Diana's comment would be more insightful if accurately reflected the actual provisions of NCLB. She's foretting, perhaps conveniently, about the "advanced" level, i.e., the fourth level in the four-tiered system (don't forget "below basic")?

NCLB requires all states to define three levels of academic achievement:

"(II) ... two levels of high achievement (proficient and advanced) that determine how well children are mastering the material in the State academic content standards; and

(III) ... a third level of achievement (basic) to provide complete information about the progress of the lower-achieving children toward mastering the proficient and advanced levels of achievement."

(Section 1111)

Granted the advanced level isn't used in calculating AYP under NCLB's accountability scheme, but the level must be defined and the data must be collected and reported. And, pundits/commenters this could be opining on such data instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.

Oops. Here's a typo-free version:

Rachel's comment would be more insightful if it accurately reflected the actual provisions of NCLB. She's forgetting, perhaps conveniently, about the "advanced" level, i.e., the fourth level in the four-tiered system (don't forget "below basic")?

NCLB requires all states to define three levels of academic achievement:

"(II) ... two levels of high achievement (proficient and advanced) that determine how well children are mastering the material in the State academic content standards; and

(III) ... a third level of achievement (basic) to provide complete information about the progress of the lower-achieving children toward mastering the proficient and advanced levels of achievement."

(Section 1111)

Granted the advanced level isn't used in calculating AYP under NCLB's accountability scheme, but the level must be defined and the data must be collected and reported. And, pundits/commenters could be opining on such data instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.

The lack of emphasis on kids above proficiency (or those far below) has a simple fix and some states have implemented it. It is to include in the accountability system a "proficiency index" that provides extra credit for students who score in levels above the proficiency mark. In short, if all kids scored just proficient, the score would be 100, if the number at the level below is balanced by an equal number above, the score would still be 100. Kids who don't test score zero, while those who test but score at the lowest level get a low score. This is intended to reward schools that show movement of any group upward, as well as maintaining an incentive for supporting higher achievers.

Okay, but what about the kid who wants to do well on college entrance exams, or even college level courses? Are most kids prepared for that? No, and the emphasis is only on passing TAKS. So the middle of the road kids who have the opportunity to bump it to the next level are kind of the kids left behind. The really good teachers are being hammered with teaching TAKS tutorials and doing TAKS pull outs. Those same teachers used to be the ones that inspired the middle of the road kids on to greater aspirations, and better problem solving, critical thinking, creative writing.

sb:

I am not conversant with the rules/regs in Texas, so I don't know if they have implemented a system that incentivizes movement up the levels or not. I do know that TAKS pullout and TAKS tutorials are a really poor way to impact the achievement/content knowledge that is being measured by the tests. I also know that NCLB does not require, suggest, mention or contemplate such things.

In my own state/district I have seen a lot of these things put in place based on two suppositions: 1) students have already been adequately taught the content and 2)students need help in being able to access and demonstrate their knowledge in the testing situation. I know that in my family experience the first suppostion does not hold up. I also believe that if we seriously attacked the first supposition, the second would disapper.

First -- thank you for the kind words Eduwonkette!

Responding to kderosa's comment: Perhaps I should have been clearer. I am aware that there's an Advanced level in NCLB testing -- California actually has five levels Advanced, Proficient, Basic, Below Basic and Far Below Basic. My experience is, however, that schools that are at risk of not making AYP tend to lose focus on the kids scoring advanced, because the incentive structure of NCLB is so focused on the proficiency bar.

This has the potential to produce demographic inequities simply because schools that receive Title I funds are so much more strongly affected by NCLB than schools that don't. So in our district, the risk is that the Title I schools become the schools that focus on reading, math and proficiency, and the non-Title I schools (which by definition have more affluent students) have more leeway to implement Gifted and Talented programs, and focus on art and science rather than just reading and math. Open enrollment and school choice then draw affluent families and successful students to the non-Title I schools, as well as private schools and charter schools.

In contrast to NCLB's AYP benchmark, the California accountability measure (API) does use the number of students at all levels to determine a school's score (similar to the "proficiency index" that Margo/Mom mentions). But at this point the carrots and sticks of NCLB seem to affect school behavior much more than the state accountability measures.

I would suggest that AYP has tended to affect some of the upper middle class schools as well--as they have students with disabilities and many have English Language Learners. I would also suggest that schools that are focused primarily on kids at/just the proficiency level are really in some deep doodoo to begin with. AYP targets started somewhere around the 20th percentile (of school's proficiency rates) and progressed upward (steeply or not so) from there. My recollection is that in California the targets are still pretty low. In essence the unintended (or not) consequences of having no proficiency standard to focus on was that achievement was all over the map--with all the usual suspects always on the bottom.

I would suggest that AYP has tended to affect some of the upper middle class schools as well--as they have students with disabilities and many have English Language Learners.

Yes and no... It's possible for an affluent school not to make AYP, but if it doesn't get Title I funds (which are distributed on the basis on socio-economic status) there aren't any serious consequences for not making AYP. Because federal funding -- in particular Title I funding -- is the main enforcement mechanism for NCLB, all its consequences (good and bad) are focused on schools with significant numbers of poor students.

I posted this a while back on my blog. It's not technical, it just shows how all this nonsense plays out in a staff meeting.

In the faculty meeting on Wednesday we were treated to an explanation of ULSS (an intervention program) as envisioned by the ULSS team, which consists of the principal, resource teachers, some folks who are never there, and a teacher, maybe. The ULSS has been around for 2 years now, and only now are folks trying to figure out its purpose (it has no real purpose other than lip-service).

In another post (just below this one), the original written nearly 6 months ago, I mentioned that I was held in contempt, and "written up" for voicing concerns about how ULSS was being used, as it was described by "a teacher". The delineation of who gets intervention (you know, services) then, AS NOW, goes something like this:

-Teachers are the 1st layer of intervention (WTF??? And this layer is for Far Below Basic Kids--they actually get NOTHING!!)

-Teachers partnered with non-existant, unfunded resource specialists make up the 2nd layer

-The 3rd layer is one-on-one instruction with a specialist (the only real intervention so far in this list!)

-The 4th layer is titled "Multi-layered" and is as nebulous as could be.

So, the district has manufactured the notion that teachers are the first layer of intervention. This notion was manufactured for a purpose. What purpose you ask? Let me tell you the purpose of calling teachers the first layer of intervention: So the district can tell parents of the lowest performing kids that they are getting the intervention they need (They have a teacher. Seriously.).

I was pleasantly surprised that many on staff were just as outraged (finally) this time as I was. The principal had a mutiny on her hands. Of course, if she were being evaluated, the evaluation would show that her lesson failed, and her management was a disaster. This is how most meetings go. We are treated like children, and we are led by a principal who is too willing to pay lip-service to the nonsense, causing the faculty cognitive dissonance, and then wondering why we are not on board. Oy vey!

To sum it up, we are intervening to get out of an NCLB predicament, not to help kids.