Critical Reflection: the Grand intent of the NCLB

Racquel Diop



In 2002, President Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) first introduced by President Lyndon Johnson’s administration in 1965. With some amendments, today ESEA is known to as the NCLB act, which requires school districts to raise all students’ achievement and to eliminate the achievement gap regardless of students’ academic abilities. The main objective of the NCLB requires that students with special needs, English Language Learners and students of low income families meet the same expectations as all other students (Johnson, Musial, Hall, Gollnick, & Dupus, 2005), which I believe is a very honorable , but is it practical?.
The need to educate our children has been the center of constant controversy amongst educators, parents, and politicians even more so within the last twenty years. The arguments of these assessors’ vary from admiration to great cynicism, but unfortunately mainly the latter. The form in which we educate will always be an easy target for criticism because its intent is often so gallantly majestic that it has little chance of being accomplished. With the reauthorization of the NCLB act, this has proven to be even truer as more teachers ‘teach to test’ in order to meet its grand demands.
The NCLB act requires an Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) of every school supported by the federal government. This report can be sufficiently argued, does not give schools sufficient credit for improvements in students’ achievement. Results have shown that whether or not a school performs well on the AYP does not essentially depend on its success or the presence or absence or size of achievement gaps. By definition of an AYP’s passing grade, eventually almost all schools, regardless of schools average student’s performance, will receive a failing grade.
In order to create equal opportunity for every child in our classrooms, teachers need to differentiate instruction to enhance all students’ learning. “Teachers must engage students in activities that respond to particular learning needs, strengths, and preferences and is effective in addressing the needs of gifted students, students with special needs, as well as, second language learners who are in the same classroom” (Wikipedia, 2008).
The present demands of the NCLB as made this considerable more difficult as schools and their districts attempt to make satisfactory grades for the AYP. Unfortunately many teachers now employ the tactics of instructing students on the actual items they think will appear on the tests in an attempt to make ‘the grade’. In addition to this being morally wrong, teaching to test is counter-productive because it makes valid inferences about student achievement almost unfeasible. Drilling students on a specific set of test items destroys their ability to critically the analyze information taught and to apply this information to a broader context. In fact, I believe education becomes less significant if understanding of lessons is never reached. Similarly, Dewey believes it is nonsense to talk about the aim of education- or any other undertaking – where conditions do not permit foresight of result… (Dewey 102). Vygotsky also supports this argument that true education can not be learning of specific knowledge and skills, it is the development of children's learning abilities - that is, their capacity to think clearly and creatively, plan and implement their plans, and communicate their understanding in a variety of ways (Vygotsky, 1978).

Student being prepared only to perform well on test,’ Test Takers’ will not find solution to diseases, such as AIDS or Cancer; maintain America’s competitiveness with the rest of the world, create new technologies, or to design new structures. Teaching a child should never simply be to perform on a test, rather it is to teach them to have the knowledge necessary to contribute solutions to the world’s problems. Teacher should teach a subject to get students to think about a problem and it possible solution/s, not to produce little living encyclopedias. Considering education as historians do, “Knowing is a process not a product (Bruner, 1996).”
As math a teachers and an educator of future scientist and mathematicians, it my responsibility, as it is all other teachers, to teach our students to apply the content they learn to understand and help fix the concerns of the world. Aristotle regards… someone who has mastered the theory but has never practiced …and who know general principles without ever having come face to face with an actual case often turns out to be an unsuccessful practitioner… (Herschensohn, 7 ). Such as a doctor who has very little understanding of their art. "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." (Einstein,1981)

The NCLB Act has made the art of true understanding considerably more difficult, to bring to each of our students. However we must endure for the future and the continued success of our children, and ultimately this nation. To conclude, Polya a mathematician/philosopher believes who understands ill, answers ill…Think on the end before you begin. “respice finem” (Poyla, 1985). When our children are questioned, can the future of America depend on their answer?


Reference:

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Dewey, J. (1990) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education.
(1963 ) The Natural Philosopher Volume II. Blaisdell publishing company. New York Editors: Daniel e. Gershenson, Daniel A. Greenberg. Pg. 7
Polya, G. (1985). How to Solve It: a new aspect of mathematical method Princeton. New Jersey. Pg. 222
Einstein, A., Hoffman, B. and Dukas, H., (1981). The Human Side: New Glimpses From His Archives. Princeton. New Jersey