NCLB Asking Too Much . . . For How Long?

Prairie Elementary School, which serves mostly working-class families in Sacramento, Calif., has been making significant strides over the past few years in raising its students' proficiency. Across all demographics, students have improved by an average of three percentage points each year, but in California, schools were required to make an 11 percent leap, and Prairie fell short and was placed on probation.

Congress failed to act this year on calls from California educators to allow more flexibility in NCLB, and schools like Prairie Elementary are paying the price. Both presidential candidates have promised education reform, but with two wars, a failing economy, and health care and social security topping national concerns, it may be some time before reforming NCLB becomes a priority.

What do we risk, the longer our leaders delay reforming NCLB?

Comments

[KarenJan]

What concerned me the most about that NYT article was this statement:
Here in California, which in 2002 had only 13.6 percent of students proficient in reading, officials promised to raise that percentage on average by 2.2 points annually from 2002 to 2007,

I find it incredible that ONLY 13.6% of students reached proficiency in reading. And then education officials set a low target of a 2.2% increase annually. This is an incredible disservice to students. NCLB forced accountability on states and it appears that this was necessary in CA where proficiency rates were so low. Is a reading proficiency rate of only 25% acceptable even after six years of NCLB? I appreciate the fact that there are many issues with the federal law, but the fact that it spotlighted how we are failing many of our students (especially those with special needs) is the one benefit.
Now, where is the acceptable plan to meet the needs of all our learners, the one that doesn't punish schools and develops an appropriate plan to assess student progress?

[Shari]

We risk developing a nation of students who may know facts, but cannot think creatively and will be unsuccessful in any job situation other than the routine.

We risk a increase in the number of student dropouts due to students feeling as if they are failures. This then leads to a risk of increase in crime.

We risk eliminating the middle class and increasing the lower class as students whose education is based on standardized tests end up in lower paying, routine jobs.

We risk teaching our children that there is right and wrong, black and white. There is never more than one possible right answer that will lead to success.

The risk is too high not to improve our educational standards beyond what is testable, scorable, and computer analyzed.

[Miranda]

By creating a law that puts schools on probation even when they are improving, we risk driving out educators like me who want to do what's right but are overwhelmed by the role our culture asks schools to play. For example, my budget was screwed up when California ran out of money to reimburse my school for meals that we fed to low-income kids. I have been harassed by parents who are angry that we called Child Protective Services when their kid told a teacher about being abused at home. If a child is bullied at school and kills himself in despair, we demand to know why the staff hasn't done something about it, but if I suspend a child for being a bully I am mercilessly harassed by that child's parents for being too tough and not being willing to give a kid a second chance. Why don't parents share the responsibility for low test scores, missing homework, absences and bullying? If the scores don't go up, the school is the only one with mandated consequences. What about giving the principal of a school the power to subpoena a parent to appear at a parent-teacher conference. We can do that for people who duck jury duty, why not for people who have not taught their child that calling other kids bad names is unacceptable? I also want to be able to require that the parents attend Saturday school if their child isn't doing homework. We have tutors available before school, every lunch and after-school so that students can't claim that they missed HW because they didn't understand the assignment. California needs to use a value added model for tracking test scores. We have created no incentive for educators to take on the challenge of low-income schools or at-risk kids. Why not choose to work with kids whose tests scores won't land you in trouble even when you are doing your professional best?

[Mary]

Shari, Your comment said it all. It is time to stop using educators as "whipping boys" for all of the country's problems. It is time for parents to be held responsible for their child's attitude, work habits, attentiveness, and behavior so that teachers can teach instead of trying to find ways to work miracles in order to help kids and save their own jobs and reputations. It is time for legislators and higher level educators to stop blaming teachers and start addressing the problems where they are actually originating. Make kids and parents legally responsible!

[Amran Noordin]

As an observer from far away Singapore, a country that has often been touted for having a great education system, I cannot help feel sympathy for American teachers who are saddled with the nonsense that is NCLB. The NCLB seems to me, to be a knee-jerk reaction to the perceived poor performance of American students in international tests. I often hear also of Singapore being touted as an example to follow. I can't help also feel that those who say that the Singapore way with its high stakes examinations is the way to go, are seeing Singapore's education system through rose-tinted glasses.

Strange thing is that the Ministry of Education (similar to your Department of Education) in Singapore is only belatedly beginning to introduce project work to the schools as another mode of assessment. So I wonder now who is following who?

Don't forget also that in Singapore, we have a whole army of private tutors to help our students to get those wonderful grades and test performance that others outside Singapore seem to admire. Even the Singapore government tacitly approves of extra-school tuition through its support of organizations that provide low-cost tuition to school-going children.

I am just wondering if American parents want their children to go through the same sweat shop process that students in Singapore go through?

[Kelley James]

We are at great risk if reforming the law is not a top priority. The students in my district are making HUGE strides in their achievement, but some of our subgroups, no matter that they have made some of the most significant improvements in achievement, have fallen short of those arbitrary benchmark numbers set forth by the federal government. NCLB is an achievement model. What we need is a growth model. It is very disheartening when you have celebrated the great improvements in student learning yet the feds only see the negative--that end result. Our state model is a growth model so we have some schools that have met or exceeded expected growth yet are in improvement because of subgroup data, even when those subgroups meet or exceed expected growth. The need for a growth model does not diminish the need for an end goal, but it does recognize the variance among populations in their rate of achievement. It is malpractice on the part of the federal government to assume that when students come in at many varying levels of understanding and ability that they can all reach the final benchmark at the exact same time. Educators are not fearful of accountability, but they are fearful of a system that underfunds, is punitive, and, in my opinion, is nothing more than a strategic plan for implementing vouchers and attempting to totally dismantle the public school systems of our country.

[Andrea]

NCLB needs to be either reformed or retracted in order to achieve it's goal of improving education in America. As an educator in Texas for four different presidential administrations, I am disappointed that no one has ever laid out an equitable plan and required funding to carry it out. The system we have now has resulted in great improvements in attendance, curriculum and instruction, awareness of many needs, and the gap in spending. Unfortunately, we have a system now dependent on testing that is very expensive, stressful, and ultimately degrading in its narrow expectations. If Congress fails to act but extends this act then we will see more students and districts marked as failures (because the passing standing for districts increases dramatically in the next few years), and a waste of money and lives before the final reformation toward what is likely to involve a system of vouchers or a collapse that undermines the system with exceptions and allowances until it means nothings but costs much more than it should.