more likely to be sanctioned by Washington," said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and policy at UC Berkeley and one of the study's authors. If you have a homogenous group, your school is only being judged by that one group, rather than, say by ONE group of students learning English as a second language. The homogenous therefore less at risk of being judged substandard even if its overall quality is no greater than the diverse school. So it's not just that Federal requirements may be tougher. It's that they're not being applied in a fair way that takes into account the differing circumstances under which schools operate. Or are you saying the punishing schools just for offering services to kids with learning disabilities is a somehow a good thing?
Joseph, You could be right in that it is quite possible that I misunderstood. So as you understand it, if 11.9% (just for example) of a high school's student body is rated as proficient in English and language arts, but only 5% of the hispanic population of that high school gets the same rating, that school is not rated by its entire student body, but solely upon the hispanic segment? Really, not trying to be a smartass, just trying to understand. If the scenario I described above is in fact the case, it does really look like ugly policy with which I completely disagree. GringoTex, After your last response to a post of mine, in which you chose to sling unprovoked personal attacks my way, I am uninterested in engaging you in a discussion. Thanks anyway.
You mean you're allowed to frame idiotic, inflammatory straw men against a post of mine AND take the high rode, too? Why don't you climb down from that candy-assed cross you've nailed yourself to and explain how taking federal Head Start dollars from a five-year-old at-risk hispanic kid is a good way to punish a public school. C'mon, jesusito, you can do it.
I really don't think I'd even respond to this if I didn't find the unintentional comedy here really amusing. Post from you in a different thread: Then this from above: Seriously, do you not see the irony? Anyway, if you go back to that thread, I admitted to being out of line by using a stupid and inappropriate strawman in response to your post. I'm sure you can find plenty of others here on BS who will take your personal attacks and keep the conversation going. I'm not interested. That's not victimizing myself. That's making a choice. There is a distinct difference. Take care.
I don't claim to understand all the nuances of federal education law, but as I understand this sentence, different subgroups are tested and treated differently. There are different benchmarks for example for the achievement scores of ESL students or disabled students. The problem is that if one of those programs is deficient, then the whole school is deemed deficient. So, if the English as a Second Language program at the school is subpar compared to other ESL programs, the school as a whole receives a "failing" grade. The issue doesn't seem to be with comparing like-programs to like-programs, but rather the over-inclusiveness of the remedy. A fix might be to allow students in a failing ESL program to transfer, but not all students in the school.
While I realize that most people who support NCLB will say "just get with the program!" when it comes to issues like how school diversity affects test scores, everyone should check out the front page of today's Wall St Journal (which costs money to sub online so no link): "Brain Drain: Initiative to Leave No Child Behind Leaves Out Gifted". Some of the examples... Illinois: $19 million program for gifted students eliminated as state increases aid for at-risk preschoolers by $30 million. California: 18% decrease in gifted student program funding; greater decrease than any other major school program. Connecticut: 22% of districts reduced or eliminated gifted student programs. East Providence, RI: drops gifted elementary school student program in favor of broad-based reading initiatives. Plymouth, MA: Three gifted-student teacher positions eliminated; replaced with regular teachers. As the WSJ itself points out, there has to be a "delicate balance" between focusing on the top performers and focusing on the most struggling students. But since NCLB is an unfunded initiative, Bush is forcing school districts to drop programs that work in favor of a centralized program with no proven track record. (Don't even try to use Houston as a "shining example" of NCLB since it's been shown repeatedly that their test score increases are due to falsified test data and a high dropout rate, not improved learning.) How is this good, exactly?