Congressman Rothman:
As you know, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is in the process of being reauthorized. Enacted as a means by which to make states, school districts and schools more accountable for the academic progress of all students, the legislation called for the establishment of rigorous academic standards, the implementation of yearly assessments at certain grade levels, the employment of highly qualified teachers and the provision of sanctions and more for underperforming schools.
While the intent of NCLB was and continues to be noble and important and meaningful changes have occurred in its application, it may have created more problems than it has solved. To be sure, standards have become more challenging, teachers are expected to be highly qualified in the areas they teach, statewide testing allows for across the board comparisons between and among school districts throughout the state and the promise of sanctions for failing districts has made districts stand up and take notice of what they do in their classrooms.
But in its attempt to raise the bar and the quality of what happens in the classroom, NCLB has undermined its true purpose. At times, the breadth and scope of classroom instruction has been compromised, even sacrificed, as it focuses on preparation for the test at the expense of most other instruction—the kind of instruction that fosters creative problem solving and reasoning and other higher order thinking skills. While it attempts to level the playing field by expecting all students to make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), the diversity among students makes doing so very difficult and places districts in the very tenuous position of having to produce change in certain students for whom significant gains may never happen. While Alternate Proficiency Assessments (APA) are used to assess the gains of the most disabled students, limitations on its use impact a school districts overall performance and gains as well. Although underperforming schools face decreased funding and the migration of students to other schools, how does either lead to real, meaningful change?
If it is to be reauthorized, the bill you co-sponsored is moving in the right direction. Some of the better provisions include:
Allowing for additional types of assessments for assessing AYP provides a clearer view each child—particularly with respect to disabled students who are too disabled to take the standardized test in any important way but not disabled enough to qualify for Alternate Proficiency Assessments;
As you know, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is in the process of being reauthorized. Enacted as a means by which to make states, school districts and schools more accountable for the academic progress of all students, the legislation called for the establishment of rigorous academic standards, the implementation of yearly assessments at certain grade levels, the employment of highly qualified teachers and the provision of sanctions and more for underperforming schools.
While the intent of NCLB was and continues to be noble and important and meaningful changes have occurred in its application, it may have created more problems than it has solved. To be sure, standards have become more challenging, teachers are expected to be highly qualified in the areas they teach, statewide testing allows for across the board comparisons between and among school districts throughout the state and the promise of sanctions for failing districts has made districts stand up and take notice of what they do in their classrooms.
But in its attempt to raise the bar and the quality of what happens in the classroom, NCLB has undermined its true purpose. At times, the breadth and scope of classroom instruction has been compromised, even sacrificed, as it focuses on preparation for the test at the expense of most other instruction—the kind of instruction that fosters creative problem solving and reasoning and other higher order thinking skills. While it attempts to level the playing field by expecting all students to make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), the diversity among students makes doing so very difficult and places districts in the very tenuous position of having to produce change in certain students for whom significant gains may never happen. While Alternate Proficiency Assessments (APA) are used to assess the gains of the most disabled students, limitations on its use impact a school districts overall performance and gains as well. Although underperforming schools face decreased funding and the migration of students to other schools, how does either lead to real, meaningful change?
If it is to be reauthorized, the bill you co-sponsored is moving in the right direction. Some of the better provisions include:
Allowing for additional types of assessments for assessing AYP provides a clearer view each child—particularly with respect to disabled students who are too disabled to take the standardized test in any important way but not disabled enough to qualify for Alternate Proficiency Assessments;
Enabling school districts to state that schools meet AYP when a subgroup does not meet the anticipated target as long as the number of students in the subgroup who fail to meet the AYP standard does not extend beyond 10% of the total number of students counted for the assessment; and
Calling for sanctions to be applied when the same subgroup fails to make AYP in the same subject area for two or more years in a row
School districts must be held accountable for what happens in their schools and some version of NCLB must be in effect. But in its current form, No Child Left Behind may be leaving Most, if Not Every, Child Behind.
Sincerely,
Hillary S., Psy.D.
2 comments:
I felt the same way you did. We must be accountable but not to this extreme. I am personally pulled in two directions. I teach gifted students that are so heavily neglected in the NCLB but yet my daughter, a dyslexic, cant pass this NJASK in Language Arts. She is a bright girl who cant read well. Should my daughters school suffer for her one birth defect? Should other teachers and children in the district pay that price? It is sad that so many take the punishment for these tests. Great letter with great ideas.
I concur with Traci's comment. You cover many bases well and give some strong ideas. You should send this!
Post a Comment