# So now that NCLB has hit the reality of the scholastic ability bell curve. What happens next? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2011, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554 "2011-07-19T06:57:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/101 "2011-07-28T17:23:23Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Honestly I don’t see it. I know it gets claimed all the time, and has for years … “kids today …” But given the this thread’s focus on metrics, where is the evidence of this? > > [High School graduation rates](http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html) have some recent declines, but are, overall pretty flat since the 60’s. There was moderate spike in the late 60’s to a peak of 77% but otherwise we’ve spent the last 50 years in a narrow range, most clustered a bit below and a bit above 70%, depending on the exact report. Overall we are actually [up slightly](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/education/30graduation.html) in recent years. > The first link makes some very important points. Even during the years that overall graduation rates decreased, every individual demographic group made gains. The overall rate decreased because of the shift in demographics:All demographic cohorts are improving; we just now consist of a larger share of a traditionally lower performing cohort, who are often clustered in lower performing schools. > > This even shows on [SAT scores](http://professionals.collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/cb/cohort-differences-trends-sat). Matched for cohorts average SAT verbal scores have declined only very slightly and SAT math scores have increased slightly. > > That brings us to the usual bit about declining SAT and ACT scores as evidence of the decline of American education. [Not so fast.](http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeat_lessons20000830/) > > Meanwhile more of those High School graduates are managing to attend [college](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703832204575210244203411342.html?mod=e2tw) than before. > > Ah, but we are “falling behind” compared to other nations. True, other nations [are doing better than they used to](http://www.pri.org/business/global-development/american-educational-decline-not-so-bad.html) … but that is because they are getting better, not the US getting worse. > > This myth of our educational decline is annoying. Yes we need to invest to do better. Yes, we need to do something about the drop-out factories and get better education to our lower performing demographics while not neglecting to give our best and brightest of all the groups every possible chance to learn and to create. But we aint doin’ so bad. And to tie all of that together, show us the declining aptitude you have to have to ‘graduate’ or do well on the SAT… The standards have declined. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/102 "2011-07-28T18:18:37Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > **Mr. Moto** , I used Vygotsky as an example of something that works better than rote learning. Any teacher worth their salt is going to use a combination of methods that work for their students and in their content area; a science or math teacher is going to do things differently than a social studies or an English teacher would. I do agree that group work isn’t always appropriate; sometimes, you do need to lecture or take some other approach. But the “tried and true” method of lecturing and drilling doesn’t work unless you want kids who can regurgitate facts on an exam. My point is just that encouraging kids to work with each other is more effective than having them fend for themselves. Well, far from having kids fend for themselves, the tack my brother and his group have been taking is using technological tools (everything from ipods to PCs) to allow students to learn the material at their pace, with the practice and repetition that they individually require. The tools also can provide real-time tracking of learning by the teaching professional - feedback can show how many times the student had to go through an assignment before becoming comfortable with it, or which segments of an online quiz caused problems. This will allow a teacher to either reiterate these points in class or address the problem with the student individually. Seems like a good idea to me, both from the point of view of the student and the enhancement of the teacher’s ability to teach. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/103 "2011-07-28T18:38:53Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Well, far from having kids fend for themselves, the tack my brother and his group have been taking is using technological tools (everything from ipods to PCs) to allow students to learn the material at their pace, with the practice and repetition that they individually require. > > The tools also can provide real-time tracking of learning by the teaching professional - feedback can show how many times the student had to go through an assignment before becoming comfortable with it, or which segments of an online quiz caused problems. This will allow a teacher to either reiterate these points in class or address the problem with the student individually. > > Seems like a good idea to me, both from the point of view of the student and the enhancement of the teacher’s ability to teach. Honestly, there are pros and cons with anything you do in a classroom. As I said, different approaches work well in different. I would use technology differently, but that’s more of a preference than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/104 "2011-07-28T23:28:22Z")
> [@astro](#): > > I’m not sure we are understanding each other clearly. I’ll blame myself for not being clear enough or possibly I’m missing your point. I’m not in favor of worthless diplomas, or automatic advancement, or coddling under achievers, but I also believe that academic ability falls along a bell curve, and there are real world limits to just how far you are going to push the back end of that curve in terms of intellectual proficiency. Whether we track these under performing kids into vocations that are matched to their intellectual ability, or whatever we do, I think we need to stop kidding ourselves that if only we keep trying, with enough money and effort they will meet standards at some point. OK, cards on the table, I feel that the demographically challenged student is riding a sinking ship of culturally driven roadblocks. No amount of money will make this collective horse drink water. That is the problem that needs to be addressed. It is the hole in the titanic. > [@astro](#): > > I don’t see this as a retreat to lax standards. Setting up an impossible level of proficiency for the less academically able as a hard target, then dumping massive resources toward that goal, and then (surprise) seeing them fail to meet those targets (which is where we are now) is an insane waste of limited resources. > > Just so I’m clear - Are you arguing