NCLB: Dreams and Nightmares

Abstract

The idea of leaving no child behind may sound like a noble dream. But the federal law intended to fulfill that dream is in Mr. Houston's opinion so flawed that it has become a nightmare for educators. IT IS MY understanding that humans share many of the same nightmares, like going to a party with no clothes on or showing up for the final exam in a class you forgot to attend or, on the happier side, falling from a cliff and discovering that you can fly. Today, educators share a nightmare known as NCLB (or for the alphabetically impaired). Sadly, the No Child Left Behind Act is a nightmare in which everyone is naked while being pushed off a cliff because of poor test performance. The Nickelbee nightmare has many variations. One involves trying to fill every classroom with a qualified But in Nightmareland, highly qualified doesn't necessarily mean good. It means the teacher took the right number of subject-area courses in college and is teaching only those subjects. A certified chemistry teacher is not a highly qualified biology teacher. A middle school teacher certified as an elementary teacher is not highly qualified for middle school English. (Didn't we create middle schools so we could get away from the rigidity of the junior high school curriculum?) The big exception is teachers who have taken no education courses but apply for alternative certification. The day they apply for certification, they become highly qualified. This is the magical approach to becoming highly qualified and proves that the bureaucrats who draft these laws have a sense of humor. Of course, highly qualified teachers don't have to be good teachers pedagogically, and they certainly don't need to be kind or compassionate toward children. They just need to show they mastered their subject areas. The Nickelbee nightmare also involves explaining to your community why your award-winning school is on the list of those that need to improve because you didn't make AYP (adequate yearly progress) in every sub-area with every subgroup. You might try to explain how progress isn't really progress because you aren't measuring the same children. You might explain that your school failed because one or two children were absent on test day, which dropped you below the 95% threshold for attendance. You might also have to explain why kids who have been identified for special education now have to meet the same standards as those who have not been so identified. In other words, students with special needs aren't really special when it comes to achieving common results. Makes one wonder why we have spent billions on special education when we could have just tested all those children to greatness. Oh, and don't forget that you have to make sure that students who come to you from Albania in third grade and who don't speak English will master that subject and the first three years of the curriculum in one year so that by fourth grade they are proficient. I could go on, but like swatting flies at a watermelon-eating contest, it is just too easy to make fun of Nickelbee. The fact is that the goals of the law are fine. I haven't found one educator who doesn't agree with the high-minded goals of Nickelbee. I haven't met an educator who thinks it is just fine to leave some kids behind. Many have swallowed hard in their efforts to embrace the law because it is an attempt to create more equitable expectations for our students. The President has talked about the soft bigotry of low expectations, and most educators I know agree that the phrase describes a real problem. No one wants to see a single child left behind. In fact, it is a tribute to the nation's teachers and administrators that, despite the inanity of the law's details, they are working hard to implement it and make it work. From the coercive aspects of the law, one might think that the drafters thought children were being left behind on purpose. …