NCLB: Schlechty Noble Sentiment Poor Design
• NCLB gives standardized testing the central place in assessing school quality. Standardized testing, regardless of the way it is done, is neither an accurate nor adequate measure of school quality. A too-heavy reliance on test scores as measures of school quality will result in some schools appearing to be much better than they are and some much worse, just as too-heavy reliance on quarterly profit and loss statements can make business corporations appear to be in better or worse shape than they are.
• The emphasis NCLB gives to the development of low-level skills in reading and mathematics, while laudable on the surface, can serve to distract attention from other curriculum areas that should be of equal concern to citizens in a democracy. Under pressure to produce test scores in reading and arithmetic, teachers may overlook or look past, history, art, music, and even science. That this is already happening cannot be denied.1
• NCLB gives preference to programs that can be “scientifically demonstrated” to work in existing schools, but its definition of science excludes any science other than that which involves the
experimental method. There is much that affects student learning that cannot be studied through experimentation, and to overlook or look past these things is to miss much that is important regarding the quality of schools and life therein.
• NCLB has an implicit bias toward immediacy and the “quick fix,” exemplified by the tendency to give preference to programs that result in quickly improved test scores. This means that programs and activities that are intended to produce profound changes in schools and long-term
improvements in the quality of student learning will be discounted in favor of programs that produce short-term and possibly less significant results.
• The bias of NCLB toward short-term results will almost certainly discourage pursuit of dramatic changes in educational practice, the kind of changes that must occur if America is ever to realize the dream of ensuring that all children are well educated and that they all achieve at
high levels. Unless there is some near-term evidence that dramatic changes are underway in public education, it seems likely that the schools will be abandoned by increasing numbers of middle class families, as well as less affluent families that place a high premium on quality education. The consequence will be that the public schools will be transformed into highlyregimented training centers for the children of the poor, especially poor children of color and those who are recent immigrants.
• NCLB is clearly more focused on fixing truly “bad” schools than on making good schools great.2 Though it is essential to ensure that no student is forced to attend a truly bad school, and there are far too many bad schools, there is a real possibility that in the effort to improve a relatively few bad schools, reformers will adopt strategies that lead to regression toward the mean.
The strategies needed to improve test scores in low-performing schools may, in fact, be counter productive in schools where the vast majority of students are already performing well on these tests. Put differently, in the well-intended effort to ensure that no child is left behind, we stand in
danger of abandoning the core promise of the American dream, the promise that through the provision of great public schools every child in America will have the opportunity to get ahead, however he or she comes to define the word. If all children are to learn at high levels it will not be
enough to make bad schools adequate or tolerable. What we need are strategies that encourage all schools and those who lead them to strive for greatness. Like so many other initiatives inspired by bureaucratic impulses, NCLB is in danger of substituting mediocrity for excellence, thereby ensuring that those NCLB most aimed to help—the poor and, especially, poor minority children— will still not experience the excellence they deserve. At the same time, these policies may
encourage many who are now sending their children to good schools to abandon them on the grounds that the strategies being used to improve bad schools are making good schools mediocre.
• The emphasis NCLB gives to the development of low-level skills in reading and mathematics, while laudable on the surface, can serve to distract attention from other curriculum areas that should be of equal concern to citizens in a democracy. Under pressure to produce test scores in reading and arithmetic, teachers may overlook or look past, history, art, music, and even science. That this is already happening cannot be denied.1
• NCLB gives preference to programs that can be “scientifically demonstrated” to work in existing schools, but its definition of science excludes any science other than that which involves the
experimental method. There is much that affects student learning that cannot be studied through experimentation, and to overlook or look past these things is to miss much that is important regarding the quality of schools and life therein.
• NCLB has an implicit bias toward immediacy and the “quick fix,” exemplified by the tendency to give preference to programs that result in quickly improved test scores. This means that programs and activities that are intended to produce profound changes in schools and long-term
improvements in the quality of student learning will be discounted in favor of programs that produce short-term and possibly less significant results.
• The bias of NCLB toward short-term results will almost certainly discourage pursuit of dramatic changes in educational practice, the kind of changes that must occur if America is ever to realize the dream of ensuring that all children are well educated and that they all achieve at
high levels. Unless there is some near-term evidence that dramatic changes are underway in public education, it seems likely that the schools will be abandoned by increasing numbers of middle class families, as well as less affluent families that place a high premium on quality education. The consequence will be that the public schools will be transformed into highlyregimented training centers for the children of the poor, especially poor children of color and those who are recent immigrants.
• NCLB is clearly more focused on fixing truly “bad” schools than on making good schools great.2 Though it is essential to ensure that no student is forced to attend a truly bad school, and there are far too many bad schools, there is a real possibility that in the effort to improve a relatively few bad schools, reformers will adopt strategies that lead to regression toward the mean.
The strategies needed to improve test scores in low-performing schools may, in fact, be counter productive in schools where the vast majority of students are already performing well on these tests. Put differently, in the well-intended effort to ensure that no child is left behind, we stand in
danger of abandoning the core promise of the American dream, the promise that through the provision of great public schools every child in America will have the opportunity to get ahead, however he or she comes to define the word. If all children are to learn at high levels it will not be
enough to make bad schools adequate or tolerable. What we need are strategies that encourage all schools and those who lead them to strive for greatness. Like so many other initiatives inspired by bureaucratic impulses, NCLB is in danger of substituting mediocrity for excellence, thereby ensuring that those NCLB most aimed to help—the poor and, especially, poor minority children— will still not experience the excellence they deserve. At the same time, these policies may
encourage many who are now sending their children to good schools to abandon them on the grounds that the strategies being used to improve bad schools are making good schools mediocre.
posted by Mike at 5:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home