that we should keep an extraordinarily high volume of resources and funding flowing (current NCLB model) to keep pushing the back end of this bell curve forward because the goal is (in your opinion) achievable for them with a sufficient commitment by the schools, or are you arguing that we let the back end of the bell curve fail out (which is historically what has happened) and focus on those we can reach re achieving higher standards. > > What is your position? We should address the culture of failure and that starts by showing students where they really stand and then holding them to the same level of standards we have always held. Because frankly, an educationally dysfunctional child is tomorrows dysfunctional adult. I have to believe there is at least one school system in a demographically challenged area that is successful in breaking down the roadblocks. Find it, duplicate it and bring our kids back from the last 40 years of wandering in the educational desert. I’m not really sure what we’re talking about in reference to the lower end of the bell curve. We’ve always had people on that end of the scale and while college may not be in their future there is no reason why they can’t succeed on a HS level. All trades require some level of skill-sets. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/105 "2011-07-29T03:26:36Z")
**Magiver** , Cites already provided- The “demographically challenged” are indeed on a ship that has some water, but the data is clear: it is rising not sinking. Scores for those demographics are still not as high as those of the traditional high achievers, but they are going up. Again, more of these demographically challenged kids are taking the standardized tests than before, no longer just the brightest of them, and yet the test scores for those challenged groups _have still gone up_. More of them are going to college. You repeat yet again the myth of an educational desert but the facts belie that assertion. They have been held to the same standards we have always held, and more of them are passing those standards than before. And by the way, there is [“at least one school system in a demographically challenged area that is successful in breaking down the roadblocks”](http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED462485&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED462485) … > [@](#): > > 4,577 schools nationwide that had students with reading and/or math performance in the top third among all schools in the state at the same grade level, at least 50 percent low-income students, and at least 50 percent African American and Hispanic students … 3,592 high-performing, high-poverty schools; 2,305 high-performing, high-minority schools; and 1,320 high-performing, high-poverty-and-minority schools. These schools educated approximately 2,070,000 million public school students, including 1,280,000 low-income students, 564,000 African American students, and 660,000 Hispanic students. As a group, these high-achieving schools enroll much higher proportions of poor and minority children than the nation’s public schools as a whole. Yes, these high achieving high poverty schools [have been studied.](http://www.sjboces.org/nisl/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%20beyond.pdf) > [@](#): > > • A focus on academic achievement > • Clear curriculum choices > • Frequent assessment of student progress and multiple opportunities for improvement > • An emphasis on nonfiction writing > • Collaborative scoring of student work Nothing too magical. A focus on _improvement_. > [@](#): > > The consistent message of charts showing weekly improvement from the fall through the spring was, 4 “It’s not how you start here that matters, but how you finish.” Improvements of more than one > grade level in a single year were common, and teachers and administrators paid particular attention to students whose deficiencies in reading and writing would have a profound impact on their success in other subjects. Some students spent as many as three hours per day in literacy interventions designed to get students to desired achievement levels. There did not appear to be any consistency with regard to the intervention programs in use by these schools. Teachers being free to not have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required. > [@](#): > > It is possible, for example, that many of the teachers in these schools did not “cover the curriculum” in the strict sense of checking off objectives from a wide variety of curricular areas. Meaningful assessments, not the silly NCLB metrics. > [@](#): > > the penalty for poor performance is not a low grade, followed by a forced march to the next unit. Rather, student performance that is less than proficient is followed by multiple opportunities to improve performance. Most of these schools conducted weekly assessments of student progress. It is important to note that these assessments were not district or state tests, but were assessments constructed and administered by classroom teachers. The consequence of students performing badly was not an admonishment to “Wait until next year” but rather the promise that “You can do better next week.” So on, high emphasis on informative writing skills and multiple teachers exchanging papers but scoring to consistent guidelines. More details in the article. Not so difficult a secret sauce. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2011, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/106 "2011-07-29T04:26:37Z")
> [@MsRobyn](#): > > **Mr. Moto** , I used Vygotsky as an example of something that works better than rote learning. I love Vygotsky as much as the next creatively inclined psychology geek, but…the zone of proximal development (which isn’t what the kid can do independently, but the difference between what she can do independently and what she can do with help) isn’t present for the high functioning student if the high functioning student is constantly used as a classroom tutor. Sure, it may benefit the lower functioning student and the teacher (although LHoD brings up some interesting points about long term negative effects on the lower functioning student) but it totally sucks after about 10 minutes if you’re the higher functioning student. True, “you don’t know it until you can teach it,” and being forced to explain the content to another student can reinforce, clarify and cement the content in the mind of the higher achieving student, but then what? You’ve explained it, you know it, and yet the lower functioning student still doesn’t get it - not because you’re not being clear or because you lack understanding, but because they do. So you explain it again, and they still don’t get it, and now you’re wasting classroom time you could be using learning new information instead of trying to be a teacher, which you’re not. Yeah, I was that kid. I hated it. I’d much rather have been learning new stuff, even if it was alone in the LRC with a computer instead of in the classroom with the other students. I feel like a lot of the problems