ASCD Poll: Changing NCLB

In the most recent ASCD poll, we asked you what elements of NCLB need to change. If you haven't taken the poll yet, please vote now.

We've received a great deal of feedback from our previous polls on NCLB, some of which we printed in the November issue of Educational Leadership, including data from a poll in which 60.65 percent of respondents reported that NCLB has not had a positive effect in their school or district.

In addition, educators commented on NCLB in response to an earlier post on this blog and other education bloggers have been commenting on NCLB, pointing out why some groups like NCLB.

With the new Democratic-led Congress set to begin work on January 4, and NCLB technically scheduled for reauthorization this year, we want to hear what you think.

What other elements of NCLB need to change?

What elements of NCLB need to remain the same?

Share your comments and tips with your peers.

What other elements of NCLB need to change?

What elements of NCLB need to remain the same?

Share your comments and tips with your peers.

Comments

[Cynthia Holley]

The directives for materials and programs for targeted students must open up to innovative and new methods, not just a narrow list relegated by a committee with gross conflicts of interest.

[Cindy Sprowl]

It is clear that No Child Left Behind leaves behind our gifted student population. Many school districts are having to reorganize their offerings to be sure that all students reach a minimal level of performance instead of reaching all learners to have them become the best that each of them can be. There are many, varied ways for us to reach all of our students at their current achievement levels and get them to move as far as they can. No Child Left Behind clearly stops that from happening.

[Melissa Rentchler]

NCLB needs more adjustments particularly in regard to school librarians. See my BLOG at http://melissarentchler.com

[Betty Worrell]

"Highly Qualified Teacher" - this term has taken on a different meaning than in previous years both nationally and statewide. In the past society looked upon the term with reverance. An individual needed to attend college, take content educational courses, and graduate from an accrediated university. Now - just take a test or figure out another method to add a title one is considered on the same level as those who spent days, evenings, and full nights striving to achieve an acceptable education.

Some educations have been taken out of areas of areas where they were really highly qualified and placed in a different area based on certification requirements. For example, a National Board certified teacher being placed in areas based on a certification acquired twelve years prior to the move. While intended for the best interest of a blanketed group, the mandations have become totally out of control.

[Donald Moore]

Although I have been teaching for over twelve years, I also have experience in the private sector and do feel that we need to set clear standards in our schools.

However I am not altogether sure that NCLB has been implemented with this in mind. The idea was good but the implementation was poor and many of our schools have seen negative effects. Many of our elective programs, especially music have been reduced or eliminated along with other elective classes, which serve to keep students motivated and in school. Also as mentioned in a previous posting, advanced students are locked out of high end courses due the overcrowed schedules. Why are they overcrowed? We have taken already packed school schedules and injected "skills" classes. Now students that are bright must CHOOSE between fine arts electives, academic electives, general electives and classes they need simply to graduate. This has come about due to the extreme sanctions placed upon schools to make AYP or loose huge... and it only takes one negative check for this to happen. I have seen many schools in this situation where they have actually made HUGE strides, only to be told that they did not make AYP due to one area.

Another issue that continues not to be addrressed is the lack of rigor in each class. In some schools, the classes are very watered down or they have endless variations of the same class, resulting in more overcrowding of the schedule and less for the bright students. This issue should have been addressed by NCLB from its inception. Still another issue would be that although NCLB clearly states that the fine arts are to be considered CORE subjects, many schools still do not do this. In this area there have been no action at all, although this is a clear violation of NCLB statutes.

I was educated in the 60's and 70's in CA. when CA. still had good schools. I have seen the decline over the last 30 years and understand how NCLB came to pass. However, it needs to be reorganized and all of the various issues need to be addressed or... we need to start over.

[Leslie Rubenstein]

The AYP requirements that are included in NCLB have resulted in watered-down state assessments (Regents exams, specifically) which do not accurately reflect student learning. The grading tables that essentially curve student grades result in inflated grades. Since the exams don't reward good writing skills and since even students with poor reading and writing skills can still do very well on tests, there is little incentive for teachers to spend more time on developing those skills with students. Instead time is spent on content instruction because that is what pays off on the exams. The improving scores that are reported across the state and the amazingly high "mastery" level scores present quite a paradox to the lamentable performance of most students in college classes - especially the increasing number of students who have to take remedial writing and math courses in their freshman year.

