No Child Left Behind

Are you a member of On Point? Is that why you have that icon? According to what I see from clicking the link, Tom Ashbrook wrote the article that you posted here as your own. Not everyone will click on that link and know that the words preceding it are not your own. Am I wrong? Did I miss something?

I am a student teacher and have seen the negative effects of no child left behind. To suggest that this helps children of poverty is an idealistic fallacy. Instead this program takes control and funding away, punishing school systems already having problems. Teachers must teach to the test, I have had to and have been taught to. This only hurts schools already having problems. Comparing America to foreign countries whose culture, monoethnicity/religious backgrounds, and smaller populations is also a flawed way to access education in America. States DO NOT have the option to pull out at the moment. The federal money is absolutely necessary to help provide for federal laws involving accommodation of special needs/handicapped children that local communities can not afford. I am not saying this as a states rights issue, I am a democrat and do not fear government intervention in certain areas of life, the need is a reality. No Child Left Behind is simply not the correct approach to education, it was passed but not funded, and only hurts the schools which need the most help while supporting schools already advantaged.

NCLB was a setup to lower the esteem of the educational efforts in the inner cities. From what I see as a former teacher and employee of the Chicago Public Schools it worked. The new thing now is to hold teachers accountable for student test scores rather than building up the qualifications of teachers. I'm glad I don't teach anymore. I want to teach children not test scores. I'll continue to tutor reading and math but won't consider working in the classroom. The notion that pounding out a bunch of kids who can pass a reading and math test once a year is effective education just boggles my mind. There is so much more and especially in the inner city schools.

Sue B,

You have not missed anything. Yes, I am the web producer of On Point, and no, I would not otherwise take the liberty of using the words of Tom Ashbrook as my own if I didn't make clear my association with On Point from the get-go.

I will however add a line or two to Tom's text if I see it necessary to explain better what the show is about.

Hope this explains the confusion.

In response to Amy Wilkins metaphor (if the doctor tells you to lose weight you can chose a healthy way or starvation), most schools are not given the time to chose the healthy way of change leaving them to choose starvation. I have seen teachers fearing for their jobs because they have been given one year to improve test schools. They have seen colleagues' schools taken over by state and superintendent offices, which only resulted in the firing of the faculty and little improvement of scores. They are not given a deadline of 2014, as Amy implies, but an end of the year deadline.

Secondly, and more importantly, we have to acknowledge that the negative impacts of NCLB hit the very students it claims to help: minority students living in poverty. Strict scripting programs are more likely to be brought into segregated schools with a majority of low-income students. More affluent parents, who have the means, fight these kinds of programs at all costs, most commonly by removing their children from these schools. In order to improve educational opportunities for low-income students, you must prepare and treat teachers like intelligent professionals. A teacher who sees herself as a thinking professional is not going to stand for having her days scripted down to the minute, and she is going to leave and go to schools and districts who have resources and respect her profession. When I decided to become a teacher, I was appalled by the amount of "alternative certification" programs that put teachers in the classroom with so little training. There is much lip service given to highly qualified teachers, but the demands for teachers allows that in some cases anyone who can pass a standardized test can teach. Again, assuming that competency can be measured by multiple choice. These teachers with little pedagogical training do not go to work in wealthy districts. They go to the schools that are struggling to begin with, and the vicious cycle continues. Education reflects our society, the rich get richer (through quality education) and the poor get poorer (by being trained to pass a test).

I would like to hear as part of this conversation more information on the number of dropouts as a result of students feeling like failures for not passing the test; as a result, these students are no longer being counted in the scores. Their absence has given the impression that scores might go up, but does the impact on those children's lives of a total loss of education factor into our politicians calculations of NCLB's success?

Thanks for the explanation. To answer your question, I am not an educator and my child is in college now. I do know that there have been problems with the program, however, it was an attempt to rectify a terrible system. I do think it needs tweaking since I understand that the curriculum is now focused on test passing rather than learning, however, I do think it was a step in the right direction.

The problem with NCLB is that the accountability ends at the lowest possible level without ever addressing the systemic problems of our outdated educational system. NCLB attempts to provide equity in mediocrity, to bring all schools up to the factory model level of producing worker bees for industries that have been outsourced to countries that can provide cheaper labor.

