From: Wikipedia- Should we allow the use of this web site?
I also do not let students use wikipedia, if it can be found there great but verify it with a more credible source from the library. Though I don't… ...
From: Wikipedia- Should we allow the use of this web site?
I am one of those instructors who does not allow wikipedia as a source in my classroom. However I also do not allow dictionaries, encyclopedia or… ...
From: Developing OnLine Classes
Thanks Carla. AT AIU we constantly work towards offering new programs for our students. My Bachelor's degree was in Pyschology from a traditional… ...
I think everyone agrees that the concept of no child left behind is a good one. However, it seems to me that the way we are approaching the assessment of whether children are being left behind is all wrong. We are testing skills students have needed in the past instead of preparing them for the future.
Some of the old ideas still work. In grades K-3 students still “Learn to Read” and from grades 4 on we “Read to Learn”. However, the world of information is changing. Teaching children to learn from textbooks does not provide them with the critical thinking skills they need to develop to deal with the digital world of limitless ideas. Testing them with todays multiple choice standardized tests does not assess the skills they most need to develop.
It has been said that if Ben Franklin came back to life today he would not recognize anything in the world except the public school system. When the world is rapidly changing, why is it so hard to change the schools to grow with it?
The educational system is a massive system of intertwined segments. Where do we start to make changes? Do we start at the college level by changing the teacher training programs to help teachers develop the plans for their students to learn appropriate skills? Do we start with elementary schools providing opportunities for children to learn new skills and propose new ideas? Do we start with high schoolers that are already looking for ways to be different from their parents? Do we start with changing NCLB to test for skills needed in the future instead of the past?
It seems to me that by pressuring teachers to meet the standards of NCLB which tests skills of the past, we are leaving all of our students behind. We are not preparing them for the future. It seems to me that the key pressure point needed to make the necessary changes is the parents. If the parents of school children are unhappy with what their children are being taught they will make the politicians change the rules. If the rules are changed and the funding is affected all schools will change to meet the new requirements.
It is time for all adults: parents, grandparents and educators to start insisting that our children be provided skills for the future instead of the past.
I feel that the NCLB is behind the trends that are developing and soon will be out of date.
I can’t believe some of the NCLB changes, check out this New York Times article: Here!
Unreal!! Since NCLB was been enacted, the average elementary school has implemented the following changes:
* 140 MORE minutes per week teaching reading
* 87 MORE minutes for math
* 76 fewer minutes per week for social studies
* 75 fewer minutes per week for science
* 57 fewer minutes per week for art
* 40 fewer minutes for PE
Having children tested to proved that they understand what they supposedly learned seems acceptible.
Linda Forestor |Jan. 2, 2008 @ 3:27 PM
Perhaps one of the most critical errors in NCLB is the twin problem of its applicability. As written, the law applies to schools receiving Title I dollars - schools serving students with significant populations that fall below federal poverty guidelines. For many schools, the poverty level ot its students it closely tied to such divergent factors as single parent families where the custodial parent is working multiple jobs to put food on the table and is not available to supervise homework or to attend parent/teacher conferences, or to children for whom English is not the first language (i.e. not the language spoken in the home) of either the child or the parent. These are children who need the resources provided by TItle I most - and the ones who stand to lose those resources when schools don’t meet AYP goals and areforced to use limited and valuable resources to hire outside consultants. To define “student achievement” as the results of one standardizes test with an arbitrary number of students meeting the target score would seem to be at best counter-productive. More appropriate would seem to be defining success as a percentage increase in achievement from one year to the next, with the first year’s test scores serving as the baseline score against which future scores are measured.