[Thomas Hays]

One major issue regarding sanctiions is the use of private industry to provide the supplemental educational services (SES) also know as tutoring services. Working with this issue in our district I am amazed at the lack of accountablilty of the providers. The providers simply must show up and provide some type of tutoring service that is somewhat related to the child's need. However, there is no expectation that the child will perform better as measured by any assessment. When the providers charges as much as $65.00 per hour of service and are allowed to tutor as many as 12 students in a group one can clearly see how this is a windfall profit for these companies. If our district were to pay our teachers at this rate, the cost of educating a child for one school year would be about $70,000. This is astounding considering the effect of the tutoring is not measured by any research based assessment nor is there any research to support the benefits of the SES program.

[Paladn]

NCLB was designed solely as a ploy to assist private schooling in America. Congress has wisely defeated plans to provide tuition tax credits and similar proposals and NCLB was enacted through severe pressure from General George W. himself.

NCLB has not met it goals. NCLB has yet to be proven effective in any aspect. NCLB has had success in driving properly trained and dedicated from the classroom thus increasing the shortage of qualified instructors in our classroom.

When will congress have the guts to challenge the "lame duck" president and repeal this statute? The sooner the better and let's get back to teaching the whole child and not merely to the test.

[Dr. William C. Fenstermaker]

NCLB was clearly designed for the sole purpose of destroying the public school system in America, as a means for promoting the advancement of private school voucher programs. When enough public schools can be labeled "failing" the private school proponents will finally have the audience and the political support they have sought unsuccessfully for decades.

Educators need to stop working their tails off trying to meet the absurd expectations of this law, and need to instead join the assault on it. Waiting until 2014 will be far too late, and the damage done to schools and children by then will be irreversible. No Child Left Behind is an abomination which must be repealed. No mere amendment can make it worthwhile. It must be abolished.

[Jumpman]

NCLB has been successful in that it has caused educators to become aware of the academcic achievement needs of students. We are more aware of the learning needs of students than before. I do not celebrate NCLB for it focuses on narrow, poorly defined and implemented aspects of school learning. It does not account for situations when a student may perform below standard on a test due to elements that they cannot control.

I have a suggestion for the Fed: Legislate families as well as educators. Pass a law that states that any parent of a school age child who applies for a job, has a job performance review, seeks a raise in pay, files state or federal income tax, applies of a drivers license, applies for any type of loan, seeks food stamps, seeks medicare or medicade or anything that there is government involvement - must supply notorazied documentation from their child's school district that they have attended all parent/teacher conferences, have volunteered 'X' number of hours at school, have attended all IEP meetings, have attended back to school nights (math nights, science nights, reading nights), have had their child in school 95% of the time, and have read and signed progress reports. If parents were forced to be parents and not allowed to adbicate their parental responsibility, our kids would be wildly successful.

[Jo Ann Warner]

My personal belief is that standardized tests are actually indicators of student fluency in mainstream, middle class culture and language. These tests are not neutral instruments of knowledge assessment. One's social class and cultural background are highly determinant of conceptual understanding of the world.

However, many educators, myself included, believe that it is a reasonable goal of education to teach all students to become familiar with the language, concepts, and cultural practices of the dominant American culture reflected in our school systems. Thus, I would not discard these tests but instead use them solely as one form of feedback. Certainly they should not be used as ultimate measures of learning nor as a means of levying sanctions and punishments.

The key question is how to make the skills and practices of this mainstream culture transparent and explicit as such to students who are not immersed in daily, formative, middle class experiences. It is my understanding that cultural identity and background must be recognized in the classroom as the foundation of thinking of learning. We must begin by discovering and bringing in what is familiar and known to the children and then bridge from there to the standards and the prescribed curriculum. In particular, we must give our students the message that there is no correct culture or that they come from a deficit homelife and background.

[Kent J. Minor]

NCLB represents what is wrong with education today as it ignores research on how children learn. We know that children learn at different rates and we know that children have strenghths in different intelligences. Yet NCLB treats all children the same; that they must learn the same subjects at the same rate.

In addition, it treats reading and mathematics as the end product. If the students do well on tests in these areas then their school has met AYP. But these two subjects are not the end product, but are means to greater ends. We should be preparing students to be effective citizens, to appreciate the visual arts and music, and to help them develop their talents in whatever areas they may be.

There is no doubt that many children are not receiving the high quality education they deserve. But NCLB is not the answer. Instead of preparing students to be good test takers, we should be preparing them to be creative thinkers and problem solvers, so that they are prepared for life.

