No Child Left Behind...What Do I Think About It?

I had an email this morning about this article that was in the Washington Post and a question about what I thought about it. I was typing out my response and figured I'd put the whole conversation here to see what you all think about it...

(I don't want this to turn into a political discussion though...just what do we think is best for kids!)

So here's the article and then my thoughts are below it...

Why 'No Child' Was Needed
By Karin Chenoweth Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A19

A very odd notion is circulating these days that the No Child Left Behind law has forced schools to become boring, dull places where children do endless worksheets and are discouraged from thinking for themselves. This argument holds that under "No Child," students are forced to simply regurgitate what teachers tell them, which -- because of flawed standardized tests -- is often confusing and sometimes demonstrably false. Get rid of the tests, or at least pay less attention to their results, critics say, and schools can return to their pre-NCLB excellence.

Particularly with Congress considering reauthorization of the law, versions of this argument are heard almost any time No Child Left Behind is discussed. I find it very puzzling.

I keep wondering: Don't the people making this and similar arguments know that long before No Child Left Behind, far too many classrooms were boring, dull places where children were forced to do endless worksheets, discouraged from independent thinking and subjected to teachers providing confusing and sometimes demonstrably false information?

For example, my eighth-grade history teacher in suburban New Jersey taught that the American system of slavery was fair not only to the slaveholders but also to the slaves. He did not present his assessment as opinion but fact, and (hard as it is to believe today) was backed up by the textbook we studied. At least he tried to teach us something. My eighth-grade science teacher told our class point-blank, "You aren't going to college anyway, so it doesn't matter what I do." He didn't teach much of anything, and his class was a zoo, teetering on dangerous. My elementary school teachers had been able to control their classrooms, but they didn't teach a whole lot of history, science, art or music. In introducing a unit on batteries, for instance, my fifth-grade teacher said: "I don't like science either, but we are supposed to cover this." She never bothered finding out whether we learned anything about batteries -- tedious "covering" was enough.

Educators often complain that every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he's an expert because he went to school, so I try not to draw too many conclusions from my personal experiences. But they are consistent with every serious history of education I have read, and they are hardly unusual. Most baby boomers I have talked with consider themselves lucky if they had one or two really good teachers in their school careers -- which means they sat through a lot of not-so-good instruction.

Fast-forward to my children's educational experience in Montgomery County. Now in college, my daughters went to public school before No Child Left Behind was passed and as it was taking effect. Though in many ways they had an education superior to mine, they both had their share of tedious, confusing and demonstrably false instruction.

In fact, once they entered middle school, I noticed that if there was no outside assessment, it was a tossup whether the teachers taught much of anything at all. Sixth-grade English was pretty much a waste for my older daughter, in part because her teacher spent inordinate amounts of class time updating her computerized inventory of Beanie Babies.

Those teachers were able to get away with such low levels of instruction because no outside assessment held them responsible for whether their students learned anything.
My younger daughter, more than her sister, benefited from two trends now sweeping the country: accountability and rigorous curriculum. Because her high school adopted the International Baccalaureate curriculum, which has assessments scored by professionals outside the school she attended, my younger daughter enjoyed both a high-level curriculum and teachers who were not afraid of being held accountable.

Every child deserves that. The International Baccalaureate curriculum may be a bit of overkill, but a deep, rich curriculum that aims at helping children become educated citizens should be available to every child.

If teachers have little incentive to teach anything that is not on the state tests, we should fix that. Teachers need to be supported by good standards and curriculum, high-quality materials, orderly learning environments, and rigorous assessments. They certainly shouldn't be focused only on teaching what is tested by what are mostly low-level state assessments.
But people should keep in mind that if there are no tests, some teachers have little incentive to teach anything at all.

Karin Chenoweth is the author of "It's Being Done: Academic Success in Unexpected Schools." She wrote the Homeroom column for The Post from 1999 to 2004.

I put the part I thought was the most important in bold...

This was an interesting article. However, I don't think the author is fully versed in the impact that NCLB is having on schools. Unfortunately, there have always been bad teachers and there will continue to be bad teachers...NCLB does NOT have the authority to get rid of teachers!!!! I think that's the misconception that a lot of people have about NCLB. All it has the authority to do is CLOSE UNDER-PERFORMING SCHOOLS. That's it.

The reason I bolded a statement above is because what NCLB has done and will continue to do is demand that EVERY student be at grade level by 2014. They want 100% of kids to be at grade level. Now I agree that is what should happen, but is it realistic? Of course not! NCLB does not take into account special education students, 2nd language learners, learning disabilities, etc.

Most importantly, NCLB has continued to demand this of our schools and teachers and then not give us any funding or materials or resources to make sure that it happens!! Not only is the government not giving us extra materials to get 100% of our kids to grade level in 7 years, they are cutting programs and resources all the time and expecting us to make up the difference! Our district just had the technology and GT programs cut. Gone. No computers for you kids!! However, our standards still test the kids on technology...so where does that leave the teachers?

I am very much in favor of high-stakes testing: in fact, I'm in favor of pay-for-performance as well. Let's get rid of teacher tenure!! No more hanging out in the classroom for 30 years unless you really want to be there!! NCLB does not have the authority to get rid of the kind of teachers that were described in the article above (by the way, I teach at an International Baccalaureate school...). All it can do is close the school. How does that help the kids?

Here's my thoughts: get rid of NCLB and the outrageous expectations it forces on teachers and schools. Get rid of teacher tenure that allows poor teachers job security. Implement pay-for-performance raises: in other words, if my students raise their scores on MANY tests (not just one...what if my kids were having a bad day that day?) I get a raise the next year...and I get to keep my job. Implement Peer-Evaluations amongst teachers. Believe me, teachers know who is doing great in their building and who needs to go. Give me an incentive to help the higher kids succeed; don't overload me with pressure to get my 2 low kids to grade level at any cost...forcing me to ignore the higher kids. Give me resources and master teachers to help: stop cutting funds that would help me put technology in my classroom or buy books we desperately need. Finally, leave me alone and let me do my job.