Attn Teachers: Tell me about 'No Child Left Behind'

[Loren]

As I mentioned in another thread, I'm in a debate tomorrow, and a couple of questions are going to deal with education. One of my college friends is a teacher, and expressed some serious hate for 'No Child Left Behind' a while back, but she never expounded on the details to me. I'm going to try to reach her tonight, but I thought it'd be wise to ask here too.

There's been a lot of ire expressed toward NCLB, but stats can't tell me what firsthand accounts can. I expect that it involves a fair amount of bureaucracy and loss of autonomy, plus the focus on standardized testing, at the least.

So might any of the teachers here be willing to offer up some personal experience?

[Mac Danny]

I'll ask my wife tonight. She hates NCLB. Too much testing not enough learning.

[Justin Davis]

Holy crap, I wish I had the time to expound on my hatred for NCLB. Maybe when I get home from work I can type up some first-hand experiences with it. Although, I tend to hate it when I hear a candidate/politician say something like, "I know a teacher/fireman/single-mother/insert demographic, key figure, or heart-string puller here who told me . . . " It usually seems forced and almost always fake.

I can tell you one major flaw with No Child Left Behind that has nothing to do with the poor way it's supposed to work in terms of testing or anything of that sort. Simply put, it's underfunded. Even if the ideas behind it are good ones that have the full support of all teachers, the program itself is severly underfunded to the point that little of it's goals have the ability to be met.

Here's two quick anecdotes:

The new superintendent at the last school I taught at referred to students and their parents as customers. This drove me nuts, and I'm more than willing to bet that this mindset comes from NCLB. If I go to a doctor, I'm a patient. If I go to a lawyer, I'm a client. If you attend a class, you're a student. Once you change the word used to identify something, the identity of that item also begins to change. This is a dangerous precedent to set.

I knew teachers who often referred to No Child Left Behind as No Teacher Left in the Classroom. Make of that what you will.

[DocAbsurd]

If you're a parent of a particularly bright child, NCLB is also referred to as 'No Child Promoted Ahead of Others'.

Fine exampe:

At Thing 1's first school, the vast majority of those in attendance were of average learning skills for near-inner city statistics. Which meant that most of his class had a harder time grasping what was being taught. He, however, excelled and was in serious need of more to learn (and I'm not bragging; that's saved for my blog).

Instead of giving him more work or harder assignments or even a touch more attention to promote his knowledge, he was consistently . . . well, left ahead. He had his homework done for the week by Monday afternoon.

I don't blame the teachers; they had their orders to concentrate harder on those with problems. Their hands were tied.

Mind you, this was also at a perochial institute, where maybe 4 out of 25 students were active in a parish, yet were still eligible for grant money for their tuition (while we were not). But that's beside the point.

Since I switched his school, he actually feels challenged. His grades haven't gone down any, but I do notice a significant difference in the amount and quality of work he's given.

Like so many other government programs, NCLB works great in theory.




Doc 'Dunce Capped' Absurd

[Loren]

Although, I tend to hate it when I hear a candidate/politician say something like, "I know a teacher/fireman/single-mother/insert demographic, key figure, or heart-string puller here who told me . . . " It usually seems forced and almost always fake.

No worry, I hadn't planned on framing it that way at all. I just wanted to be able to say something along the lines of "NCLB is bad legislation because teachers and schools have found that it does X, Y & Z," as opposed to citing statistics or speaking in generalities like "It doesn't work."

I can tell you one major flaw with No Child Left Behind that has nothing to do with the poor way it's supposed to work in terms of testing or anything of that sort. Simply put, it's underfunded. Even if the ideas behind it are good ones that have the full support of all teachers, the program itself is severly underfunded to the point that little of it's goals have the ability to be met.

I've heard that complaint before too, but I've never quite understood *what* is being underfunded, other than when failing schools need funds to improve. Virtually everything I've ever read just says that the additional funding is needed "to comply with NCLB," without saying how the money would be spent. Books and study materials? More teachers? Costs associated with aggregating and reporting data? The cost of testing itself? What gets the short shrift?

