Are you there God? Please don't listen to Margaret
My brother-in-law was so kind to publish an e-mail that had been forwarded to me by a teacher in the school division I am interning in. He is the only one in my immediate family that I thought would have immense appreciation for it.
This is the quote that especially got me:
"2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents."
As a student teacher in ESL, this is what affects me the most. Putting it in terms of education makes it sound all glossy and new, but when one applies NCLB rules to another medium, one sees how ridiculous it is.
It takes the average American, native-English speaking child 5 years to become linguistically competent enough to enter public school. Even then, many 5 year old children are not able to pronounce certain phonemes.
Think about that and then consider the fact that we are simply talking about linguistic competence. We haven't touched on reading or writing yet.
5 years just to learn to speak and understand the language. Now imagine an ESL student. Many of these students do not have backgrounds equivalent to their native-born classmates. For example, I have a 1st grader I am working with. Her mainstream teacher is confounded that she cannot read at grade level. No clue why. Um, she has no books at home. No crayons. Her mother is not literate and cannot speak English. Her father is literate, but he works three jobs to support the family. Not home most nights. Sorry, teach, but she isn't going to perform the same as my kid who has a crayon thrust at her every other day and, at the age of 19 months, already picks out her own nightly story.
Now that is a 1st grader. She is better off that some of her older counterparts. I have one student who has only been in the states for a few months. He is just now getting to the point where he can answer questions with one word answers. I am certain he does not understand 75% of what I say.
Next year, he will have to take the SOLs. The SOLs will test him to make sure he is grade level with his classmates in the various subjects, including US History. Because of this, and because he has no knowledge of US History, I started to teach him about the founding of the country. I stopped when I realized he didn't know the meaning of the word "wife." He was missing basic vocabulary needed to read about Thomas Jefferson and, you see, I don't have access to content-based reading materials at his reading level.
Don't get me wrong-this is a smart kid. It just takes time to learn a language.
Think about your own language experience. Can you imagine taking a geology test in Spanish, German, or French after only 1 year of Spanish 1, German 1, or French 1? Futile, right?
But the government believes we should test all students to determine where they are lacking in content-level knowledge. They say it is to determine where there are deficiences.
But if you don't even understand the question, how is it a fair assessment? The government says they accommodate for this by providing a dictionary during the test. Um, excuse me, but has the government forgotten how screwed up the English language is? There are an abundant number of words that cause even native speakers confusion. For example-there/they're/their. Even in an office environment have I seen native speakers mess these words up. I won't even address the time it takes for someone to use a dictionary to answer a question in which they might not know the meaning of 50% of the words.
Don't get me wrong-the goal of NCLB is an honorable one. Even in my small environment, I see that ESL students can easily be ignored by their mainstream teachers. I just don't think high-stakes testing is the way to go.
This is the quote that especially got me:
"2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents."
As a student teacher in ESL, this is what affects me the most. Putting it in terms of education makes it sound all glossy and new, but when one applies NCLB rules to another medium, one sees how ridiculous it is.
It takes the average American, native-English speaking child 5 years to become linguistically competent enough to enter public school. Even then, many 5 year old children are not able to pronounce certain phonemes.
Think about that and then consider the fact that we are simply talking about linguistic competence. We haven't touched on reading or writing yet.
5 years just to learn to speak and understand the language. Now imagine an ESL student. Many of these students do not have backgrounds equivalent to their native-born classmates. For example, I have a 1st grader I am working with. Her mainstream teacher is confounded that she cannot read at grade level. No clue why. Um, she has no books at home. No crayons. Her mother is not literate and cannot speak English. Her father is literate, but he works three jobs to support the family. Not home most nights. Sorry, teach, but she isn't going to perform the same as my kid who has a crayon thrust at her every other day and, at the age of 19 months, already picks out her own nightly story.
Now that is a 1st grader. She is better off that some of her older counterparts. I have one student who has only been in the states for a few months. He is just now getting to the point where he can answer questions with one word answers. I am certain he does not understand 75% of what I say.
Next year, he will have to take the SOLs. The SOLs will test him to make sure he is grade level with his classmates in the various subjects, including US History. Because of this, and because he has no knowledge of US History, I started to teach him about the founding of the country. I stopped when I realized he didn't know the meaning of the word "wife." He was missing basic vocabulary needed to read about Thomas Jefferson and, you see, I don't have access to content-based reading materials at his reading level.
Don't get me wrong-this is a smart kid. It just takes time to learn a language.
Think about your own language experience. Can you imagine taking a geology test in Spanish, German, or French after only 1 year of Spanish 1, German 1, or French 1? Futile, right?
But the government believes we should test all students to determine where they are lacking in content-level knowledge. They say it is to determine where there are deficiences.
But if you don't even understand the question, how is it a fair assessment? The government says they accommodate for this by providing a dictionary during the test. Um, excuse me, but has the government forgotten how screwed up the English language is? There are an abundant number of words that cause even native speakers confusion. For example-there/they're/their. Even in an office environment have I seen native speakers mess these words up. I won't even address the time it takes for someone to use a dictionary to answer a question in which they might not know the meaning of 50% of the words.
Don't get me wrong-the goal of NCLB is an honorable one. Even in my small environment, I see that ESL students can easily be ignored by their mainstream teachers. I just don't think high-stakes testing is the way to go.
posted by waltzingmathilda @ 12:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home