Ten Years of No Child Left Behind
No Child Left Behind reached its 10 year anniversary mark today, and the arguments for and against it are mounting.
I began my public school teaching career during the reign of "A Nation at Risk," and the emphasis it placed on teacher training and technology education. I whole heartedly agree with the need for teachers to continually review and reflect upon many aspects to teaching as well as learn about new educational techniques. As a computer science teacher I see the need for students and teachers to embrace various technological tools and the computational thinking behind using the flood of information it brings (though I also see the need for restraint and pencil-paper activities, too).
At first, I looked at NCLB as a necessary change, a newly forwarded need to have basic standards for all students. But I soon began to question it. Why? Because of the names. You know that basic human instinct to give a nickname to things you really like or really hate? Well, NCLB seemed to get the negative versions. "No Tree Left Behind," "No Child Left Untested," and others started me questioning where all of the testing will take us.
Yes, assessment is important, but standardized exams seem to have a history of negativity, of bias, of questioning what it really tests. Test anxiety, test taking techniques, even having a headache the day of the test can make a big difference. Yet these tests now determine if a child can graduate high school, if a teacher will have a position next year, or if a school must be restructured by the state. That is a lot of pressure to place on a child's shoulders.
In 10 years NCLB changed the structure of learning. Test taking skills are now as important as learning to read. Paperwork and correctly filling out forms is as important for a teacher as effectively handling a teachable moment.
I heard a new one just last year, this time from a parent. No Child Allowed to Succeed. This parent saw the ever increasing pressure for teachers to get students to pass these mandated tests as the reason even average students were not allowed to discover their talents, hone their passions, or become excellent at anything other than multiple choice.
Other than to help us see what assessments could be, I am not sure what history will see as the positive benefits of NCLB. Any suggestions?
I began my public school teaching career during the reign of "A Nation at Risk," and the emphasis it placed on teacher training and technology education. I whole heartedly agree with the need for teachers to continually review and reflect upon many aspects to teaching as well as learn about new educational techniques. As a computer science teacher I see the need for students and teachers to embrace various technological tools and the computational thinking behind using the flood of information it brings (though I also see the need for restraint and pencil-paper activities, too).
At first, I looked at NCLB as a necessary change, a newly forwarded need to have basic standards for all students. But I soon began to question it. Why? Because of the names. You know that basic human instinct to give a nickname to things you really like or really hate? Well, NCLB seemed to get the negative versions. "No Tree Left Behind," "No Child Left Untested," and others started me questioning where all of the testing will take us.
Yes, assessment is important, but standardized exams seem to have a history of negativity, of bias, of questioning what it really tests. Test anxiety, test taking techniques, even having a headache the day of the test can make a big difference. Yet these tests now determine if a child can graduate high school, if a teacher will have a position next year, or if a school must be restructured by the state. That is a lot of pressure to place on a child's shoulders.
In 10 years NCLB changed the structure of learning. Test taking skills are now as important as learning to read. Paperwork and correctly filling out forms is as important for a teacher as effectively handling a teachable moment.
I heard a new one just last year, this time from a parent. No Child Allowed to Succeed. This parent saw the ever increasing pressure for teachers to get students to pass these mandated tests as the reason even average students were not allowed to discover their talents, hone their passions, or become excellent at anything other than multiple choice.
Other than to help us see what assessments could be, I am not sure what history will see as the positive benefits of NCLB. Any suggestions?
Add a new comment