Questions on No Child Left Behind

February 2004

In 2001, I quit working to become a better advocate for my children. I had no idea how time consuming and intense the job would be.

I can't begin to count the hours I've spent meeting with school staff, volunteering at the school, and trying to understand the laws and legislation governing our schools.

I've recently checked into the No Child Left Behind Act that impacts the quality of education our children receive. I might be "just a mom" but I take my role as an advocate very seriously.

Just trying to read through and understand all of the NCLB information took several hours.

My need to understand it intensified after I watched a recent report by "60 Minutes II," which reported the lies and deception behind the Houston School Districtthat was one of the models for the No Child Left Behind reform act.

To me, this only proves the point that if we only focus on numbers and statistics, they may be reported inaccurately, giving the illusion of success.

My anxiety increased with the thought that Rod Paige, Houston's former school superintendent, was given credit for his school's success, and was named Secretary of Education after President Bush took office.
NCLB raises numerous questions, only some of which I'm raising now.

One of the alleged selling points of NCLB is that it enables parents with children in schools that do not meet the specific standards for at least two consecutive years the ability to transfer their children to a better-performing public school, including a public charter school, within their district.

If they decide to transfer their children, the district must provide transportation. I question why the emphasis is put on allowing the student to transfer to a different school rather than fixing the existing school.

Wouldn't the entire population of the school benefit from an improved school?

Students from low-income families in these schools that fail to meet standards for at least three years are eligible to receive supplemental educational services, including tutoring, after-school services, and summer school.

Why do we need state or national tests to identify which children need assistance? Why do we have to wait three years before assistance is provided? Isn't early intervention important?

I'm betting that any teacher in any classroom at any time could immediately identify those children who are in need of immediate assistance, who need it now rather than three years from now.

Will our schools be structured to teach only the test material? What's wrong with making learning fun?

What will low test scores do to boost the self-esteem and confidence of children who struggle to do well in school? Some children, and many adults, do not excel at tests.

Tests cause a great deal of stress and I believe most of us recognize that we don't always give our best performance when under stress.

How many students are likely to be pushed out of school? Schools would only benefit from "non-performing," low-scoring students leaving, as it would help to raise the school's average scores.

If test scores and only test scores are used to evaluate schools, then this could become a desirable situation.
For NCLB, schools must have 95 percent of the students take the test and score above a certain level.

Schools supporting inclusion, with a high percentage of special education students, could easily be labeled as "needing improvement" or as a "failing school."

What impact will this have on schools supporting inclusion?

The act says that any school in which any one demographic group, or the school as a whole, did not make progress would be identified for "school improvement."

If it did not meet the requirement in the following year, "corrective action" would have to be taken.

If it still did not meet the requirement, it would be slated for "reconstitution" which would mean one of the following:

·       Reopen the school as a public charter school.

·       Replace the principal and staff.

·       Contract school management to a private company.

·       Turn school operation over to the state.

I question how many educators were members of the team that helped to create the NCLB act? How much classroom experience did the individuals who created the act actually have?

Think about it, if you had a heart condition would you see a dermatologist for treatment?

NCLB holds the schools responsible for students' performance on standardized tests, but who's holding the politicians responsible?

Maybe we should apply the same principles from NCLB to our politicians (local, state and federal) and local school boards. We can even use the same acronym and call it "No Citizen Left Behind."

Politicians, as much as teachers and schools, should be rated on how efficiently and effectively they turn things around.

Why not require the "adequate yearly progress" we expect from our school districts to apply to politicians, as well?

After all, they have more control over the funding and budget than parents, teachers or principals do.
If any school within a politician's district fails to meet their "adequate yearly progress," then let's make them ineligible to hold a public office again.

The politicians might argue that they can be held responsible for funding, for instituting programs, for "efficiency," but they can't be held responsible for parents with addictions failing at rehabilitating themselves or who don't follow up with treatment plans or options for their children, all of which impact a child's quality of life.

But then how can we hold schools responsible for the same things? So much is laid at the doors of the school. What are realistic expectations of our schools?

I don't believe standardized tests are the sole answer, especially when the consequences of the tests impact individuals who have little control over the environment in which a child is living.

Are they hungry, clothed, loved; do they have the opportunity for a happy, healthy childhood?

Politicians can argue that there are financial limits to what schools can do and that they can't meet the need of every child, everywhere, all the time.

But all I ask of them is to look at where we are spending our money. We are spending billions of dollars in Iraq and planning on spending billions of dollars on a new space program.

Could we not afford to increase funding for education, job development and family support?

Social programs aimed at helping people do a better job in our country would be better than finding "life" on Mars.

If we aren't going to leave a child behind, then children need everything we can offer them. Should we not all be held accountable?