NCLB

The reading was interesting. Clearly, the intent was to show both sides to this controversial educational assessment. I think the initial intent of trying to make schools accountable was a good idea. I also think the intent of trying to have highly qualified teachers is also a good thing. I know that in my school (a high school) the Special Ed department was having the hardest time with the highly qualified teacher issue as many of the teachers here were qualified for Special Ed, but not for a particular subject, i.e. Math, Science, etc. I know that some of the teachers had to obtain additional education in their preferred subject area. Overall, again, that is probably a good thing, it just caused a little stress initially with the teachers.

Now to the testing itself. Again, the idea of accountability is good. With this law there has been increased funding for Title 1 aid. The thought of trying to close the gap between schools, again is good in theory. Some of the statistics that the New Jersey report card has shown seems to indicate some closing of the gap between black and white achievement and Hispanic and white achievement. But, has this closing of the gap occurred because of NCLB or in spite of NCLB? That really is an interesting question. If a school is in an area that has routinely not scored well on testing prior to NCLB, one would think one of the major initiatives would be to raise test scores overall. So is the increase in test scores due to schools wanting to perform better and having the common sense to try different ways to motivate kids to want to learn or are they better at teaching to the test now?

Just an aside, as a high school business teacher, I am thrilled that at this point in time, that I do not have to teach to a particular test (for us it is the HSPAs - High School Proficiency Assessments). I know my counterparts in Math, English and Science (to a lesser degree) spend a good bit of time preparing students for the test. Although, in the Math classes, the teachers incorporate the testing material into their regular lesson plans. There are a few classes of Math Lab which is for students who did not score well on preliminary testing. To my point above, I am happy that I can teach the subjects that I do and focus on business and real life senerios and not focus on a test. It makes my job my meaningful and hopefully for the students also.

Clearly, the testing lacks proper funding. It is not fair to hold schools responsible for a new law and not give them the proper funding to make it work. It is one thing to be creative, it is another to ask for the impossible. And if a student leaves a particular school, the Title I funding does not go with them. In addition, each state can produce its own standardized tests. So, states can manipulate the testing and can make it so it is easier to obtain a higher test score. The states are manipulating the system because there are so many holes in the system.

The bottom line is there are far too many holes in the law and there is much to do to make NCLB the success that the federal government may have wanted it to be when it initially created this law. Hopefully the government will be given enough reason to go back to the drawing board and fix the problems. If we hope the government will work to fix the law on their own without being pushed or having some political infuence make it happen, they probably will not. That is unfortunate.