NCLB: Benefit or Hindrance

NCLB: Beneficial or Hindrance?

Our schools are in desperate need of assistance. We rank 28 out of 40 countries in mathematics. We have only a 75 percent of all of our students who actually graduate compared to a common occurrence of 95 percent in other countries. It is obvious our schools need help.

President Bush initiated the NCLB, No Child Left Behind Act, in 2004. Despite the many controversies with its effectiveness, this 1000-page law created an awareness that was originally not there. Now people are abundantly aware that the quality of the teacher has a big impact on the education of a child, that schools with impoverished children tend to get unqualified teachers, and that there is an achievement gap amongst some races, class, and ability levels. That in itself is a great achievement. By knowing the problems then we can work on a solution.

The NCLB was to be that solution. Its principals were based on teacher accountability and the use of effective, research-based instruction. Within the teacher accountability component, teachers are to be certified, preferably nationally certified, and “highly qualified”. Many school districts such as mine strongly encourage teachers to become nationally-certified as one of the ways to ensure a “highly qualified” ranking.

As for the effective, research-based instructional approaches, the majority seem to be focused on including all ability levels and catering to their various needs within a classroom. In order to do this, there is much talk about of using a differentiated instructional approach. This means that teachers need to provide three of more versions of the same lessons in order to meet the needs of “all” of the students. If this not done, the result is a “dumbing down” of the lessons with a focus on ensuring the special education students within the classroom understand the concepts being taught. There is such a focus on the lower ability levels that often the middle of the road student and the gifted students are excluded.

In addition to the differentiated approach, many schools are focusing on including the basic learning styles (auditory, tactile, and visual) or Gardner’s learning styles (logical-mathematical, linguistic, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, interpersonal, musical, nature, and visual-spatial) in their teaching. By using a variety of learning styles, it is sure to meet the needs of all students.

In addition, the NCLB allowed for individual states to develop their own plans of action and a method of showing they have gained AYP or annual yearly progress in order to meet the federal demand of all students achieving a proficiency level in reading and mathematics by the school year of 2013-2014. However, if a school district wants to make modifications to the NCLB requirements, they must complete specific procedures and receive approval from the state commissioner.

As we are all aware of, there are several problems with the NCLB act. More than 20 states are appealing some aspect of the NCLB in addition to a couple of civil action suits against the federal government. Problems include items such as insufficient funding for the federal requirements, inadequate professional development, and the need to truly understand what is involved in teaching a classroom of such diverse ability levels. In my own district, for example, it appears that they are doing everything correctly, however, teachers are unsure how use some of the research-based approaches or even aware that they should be using such approaches. Instead they are looked-down upon because their benchmark scores come back as low. What they need, however, is proper training. My school district is not alone. There are many out there.

Another major concern I have is the how students are dropping out of school. There a reports in the news about a possible linkage between the NCLB and a higher dropout rate. It is easy to understand why. When kids are not being challenged or students are being ignored because students with special needs take precedence, then there is a problem. Of course, if the proper training is there for a diversified educational approach, then hopefully the dropout rates will decrease. One thing is for sure, we need to take a serious look at what other countries are doing. After all, their successful graduate level is a norm of 95 percent.

As Linda Darling-Hammond commented in the article “Evaluating No Child Left Behind, “the law wastes scare resources on a complicated test score game that appears to be narrowing the curriculum, uprooting successful programs, and pushing low-achieving students out of many schools.” I love that quote. It sums up the NCLB perfectly.

But is that saying the NCLB act is totally a hindrance? No. There are some good bones or benefits to the act. So while Congress is trying to decide whether to get rid of it or totally revamp it, I vote for a revamping. Accountability is a good thing, but the methods in which we get to that level need be improved.