|
Jan. 18, 2005
EDITORIAL
Revisiting No Child Left Behind: A Prescription for the Next Four Years
By Mary
Hatwood Futrell
President Bush has made it clear that he believes the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB) is working as intended and does not plan to amend the law.
NCLB’s standards and assessment-based reforms affect educators, students,
and schools nationwide and have received mixed reviews within the education
community. The act does focus attention on issues related to high standards,
accountability, and quality in teaching and learning based on rigorous
scientific research. However, NCLB also is perceived by local and state
education agencies as providing under-sourced and sometimes unfunded mandates.
Further, states and school districts remained perturbed with the act’s
standardized curricula and accountability obligations, and schools of
education continue to search for more effective methods of evaluating
their success in producing highly qualified teachers.
The recently appointed Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is President
Bush’s former domestic policy adviser and a key architect of NCLB.
We need to understand how, during this second term, President Bush and
Secretary Spellings plan to work with school districts, universities,
policymakers, parents, and community leaders to strengthen NCLB so that
it guarantees every child’s right to a quality education, especially
those from minority and low-income families. Those of us at GW who prepare
tomorrow’s educators are highly vested in the fate of NCLB and thus
recommend the following strategies for proactively addressing some of
the more contentious aspects of the act.
Standards of Learning:
NCLB emphasizes high standards of learning, coherent, and rigorous curricula
and assessments that measure student achievement, all of which we support.
Yet, we caution against policies that standardize teaching and learning
at the expense of creativity and diversity. Schools should align standards,
curricula, and assessments so that each child’s education stresses
mastery of content and critical thinking skills.
High Stakes Assessments: In
an increasing number of states, students must pass tests in order to advance
to the next grade or graduate from high school. The school itself also
is subject to consequences for low passing rates. Studies comparing high
stakes with traditional “low”-stakes testing policies are inconclusive
as to which model has measurable results in a positive direction. We recommend
that assessment results be disaggregated at the school level so that educators
can target academic areas and groups of students that need improvement.
Students with special needs and those for whom English is not their first
language should be measured separately.
Disaggregation of Data and Its Impact on
Urban Districts: As stated above, disaggregated
data can have positive effects. Yet, using data to transfer students from
low performing schools to “high” performing schools runs the
risk of overwhelming those schools that are successfully maximizing limited
resources. More importantly, the policy does not address the real problem:
how do we transform each school into a successful learning community?
We suggest that NCLB’s urban district transfer provision be reconsidered;
and instead, data should be used to hold each school accountable for its
own results. Further, policymakers should ensure that all schools have
the necessary resources to gather, analyze, and use data to improve teaching
and learning specific to their students’ needs.
Inclusion of Diverse Populations:
America’s student population is the most diverse of any country in
the world. We must work especially hard not only to establish high standards
but also to ensure that all schools are prepared to provide all students
with opportunities to reach these high standards. For example, research
suggests that learning a second language during a child’s formative
years facilitates growth in other cognitive areas. We need to value language
and cultural diversity. Our teachers should be sensitive to social and
cultural differences and develop a repertoire of pedagogies to be more
responsive to the learning requirements of diverse student populations.
Teacher Retention: More
federal support is needed to fund teacher induction and mentoring strategies
that utilize models of differentiated staffing, communities of practice,
and other ideologies. Professional development must be data driven, school-based,
and specific to the needs of students and staff. Formalized induction
programs should last from one to three years and focus on improving confidence,
strengthening skills, and ultimately reducing turnover rates throughout
the profession.
Teacher Preparation and Educational Leadership:
The term “highly qualified teacher”
should be redefined to require that teacher candidates complete a teacher
education program rather than merely be enrolled in one. Teacher qualifications
should be judged upon multiple measures rather than solely on standardized
test pass rates. Dispositions must be observed, and teaching practice
should be evaluated. More importantly, the quality of teacher preparation
programs should be measured on such variables as candidate attrition and
student performance. Further, school leadership must receive more prominence
in NCLB. Educational administration programs ought to produce leaders
who are informed participants in the implementation of NCLB and able to
provide the leadership necessary to ensure their school’s success
in meeting NCLB and other academic standards. Leaders also should be prepared
to educate their communities about how well their schools are meeting
the adequate yearly progress goals of NCLB.
Parental and Student Accountability:
Absent in NCLB — and from much of the accountability movement —
are references to parental or student accountability. Yet, the goals of
NCLB, or those of any other academic standards, cannot be realized without
making certain that parents and students understand and fulfill their
part of the covenant to realize quality and equality in education for
all. Research suggests that a parent’s educational experience and
attitude towards learning greatly influences student success. Therefore,
it is imperative that parental and student accountability be incorporated
into NCLB and other academic initiatives.
Implications for Schools of Education and
Universities: NCLB impacts education at
all levels, from kindergarten through graduate study. University presidents
should become familiar with how NCLB impacts higher education. They need
to realize that strong teacher preparation and human development programs
have an enduring effect on the quality of communities as a whole, and
especially on higher education. The Bush administration should in turn
work with university presidents to encourage partnerships between schools
of education, schools of arts and sciences, and school districts to foster
quality education and research, thus ensuring the successful implementation
of NCLB. The success of our children’s education is the responsibility
of both universities and communities as a whole.
To date, NCLB has focused primarily on elementary education. Yet, NCLB
affects all levels of education, and increased federal involvement in
defining the accountability framework for kindergarten through graduate
education is here to stay. We must, therefore, work collectively to ensure
that America’s children, especially those with the greatest educational
needs, do not get left behind.
Colleges and universities must emphasize the importance of quality teacher
preparation and educational leadership programs. They also must assume
a leadership role in providing research-based data to assist local and
state agencies in meeting high academic standards for all students. Moreover,
universities must collaboratively encourage policy makers at the local,
state, and national levels to provide the resources and necessary educational
support structures to enable students to successfully meet these standards.
NCLB, indeed, contains lofty and challenging requirements that impact
all schools, but particularly urban schools. Educators at all levels hold
a stake in the future of NCLB and should therefore be vigilant to ensure
that the act is indeed a commitment to access, quality, and accountability
in education for all children.
Futrell is dean of GW's Graduate School of Education
and Human Development and former president of the National Education Association..
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu
|
|
|
