As a teacher of gifted students, I see the kids that get "left behind" by the euphemistic "No Child Left Behind" act. This is what happens when politicians get to make educational policy ~ they create something that sounds good for a sound bite without really understanding all the true effects that will occur down the line.
Read on...
********************
From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Wednesday, August 29, 2007. See
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070829/news_lz1e29goodkin.html********************
Gifted children are being left behindBy Susan Goodkin and David G. Gold
With reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act high on the agenda as Congress returns from its recess, lawmakers must confront the fact that the law is causing many concerned parents to abandon public schools that are not failing.
These parents are fleeing public schools not only because, as documented by a recent University of Chicago study, the act pushes teachers to ignore high-ability students through its exclusive focus on bringing students to minimum proficiency. Worse than this benign neglect, No Child forces a fundamental educational approach so inappropriate for high-ability students that it destroys their interest in learning, as school becomes an endless chain of basic lessons aimed at low-performing students.
These predictable problems were reported as early as 2003, when The Wall Street Journal warned that schools were shifting their focus overwhelmingly toward low achievers. Expressions of concern from distressed parents and educators of gifted children have come in increasing numbers ever since.
No Child is particularly destructive to bright young math students. Faced with a mandate to bring every last student to proficiency, schools emphasize incessant drilling of rudimentary facts and teach that there is one "right" way to solve even higher-order problems. Yet one of the clearest markers of a nimble math mind is the ability to see novel approaches and shortcuts to attacking such problems.
This creativity is what makes math interesting and fun for those students. Schools should encourage this higher-order thinking, but high-ability students are instead admonished for solving problems the wrong way, despite getting the right answers. Frustrated, and bored by simplistic drills, many come to hate math.
Talented writers fare no better in language arts education. Recently, a noted children's author recounted her dismay when fifth-graders attending one of her workshops balked at a creative writing exercise. She was shocked to learn that the reluctant writers were gifted. The children, however, had spent years completing mundane worksheets designed for struggling classmates and thus rebelled at an exercise they assumed would be yet another tedious worksheet.
One suggested revision to address these concerns is "growth modeling," which tracks the progress of all students, including those already scoring above proficiency. But as long as No Child requires that every student reach proficiency by 2014 and it continues to focus only on grade-level material, teachers will lack incentives to appropriately educate students who can master their grade's curriculum well before spring testing. Nor will growth modeling prompt schools to provide an enriching curriculum that goes beyond the basics.
The response of many parents to this situation was summed up succinctly by one of our numerous friends, colleagues and family members who have pulled their children from neighborhood schools: "We've learned that the real solution is called 'private school.'
"Perhaps if more policy-makers sent their children to public schools, they would address these unintended but disastrous consequences of No Child. Rather than trying to rectify this situation, however, many politicians advocate a voucher program that would only encourage more parents to desert public education.
Some politicians justify vouchers with the Orwellian claim that taking money from public schools to pay private tuition will improve the public schools by forcing them to compete for students. This claim is absurd given the uneven playing field between public and private schools.
Most obviously, private schools can reject any student who would require extra time from teachers. Thus it is left to public schools to handle children with behavior problems or severe learning impairments, and non-English speakers. Until private schools receiving vouchers are required to accept all applicants, vouchers simply allow them to cherry-pick public school students, giving them an insurmountable competitive edge.
Ironically, the private schools to which President Bush and his allies are so anxious to hand public funds are also exempt from the standardized testing these politicians declare to be the critical measure of educational success. Private schools need not impose upon their students the drudgery of preparing for and taking weeks of standardized tests and can offer an enriching curriculum beyond the basics without worrying about No Child sanctions. Given these one-sided constraints, no one could honestly claim that vouchers do anything but drain resources from the public schools this act was supposed to improve.
In adopting the No Child law, Congress finally addressed the shameful neglect of students in failing schools, particularly inner-city schools. Now it must address the fact that the requirements it imposed are driving away many of the concerned and involved parents critical to our ailing public school system.
----------------------------
Goodkin is executive director of the California Learning Strategies Center, a Ventura-based education think tank. Gold is a lecturer and consultant on strategic issues in negotiation.
*********************************************
Another great article on this topic: Time Magazine's
Are We Failing Our Geniuses?
Did you hear that the traditional nativity scene that is usually displayed at the Capitol will not be displayed this Christmas season? The Supreme Court has actually ruled that there cannot be a nativity scene this year and in the future!
Now, it takes a brave person to name a child Axl, Elvis, or Bjork. But our personal favorite from the list (which has now become a top contender in our baby name search) is P. Diddy!
We think that naming our baby Glenfiddich or Merlot might be seen as a little "uppity" (if you know what I mean), but we are seriously considering Bud (middle name of Light). 
Here's a pic of me, doing what I do. Don't mind the tiger ears... 
We drove back Sunday night, crashed for not-quite-a-full-night's sleep, and woke up at the crack of dawn to meet and tailgate with friends for the St. Louis Rams' game.
Diana, chillin' by the tunes on the tailgate. 
Don't ask what is happening here. 
Our seats were definitely in the nosebleed section, but there really isn't a bad seat in the dome. We were able to see all the action! The game was a nailbiter 'til the very end.
Not that everyone in our group would know that it was a nailbiter, though... Some (unnamed) members of the group left the game at the beginning of the fourth quarter because the stadium stops selling beer at that time. They ditched out and went back to the cars to drink... I have to admit, I was disappointed... 
Do you think that these are the same people that get to drag out the tarp for rainouts? Does anyone have any connections at the stadium that might be able to get me this job?
