End of triage teaching

Teachers can’t write off the “low” students and concentrate on the “high” kids under No Child Left Behind, writes Karin Chenoweth in the Washington Post. It’s the most eloquent argument for the federal law that I’ve seen.

More than 100 black and Latino principals and superintendents . . . say (NCLB) could be as significant as Brown v. Board of Education in its potential to widen opportunities for black and Latino students. With a nudge from the Education Trust, a group that helped draft and push for the law, the superintendents of color have signed a letter supporting provisions in the law on accountability.

. . . Those principals and superintendents believe that, at its heart, the No Child Left Behind Act represents the most powerful attempt ever to end the long-standing practice of triaging children into those who can be expected to learn a lot and those who can’t be expected to learn much.

The law simply declares that all children can learn a lot and that it is the job of adults to figure out how to teach them.

Read it all.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. Walter E. Wallis says:

    Where’s the link?

  2. I think it’s
    “No Child Left Behind Could Spell End for Triage Teaching”, at

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53379-2003Dec10.html

  3. Is the bitching and moaning another example of middle-class white people who’ve drugged their children out of wiggliness just having NO IDEA AT ALL what life is like for those in the low neighborhood?

    I always thought the name – “No Child Left Behind” – was apt.

  4. Wacky Hermit says:

    J.C., who are all these “middle-class white” people you are referring to? Are you implying that only “white” people “drug their children”?

    I have ancestors who were listed on the census as “white” who were poor and illiterate immigrants. Their kids were just as disadvantaged as other “low neighborhood” kids.

  5. “The law simply declares that all children can learn a lot and that it is the job of adults to figure out how to teach them.”

    Gee, what a novel concept…….

    So why is the NEA opposed to it? I wonder….

  6. Aside from everything else, I’ve worked with white students who were triaged out by the government schools. In the case of one neighbor’s son, the principle actually asked “What are you wasting time on him for? He’s trash.”

  7. And for those of us who don’t care to register:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53379-2003Dec10?language=printer

    The law simply declares that all children can learn a lot and that it is the job of adults to figure out how to teach them.

    Alas, what this law declares is not so simple!

    As to ending “the long-standing practice of triaging children into those who can be expected to learn a lot and those who can’t be expected to learn much”, that part of the system was designed in from the beginning, and the way to end it is to decide to just stop doing it; and if government-school teachers won’t, then parents will.

  8. Sorry about forgetting the link. It’s there now.

  9. “middle-class white people who’ve drugged their children out of wiggliness”

    That would be the type of people who are white, middle class, and unable to tolerage wiggly children. How is that unclear?

    You should be able to infer that these people are not now and never have been in the “low neighborhood” and do not talk to the people who are.

  10. I agree in principle that the law is clearly a good thing. However, the way it is set up — that a school has to have ALL sub-groups (every single “component block”) showing a gain in achievement else the school is labeled “Under Review” — is faulty. (By “component blocks” I mean subdivisions of student populations: Black, Hispanic, low-income, etc.)

    For instance, my school last year was labled “Under Review,” but we showed achievement gains in 36 of 37 component blocks! That is *remarkable* progress, yet we get “Under Review”? A school can get so labeled, too, if not enough students even show up to take the tests! Clearly, some modifications are in order.

  11. IMHO sub-groups should not even be discussed in any other topic than undersea warfare. What we need to concern ourselves with is individual students.