What has alway set America apart from other nations is the ingenuity, creativity and entrepunurial acumen of it's people. We do not teach this when we are so narrowly focused on the pen and paper test.

To add insult to injury, in my state (RI), education funding is based upon property taxes and good money is ciphoned off from relatively successful communities in order to bring an inadequate system to the inner city. As a teacher, state administrator, turn around facilitator in low performing schools and private consultant over the past twenty years, I have witnessed the squandering of millions of dollars on "programs" and professional development without ANY accountability for and evaluation of their effectiveness.

We need bold leadership to truly reform education for all our kids, instead of a law that cements the status quo by pouring more money into a broken system.

Assessment should always be in the service of student learning, and should identify student performance across several domains of achievement, including a student's reasoning skills, the ability to apply what has been learned, the ability to produce tangible products that provide concrete evidence of learning, as well as their knowledge. What's more, the most effective form of assessment is one that involves students themselves wherein they can take increasing responsibility for their own learning: measuring their progress against stated benchmarks and understanding what is needed to move them towards those benchmarks. No Child Left Behind and its current testing requirements are representative of an industrial
model of education wherein a single one-size-fits all exam determines quality control and where student involvement is limited to the taking of the test. The selected response format of most, if not all standardized testing required by NCLB by and large can only measure the lowest forms of thinking, and cannot determine if the student actually understands the material. Knowing is not the same as understanding and being able to use the information. Moreover, the standardized testing required by NCLB, commonly known in assessment circles as summative data that is meant to provide an overall "snapshot" of where an overall program is in terms of achievement has not become formative where the test becomes the curriculum. Because of the high stakes attached to this one-shot exam, states are lowering their targets and cheating has become rampant across the nation, especially in Texas, home of the "assessment miracle."
No Child Left Behind is based on the premise that our students and schools are failing and are miserably behind the rest of the world. In truth, our students are very competitive with other countries; and in fact a recent study indicated that students in Japan and other highly-regarded countries would be considered below average on our NAEP exam. However, the U.S. Department of Education is virtually silent on this because it doesn't fit with the current punish-public-education paradigm. No Child Left Behind and its Reading First program are not designed to help students achieve, in spite of the rhetoric. The achievement gap has not narrowed, and an analysis of NAEP scores indicate that the gains made being reported by the U.S. Department of Education in fact happened prior to the implementation of NCLB. The Business Roundtable and their cronies in Washington designed NCLB to put money in the pockets of publishing companies who are reaping astronomical profits off the backs of students who are nowhere near better off than they were five years ago.

In central Massachusetts, it's common for real estate brokers to enhance the sale of suburban homes by citing the high MCAS scores attained by the middle- and upper middle-class school population in those communities. The scores are cited as a benefit to residing there, implying that the teachers and curriculum in the schools are primarily responsible for the high scores. If that is the case, and if the federal and state governments are already dictating all schools to meet certain standards, then the next "logical" step would be that teachers/principals/other professional staff who are successful in their suburban locales should be required to take their skills and curriculum into the inner-city/poverty area schools and do the same job there.
I often think of the comment made to me years ago when I was working in a hard-core poverty school in a large city. One of my fellow teachers had come from teaching first grade in a high income suburb. When I remarked that teaching first graders to read is a huge responsibility, her response was that it was incredibly easy as the children "taught themselves to read." She was far more burdened teaching her fifth grade children of poverty, most of whom entered school well behind their suburban peers. She was not ashamed to admit that in the suburban school she did very little work, just followed the teacher's guide in each subject area, while in the inner-city all of us found ourselves constantly modifying, adapting, creating, and yes, struggling, to help our students make progress.
It is incredibly poisonous to imply that teachers who work with "baggage" laden students who struggle to make progress on one (!) type of measurement are less dedicated, less capable, less competent than teachers who work with students who have educated parents who have been enriching these children intellectually since birth.
Who wants to teach "test depressors" (David Berliner), and then be punished when they don't succeed, when one can teach "test enhancers" (David Berliner) and be honored when they succeed?
The answer is to dump these standardized tests, look at each child as an individual, and if learning problems appear, put these kids in small (maximum 8) classrooms. The millions spent on the testing industry (test creation, test correction, extra tutoring, etc.) should be spent directly educating kids.