[Frank Ohnesorgen]

Excellent comments. Though perhaps well intended, and even though there are a few elements that have been helpful, the NCLB system is truly designed to fail most schools. If we were to subject any other profession to the same kind of accountability, especially the politicans who designed NCLB, they too would fail. I partial quote I read once said something like, "In no other profession but education are the opinions of people with no expertise, given such great weight just because they have attended a school." Here is a quote I made up, "Doctors are in charge of doctors, lawyers in charge of lawyers and politicians in chared of education. Sure explains a lot.

[Deyanira Salazar]

NCLB is one of the reasons I do not teach at a public school anymore. I am a certified mathematics teacher, and like the teachers that taught me, my experiences have taught me how to teach my content well. I love what I teach and spend many hours preparing my students' lessons based on my analysis of their previous classwork, homework, feedback from students during class, and feedback I get from their parents and other teachers. I know full well that this is a good approach to teaching, and this is the approach that is nearly impossible at a public school due to the demands placed on teachers to have their students 'test' well. Teachers in public schools, for the most part, and as I experienced,rarely have the time to reflect on their practice and see how their students are performing. It is extremely difficult to get an over-all picture when teaching in public school due to the never-ending list of demands that teachers need to do, including calling parents, filling out papers for nurses, counselors, vice-principals, detention papers, grading their own papers, attending workshops (which has increased considerably due to NCLB),staying after school to help students, etc. One issue that is definitely missing in NCLB is a call for smaller classes. If the government wants to do something to help teachers, they need to help teachers by helping schools create smaller classes. I am now teaching 5th grade at a parochial school, and though finances is one of our main issues, our students get one of the best educations money can buy. I am proud to say that this year has been my happiest year ever in my 8 years of teaching. I never thought I'd teach a class with fewer than 10 children, but this year has been the exception. I am taking my students to new heights, and am willing to bet their math will be one of their strong points when they reach high school. They have already learned all the properties of addition and multiplication and can prove them with numbers. I remember well how some of my high school students had not heard of these properties. Now, with NCLB and the need to do good on the test, how much time will teachers have to teach students these properties and teach them well so that they do not feel that they are wasting time?

[Nicole Naditz]

One of the first things that needs to change is the name by which this law is bantered about in public: No Child Left Behind is a slogan that was cleverly used to refer to the actual legislation. Anyone who says that they disagree with NCLB is easily labeled as someone who doesn't want to be held accountable and doesn't care about children. Although Congress authorized the use of NCLB as a title for this legislation, I would encourage everyone to call the law by its real name: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Calling the law by its true name helps politicians, community members, parents, and educational leaders focus on the major issues that effect the education and achievement of our youth without the potential stigma of being labeled an enemy of quality education.

In addition, I would encourage everyone to attempt to read the legislation. There are aspects of the law that render it impossible for any school to ever be "successful". One glaring example is the premise that "all" students will be proficient (as defined by each state) in reading and math by 2014, yet the law also states that any tests written to measure proficiency MUST be written such that 20% of students fail. If by some miracle any district or school achieved 100% success on any test by 2014 (assuming it was an approved assessment), it would still be labeled as failing because 20% didn't fail the test. There are numerous additional examples, some of which are cited in other blog entries on this page, that discuss the same issue--by the time all of the subgroup data is disaggragated and the attendance data is figured in, it is virtually impossible to "achieve" according to the legislation.

The measures of accountability for student achievement are too narrow, solely relying on standardized tests, even though educational research continually points out the importance of multiple and varied assessments. I actually want accountability, but I believe that the results of this law's attempts at accountability do not in fact reflect student achievement. In fact, as cited elsewhere on this page, the measures included in the law tend to hinder achievement by limiting student access to a rich curriculum.

However, I have other concerns as well. One writer on this page mentioned that the arts are a core subject under the legislation. Did you know that world languages are also a core subject according to this law? Probably not. Like the arts, world language education is easily dropped from the curriculum and would hardly be considered to have the funding and resources allocated to the other "core" subjects. Interestingly, while the legislation touts "research-based" methodologies, it blatantly ignores research that has repeatedly shown that visual and performing arts, physical education and world language education provide significant cognitive and academic benefits to all students, including raising test scores. In fact, the College Board has found that world language study does more to increase standardized test scores in English/Language Arts and MATH (yes, math) than the study of any other subject (including additional English and math classes)! However, none of this research is written about in educational or consumer journals--it's a little secret. On the other hand, research has not shown that double sections of math and reading intervention courses and the elimination of "electives" (most of which are "core subjects" in the law) for our lowest-performing students yields the results one sees when students receive a well-rounded, enriching, and academically rigorous education.

