| OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 teacher's academic background and the teacher's classroom experience. Mandating that a qualified, veteran teacher reen-roll in school on his/her own dime for training in his/her subject of expertise is both redundant and professionally demeaning. Of concern are the national demands that special education instructors be "highly qualified" in each core academic subject they teach. If a special education or an English Language Learning teacher is certified by the state, it means the teacher commands knowledge both of the academic disciplines and of how to facilitate student learning. They teach by different rules to different kids than standard classroom teachers and should not be discounted or penalized for their specific expertise. Consequently, the "highly qualified teacher" federal standard should be satisfied. Lost in the dialogue however is the fact that unless there is a reduction in class size, even "highly qualified" teachers struggle when classrooms are overcrowded. Studies have Proven that student achievement increases as class size decreases. ProjectSTAR, a four-year study of kindergarten, rirst, second and third-grade classrooms in Tennessee compared classes of 13-17 students with classes of 22-26 students lfi 79 schools. They concluded that smaller classes substantially outperformed larger classes on standardized tests in ^ner-city, urban, suburban and rural schools, and that there ^as earlier identification of special needs among students in smaller classes (Pritchard, 1999). Similar projects in schools ln North Carolina, Indiana and Wisconsin emulate the STAR results. Smaller classes allow teachers to dedicate more time to ^dividual students while also offering students more opportunities to participate publicly in the classroom. Reducing class size to less than twenty students leads to higher student achievement and more frequent teacher-student interaction. ** Policymakers want to maximize the potential of "highly qualified teachers," then educational policy must reflect Proven studies and pursue smaller class sizes. While the capital cost of building additional classroom sPace is expensive, a policy alternative recommended by veteran teacher and Utah Education Association President Pat ^usk is to assign a second teacher into classrooms. The student-teacher ratio would be halved immediately and the teachers cumulatively could share lesson plans and offer more ^dividual assistance. Veteran teachers could mentor aspiring teachers daily, encourage them through the first tumultuous ^ears and prepare them with proven teaching practices and classroom management. Imagine, a "highly qualified" veter-ari teacher spending everyday coaching a young teacher as Part of the classroom experience. The confidence and capacity of young teachers would dramatically improve and more highly qualified" veteran teachers would be the result. Mentors would be eligible for pay-raises for motivating not ]Ust students but the next generation of teachers. High-need nd overcrowded classrooms would be served first and the ini* lal capital costs would be non-existent (Rusk, 2006). The 3rd F: Funding: Funding disagreements are ground zero for NCLB opponents. A central problem in determining funding levels is that no line-item marked "No Child Left Behind" exists in the federal budget. Instead there are a number of federal programs school districts can use to meet NCLB requirements. Title I, the primary federal supplemental education support program, serves more than 15 million students in virtually every school district and more than half of all public schools. Two-thirds of American elementary schools receive 85% of existing Title I expenditures with the other 15% being distributed to middle and high schools (National Association of Secondary School Principals, 2005). In Chicago, the school district established after-school programs and small summer classes for the thousands of children who were at-risk at being retained in their previous grade. The Center on Education Policy (2005) found that "among school districts with schools that failed to make AYP, 99% were providing 'extra or more intensive instruction to low-achieving students'; 84% were providing 'before- or after-school, weekend, or summer programs"; and 48% were hiring 'additional teachers to reduce class size'" (Wattenburg, Hansel, et al., 2005b). Before NCLB, the Federal Government had also stepped into education policy on behalf of disabled students with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA "required that students with disabilities be included in state and district-side assessment programs... (NCLB) ensures that these assessments measure how well students with disabilities have learned required material in reading and mathematics" (U.S. Department of Education, 2005 a). However, the federal government has only funded IDEA at 17% of its appropriation and cut the budget by an extra 1% in 2006 (McFarland, 2006a). No Child Left Behind also emphasizes English instruction to students considered limited English proficient (LEP) through scientifically based teaching methods. NCLB consolidated the US Department of Education's bilingual and immigrant education programs and the 2005 presidential budget provided $681 million for LEP students. Testing for LEP students will occur in reading and language arts in English once they have attended school for three consecutive years in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2005a). An additional funding mechanism dedicated to high-need students is Title II, Part D, the technology component of No Child Left Behind. Title II, Part D exists to empower all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, income, location or disability to take advantage of technology in elementary and secondary schools and to close the "digital divide." It also integrates technology resources with teacher training and curriculum development (State Educational Technology Directors Association [SETDA], 2005). Such technology funding directly supports NCLB initiatives by providing access to software, online resources and virtual learning; 31 |