What is most frustrating about NCLB is how many inaccuracies are spread and perpetuated. Unfortunately this conversation on On Point just spread more of them. Amy Wilkins talked about local decision making, but it is not true. NCLB mandates certain actions for each year a school is not producing the right test scores. There is very little local control over what happens to schools which better supports Susan's comments on Amy's "diet" analogy where you are told to diet and lose weight, but with your leg cut off.

After two years of not meeting "Adequate Yearly Progress" which is measured in very problematic ways, schools have to allow students to transfer to other schools (in the district) and set aside Title I funds to provide transportation. This option has been minimally used for various reasons, yet funds that were available to schools the year before are no longer available as they need to be made available for transportation. The third year that schools don't meet AYP, they must additionally offer "Supplemental Educational Services" - which means private tutoring. One principal I know had to set aside $53,000 of her budget to pay for these services and none of her parents ended up choosing to use the money. Nationally less that 1% of eligible students have used these services. The fourth and fifth year of not meeting AYP leads to take overs and total restructuring. How is this local control? How is cutting funding and mandating how it's spent not a major imposition at the local level?

This one-size-fits-all approach to school reform is absolutely ridiculous in a country of our size and diversity. It's also a complete slap in the face of various realms of scientific research. The law itself calls for methods and choices schools make to be "scientifically based" yet there is no scientific research that suggests that these kinds of reforms and restrictions are valuable on a large scale.

NCLB must be dramatically altered. It is not working. Testing and punishing does not raise achievement. We need to support struggling schools rather than punish them. We need to equalize funding to schools, support teachers, raise salaries, and give voice to the stakeholders involved local communities. Top down, one-size-fits all approaches will never be adequate for our schools.

When I first heard of the NCLB law I said to myself " oh my God". "This is a big mistake". When I went to school ( not that long ago,dinosaurs did not roam the earth) a child was held back because he/she did not complete the course or make the grade. They failed! It is not fair for children to excel in school, study hard , work hard and then be passed on with those who either don't care,don't like school, failed because they deemed it not necessary to keep up, wouldn't study or thought they could get by on their looks. When that type of student is passed on to the neXT grade because of the NCLB law it makes it harder on the teacher and other good students. That child then becomes a behavior problem or just a plain problem because he/she doesn't feel it's necessary to compete because they are not going to leave me behind anyway. When a teacher has to deal with this type of student it takes away from those who truly want to learn. Here's another fine mess Mr. Bush has gotten us into. I love teaching, but I feel sorry for those who have to deal with upper grade students. My passion, my love, KINDERGARTEN.

In the Catholic School where my first child went, every child in the large class learned to read because they sang and said the alphabet phonetically every day and practiced reading every day. The teacher called parents like me to read with students who had been told they were dumb or couldn't read, and we cajoled these recalcitrant ones into realizing they could too read. This was an inner-city school that received "problem" kids from the public schools. Parents paid tuition and did what they could to keep the school going at a tiny fraction of per-pupil cost in the public schools. Miracles happened at this school.

The diocese defunded the inner-city schools, which was a necessity I guess, but it was a great loss. Teaching this way in a public school seems illegal. I do not understand why it can't be done, but I do not know of any public schools teaching this way. I hope someone will write to tell me of one.

If NCLB had been able to address this issue, it might have helped, but it did not. Parents with dyslexic kids have to hire tutors on the side at high prices per hour to help them survive regular school. Dyslexic children without private tutors likely just drop out.

When people opposed to school choice write in to say the private schools "cream" the public schools by taking the best students, it makes me so sad. Money to fund public schools is taken by force from the least able to pay and the most able to pay. The most able to pay generally get a better deal, and they can afford to supplement when they have to.

The only exception to this is sports. In some big cities, the fanciest public schools cream athletic talent from poor neighborhoods, thus turning the "creaming" analogy on its head.

