Let's Drop the Failed "No-Child-Left-Behind" Program
Submitted by Bob Hertzog on Thu, 01/17/2008 - 11:59pm.
Tags: NCLB, Bubble Kids, Public School
The “No Child Left Behind” program is up for renewal in the 2008 congressional session. Many observers are saying that it is doomed. They say the program will not be reauthorized. That’s good! The program was flawed from its outset. It has failed our schools, it has failed our teachers and most important it has failed the students it was supposed to help. Here is what is wrong with the program.
It encourages a narrow teaching focus. Schools should be teaching kids many things: math and reading, of course, but also history, science, citizenship, health habits, arts appreciation, self-discipline – conflict resolution. Schools faced with sanctions for weakness in only one discipline will naturally divert resources from other areas. This is exactly what is happening in our public schools today and it is one reason why the NCLB program should be dropped.
Every teacher knows that, regardless of the skill of the teacher, some classes might be attentive and some classes might be distracted. This attentiveness or distraction might occur from semester to semester or sometimes from day to day. This being the case, accurate measurement of progress and improvement requires multiple forms of testing throughout the school year. The NCLB makes its analysis from one measurement per year. Researchers Thomas Kane and Douglass Staiger reported cases of schools being rewarded one year and punished the very next. There have been cases of schools being rewarded under a state’s system while in the same semester being punished under a federal system, or vice versa. This is one more reason why the NCLB should be dropped.
The NCLB measures yearly progress based on a criterion of what proponents define as “challenging” achievement. But, think about this. The normal range of I.Q. is 85 to 115. What would be “challenging” achievement for a student with an I.Q. of 115, might very well be impossibly difficult for a student with an I.Q. of 85. Another reason why the NCLB should be dropped!
There is more than adequate evidence to show that, regardless of teacher effort or school practice, students who come from pleasant home environments do a great deal better in school than students who come from a difficult home environment. This puts poor, inner city schools at a severe disadvantage over schools in more affluent districts. One more reason why the NCLB should be dropped!
The NCLB program has a tendency to create a class of students that teachers call “bubble kids.” Bubble kids are those students with scores just below the minimum standard. These are the kids that, with an effort, can be brought up into the “adequate yearly progress level.” In some places, school policies require teachers to pay less attention to the proficient students and focus on bubble kids. Students who score far below the proficiency level are also ignored, because no matter how much effort teachers expend on them, they are unlikely to come up to proficiency.
So, if Congress does away with the NCLB program, as it should, what will replace it? First, a democratic controlled Congress should abandon the current practice of micromanaging American school districts. Second, legislators must develop a policy of allocating federal aid based on a state’s educational needs and not the political party of a state’s congressional delegation. That might mean diverting tax revenue which might otherwise have gone to affluent states like New York and directing them to more needy states like Alabama or Mississippi.
»
- Bob Hertzog's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- 1127 reads
Another good post, RLH!
Official AFP Tourist
I agree wholeheartedly! We need to get this program out of the school systems and focus on what we do best - TEACH! I'm so tired of pouring over data that compares my class of apples one year to my oranges the next.
Can you imagine if NCLB was not a regulation on the teacher involvement, but the parent? Your child has to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) each year. If your child doesn't do it two years in a row, then your child has the right to go live with parents that will help them to acheive or if they stay, you as the parent are put on a list of "Low Performing Parents" and given a full time person to oversee how you run your day to day life and ways you can change to get your child prepared. Sorry about your days at the park, your child isn't making progress and you need to cut out that sort of fun time in order to prepare them better. Can you imagine what would happen if NCLB had taken this route instead of in the classroom?
Hello Sippy and Kimmi. Thanks for the comments.
As a teacher, Kimmi, you are the one stuck with all the vagueness of the NCLB. I do think that this Congress will not reauthorize the program. So, what do you think your school will do when the NCLB program ends?
We will do what we have always done and that is put kids and learning first. Our school has always been successful. We do not need banners on the front of the school that tells everyone how well we are doing. As a matter of fact, my principal puts them in the closet. Our reputation is what matters. People are trying to get their kids into our school because they know we are successful. I say the administration at the school level is the reason. They do not dictate to us what they have "heard" is a best practice, but rather allow us to be the professionals we are and let us dictate the best practices. We are all professionals and until we are treated as such, you will get what you give!