[Tre Styles]

I've had children that I teach in my class that aren't being challenged, and those who are being challenged, to those who are just challenging. NCLB says all of them are promoted, or least the NCLB theory at my school. One of the things I find that is sort of irritating is that if a child hasn't grasped the concepts that they need for the next grade level, at my school at least, they just send him or her to summer school, and they are "socially promoted".

[Hoss]

Screw it Loren you're a conservative.

NCLB is wrong on principle. The federal government has no business setting academic standards for Georgia.

By the way, Mac Collins is coming off like the biggest racist in the world in his ads. It isn't his position on immigration which is pretty similar to Marshalls, but the fact that he thinks saying things like "Muchas Gracias, Señor Marshall." Don't use the primary language of millions of law abiding American citizens as an insult.

[cactusmaac]

Here's something from the LA Times:


The federal No Child Left Behind education law gave schools seven years to meet achievement goals, laying out increasingly dire consequences � including the removal of school staff � for those that fell short.

But now, 10 schools have exceeded that seven-year timetable, leaving them in undefined territory and spawning renewed criticism by education officials about the fairness of the law. [...]

In an effort to boost achievement at schools serving low-income children, No Child Left Behind established a system of prods and punishments.

These so-called Title I schools are required to meet annual testing targets in English and math for their campuses overall as well as for subgroups that include races, special education students and children from poor families.

The schools also have to test at least 95% of their students each year.

Campuses that fall short of the goals are placed on a watch list for two years.

Those that continue to miss their targets enter a five-year period during which they face "corrective actions" and increasingly severe sanctions.

Initially, the schools have to offer their students transfers to higher-performing campuses and free tutoring.

In cases where schools still falter, their districts are required to develop "restructuring" plans that can include state takeovers or the removal of staff.

The plans are implemented in the seventh and final year of the No Child Left Behind timetable.

and

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/10/thrupkaew-n.html


When the education-bill team gathered in the White House for its initial negotiations, says [Representative George] Miller, both he and [Senator Ted] Kennedy emphasized that substantial reforms were only possible with an increase in funding to schools. "You couldn't do it on the cheap," Miller explains. "And President Bush said the money was going to be there." In order to win the Democrats' backing, Bush also scaled down his support for vouchers. But like so many of the bill's provisions, this compromise was undercut by the president's proposed budget, which diverts $4 billion to private-school tuitions, in the form of tax cuts for parents who remove children from failing public schools.

At the same time, the new budget increases total education funding by just $1.4 billion, the smallest boost in seven years. During that time the yearly increase in education spending has averaged 13 percent; Bush's budget calls for a 2.8 percent hike. "He signed [the bill,]" says Miller, "and he's not living up to it."

Kennedy and Miller aren't the only ones who expected the Bush administration to show a greater commitment to education. After all, Bush rode into the presidency on his education-reform platform. It was the linchpin of his successful effort to package himself as a "compassionate conservative" and to gain the support of white, moderate suburbanites. He repeatedly touted the state- and federal-testing standards that he had developed in Texas as the best way to defeat what he called "the soft bigotry of low expectations." The new education law reflects these ideas: It requires states to begin testing third- to eighth-graders in math and reading proficiency in 2005. Schools will also be required to administer a standardized national test; institutions that do poorly may be taken over by the school district or the state. Without additional funding, however, schools will find it difficult to live up to the law's heightened standards.

Teachers, too, will have a hard time clearing the high bar the No Child Left Behind Act attempted to set. Recognizing that the quality of instruction has a significant impact on student achievement, the legislation requires schools to employ a "highly qualified" teacher in every classroom by 2005. But the budget freezes the teacher-quality program. In fact, as a result of the shortfall, 18,000 fewer teachers will receive training next year, Kennedy's office reports.

In all, Bush's budget axes 40 education programs to the tune of more than $1 billion; 26 of those programs are part of the No Child Left Behind Act. After-school programs and bilingual education are slated to receive the same funding next year as they did this year -- which amounts to a cut, due to the projected increase in enrollment. As a result, 33,000 children will go without after-school programs in 2003, and 25,000 will be deprived of bilingual education. [...]

