The Observation Deck

Jim OB: Started with a very innocent statement by Gordon Brumm, Lakewood Logic Master, "Why does NCLB ask for physics to be taught in the senior year of High school, when it should be the first thing taught. All science is based on physics."

Just a couple of comments FWIW: Just because a child does not take a class called "Physics" until the junior or senior year of high school does not mean the child has not been presented with the basic ideas of physics each year in their grade appropriate science curriculum. Senior year AP Physics class involves more in depth study, and requires knowledge of higher math, especially calculus. Other physics classes are offered to 11th and 12th graders. My children learned about Newton's Laws of Motion in elementary school. Check out this link to the course descriptions for the science classes at Lakewood High School - and I hope Mr. Brumm will read them as well:

http://www.lnoca.org/lakewood/lhs/SCHOLASTICS/catalog/cat_science.htm

Jim - I think your "master of logic" label is a little over the top. No offense intended, but the statement of Gordon Brumm's quoted above is full of holes. So is equating a developing human embryo to a person's fingernail IMHO.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:The use of this threshold creates a bias in favor of suburbs and small towns, and against districts like Lakewood.


I predict at the end we will see that NCLB is GWB's worst idea EVER. Think about that. I believe this liberal community will decided to go the route of Utah and tell the Feds to keep their money.



.

With all due respect, you're a little late to the party on this one. Millions of words have been written about No Child Left Behind. The story at this point isn't that it's a messed-up idea, that's a given. The story at this point is the scrambling to fix it and how many of the people who originally pushed for it are now backing away.

By definition, NCLB was designed to focus on the urban and poorer districts. Children in wealthy suburbs were NEVER in danger of being "left behind." So it's no surprise that NCLB would disproportionately affect districts in accordance with their percentage of "disadvantaged" or "at risk" students. Again, no earth-shaking revelations there.
Also, NCLB was not solely "GWB's idea." Sen. Kennedy was one of its main architects, too. Moreover, while many administrators moan and complain about NCLB's lack of fairness, they will all congratulate themselves no end when they make the goals.
The problem is that NCLB took a worthy concept, (school "accountability") but filtered it through political prisms. The right wanted to use it as a rationale to break teachers unions. The left wanted to use it as a rationale to increase federal funding to schools.
In the end, neither has happened, and both right and left realize they've created a monster that hardly begins to meet its lofty goals.

Joan--- Thanks for the post. It's always refreshing to hear some clear thinking when the rest of us sometimes veer into the hyperbolic. It sounds as if you have a background in education. Whether you do or not for our benefit please keep an eye on this thread and keep it on line!

Stan Austin

Joan.

Implicit in your summary, as I interpret it, is that sound policy gets chewed up by agendas which often mitigate good intentions.

The many excellent school systems in the US might be the first place to look to see how it is they achieve their excellent results. In fact, they have been studied for decades, as have failing school systems.

Good education results from aspects of complicated social systems working in sympathy with each other while, at the same time, no single or several negative factors undermine the workings of those systems. This, to me, is commonsense too.

Here's a bundled question, (and it has been researched,) are their critical correlations between social-economic factors, educational levels of parents, family structures, parental involvement, how and to what uses school systems allocate resources, expenditures per student, class size, teacher compensation, teacher credentials, administrative leadership, tests of accountability?

(...picking here a few factors among many.) Which factors can be supposed to be the most critical factors?

More simply: how strong are the correlations between parental education levels, household affluence, orientation of school system curricula to matriculating seniors to college, and, systems of accountability?

In 'reverse,' when less successful school systems are analyzed and evaluated, what are the negative correlations? In light of this latter research, where is accountability located on the scale of correlated factors?

Mr. Calhoun:

Again, the link between economics, home life, and student performance is long-established. The bigger questions are, how much are we willing to commit to level the playing field and whose job is it?
Don't be surprised if the educators say, "not ours."
It is also impossible to separate politics from education. There is no escaping the reality that the American public education establishment is in general a Democratic entity. The Democrats want to keep it alive and healthy, the Republicans want to kill it. Abuses and political cynicism abound on both sides Neither is truly on the side of the angels.
NCLB strips the political side of American education bare. If anyone was truly "thinking of the kids", I'm not sure who it was.
Also, thank you to Mr. Austin for the comments. My background is not education but I have been peripherally involved for many years. I don't have an axe to grind either way, which means I can usually make a lot of people mad

Joan. I agree with your pointed analysis. Some people think the playing field gets leveled by lowering their school system's potentials, while others think the reverse. It's a knotty problem.

