4 ms·

Excellent article. This is a very real problem. I taught for a while in a private school, so I had more control over my curriculum and methods. Even so, one

Excellent article. This is a very real problem. I taught for a while in a private school, so I had more control over my curriculum and methods. Even so, one of my regrets is that I didn't work with my gifted students enough. My lesson plans were aimed at the middle--and also were exceptionally well-suited for those with learning disabilities. However, my gifted students were left unchallenged. (The irony is that I was a gifted student in school.) In my case, the cause was not enough time. I've never worked so hard in my entire life as when I was a teacher (it doesn't even come close to programming). There was never enough time to get everything done, so some things slipped through the cracks. What would've helped me is fewer preps and sticking around longer (I left teaching after three years).

pmorici 17y ago
Is it? Most education money comes from state and local governments [ http://www.nsea.org/CORE/SchoolFunding.htm http://www.nsea.org/CORE/SchoolFunding.htm http://www.mnbusiness.com/mng/front.html http://www.mnbusiness.com/mng/front.html ] This article is discussing federal standards of which it claims determines 60% of a school's federal funding which is less than 5% of a school's total funding. Not only that but in the schools I went to as a kid they always took the "gift" kids out of regular class a couple times each week to challenge them above and beyond. The crux of this article is the following paragraph, "This fact is demonstrated by research recently released by the Fordham Foundation. Tracking students over seven years in fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade math, the study revealed that low-achieving students (those in the bottom 10 percent) were progressing in reading at five times the rate of high-achieving students (those in the top 10 percent), and at three times the rate in math." I see two problems here. One, there is nothing to compare this to other periods of history so this disparity could have been happening prior to the NCLB act and two it stands to reason that when you are particularly talented at something already improvements will come in smaller increments where as when your are at the low end large leaps of improvement are relatively easy to achieve. With sports like running this is certainly true and it strikes me as a paradigm that would also hold true for academic achievement. NCLB may well be of suspect value but I don't think this article presents a convincing argument.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  This article is discussing federal standards of which it claims determines 60% of a school's federal funding which is less than 5% of a school's total funding. That may be true (although at least here in NJ it varies widely from school to school). But that doesn't drive the conclusion that the federal influence on the disposition of money is proportionate. It's conceivable, and I think even probable, that state and local governments are willing to throw considerable portions of their own money in to chase those federal dollars. There's no reason to think that they won't use inefficiently a big chunk of their budget just to extend it by that additional federal chunk. I base that on (1) the willingness of states to follow all sorts of other federal guidelines in a quest for funding (speed limits, drinking age, etc.) without questioning their importance for each individual state; and (2) my opinion that despite the lip service of the NEA the rest of "the education lobby", their primary motivation is to build and solidify their power base and individual member benefits, rather than to serve students. (I agree with your criticism of the logic comparing achievement by low achievers vs. high achievers.)

pmorici 17y ago

Is it? Most education money comes from state and local governments [ http://www.nsea.org/CORE/SchoolFunding.htm http://www.nsea.org/CORE/SchoolFunding.htm http://www.mnbusiness.com/mng/front.html http://www.mnbusiness.com/mng/front.html ] This article is discussing federal standards of which it claims determines 60% of a school's federal funding which is less than 5% of a school's total funding. Not only that but in the schools I went to as a kid they always took the "gift" kids out of regular class a couple times each week to challenge them above and beyond. The crux of this article is the following paragraph, "This fact is demonstrated by research recently released by the Fordham Foundation. Tracking students over seven years in fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade math, the study revealed that low-achieving students (those in the bottom 10 percent) were progressing in reading at five times the rate of high-achieving students (those in the top 10 percent), and at three times the rate in math." I see two problems here. One, there is nothing to compare this to other periods of history so this disparity could have been happening prior to the NCLB act and two it stands to reason that when you are particularly talented at something already improvements will come in smaller increments where as when your are at the low end large leaps of improvement are relatively easy to achieve. With sports like running this is certainly true and it strikes me as a paradigm that would also hold true for academic achievement. NCLB may well be of suspect value but I don't think this article presents a convincing argument.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
This article is discussing federal standards of which it claims determines 60% of a school's federal funding which is less than 5% of a school's total funding. That may be true (although at least here in NJ it varies widely from school to school). But that doesn't drive the conclusion that the federal influence on the disposition of money is proportionate. It's conceivable, and I think even probable, that state and local governments are willing to throw considerable portions of their own money in to chase those federal dollars. There's no reason to think that they won't use inefficiently a big chunk of their budget just to extend it by that additional federal chunk. I base that on (1) the willingness of states to follow all sorts of other federal guidelines in a quest for funding (speed limits, drinking age, etc.) without questioning their importance for each individual state; and (2) my opinion that despite the lip service of the NEA the rest of "the education lobby", their primary motivation is to build and solidify their power base and individual member benefits, rather than to serve students. (I agree with your criticism of the logic comparing achievement by low achievers vs. high achievers.)