of NCLB \*\*and \*\*our educational system would go away if we simply did away with social promotion and grade levels. If you can’t be proficient at 8th grade math, then what the hell are you doing in 8th grade math? And worse, why will you be in 9th grade math next year? Get rid of grade levels and teach elementary and high school the way we do college - with prerequisites which must be mastered before more challenging classes can be taken. If a kid is working at “an 8th grade level” in reading but “a 6th grade level” in math, then she should be in those classes, grade levels and ages be damned. And then, because the students have demonstrated proficiency by mastering the prereqs and they’re actually placed appropriately for their current ability, they’re going to be proficient on the NCLB tests, too, so that problem goes away. Students who simply need more time and repetition to become proficient can get it by taking the class more than once, but they’ll stay within a class of “proficient”, rather than being completely snowed under and many, many concepts behind. School can still be mandatory until age 16 and optional until 18 or a high school diploma is **earned** , not handed out because you still have a pulse. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/107 "2011-07-30T01:21:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Magiver** , > > Cites already provided- > > The “demographically challenged” are indeed on a ship that has some water, but the data is clear: it is rising not sinking. Scores for those demographics are still not as high as those of the traditional high achievers, but they are going up. > > Again, more of these demographically challenged kids are taking the standardized tests than before, no longer just the brightest of them, and yet the test scores for those challenged groups _have still gone up_. More of them are going to college. > > You repeat yet again the myth of an educational desert but the facts belie that assertion. They have been held to the same standards we have always held, and more of them are passing those standards than before. i’m not repeating any myth. We’re discussing the reality of failed school systems. > [@DSeid](#): > > And by the way, there is [“at least one school system in a demographically challenged area that is successful in breaking down the roadblocks”](http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED462485&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED462485) … > > Yes, these high achieving high poverty schools [have been studied.](http://www.sjboces.org/nisl/high%20performance%2090%2090%2090%20and%20beyond.pdf) > Nothing too magical. Great, apply the non-magical techniques and move on. Problem solved. > [@DSeid](#): > > A focus on _improvement_. Teachers being free to not have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.Meaningful assessments, not the silly NCLB metrics.So on, high emphasis on informative writing skills and multiple teachers exchanging papers but scoring to consistent guidelines. More details in the article. Not so difficult a secret sauce. Now we get to the often quoted educational myth. If only the teachers didn’t have to adhere to a curriculum rigidly but could adjust as the students needs required. Let’s apply that to… anything. “If only medical teachers didn’t have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.” “If only engineering teachers didn’t have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.” “If only trade teachers didn’t have to cover a curriculum rigidly but to adjust as the students’ needs required.” The world would be a chaos of useless degrees and certifications. The myth is that NCLB is not a standard to teach up to, it is the lowest level of recognizable skill that justifies the certification of High School proficiency. There is ZERO requirement to “teach to the test”. It is a default level of achievement that normal coursework produces. Students who are not in depressed areas easily pass the test in their Sophomore or Junior years. Since there are schools that are successful in depressed areas their techniques should duplicated as needed so that no child is left behind. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2011, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/108 "2011-07-30T01:52:53Z")
You know **Magiver** repeating that something is a reality in the face of documentation that the statement is demonstrably false does not make it any less untrue. As to the rest of your post - you put in a request: find “one” school that is successful despite the challenges of teaching to a poor minority population and figure out what they do. Again, there are a whole bunch of them, and that is what they do. You don’t like what they do that has been associated with success? A shame that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/109 "2011-07-30T03:55:40Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You know **Magiver** repeating that something is a reality in the face of documentation that the statement is demonstrably false does not make it any less untrue. What? Either there is a problem with schools in poor districts or there’s not. What point are you trying to make? > [@DSeid](#): > > As to the rest of your post - you put in a request: find “one” school that is successful despite the challenges of teaching to a poor minority population and figure out what they do. Again, there are a whole bunch of them, and that is what they do. You don’t like what they do that has been associated with success? A shame that. Again, what? I have no idea what point you’re trying to make. I’ve only stated the obvious. The standards set by NCLB are easily met and are not intended to be a lofty achievement. You parroted a standard excuse used to dismiss NCLB about “teaching to the test” when in fact the test is far below the normal academic achievement associated with a HS diploma. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554/110 "2011-08-02T17:20:01Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I will say, as a personal anecdote, that a lot of people (including on this board) talk about educational excellence, but when faced with the standards and effort needed (from both parent and child) to actually achieve it, don’t want to be bothered. > > In a thread about [educating kids in summer](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566223), the following comments were made: > > **Enderw24** “You ever seen A Clockwork Orange? I’d do that, but with educational videos. If you’re looking for a good deal on straighjackets, maybe try Craigslist.”. Hooray for vanity searches! I’m not entirely sure how I got wrapped up in this, but I’ll just say that 1. my initial comment from a year ago was a joke. 2. I can guarantee you that I’m doing quite a bit to ensure that a) my child and b) our entire school system receives the best education possible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-now-that-nclb-has-hit-the-reality-of-the-scholastic-ability-bell-curve-what-happens-next/589554.md?page=5)