OCR Text |
Show The ABC's of No Child Left Behind: Accountability, Benefits and Controversies Cameron Diehl Potential options to compliment testing include writing/work samples from throughout the year, graduation rates and teacher-designed assessments. Vito Perrone, Director of Programs in Teacher Education at Harvard University wrote, "children who have been routinely encouraged to be cooperative learners are forbidden to talk while testing. Children who have been taught to work problems out slowly are told speed is essential" (Perrone, 1991, p. 91). He argued that standardized tests do not reveal learned knowledge, just a sophisticated guessing-game and that the test focus is detrimental to academics. "To actually develop a responsive, developmental classroom environment is to risk lower scores on standardized test. Teachers and children do not need this external pressure" (Perrone). In the current AYP model, it is impossible to track actual development on a student basis because of the dependence on standardized tests. Under NCLB, each class is compared to the preceding class instead of tracking the individual student through the years. A student identifier number would allow districts and states to follow students from school to school without having to start over. Consequently, "the AYP formula does not give schools sufficient credit for improvements in student achievement" (No Child Left Behind, Its Problems, Its Promises, 2004). The current U-PASS system includes a growth component and the willingness by the Department of Education to further examine growth models from eight states is encouraging. Educator Quality: Districts are required to publicly report the percentage of classes that are taught by teachers who have not met the "highly qualified" standard and the parents of the children in said classes must be notified accordingly by letter. The burden of defining teachers as "highly qualified" rests with state departments of education. Since 2001, states have been busy designing policies that meet the federal requirements, constructing data systems that track progress and conducting outreach to districts. Initially, state-reported results contained great discrepancies with four states reporting that less than 50% of classrooms have "highly qualified" teachers while 20 states proclaim that over 90% of their classrooms meet that description (Carey, Barth, et. al, 2003). Additional funds have been set aside by the President in 2005 ($5.1 billion) in support of teachers through recruitment incentives, training, loan forgiveness and tax relief (U.S. Department of Education, 2005a). Faced with heavy criticism over the definition of "highly qualified teachers," the Department of Education relaxed some federal rules for rural schoolteachers, science teachers, and state evaluations (Robelen, 2004). Much of the criticism stemmed from the "law's narrow definition of teacher quality (because) it emphasizes teachers' knowledge of their subjects rather than teaching methods, and problems with its imple- mentation limit serious improvement, especially in schools serving mainly poor and minority children" (Keller, 2004). The new regulations focus on three areas. First, teachers in rural school districts who teach more than one subject will have a three-year extension to satisfy the "highly qualified" criteria if they have already qualified as such in at least one core subject. Nearly 5,000 districts, or approximately one-third of school districts nationwide, are eligible for this flexibility. Second, science teachers are now permitted to be highly qualified either in the "broad field" of science or more specifically, such as physics or biology. Finally, a "high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation" or HOUSSE provision will enable teachers to demonstrate subject-matter competence rather than enrolling in formal higher education or passing a subject-mastery examination (Robelen, 2004). Under state HOUSSE standards, "teachers can demonstrate content knowledge through some combination of experience, college coursework, professional development, or other state-determined measures" (Carey, Barth et al., 2003). Secretary Spellings also recently informed states that if they are making a good-faith effort to reach the Highly Qualified Teacher standard but were unable to do so by the end of the 2005-06 school year, they would not lose federal funds (Spellings, 2005). The Department of Education cited these decisions as evidence of their willingness to work with the states and be flexible with NCLB provisions. The Education Trust, a Washington, D.C.-based education think-tank, complained that "several states have exploited the latitude built into the law... combined with the Department of Education's laissez faire approach to enforcing even minimal teacher quality standards, some of these states define "highly qualified" in ways that are nearly meaningless" (Carey, Barth, et al., 2003). According to the Trust, major discrepancies in the standard include states saying that certification and content knowledge are the same thing, and an excessive emphasis on teacher experience occurs at the expense of content knowledge. For example, Utah's submission following the 2002-03 school year stated that 96% of Utah teachers were "highly qualified." Yet a parenthetical addition modified that statis-tic and said that only 25% of teachers were "fully" highly qualified with the remaining 71% as "interim" highly qualified status. Utah's report indicated that "it is impractical and unreasonable to suggest that all teachers will meet the highly qualified requirements for all courses." The Education Trust points out that NCLB obligates states to the expectation that all students should be taught by instructors who are "highly qualified" (Carey, Barth, et al., 2003). Analysis: Nobody discounts the benefits of "highly qualified" teachers and Secretary Spellings has been proactive in offering flexibility to teachers and districts alike to meet the new standards. Qualification should take into account both the 30 |