NCLB strips the political side of American education bare.

Yes. I guess it's a boon for some text book companies!

To me its interesting that factors such as teachers unions and the Democratic establishment of the teaching profession, higher education, and, (I would guess,) substantial parts of the administrative profession in education, cannot be decisive in general with respect to outcomes since this establishment is found across the spectrum of schools. Also, I suppose this Democratic Party orientation is found in districts which are overwhelmingly Republican too.

Yet, I'm not clear what the worst effects of the politicization of this establishment have been.

Joan


So are you willing to write the fourth piece "think of the kids"?

Paper is open source, forum is open source, you have seen our line-up, are you ready to write the fourth piece. I can get editors and writers to help.





.

Mr. O'Bryan.

Thanks sincerely for the invitation, but with 2 jobs, kids, and volunteering, I shouldn't even be doing THIS.
One last thought on the NCLB issue. We are only a few years into this, and the focus has been mainly on children below high school age. Plus, we are gauging "progress" against yardsticks designed to reflect the program itself.
It's sort of like a beauty contest. Is Miss America really beautiful, or does she win because she meets the criteria set by the people who run the pageant?
The "proof in the pudding" will be in five to ten years, when NCLB-era children are older, and then we can gauge them against INDEPENDENT standards NOT RELATED to NCLB.
If we see an uptick, for example, in SAT/ACT scores in 2010, we might conclude that NCLB had a positive impact.
But I'm not hopeful.

Joan Roberts wrote:Mr. O'Bryan.

Thanks sincerely for the invitation, but with 2 jobs, kids, and volunteering, I shouldn't even be doing THIS.
...The "proof in the pudding" will be in five to ten years, when NCLB-era children are older, and then we can gauge them against INDEPENDENT standards NOT RELATED to NCLB.
If we see an uptick, for example, in SAT/ACT scores in 2010, we might conclude that NCLB had a positive impact.
But I'm not hopeful.

Joan


I hope you reconsider, 400-1000 words flow pretty fast when you are passionate about the subject.

The real promblem is underlined by your example. Once away from the pagent how do they perform, act or understand?

.

Having weighed in on the No Child Left Behind issue, I now feel compelled to add a comment since you have posted your first (are there more coming?) article on the issue.
I won't discuss the merits of Mr. Brumm's arguments. Different people will have different takes. I also realize that alternative publications such as the Observer have a different set of rules for mixing news and opinion (imagine the hue and cry if such an article appeared in tne news section of the PD)
My first quibble is with the headline. "Slander"? Slander of whom? Despite the Lakewood-centric view of some people here, NCLB was not passed to embarrass Lakewood, Ohio. As I said, schools with larger populations of minorities and the poor will be affected more by NCLB, because it was those students who WERE being "left behind."
This latter point was not even considered in Mr. Brumm's article. Even the most pointed opinion articles in most journals at least MENTION the other side's merits. The impression Mr. Brumm leaves is that NCLB is and was nothing but a nefarious plot to screw over poorer, urban communities. If that was the case, why was Sen. Kennedy so proud of it?
I appreciate the passion to promote "all things Lakewood" and to defend the city from all enemies and threats. Still, let's always keep in mind that there are several sides to any story. Will you follow up with a piece by an NCLB proponent for balance?

If anyone wants to express a different point of view, it would be welcomed and published.