The Democrats are fighting back. Miller believes there is still hope for restoring funding to the education bill, and Kennedy plans to introduce a new bill dedicating more funds to needs-based scholarships, special education, and early-childhood education. If Democrats can frame the issue as a choice between improving schools or letting them deteriorate, moderate Republicans -- from districts that voted for George "No Child Left Behind" Bush -- just might feel compelled to live up to the president's campaign commitments.

Conservatives tend to like the act as it's seen as a way to introduce voucherisation by stealth.

[Joe Rice]

NCLB, as Justin mentioned, is a sweeping mandate of reform with absolutely zero funding.

It is filled to the rim with half-baked ideas that work in some areas and not in others. It thinks cookie-cutter techniques can be applied equally everywhere. And it takes power out of the hands of the one person who probably knows what's up with the kid: the classroom instructor.

I pee on it.

[Jaye]

I saw a bumber sticker the other day that said:
George W. Bush is the child left behind.

[Slam_Bradley]

NCLB, as Justin mentioned, is a sweeping mandate of reform with absolutely zero funding.



If for no other reason this is why you should oppose it, Loren. It is an onerous unfunded mandate and is a direct assault on local and state control over education.

[Loren]

Screw it Loren you're a conservative.

NCLB is wrong on principle. The federal government has no business setting academic standards for Georgia.

Yeah, I had that angle down from the start. But I think examples of how NCLB is bad legislation helps to illustrate *why* federal involvement is a bad thing. Particularly when the question is 'what can the federal government do to help education.'

By the way, Mac Collins is coming off like the biggest racist in the world in his ads. It isn't his position on immigration which is pretty similar to Marshalls, but the fact that he thinks saying things like "Muchas Gracias, Señor Marshall." Don't use the primary language of millions of law abiding American citizens as an insult.

I haven't seen those ads yet, but I don't care for the thought of somebody sullying my good surname.

[Harlock]

My wife is a High School teacher. Our most recent discussions involving standardized testing have focussed on the fact that our district is in danger of losing their accredited status for certain AP (advanced placement) classes. These are classes for advanced students who take the course, then take an exam that, if passed, earns them college credit. She also stated that SAT scores were going down.

She attribute this to teaching for the standardized test. The SAT, as many of you may recall, has quite a bit of vocabulary involved. But, teachers hands are tied to teach for the standardized test which deals more with reading comprehension than vocabulary. So, our kids are not getting the vocabulary necessary to do well on the SAT. Likewise, teachers are forced to teach for a test that only measures average skills.

The reason that is bad is because if you teach for the test, which most schoold do because that is how they receive a great deal of funding, you actually end up disregarding more advanced studies. I guess the old platitude about shooting for the moon and if you miss at least you'll land amongst the stars holds true in reverse as well. If you shoot for average, like say a standardized test that measures basic knowledge and skills, you'll get average or slightly less.

No Child Left Behind and specifically, standardized testing, does leave children behind. Essentially it is the children that could be doing more and better things if only they had the opportunity to to learn to do so. But the push for mediocrity has taken them off course from their path to the moon, stars, and well, left them stuck in the atmosphere of the mundane.

[Justin Davis]

I've heard that complaint before too, but I've never quite understood *what* is being underfunded, other than when failing schools need funds to improve. Virtually everything I've ever read just says that the additional funding is needed "to comply with NCLB," without saying how the money would be spent. Books and study materials? More teachers? Costs associated with aggregating and reporting data? The cost of testing itself? What gets the short shrift?

Here's a short list from Congressman George Miller, one of the authors of NCLB, on the 2005 budget request by Bush: (http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21104b.html)


The budget request would amount to the smallest increase in education funding in 9 years;
The budget request would eliminate 38 education programs, reducing the Federal investment in education by $1.4 billion;
The budget request continues to renege on the commitment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act - falling $9.4 billion short for this coming fiscal year and $27 billion short overall since the law's first year;
The budget request fails to make college more affordable;
The budget request marks the third year in a row that the maximum Pell grant would remain at $4,050, despite the President's campaign pledge in 2000 to increase the award to $5,100;
The budget request forces a tax on college loans that would charge students an additional $4 billion over the next 10 years by requiring lenders to collect a one percent insurance fee when students take out their college loans;
The budget request would cut $316 million in vocational education funding, yet again. Since taking office, President Bush has proposed over $1.8 billion in cuts to vocational education and job training programs for community colleges;
The Department of Education is improperly counting as unexpended funds billions of dollars in resources that the states have already designated for school renovation, teacher salaries and the purchase of testing system and curriculum for k-12 education; and
The budget request continues to underfund the federal commitment to special education.


