Last updated on 2011.05.30
I wonder what blog post Rep. Kristi Noem got this idea from:
"There are portions of our federal policy that have absolutely been broken," Noem said. "And these people certainly have the best advice on how we can fix it. It's my job to sit down and listen to them and to hear what their advice is and then take it back and be their voice."
Noem says one of the biggest problems with No Child Left Behind is its emphasis on standardized testing. She would prefer to replace it with what she calls a "growth model."
"At the beginning of the year, look at them and see how they're doing," Noem said. "At the end of the year, come back and see how much they've progressed individually. That's a much better gauge on the type of job that we're doing on educating our kids here in South Dakota" [David Brown, "Noem: Education One Bright Spot in Washington," KELOLand.com, 2011.05.20].
Oooo, the growth model. It sounds great when you parrot what every good teacher knows is the right way to assess student progress. But Kristi, just where do you come into the picture? More specifically, just what Washington-centered policy (and remember, as a Congresswoman, that's all you can offer) do you propose to impose the growth model on every school in America?
Remember, Kristi, we do plain old standardized testing because it is relatively efficient and easy. The growth model you're discussing requires more data, often individualized data, obtained through more testing. That will require more staff, time, and money. How do you plan to fund the extensive testing data required to make nationwide "growth model" analysis work?
Vague as usual, Noem makes it hard to tell what she's talking about. But conservatives, take note: your heroine Noem is not talking about reducing government. She certainly isn't talking about ending No Child Left Behind. Noem is advocating a model of testing that would require more tax dollars and more federal government involvement (interference? tyranny?) in your child's education.
Update 2011.05.30: Read more, Kristi: In this 2008 article, Dr. Kevin G. Welner says that "growth modeling" may be preferable to the status quo, but it still has numerous shortcomings. Welner warns policymakers not to oversell this technology:
Growth models are simply not accurate enough to support their use as the sole or even the primary basis on which to make high-stakes decisions about teachers or schools [Kevin G. Welner, "The Overselling of Growth Modeling," The School Administrator, June 2008].
Cory,
I do agree with Kristi about her stance on standardized testing. As a scholar, I have never been a fan of this type of approach from my own personal experience. I will admit that I am horrible at standardized tests. I scored a "19" on my ACT before entering college, however, I graduated Cum Laude with a 3.49 GPA. Standardized tests are not an acurate gauge for every student and scholar. I will take a student who works hard to learn and does well GPA-wise over a naturally smart student with a high standardized test score that does not put the effort into their studies. I've found that some of these types of students think they are so smart they skip many of the lectures by their professors and actually miss out on learning something new. For me, the lectures by my professors were the most important, engaging, and interesting part of my entire college experience. I do believe Rep. Noem needs to learn how to listen more to her constituents at her town hall meetings instead of being one of these know-it-all students who likes to skip the lectures and listen to her own lectures.
I agree Guard. She doesn't want to hear what the constituents say she just gives a speech and tells people what she's been hearing and then regardless of what people ask at meetings she tells the reporters that people are upset about the deficit, out of control spending and high gas prices.
Anyone can see that the students progress is very important. But she is not old enough to remember that the drop in test scores came after Reagan deregulated education so the decisions would all be local. Who besides the teacher knows at the local level if my fifth grader is at a fifth grade level or fourth grade level without the test. Our local teacher can give easy tests and impress the kids and parents for great local feedback. I know test scores do not do everything but without anyone checking on the teachers it is all local and then if the local people are not honest we have a mess and do not see it till the kids drop out of college.
Reagan lowered to standards for the ACT so his deregulation would not look bad. The teachers followed his example by teaching to the test. Do you really think our kids are so stupid as to not learn to make themself look better than they are as a method to navigate the world. Bad lesson for thirty years and now we have a congress woman who gets in congress before she takes a class on government. Should have done that before she ran. She probably assumed that it was such a slack job that she could learn after she got their what the job would be. Typical noneducated learn on the job type. This is an important enough job to find out what it is before she got there.