The mainstream press tends to perpetuate myths about schools rather than the hard realities. It is difficult to fix problems we can't admit to having. Even in an incredibly gentrified city like Portland, real estate values are intensely affected by where the lines are drawn concerning the "best" schools with the "best" test scores. Savvy black urban professionals mandated test score reporting, and many of their kids are as smart as it gets and have gone wherever they want for college.

The trouble comes if your child has a special need. Rich or poor, your family is at risk. You may have to pull your child from public school, despite the public-school line that they have to take what's left when they've been "creamed" by the private schools.

Often the teachers who are best with challenging students are not so good at dealing with bureaucracy and paper certification requirements that are designed to keep expensive college programs in business.

As usual, corruption is a factor in public dysfunction. Maybe the internet will eventually out enough truth to help us deal with it.

m
Many public school teachers are absolutely incredible and wonderful, especially for the kids I call "bright and cooperative." There are even gifted teachers for some other categories, but the good teachers know who the burned-out ones are. They don't know what to do about it any better than the rest of us, I guess.

LNCFLAB...Leave No Child Feeling Like a Behind is a more apt description of this program. And this isn't rocket science we're talking about here.

Most failure in inner cities is due to the lack of active participation by the parents... Poor working Christian families, which dedicate their lives to their children, not their pocketbook have helped America become what it is by educating, motivating, and teaching strong work ethics. Sadly, it is starting to fade now as we become endentured servants to our local banks.

As an educator and a parent, I urge you to do your homework! Go visit low-income schools (unannouced) and you will find BORING, TEST FACTORIES, at the expense of our children's future. Administrators and teachers are under the gun to produce high scores, and what they are producing is unmotivated students, a narrow & boring curriculum, and teaching to the test stressed-out teachers. We want sound legislation that will hold everyone accountable, including our federal & state government and school districts. Let's not forget the unequal gap in educational funding that has created a dual school system, one for the wealthy and one for the poor. Let's not forget the rising drop-out crisis. Let's hold our government accountable to fully fund, pre-kinder, Head Start Programs, Sp. Ed. and Bilingual Education. Our country needs to stop funding wars and destruction at the tune of trillions of dollars and start fully funding education, health and social services. If you really claim to care about education, see the whole picture on this issue. Don't get caught up on how NCLB is now holding schools accountable for minorities, we want to keep that but use "real" measures of success, not corporate measures like standarized testing. Have you noticed the finacial increases of 'the testing industry'?
If The Education Trust really wants to help minority students they need to start talking to REAL EDUCATORS (not appointees like M. Spelling, who NEVER taught a day in her life and heads the Dept. of Ed.) who work with minority and poor children and are succeeding. Otherwise, The Education Trust has SOLD-OUT!

A couple of points to add:
- We know the most effective tools of institutional education: reasonably small class size and well-trained and paid teachers.
- If standardized tests were truly effective tools, and if lawmakers sincerely wanted to improve their profession, we would have/require each potential office-holder to pass a standardized test annually - and publish the results.

In response to Mary S. and her comment about the success of her Catholic school, I say a hearty Amen. I'm not Catholic (and don't even believe in God), but I heard a Chicago Public Radio series that featured an all-black Catholic high school for boys on the south side of Chicago, Hales Franciscan High School. It operates with half the money per student than Chicago public schools do, and nearly 100% of those who graduate from the school go on to graduate from college. That's in contrast to something like 3% of black boys who graduate from Chicago public schools going on to graduate from college. The real problem with Chicago public schools is not a lack of money. It is not No Child Left Behind. People who scapegoat NCLB remind me of conservatives who scapegoat Welfare. NCLB would never have come into existence if educators were succeeding in the first place. They want us to throw more money at the public schools, as though more money were the answer. But it's not the answer, any more than NCLB was. The problem lies somewhere in the policies, somewhere in the educational philosophies, somewhere in the values. And the answer, apparently, lies somewhere on the south side of Chicago, for half the cost. (Not that I'm naive enough to think that public school officials are interested in that answer, whatever it is.)

"No Child Left Behind" was taken right out of the UN education charter. Of course it's going to fail, because that's exactly what it was designed to do! Isn't globalization working out just wonderful for the American people?