There's more out there of the same. Look in Al Franken's Lying Liars book for a chapter on the underfunded NCLB for more info. Each of his claims are sourced too.

The standarized tests also have conflicting, confusing, and often unachievable goals. We were constantly told that students needed to be creative in their essay answers, but the students who were creative while still answering the questions were often docked points because the answers didn't fit some set formula even though they were told that if the students stuck to a rigid formula, they could lose points. How the hell are teachers supposed to prepare students for something like that? Plus, in the end, it does little more than sap any creative energy or desire to achieve purely for the knowledge right out of the students.

[BoosterBronze]

I'm not sure it's a federal thing, but my district has a desperate NCLB standards Pacing Guide, which is especially frstrating. It says EXACTLY what should be taught on any given day. Here's an example of how they work.

PRINCIPAL: Why aren't you on the right day on your pacing guide? You're three days behind!

MR. BOOSTER: Well boss, the kids really didn't understand long division, so we spent another day going over it.

PRINCIPAL: The guide says they should spend six days on long division. Did you spend all six days on it?

MR. BOOSTER: Mostly.

PRINCIPAL: THen they should understa- wait... did you say 'mostly?'

MR. BOOSTER: Well, see, a lot of the students didn't know their multiplication tables to begin with, so we had to spend some time on that.

PRINCIPAL: They HAD to know their multiplication tables. It was on last years Pacing Guide!

[Loren]

Here's a short list from Congressman George Miller, one of the authors of NCLB, on the 2005 budget request by Bush: (http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/releases/rel21104b.html)

Thanks for the data, but even that list doesn't do much to explain how NCLB, specifically, is underfunded. It's just one entry on the list:

The budget request continues to renege on the commitment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act - falling $9.4 billion short for this coming fiscal year and $27 billion short overall since the law's first year;

However, he details some of that $9.4 billion on the page you linked to, and about 3/4 of it is for the Title I program.

Everything else on the list has to do with other federal education expenditures. My favorite is the first: "The budget request would amount to the smallest increase in education funding in 9 years." The term "smallest increase" sets off alarm bells in my head, because it means that federal spending is going up, just not up as much as somebody would like. In this case, federal spending on education apparently more than doubled in those 9 years, a big chunk of that under Bush. Those kind of increases have to slow sometime.

The standarized tests also have conflicting, confusing, and often unachievable goals. We were constantly told that students needed to be creative in their essay answers, but the students who were creative while still answering the questions were often docked points because the answers didn't fit some set formula even though they were told that if the students stuck to a rigid formula, they could lose points. How the hell are teachers supposed to prepare students for something like that? Plus, in the end, it does little more than sap any creative energy or desire to achieve purely for the knowledge right out of the students.

That's gold. Thanks.

[Justin Davis]

That's gold. Thanks.

You're welcome. Sorry the rest isn't as good. If you need any more, I have a multitude of exmaples why NCLB sucks, especially since I taught at a low-income magnet school that had an advisory group watching and "helping" the school for the first two years I taught.

[Greg Hatcher]

Everything everyone else has said -- PLUS the contortions schools go through trying to jam EVERY SINGLE ACTIVITY into one of the NCLB categories so as to avoid the penalty clauses.

I teach cartooning, an after-school arts elective. In this year's proposal I had to demonstrate how this will enhance student math skills (!?) along with reading comprehension and the usual literacy benefits. In addition, I am being ordered to attend at least one of four seminars on how to -- wait for it -- show how I am meeting NCLB and LSAT requirements. In other words, how to BS your way threough a budget proposal. This is a paid seminar, the cost of which my class budget has to cover.

There are better uses of district money... and my time.