Slashdot Mirror
Helping Some Students May Harm High Achievers
palegray.net writes "According to a new study performed by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, increased emphasis on helping students with a history of lower academic achievement results in lower performance for high achievers. This trend appears to be related to the No Child Left Behind Act. Essentially, programs designed to devote a large number of resources to assisting students who are deemed to be 'significantly behind' leave little room for encouraging continued academic growth for higher-performing students."
No. It's not about finance.
It's about finding ways to challenge the studnets.
When I was in elementary and junior high, the school split us into classes based on academic results so far.
It worked very well. There was far less variation between the bottom and top of the class and the teachers could do a much better job of teaching to the class.
This is now deemed to be prejudicial and so the school no longer does this. The students are the losers across the board.
I know no one actually RTFA, but it actually says that scores have gone up for all levels of students. Scores have gone up HIGHER for lower students, but they've still gone up for higher students as well. It's just that raising the very top is much harder than raising the bottom, so there's been more progress on the latter. There is NOTHING in the article that says top students are WORSE off now than before NCLB (as asinine as the law is in other ways).
Make cheese not war 8:)
At my age (I'm 44), I am one of the few people who experienced the public education system in Canada both before and after this type of policy (NCLB) took effect. I was always a high achiever, and despite getting a late start in kindergarten (I was almost 6), I quickly learned the work and accelerated several grades. I was still 6 in grade 3.
Sometime during grade 4, I noticed something going on with the curriculum. Rather than the steadily more challenging books I was expecting, reading began to be taught using a series of cards with the simplest of prose on them. Suddenly, the reading skills being taught to grade 4 students dropped to the "run Spot run" level. And stayed there.
By the time the new curriculum had become entrenched, I was in grade 6. My teacher in that grade was obligated to spend most of his time teaching the troublemakers in the class and really had very little time left over for anyone else, especially high achievers. Since this time, it has been declared that mentally retarded (sorry, NOT developmentally delayed, NOT differently intelligent, NOT developmentally challenged, mentally retarded) must be placed in regular classrooms also, along with autistic children and almost any other child not capable of learning at a normal pace. I can only imagine what effect this has had on actual learning in school.
I was very fortunate in that my parents, firmly in the middle class, were able to find a school with excellent academics that catered exclusively to gifted students and scrape together the tuition for it. Suddenly I was learning Latin, and Shakespeare, and actual geography and history. And this school was not afraid to kick me out for lack of academic performance.
It seems obvious to me that with a policy such as NCLB, schools will focus on getting the maximum number of students to a certain level of mediocrity. Under such a program, this is the maximum result (funding wise) for the minimum effort. And as this generation of children moves up in age, results of this policy will be easy to see. We can see them now in fact. Look at the comments on social networking sites et.al.: "like i dint no u r gonna b workig their omg that is sooooooo cool".
Just think: this is the next generation, the one that is going to have to meet the competitive challenge from India, China and others in the global battle for power and influence.
Looks like we've had our day in the sun.
PARENTING. Your kid may be a rock or a rocket scientist, but without good parenting, they will never reach their full potential, figure out what their particular gifts are, or 'learn how to learn'. Whatever ones' opinion of No Child Left Behind and other well-intended public policies, no policy has anything close to the impact of good parenting and good teaching. The study and its implications are not relevant to the individual family - good parenting is.
In the Netherlands (which is in Europe), it's not so bad.
Note: various things I've written here don't translate well. I don't use the words for various school types the same way as others, so some names will look funny to your eyes.
There are often several primary schools to choose from. They differ in religious affiliation (the common choices are catholic, protestant, and secular), but also in method (besides "normal" schools, there are also free (as in freedom) schools and Montessori schools) and level of education. Still, they all fit in with the rest of the system, so, by the time you graduate from them, you have at least learned the same basics as others.
High school is where it really gets interesting. There are various levels of high school. The system has undergone some reforms in recent times, but, last time I looked, there were VMBO, HAVO, and VWO, in order of increasing level. So, although it is not politically correct to say this, the most intelligent kids go to VWO, the least intelligent go to VMBO. I could go on and on, but the take home message is that there is a separation there: VMBO is more practically oriented; it teaches you to work, so to speak. VWO is more academically oriented, and is the only one that grants access to university. So the VWO kids don't get bogged down by the VMBO kids who don't understand algebra, and the VMBO kids don't have to learn all the academic stuff they aren't going to need for their jobs anyway.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
In Poland that's exactly the opposite. When you pass 9th grade you go through a merit-based recruitment process for the high schools, and the best schools only take the top students. Moreover, the best schools are all public. The second round of elimination is at the college level - day courses at public universities are free of charge (!), and those "free" courses are generally the best, so there is fierce competition - at the University of Warsaw, around 25 students apply per place for the most popular courses. It may be cruel, but since for the best students the entire education path is free of charge, it's not uncommon for smart people from the countryside to become top professionals in their field, and advance into the middle class in one generation.
On the other hand, the not-so-genius students can have a hard time. but then there are decent private colleges which usually recruit people on a first come, first serve basis.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
The general result was that 50% of the schools resources was poured into 15-20% of the students. If you think that's fair that's your problem I for one will respectfully disagree.
Why is it ok for resources to be expended disproportionately when they are spent on the dysfunctional, but it's not ok when they are spent on the bright and talented?
Specifically, the cost to "normalize" say, a Down's child is far more than the avg cost of a normal student. Since you're disagreeing with "pouring" resources into a small fraction of the students, surely you're against such policies.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
If you read the executive summary the salient point is that "Children at the tenth percentile of achievement (the bottom 10
percent of students) have shown solid progress in fourth-grade reading and math and eighth-grade math since 2000, but those at the 90th percentile (the top 10 percent) have made minimal gains."
The article is attempting to spin this into FUD that helping the lower performing students is having a negative impact on the upper performers, when in fact the upper performers just aren't gaining as much.
There are certainly some things that can (and should) be done better, but the tone of the article (and most of the posts) seem to miss the actual facts here.