No Child Left Behind: Doomed to Fail?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Claudia Wallis

There was always something slightly insane about No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the ambitious education law often described as the Bush Administration's signature domestic achievement. For one thing, in the view of many educators, the law's 2014 goal — which calls for all public school students in grades 4 through 8 to be achieving on grade level in reading and math — is something no educational system anywhere on earth has ever accomplished. Even more unrealistic: every kid (except for 3% with serious handicaps or other issues) is supposed to be achieving on grade level every year, climbing in lockstep up an ever more challenging ladder. This flies in the face of all sorts of research showing that children start off in different places academically and grow at different rates.

Add to the mix the fact that much of the promised funding failed to materialize and many early critics insisted that No Child Left Behind was nothing more than a cynical plan to destroy American faith in public education and open the way to vouchers and school choice.

Now a former official in Bush's Education department is giving at least some support to that notion. Susan Neuman, a professor of education at the University Michigan who served as Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education during George W. Bush's first term, was and still is a fervent believer in the goals of NCLB. And she says the President and then Secretary of Education Rod Paige were too. But there were others in the department, according to Neuman, who saw NCLB as a Trojan horse for the choice agenda — a way to expose the failure of public education and "blow it up a bit," she says. "There were a number of people pushing hard for market forces and privatization."

Tensions between NCLB believers and the blow-up-the-schools group were one reason the Bush Department of Education felt like "a pressure cooker," says Neuman, who left the Administration in early 2003. Another reason was political pressure to take the hardest possible line on school accountability in order to avoid looking lax — like the Clinton Administration. Thus, when Neuman and others argued that many schools would fail to reach the NCLB goals and needed more flexibility while making improvements, they were ignored. "We had this no-waiver policy," says Neuman. "The feeling was that the prior administration had given waivers willy-nilly."

It was only in Bush's second term that the hard line began to succumb to reality. Margaret Spellings, who replaced Paige as Secretary of Education in 2005, gradually opened the door to a more flexible and realistic approach to school accountability. Instead of demanding lockstep, grade-level achievement, schools in some states could meet the NCLB goals by demonstrating adequate student growth. (In this "growth model" approach, a student who was three years behind in reading and ended the year only one year behind would not be viewed as a failure.) "Going to the growth models is the right way to go," says Neuman. "I wish it had come earlier. It didn't because we were trying to be tough."

Neuman also regrets the Administration's use of humiliation and shame as a lever for school reform. Failure to meet NCLB's inflexible goals meant schools would be publicly labeled as failures. Neuman now sees this as a mistake: "Vilifying teachers and saying we are going to shame them was not the right approach."

The combination of inflexibility and public humiliation for those not meeting federal goals ignited so much frustration among educators that NCLB now appears to be an irreparably damaged brand. "The problems lingered long enough and there's so much anger that it may not be fixable," says Neuman. While the American Federation of Teachers was once on board with the NCLB goals, she notes, the union has turned against it. "Teachers hate NCLB because they feel like they've been picked on."

Is there a way out of the mess? Neuman still supports school accountability and the much-maligned annual tests mandated by the law. But she now believes that the nation has to look beyond the schoolroom, if it wishes to leave no child behind. Along with 59 other top educators, policymakers and health officials, she's put her name to a nonpartisan document to be released on Tuesday by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank. Titled "A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education," it lays out an expansive vision for leveling the playing field for low-income kids, one that looks toward new policies on child health and support for parents and communities. Neuman says that money she's seen wasted on current programs should be reallocated accordingly. "Pinning all our hopes on schools will never change the odds for kids."

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1812758,00.html

[alienlovechild 75]

early critics insisted that No Child Left Behind was nothing more than a cynical plan to destroy American faith in public education and open the way to vouchers and school choice.

Is there a way out of the mess? Neuman still supports school accountability and the much-maligned annual tests mandated by the law. But she now believes that the nation has to look beyond the schoolroom, if it wishes to leave no child behind.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1812758,00.html

It was pretty easy to destroy the public school system in America since it was already a joke by international standards long before Bush dreamed up the No Child policy. Note that Neuman still wants some accountability in schools despite her criticisms.

I did a short stint as a student teacher long enough to hate it. I wouldn't blame bad teachers for everything because the students were disrespectful and borderline felons. I knew a lot of teachers and former teachers. Most of them couldn't wait to get out of the classroom and on to another career if possible.

[Jenn! 918]

What's so bad about vouchers anyway?

[jundp 191]

There's something wrong when we are only teaching to a test. It is our job as teachers to teach the whole person, not just have students memorize information to spit back on a test. That's not teaching/learning...it's memorization and drills and no good will come of it in the long run.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having state standards and expecting students and teachers to get there. However, when a teacher's job is so over-taken with making sure that a kid learns only what is on the state standardized test (a requirement of NCLB) then we stop being educators. Anyone can take the textbooks and spit that information to students. I did not spend 7 years in school and countless hours every year taking seminars and workshops to keep on top of new developments in my field to simply train students for a standardized test. I spent those years in school to help instill the love of communication, literature, writing, and learning into my students.

This is exactly why I chose to leave the public school system and move into the private sector. We still have all the same state standards, but we do not require our students to take the state mandated test (though they do take the AP and University Credit tests if they want to). And yet we are an accredited college prep school. Yesterday was graduation. 98% of our graduating class is going on to a 4 year college...with over $3million collectively in scholarships and grants. Clearly we are doing something right.