Finally, the law is misguided. It assumes that teachers and administrators are solely responsible for student achievement. What about the students? Don't they have any role to play in their own achievement? What about their parents? When the students don't score well on the latest standardized assessment, does anyone go to the students and ask to see the homework they have been doing in that subject? Do they ask the students about their study habits outside of school hours? Do they ask the parents if they provide time and space for the students to do homework in? Do they ask the parents whether or not they even talk to their child about how things are going at school and what the students are doing and learning? Apparently the writers (and enforcers) of this legislation believe that neither students nor parents have any influence on student achievement. As both a student and parent, that assumption infuriates me! When all of the research confirms that involving all stakeholders in education improves the outcome (and any list of stakeholders would include the students and parents), why is it that the success or failure of a school is laid solely on the shoulders of the staff and administration?

I have taught French for nine years and spent the last three years as a full-time mentor to beginning teachers in all subject areas. In the fall, my term as a mentor will end and I am eager to return to the classroom to implement everything I have learned in my most recent assignment. I love education and I am passionate about quality education for all students. I will continue plan lessons that are rigorous, engaging and that involve students in meaningful, authentic tasks in and out of the classroom because that is what's right for students. I will continue to fight for well-rounded education that provides our gifted, "average," and struggling students with numerous course offerings because I know they will actually experience greater success. Eventually, the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will be "reauthorized" again--hopefully more thoughtfully and with a focus on what's right for students, not on a slogan that just sounds right to politicians!

FYI: You can view summaries of numerous studies on the benefits of language education by pasting the following URL into your browser: http://www.flagsteacher.com/Compelling%20Foreign%20Language%20Research.pdf.

Nicole Naditz, NBCT (World Languages Other than English)

[Steve Rose]

The "violent school" sanction is dysfunctional. Under that provision, school leaders are less likely to report crimes.

[Gregory Macdougall]

I am deeply disturbed by the recent direction that ASCD is taking with regard to NCLB. There appears to be some movement afoot to radically change if not remove accountability from our profession. Granted, there are problems with this legislation that need to be addressed. But should we throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater?

I have seen teachers, schools, and school districts take seriously the intent of NCLB and make tremendous improvements in student achievement - with educationally sound improvement plans, no short cuts, without hurting gifted students, without negative effects, etc.

Is the consensus among ASCD to eliminate NCLB and accountability, or make constructive suggestions for improvement. Please help me understand the intent of ASCD.

[Christy Guilfoyle]

Gregory, Thank you for the opportunity to talk about ASCD's views on NCLB. We've long heard from ASCD members that they embrace accountability, particularly when student learning is the top priority.

NCLB has set forth many important goals. Unfortunately, the law as it is currently designed isn't capable of accomplishing them. You can read more about our specific concerns in Executive Director Gene R. Carter's most recent column.

Rather than removing accountability from NCLB, we are focused on improving accountability and assessment to ensure we have a more accurate measure that is better for accountability purposes, as well as helping schools and teachers improve education for all students. It is time for a change and ASCD stands ready to be a constructive part of the reauthorization process.

--Christy Guilfoyle, ASCD Public Policy

[Dave Magnani]

The contradiction of allowing states to set their own standards for reaching higly qualified teacher status and/or AYP and then creating sanctions, positive and negative, based on those standards is inherently disfunctional - it is inequitable and encourages states to race to the bottom.

[Ken Haar]

NCLB is a political not an educational program. It is designed by its nature to make all schools fail, no matter how gifted its students. In fact the definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the methodology of breaking down data into sub groups based on ability ensures that even our best schools will be considered failures at some point. The vast majority of schools have less than 150 students per grade level. Of those perhaps 15 percent are special needs students (22). If one extra special needs student moves into the school they could significantly depress the average test scores in any given year, and the school will fail to meet AYP, and start down the slippery slope to failure status.
The question has to be asked, who would design such a system? Who would want every public school in the country, even the ones we know are doing perfectly fine, to fail?

[Lyelle Palmer, Ph.D.]

