I'm not going to lie, I was never opposed to No Child Left Behind, no matter how many teachers of friends of teachers I heard complain about it. Even when taking some of the qualifying tests myself, I didn't resent the legislation. One reason that I accepted the great "unfunded mandate" was because the "unfunded" part spoke to me more than the "mandate" part. The other reason was that I was recently out of the public school system when it became news and knew first hand its limitations.
Of course, one major limitation in the form of the teachers' unions has become clear to a majority of people in this economy. Teachers constantly demand more funding with less results, when, as a student, it was clear that some teachers just weren't effective but retained their jobs due to strict union rules.
In his book, president Bush reminds his readers of something I never forgot and never understood when No Child Left Behind was criticized. The program was implemented in Texas before it was signed nationally, and it was a huge success. Now, if congress changed some of the ins and outs, that is one thing. Also, any time a larger government like the federal government intervenes in a smaller government, like a city or state, there are bound to be beaurocratic nightmares. That's why I don't generally like government involvement.
Another issue that people brought up with the program, Bush also addresses. It was the idea that teachers spent all their time "teaching to the test." The test was a comprehension exam of the basic skills our children should know before going on to the next grade. So if you teach these skills, then what is the problem?
Frankly, I think that the people who set the standards add a lot of fluff. I know I experienced a lot of nothingness when I went through school. We learned all about endangered pandas and the environment, and yet when we read aloud in groups it was excruciating listening to other kids stumble through basic books.
If students, and therefore teachers, are tested on basic reading and math skills, then that is what students will learn. I don't see a problem with that.
I read about president Obama's new education initiatives and, based on the limited knowledge I have of it, I don't have a problem with it. But I was very disappointed to hear that No Child Left Behind is about to be left behind. In my opinion, it was a well-thought out program that seemed to be working, as long as other kinks in the system were worked through.
On a similar note, in the current education debate I learned something I had not before thought of. The way the education system is set up - in the suburbs - allows high achievers to, well, achieve. But average students do not fly as much. I'm not sure what the solution to the disparity is. I know that in European countries, where education is much better overall, kids are given aptitude tests going into 8th grade or so. That determines where they go to secondary school, which means their curriculum is tailored to their means.
In America we do not do such testing because we don't want to hurt any child's feelings by sending him to a school that doesn't prepare him for college. But at the same time, so many students either drop out or don't to go college when, instead, they could go to a trade school and make a decent living without the debt of college.
A real drawback to this system is that the state determines a child's potential. But at the same time, right now all children are falling behind.
In my suburbian school, I had several GREAT teachers and, although I was not often challenged by my classes, I thoroughly enjoyed the learning process. It pains me to hear of the sad state that the majority of American schools are in, but I know that there are shining star teachers out there who can teach to the level our kids deserve. And I don't think we need to throw tons of money into the system to get these results. I think No Child Left Behind was a great step in the right direction, and I just hope we're not stepping backwards now.
No comments:
Post a Comment