NCLB Summary: Asheley, Kelly D, Pat D, Emily L

It appears that my group has a somewhat well rounded opinion on the No Child Left Behind act. Asheley, Kelly, and I found that the theories and ideas behind NCLB to be valid, however, the unrealistic goals and requirements caused the act to become flawed as it became implemented within the schools it was meant to serve. While the three of us focused on what was wrong with the act, Patti looked on the positive side, researching school districts that made the program work. I will break down the summary by our individual thoughts.

Asheley: Believes that NCLB was based on good ideas but that everything cannot be measured by standardized testing. Some students test well while others do not. After reading about assessment, we have come to learn that there are so many other ways to assess students’ growth and progress. She also believes that the tests are not geared towards an equal percentage of the population. The tests are not made for students who have special needs, are from different cultures and ethnicities, or who are non-native English speakers. What good is extra time if a student doesn’t understand the question or know how to fill in a scantron? Most of the questions are geared toward the white middle class students. Another aspect of NCLB that she does not agree with is that students with special needs or lower grades are encouraged to be absent on the days that tests are given. She questions where the funding is going and who is keeping track of it; she believes that education is political and teachers need to be involved.

Kelly D: She is a first year teacher and is already feeling pressure from the NCLB act. She also believes that it started out with good intentions but somehow went bad. Kelly thinks that NCLB should be done away with or completely revised. She agrees that, “Teachers SHOULD be an expert in their specific field so they can give their students the best education available. The problem though: Where does the funding come from to allow current teachers to become highly qualified if they aren’t?” She thinks that NCLB and standardized tests puts too much pressure on the students, the teachers, the administration, and others who are involved. Also, she doesn’t think that these tests truly assess student ability and they cannot possibly measure a student’s love or enthusiasm for reading. What good is a high test score in reading if the student hates to read? She wishes that teachers were given more freedom to teach a love and appreciation for reading, not just drill work so their students will score high on the tests. Another reason why she doesn’t agree with this act is because some schools lower their standards so that more students can perform well, such as teaching students how to manipulate multiple-choice questions instead of teaching the real material. Kelly also believes that teachers, who are the real experts and professionals, should have more say in how NCLB looks in the future.

Patti D: This law has not affected Patti in the current district where she works in Bergen County, although she did have to prove that she was a highly qualified teacher and fill out some forms. She thinks that in theory, NCLB is a wonderful idea and gives examples of schools that have succeeded under this program. Patti researched some school districts and found one in particular in Denver that sounds like a great program. It’s called Denver’s Summer Scholars and it is a program in reading and writing that is offered for a six-week session. This program helps disadvantaged students move forward in the areas of reading and writing in small group instruction that takes place during the mornings. The afternoon is reserved for fun activities such as swimming. This program also offers a family literacy program that helps parents learn English and improve their computer skills. Patti believes that children can and will succeed if they are given or offered the proper help and instruction. In the previous school district where Patti worked, Union City, there were many before and after school programs available, including Saturday mornings. Patti would like to know, “What needs to be done so that we can make it an attainable and equitable goal… that children will receive an education where they are proficient in reading, writing, and math?”

Emily L: My thoughts on NCLB are mostly on the negative side. I would like to believe that it could work, however, everyone I speak with has nothing good to say about it. And I can see why. There are a couple of points that I disagree with. First of all, I would like to say that I agree with most of the points mentioned above having to do with the unfair testing procedures and the inequality associated with the tests. I also have a problem with the fact that every student’s name, address, and phone number is given to military recruiters unless a parent says otherwise. I bet most parents don’t even know that this is happening or that they have a right to opt out. I also have a problem with the violation of church and state. According to the wikipedia article, President Bush has allowed “faith-based” groups to serve as private tutors, receiving public money, in public schools under the act. Sounds fishy to me. I also wonder about the teaching materials. Where do they come from? Oh, a division of the U.S. Dept. of Ed provides them. Who’s making the money on that deal? If these scripted reading programs don’t allow for any creativity within the classroom, I don’t think it’s the students who are winning here. Another problem I have with this whole thing is the element of creativity, imagination, and innovation lost to memorization and cramming information into students. Knowing a bunch of vocabulary words and how to add fractions is important but what about inventiveness? What about learning how to use one’s mind? If everyone is learning the same things the same way, with no room for spontaneity within the classroom, are we turning our students into robots who just memorize facts?