Thinking that ALL students with severe learning disabilites or mental handicaps can "catch up" to regular peers is a remedial mindset, not a special education mindset. This type of thinking is itself a handicap and betrays a lack of real world experience. Special education is intended for students with disabilities and the Response To Intervention (RTI) with regular classroom interventions would be expected to be low for those with severe disabilities. Some students in special education can achieve at regular levels despite having a disability that is not a learning or mental disability.
Lyelle Palmer, Ph.D., Winona State University

[Rosanne Snyder]

Many graduates are being hired without having an education degree, or having student taught. There is a critical shortage of teachers because of a reduction in class size. Many of these new teachers are being placed into a position for which they have neither background nor training. Then, on top of the demands as a new teacher inducted into a career that will require them to get the education courses, they have the further burden of taking extra courses in an area they of taking courses or passing an area certification test that is foreign to them. Few could argue that out children deserve a highly qualified teacher. However,no one is looking at what that will require from those new teachers with a realistic mind set. Teaching is a complex, time comsuming profession. Where in the plan is there a funding source for supporting and educating these people and realistic timelines that will not burn them out before they are fully certified? Everyone is suffering from the fallout, burnout, frustration, and pressure as a rusult of NCLB including the children it was designed to help.

[George Peternel]

I've been an educator for 37 years, a U.S. citizen for nearly 60 years, and I've been embarrassed for a long time that the U.S. system of education is NOT the best in the world. Moreover, if the current version of NCLB is a result of the best thinking about education that our elected government officials in Washington are capable of producing, God help us.

I would prefer that the old version of NCLB be tossed. I would prefer a more ambitious but simpler to implement overhaul of public education. Simply put, I propose that we can do a better job for all students if we required less school K-12, and hired better teachers to do the job. Use the cost savings of having K-7 elementary school systems and 8-10 high school systems to pay the teachers more. Add a few more dollars to the teacher pay from NCLB monies. And focus on improving the teaching for ALL students.

NCLB aims too low. We need to aim higher.

[Educational Consultant]

Asking what needs to be changed about NCLB begs the question - what's right with the law? For the first time, teachers are being held accountable for student achievement. Asking educators what needs to be changed reveals their inherent bias. It is very easy to be critical, and most educators in the field have no idea what the law says or how it works.

[Davey Sheffield]

It is one of the greatest travesties in the history of U.S. education that there has been no outcry on behalf of students with disabilities in regards to NCLB. Progress should be measured by individual student, not by sub-group. Especially if that student is served by an IEP.

[Robert Green]

Why are we wasting our time trying to fix a mandate on our public school systems that usurps state and local control, is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment and the Spending Clause of Article I and unenforceable for the same reasons? The February 2005 report the National Conference of State Legislatures supports this argument.

The latest reports from the Harvard Civil Rights Project, Policy Analysis for California Education (UC-Berkeley), and the National Center for Fair and Open Testing conclude that NCLB has contributed little, if nothing, to the improvement of the nation's K - 8 schools. Documented improvements have been attributed to changes already in place prior to NCLB. The only contribution that clearly can be associated to NCLB is that is has slowed the rate of growth of improvement in our schools, especially narrowing the gap in the schools' minority population.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated that, historically, public education has been dedicated to control of state and local govenments; based on the premise that the phrase: "to promote the general welfare" in the Constitution does not include federalization of public education. The last attempt at placing education under Federal purview was in 1806 by Thomas Jefferson proposal to amend the Constitution in his State of Union address. Congress refused (I refer to my Supreme Court reference.).

The only solution to NCLB is to ensure that it is NOT renewed and return control of our public educations to the state and local levels where they belong.

[Brandy Acker]

The "No Child Left Behind" legislation is a "one-size fits all" concept, and this just isn't true. Children learn differently, and this is quite obvious in my fourth grade classroom. I have a number of kinesthetic learners (in particular, one student is visually impaired), and their success with the hands-on lessons (which I prepare with the VH student in mind)is quite high. The visual learners can readily "see" the memorabilia that I share with them; however, I always make sure that I have a 3-D model which the kinesthetic learners can touch. The auditory learners enjoy hearing the classroom discussions about the topic, and they really like the music that is integrated throughout a unit of study. I have had some very verbal students share fabulous presentations in the class, but their written work is very average. Other students are technologically-savvy, and their written language is great; but, these same "techies" enjoy working by themselves, so this indicates to me that their intrapersonal skills are their strengths. I notice numerous differences among the children in my class, so it amazes me to think that the government believes all children can learn the same way and complete the same assessment with success. I am constantly differentiating and making every attempt to ensure that each student succeeds in my classroom. My lessons are geared around the state standards, and I believe students can meet these standards in a variety of ways. I allow this diversity so that all students can be successful. This happens because I build lessons around their learning capabilities.

[Frank Romano]

The current testing of ELL and Special Education students is rediculous. It is counter to sound educational practice and violates the integrity of the assessment process.