I don't think I like Kim's idea of ' Can you imagine if NCLB was not a regulation on the teacher involvement, but the parent?'
If it were run that way, can you imagine the funding they would have to put out to put these kids into foster parent homes? As well, I have 7 children that have been to school. Some still are, in various grades. Out of those 7, there are 6 who's progress in school can be measured (the 7th is only in kindergarten). Of those 6, there are 2 that were underachievers. My ex and I raised all of them equally. All of them had the same rules, and all of them were expected to bring home at the very least a C. (I always hated that, but it gave them something to prove to us they could be better than) Now of the 4 that are not underachievers, only 2 of them are still in school, and one is declining while the other is excelling. I've not changed my rules, my punishments nor my expectations. Now, IF this was the way NCLB worked, why should I be punished, or singled out because I have a child who is in school who is not progressing to their standards and yet I have one that is exceeding them? Just come in and give that one child to new parents? Have someone by my side 24/7 seeing how I raise my kids? Could it just not be that no matter how dedicated a parent is, they are going to end up with a child who is just not motivated at all, who may have learning disabilities that no one has discovered, or maybe something is going on socially or at home that the one child is having a hard time dealing with that is affecting his/her learning. I think there are many factors involved when a child is not progressing in school, and not all of them should be laid at a parents feet, especially when there are other children in the same household who may be right on task, OR exceeding. And that's my two cents.
Hello CC-Gal, thanks for the comment.
I don't think Kimmi meant her observations literally. I have a feeling she was thinking metaphorically, to illustrate a little of what teachers are going through.
"I've not changed my rules, my punishments nor my expectations. Now, IF this was the way NCLB worked, why should I be punished, or singled out because I have a child who is in school who is not progressing to their standards and yet I have one that is exceeding them? Just come in and give that one child to new parents? Have someone by my side 24/7 seeing how I raise my kids? Could it just not be that no matter how dedicated a parent is, they are going to end up with a child who is just not motivated at all, who may have learning disabilities that no one has discovered, or maybe something is going on socially or at home that the one child is having a hard time dealing with that is affecting his/her learning."
Replace the word teacher every time you said parent and teach when you said raise!
Welcome to the world of teaching CC! That was my point. Take a school who has been successful three years in a row and let them have 2 years of children who by imaginary federal standards aren't as successful and now the so-called successful school is considered low performing. The school didn't change, the expectations didn't change, but the children did. Now the school is labeled low performing and people get to run to other schools who are performing which will essentially change the make-up of those schools and their label will also be tarnished. See how this is a cycle of neverending finger pointing? I used the example of parents because it is just as ridiculous to lay blame on the parents in that sort of context as it is to blame a teacher. One child in your family is not the same as the next, just like one class of mine is not the same as the next. However, the threat of merit pay lingers and would reward you for getting a good class and punish you for getting a needy class. Why do you think it is so hard for inner city schools to hold down teachers? Because they are constantly brow beaten for poor scores. Anyone who works inner city schools, in my opinion, are the hardest working teaching professionals out there. No one in our business can hold a candle to the pressure and stress they feel.
Robert, I was well aware of what Kim was putting out there. And she was stating it from a Teacher's point of view. This is something I am not. I rebutted her 'imagine if' scenario from a parents point of view. A parent who has many children and actually can see how different children are in the educational area even when they are all treated the same.
Kim, I get your point.
I knew you would CC!
In a front-page story, the New York Times (1/21, A1, Medina) reported, "New York City has embarked on an ambitious experiment, yet to be announced, in which some 2,500 teachers are being measured on how much their students improve on annual standardized tests." Officials say data is already being collected, but they have yet to decide what decisions it may be used to support. The information "could eventually be used to help make decisions on teacher tenure or as a significant element in performance evaluations and bonuses." District officials "hold out the possibility that the ratings for individual teachers could be made public." Teachers in 140 schools "are being measured on how many students in their classes meet basic progress goals, how much student performance grows each year, and how that improvement compares with the performance of similar students with other teachers." Principals in 140 other schools have been "asked to make subjective evaluations of roughly the same number of teachers so officials can see if the two systems produce widely disparate results." The city's Education Department has not revealed which schools are participating, and some principals have not informed teachers that their school is part of the project