GREAT SCHOOLS, GREAT NATION
Achieving the vision of The No Child Left Behind Act

SECTION 2: CONCERNS

1. A moratorium on high-stakes testing and simplistic school accountability must be declared immediately. Pressure generated by NCLB has created corruption in a number of areas in the education field. This pressure has had a demoralizing effect on our national teaching force. It has reduced school subjects other than those tested by NCLB to second- or third-tier status. Our international competitive edge suffers particularly in the arts, special education, world languages, English Language Learning, and physical education. NCLB pressure causes many teachers to resort to teaching methods that research has shown to be ineffective. Research makes clear that labeling schools according to test scores is counterproductive. A number of concerns voiced by educational organizations can be resolved by eliminating core problems that high-stakes testing and simplistic school accountability produce.

2. Schools should be required to develop and identify reasonable student measures of performance that include end-of-topic, end-of-unit, and end-of-course measures. Mastery may be demonstrated through numerous means, by presentations, projects, portfolios, etc. as well as traditional tests.

3. Because huge differences exist across the nation in what students are expected to know and learn, basic core curricula, along with the criteria to determine mastery, should be developed for all core content. The methodology for determining mastery of core content should be developed by each state with multiple options available to demonstrate mastery. Student mastery of the national core concepts should not be woven into any high-stakes testing such as prescribed by the NCLB Act. Teacher training, materials, and appropriate resources should be provided to the states for implementation of core objectives.

4.  Of course it is the goal of NCLB and all concerned parties that children learn to read, compute, and communicate. When these skills are not learned in early elementary grades, later learning is simply more difficult. Therefore, in the early grades, learn to read; later read to learn.  

5. School districts should be funded to add an additional class for all children not able to read at grade level between first and second grade and/or between second and third grade. The goal of this extra grade would be to provide intensive reading and/or language arts instruction for students. It would not be developed as a repeat of first grade or third grade. Rather objectives would be set for each child individually, identifying the student’s mastery level and setting very precise individual objectives to support the needed growth. This is not viewed as a repetition of a grade, but a new opportunity to be at grade level in reading by fourth grade. The grades would be: First Grade, Challenge Class A, Second Grade, Third Grade, Challenge Class B, Fourth Grade, etc. There is no point in advancing students who are not able to compete on grade level. 

6. Diagnostic testing would be mandatory upon entering the Challenge Class that would identify learning styles and appropriate individual accommodations.  The exact objectives would be identified through criterion or curriculum based reference tests. Children not able to function in a Challenge Classroom because of behavior problems would be taught separately by experienced ABA specialists with the sole purpose of establishing behavior control. When behavior becomes appropriate, the child would be placed in the Challenge Class. 

7. Neither standard classroom teachers nor Challenge Class teachers should be expected to teach children with severe behavior problems in addition to their learning problems. ABA classes should focus on behavior control, not academic proficiency. Mastery of the core curriculum by special education students would be determined by the special education team in each school district. Core curriculum design must accommodate individual student abilities, interests, and learning styles. Inclusion would be based on mastery level and not on a particular diagnosis. It is time to consider putting special education students in the most advantageous setting, wherever that may be—not based on diagnosis, but on performance and appropriateness of the setting. 

8. School classroom size in grades one, two and three should not exceed fifteen students.  Class size is an important factor in student success. 

9. Research on charter schools is increasingly negative. In any case, charter schools have little or no accountability. Many are operated by entrepreneurs whose bottom line is profit. 

10. There is no one right way to teach entire groups of children. Many good methodologies exist; they need to be made available and matched to individual learning styles. Yes, this is more complicated than one-size-fits-all testing. It is also good teaching.

11. It is not reasonable to expect private schools with large waiting lists to take new students, particularly those whose skills are wanting or inadequate. Vouchers will benefit students already attending these schools, but few others. On average, it is reported that religious school reject 67% of all applicants. Elite private schools reject nearly 90% of all applicants. “Choice” does not lie with parents or students, but rather with admission committees of private schools. Public moneys should be spent for public education.

12. NCLB does not give sufficient attention to university teacher preparation programs. Most U.S. teachers are middle-class, White females. Increasingly they find themselves teaching children from any number of other demographic groups. Teacher preparation programs must provide future teachers knowledge of how to teach all groups.

13. Some content of NCLB indicates lack of attention to the wisdom of classroom teachers and the research of education experts. Our nation’s students will learn more and better if this wisdom and research is prioritized over that of private-sector non-experts.

14. Some aspects of NCLB have been counterproductive in aiding the very groups it is intended to help, particularly English language learners and special education students. The large body of research on this demographic group should be consulted in forming educational policy.

15. Due in part to a lack of seriousness about funding, the admirable goals of NCLB have not been achieved. Little NCLB discussion can be fruitful without adequate funding.

introduction        proposals        NET home