The goal for 100% proficiency by 2014 is also rediculous. With new ELL and Special Educational stduents entering the system every year and at various grade levels, this goal is impossible to attain. Therfore, after all the hard work, pressure, expenditure of resources, aggravation and criticism, the schools will all be considered failures in 2014.

NCLB does not address the real causes and issues related to learning.

[Cheryl Huff]

NCLB introduced accountability in education. But it does not address differences as valid. Special Education students with severe learning disabilities or mental handicaps or ESL students who are new to this country are expected to perform as well as everyone else. Another worry I have is concerning just what qualifies a teacher to be "highly qualified"? Each state determines what "highly qualified" means. That varies widely from state to state. Others have mentioned the inconsistencies within the law itself. How can this all be researched based when research says not to rely on only one assessment? Someone else mentioned the role of parents and students themselves, have the students or parents been held accountable? There also has been mention of the gifted or students at the top of the spectrum. How can you have adequate yearly progress when the students are already at the top? NCLB has heightened our awareness now let the educators, not the politicians find the solutions. Let schools be the parts of our community they once were. If the politicians would listen to the people in the trenches, who work directly with the children, there might be hope of reasonable resolutions.

[Marcia Gaudet]

I teach recent arrivals to the US. As we welcome many girls into our schools who were never allowed to even attend school before coming to the US it is a great thing we are doing, but our schools should not be penalized for giving the gift of education to these students.

[Leocadia Adams]

I have been a teacher for 32 years and have seen programs come and go. NCLB id grossly unfair to ELL and Special Education students especially. I am writing in my second language and know firsthand what it takes to function in another language. Unless the child is gifted he can't learn enough English to score well on any standardized test by 3 years let alone 1! Now let me discuss Special Education... I am a SPED teacher and try very hard to help my students succeed anywhere so that they can live fulfulled lives. (I forgot to mention that I teach in an urban setting). My students struggle to maintain daily in the classroom and have difficulty with standardized tests. NCLB is a political football that does not address actual problems. Our students are penalized for attempting to do their best. As I see the real problem, it stems from the fact that American education is based upon price and how much it costs to run a system. Other countries consider an educational system to be a investment. When you run any system on how much you can get for your buck, the problems become insurmountable in human cost, burn out and side issues; somehow the real problems are never totally addressed.

[Dave Sipka, Coopersville Area Public Schools, Ass't. Supt.]

The assumption by the creators of the NCLB legislation that all children are on the same level playing field is the greatest fault of NCLB. I point to one fifth grade student who transferred to our district from Florida in May. His mother died very unexpectedly two weeks before. When he moved with his father, sixth grade sister, and 3 month old baby sister they took up residence in a mobile home with a 24 year old uncle and his live-in girlfriend. During the summer the boy and his older sister ran away from the mobile home with the baby because the father was so abusive - especially sexually abusing the sixth grade girl. When found, the courts separated the siblings - the girls wwent to live in Detroit with an aunt they had never met. The boy remained in our district and continued living with the 24 year old uncle and his uncle's girlfriend. The father was sent to prison. In the course of four months he had lost his mother, moved 1,500 miles away, was abused by his father, subsequently "lost" his sisters, lost his father to prison for a very long time, and was being raised by a questionable uncle and his significant other. We were spared including him on our tested roster for two testing cycles according to the rules of NCLB but we were to have him ready to learn on par with our other students in a short time.
There is a disconnect with NCLB that is accentuated by this story. There are hundreds of thousands of stories like this or worse in our country. Some provisions in NCLB must recognize the societal dynamics of students like this.
We will not "leave" this child behind. I know that he feels loved and cared for but to burden him and us with mandates and potential condemnation seems counterproductive.

[Susan Winebrenner]

Why has American education chosen to leave gifted or high ability students behind in exchange for focusing on the academic progrss of only low achieving students? Why does our system of education perceive it must choose between which groups of students should achieve and which may slide by year after year without making any noticeable progress?

The focus of NCLB should be re-worded to measure the forward academic growth of ALL students, including those who score at top levels on high stakes tests. So the language might say that "No child should be left behind at least one year's academic growth for one year spent in school." If that happens, all students will be enfranchised by this legislation. Since public schools are open to students of all achievement levels, those schools should serve students of all achievement levels as well.

[mel]

How are we as parents supposed to trust the educational system? When teachers are fixing tests to make their students pass exams due to the “No Child Left Behind” mandate. This is ridiculous. Maybe they should reevaluate NCLB??
Check out dailycents.com at http://blogs.dailycents.com/?p=819