Joan Roberts wrote:Having weighed in on the No Child Left Behind issue, I now feel compelled to add a comment since you have posted your first (are there more coming?) article on the issue.
I won't discuss the merits of Mr. Brumm's arguments. Different people will have different takes. I also realize that alternative publications such as the Observer have a different set of rules for mixing news and opinion (imagine the hue and cry if such an article appeared in tne news section of the PD)
My first quibble is with the headline. "Slander"? Slander of whom? Despite the Lakewood-centric view of some people here, NCLB was not passed to embarrass Lakewood, Ohio. As I said, schools with larger populations of minorities and the poor will be affected more by NCLB, because it was those students who WERE being "left behind."
This latter point was not even considered in Mr. Brumm's article. Even the most pointed opinion articles in most journals at least MENTION the other side's merits. The impression Mr. Brumm leaves is that NCLB is and was nothing but a nefarious plot to screw over poorer, urban communities. If that was the case, why was Sen. Kennedy so proud of it?
I appreciate the passion to promote "all things Lakewood" and to defend the city from all enemies and threats. Still, let's always keep in mind that there are several sides to any story. Will you follow up with a piece by an NCLB proponent for balance?

though i question that article being on the first page of the latest observer, it must be noted that right under mr. brumm's name appears the word "columnist". columnists do not report news, they report their opinions on the news. hence the one sidedness.

kate (kiss my column) parker

Joan

Gordon's Article was not a defend the city against all threats. Far from it. I must ask, how long have you read the paper? We have often taken opposing views to city hall the school board and other civic groups.

We have a series of three articles planned for this right now, with a potential for a fourth to summarize. This is not an easy subject to digest in little sound bytes.

Now those that know me, know I am a total conspiracy freak. But how can one not see the connections in NCLB. A constant dumbing down of the public schools, with a plan as day plan to privatize all inner city schools and inner rings city schools in three-four years. It is not than such a huge leap to see what private businesses are gathering up these contracts. It is a sham and a scam.

Let's look at what I felt was the Slander, and you make sense out of it.

Lakewood climbs the ranking chart on the state level. Working themselves into the top group. So the state applauds and awards the system. Meanwhile NCLB comes in and finds out that they think Lakewood is not that good. After I believe three of these years, they then turn it over to the state! The state that thinks the schools is doing a great job?!

The point.


.

Mr. O'Bryan.

Your conspiracy theory falls apart under one tiny fact. The portion of NCLB which requires parental notification when schools fail to meet adequate yearly progress was set at least three years ago. NCLB or the state didn't "come in" after Lakewood schools climbed its way up the chart. The rules were laid down long in advance. Other school districts, including some rather affluent ones, found themselves in the same position, and in other states besides Ohio.
As to whether NCLB represents a "dumbing down," that's another argument. What is patently true is that Democrats embraced NCLB at the outset because they felt it would be a way to embarrass the federal government into greater support for public schools, just as the Republicans saw it as a way to embarrass the education establishment.
Also, if you want "school accountability", you have to have standards (keeping in mind that the ability to pass a test is not always a good "standard") Then you need to remember that every standard is going to be to some degree arbitrary. Why is a baseball game 9 innings and not 5 or 13? Why is a pound of sugar 16 oz and not 11.5?
In my opinion, caving in to the complaints of school districts who DON'T meet standards would be a prime example of "dumbing down". Lowering the bar so Lakewood can cross it doesn't seem to be to be a real recipe for community pride.

Joan Roberts wrote:Mr. O'Bryan.

Your conspiracy theory falls apart under one tiny fact. The portion of NCLB which requires parental notification when schools fail to meet adequate yearly progress was set at least three years ago. NCLB or the state didn't "come in" after Lakewood schools climbed its way up the chart. The rules were laid down long in advance. Other school districts, including some rather affluent ones, found themselves in the same position, and in other states besides Ohio.
As to whether NCLB represents a "dumbing down," that's another argument. What is patently true is that Democrats embraced NCLB at the outset because they felt it would be a way to embarrass the federal government into greater support for public schools, just as the Republicans saw it as a way to embarrass the education establishment.
Also, if you want "school accountability", you have to have standards (keeping in mind that the ability to pass a test is not always a good "standard") Then you need to remember that every standard is going to be to some degree arbitrary. Why is a baseball game 9 innings and not 5 or 13? Why is a pound of sugar 16 oz and not 11.5?
In my opinion, caving in to the complaints of school districts who DON'T meet standards would be a prime example of "dumbing down". Lowering the bar so Lakewood can cross it doesn't seem to be to be a real recipe for community pride.

wow, just wow

more refreshing than a fresca!

kate (joan, please write an article for the observer) parker