Every Child Left Behind: Part 1

A new series on the problems associated with President Bush’s signature No Child Left Behind (NCLB) educational policy.

The criticism of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is wide spread and gaining speed every day as more and more persons are becoming disillusioned with the law.

As a future educator attending a state university, one might be inclined to think that No Child Left Behind is frequently discussed in our classes, creating a class of teachers who drink the liberal, academic Kool-Aid and oppose NCLB because they are taught to do so. I’ve been attending classes for over a year and a half now and I have had only one class address this law. We simply do not talk much about it. The bulk of the criticisms seem to come from other places.

Rather than simply accepting the criticisms of NCLB, I have started my own research into the matter. This obviously includes talking to university professors, other students and current teachers. It also involves reading articles by those who are in the field of education – respected educators who are in the position to accurately discuss the ramifications of NCLB in an intelligent manner.

I will attempt to outline some of the major positive aspects and criticisms (practical, philosophical and political) and flush out my views on them, so that everyone can have a better understanding of the many positive and negative ramifications of NCLB on the public and private school system.


COMMON SENSE STATISTICS
NCLB mandates that by 2014, 100 percent of students will be proficient in reading and math. Of course that sounds wonderful. Who does not want all students to be able to read proficiently? The reality, however, is that all students are not capable of that expectation. It is a simple matter of statistics and common sense.

If we understand statistics, then we know that there is a concept of the “average”. That is, the typical person. It is a statistical impossibility to have every single student in every single classroom to be proficient in math and reading at every single grade level.

That is not to say that those students who are not proficient cannot learn or succeed. However, their rate of success may be behind that of other students. Some students learn at a slower pace and are not able to assimilate and internalize the same amount of information given the same amount of time. Measuring a students learning based on his or her previous skills and abilities is the most appropriate measure. Did the student learn? Is this student better today than he was last year? Has he made significant progressed based on his previous abilities (and possible disabilities).

I have always struggled in math. When I was in second grade, I left the classroom during math and went to “Math Lab” in the trailer behind the school. This is where students who struggled with math went. I was not able to learn math at the same rate as my peers and required extra help.

This problem has been with me all my life. When I was in late junior high, my classmates were learning pre-algebra and algebra while I was in geometry. A wise math teacher told me once that I just needed an extra year of brain maturity and that pre-algebra would be easier for me during the next year. She was right. Even though I was in classes with younger junior students, I was learning at the highest rate that I could.

I was not proficient at grade level but I was making significant progress for me. That is what is important. It was not important then that I was not proficient at grade level. The only mathematics class that I ever failed was a physics class in college. As hard as I tried, I was not able to pass that class, claiming a hearty D minus, but I earned that mark and worked hard for it. As funny as it may sound, I am proud of that grade because I really tried to do my best in that class.

This idea of ensuring 100 percent of any population achieve a certain goal is not only unattainable, but intriguing as well. Educators know that 100 percent of students cannot be proficient in a subject. There will always be those who lag behind. So what is the motivation behind requiring this unattainable objective?

Some critics claim that unreasonable objectives are part of a larger political agenda to ensure that the public school system fails. According to NCLB regulations, if a public school fails to meet expectations, then eventually that school will have to pay for those children to attend other schools, including private schools. That sentiment sounds eerily like an end-run around the school voucher debate, or so say the critics.

This same claim of a political agenda by the proponents of vouchers will come up again when looking at other aspects of NCLB. Regardless if one accepts or rejects the criticism of the greater political agenda, one cannot escape or spin the fact that public schools are being mandated to educate every child to the point of 100 percent proficiency. Anyone that understands the idea of “average” should clearly be able to spot the ridiculousness of the standard. Should all children succeed? Of course they should. Can they or will they all achieve at the same level? Of course not. It is impossible. Why write impossible standards?