Since President Bush: The Next Generation has been in office, federal involvement in educations has taken a turn toward extreme controversy. Though I believe there should be more structure and national standards implemented throughout the States, I do not agree with the way in which No Child Left Behind (NCLB) goes about it. The law is rife with what I consider to be, as both a teacher and a student, problems. I do not believe that standardized test scores are the only proof, or for that matter, legitimate proof, that schools are teaching children and making real progress. There needs to be accountability on the part of schools, certainly, but the current way is not working.
Many people both in and out of the education field agree with me and NCLB has been met with a lot of hesitation and adversity. For example, Ms. Roberts, a teacher at Fourth Street School has serious concerns about NCLB that are very similar to my own. She voices the concern that “there is such pressure on assessment that oftentimes people are working hard to pass the test, and not to gain real understanding” (Stolberg, 2008). I can say from experience with standardized testing in my own education that if my diploma were based on how I performed on tests, I might not have graduated. However, as far as learning and class grades have been concerned, I have always been a high-scoring student. More emphasis should really be placed on ensuring that students gain knowledge to use later in life and not simply to use on a test.
“Today, some say that the law's ambitious goals for improving public schools are colliding with the reality that state[s]…are not designed to handle the myriad NCLB requirements” states Sack (2005, p. 1). Fredrick Douglass High School in Baltimore, as seen in the documentary Hard Times at Douglass High, is a perfect example. They have a school of about 1100 students, the largest class always being the freshmen and the smallest always being the seniors (Raymond, 2008). The reason for this discrepancy is, according to the principal, that most students do not make it past their sophomore year.
The law’s cornerstone is its requirement that states set targets and issue detailed reports on student performance…Schools that repeatedly fail to report progress are deemed “in need of improvement,” the law’s term for failing. Students may transfer out of failing schools, and the schools risk being shut down,” notes Stolberg. (2008).
But transferring out is exactly what many of the academically better students at Fredrick Douglass High School did. This left the school with no role models. No leaders to bring the school up in academic merit. No reason for teachers to continue trying so hard, then, if all the students that are left are those deemed disinterested and un-teachable.
Fredrick Douglass High School is considered a “failing” school in the eyes of the NCLB law and is slated for state take-over this upcoming school year. Though the school should obviously be held accountable for its situation, I do not believe the blame should be placed entirely on the administration and staff. How can a teacher be blamed for low standardized test scores when that teacher has never seen a particular student in the classroom? Maybe some accountability should be placed on the students themselves. This school seems to need someone to care about it and really know it and its students on personal levels. I do not believe that the state controlling this school will help anything.
Some states have their own policies already in place in order to assess student and school achievement. For example, prior to the NCLB law, ”Kentucky assessed student achievement every two years,” (Stolberg, 2008) as opposed to every year, as required by NCLB. “Kentucky tested seven subject areas,” 5 more than the federal law required. “Kentucky marked progress based on a school’s growth; under No Child Left Behind, a school either passed or failed." (Stolberg, 2008). Maybe there should be some consideration given to this state’s procedures. Perhaps seeing only in black and white, in pass and fail mode, is not what will work to establish a better educational system. Maybe the federal government is comprised of too many ex-students who could answer test questions, but who could not apply their learning to real life.
Even with all the debate over NCLB, however, “Former Education Secretary Rod Paige announced recently the “debate is over” about whether the No Child Left Behind law is working or not. Indeed, positive changes in academic achievement are occurring, he says, slowly, but surely.” (Anonymous, 2004, p. 19). With many schools across the country facing problems akin to Fredrick Douglass High, I am really unsure as to what exactly Mr. Paige is talking about. There is proof that test scores are rising, but, “there is no hard-and-fast evidence, most experts say, that it is actually improving student achievement." (Stolberg, 2008). So then, what is the point? Does the Federal government intend to create a generation of great test takers, Scantron filler-outers, and inside-the-box thinkers? Somehow, this does not seem like enough.
So, as we near the end of the 8-year long tyranny, we can look forward to a future of uncertainty in the Federal government’s role in our classrooms. Someday in the distant future, perhaps we can laugh as tenured retired and pension-receiving ex-teachers as we look back at the "Texas governor who came to Washington vowing to be “the education president” and wound up consumed with fighting terrorism and two wars" (Stolberg, 2008) instead of fighting the war right here at home, the war I fight with students every day, the war to get them to learn.
References
Anonymous. (2004). Debate is over: NCLB works. District
Administration, 40, 19-20.
Hoffman, J. (Producer), & Raymond, A. & Raymond S. (Directors).
(2008). Hard times at Douglass high: An NCLB report card.
[Motion picture]. New York: Video Vérité.
Sack, Joetta L. (2005). State agencies juggle NCLB work, staffing
woes. Education Week, 24, 1-25.
Stolberg, S.G. (2008, June 12). Bush loyalist fights foes of 'No
Child' law. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/washington/12spellings.html ?_r=1&ref=education
No comments:
Post a Comment