. . . Change the Rules!

As promised in my post "If at first you don't succeed. . .", I return to the topic of the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.  After combing through the full text of the document, I am disappointed to find the changes to Bush’s original legislation to be either minimal or flat-out harmful.

We’ll start with the minimal.  Fortunately, instead of holding fast to the ridiculous deadline that mandates all students be 100% proficient in all subjects by 2014, the bill allows for the Secretary of Education to adjust the requirements every three years.  This creates a kind of escape hatch for the government to get out of following through with the punitive measures of the current law.  These measures would have required closing the thousands of schools that are nowhere near meeting the rapidly approaching deadline.

Another change includes rewording the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” to include first year TFA teachers and others who have undergone minimal training but are pursuing certification while teaching full-time.  The bill reads, “the teacher should be considered highly qualified for purposes of this part based on a showing that the teacher is making progress toward becoming highly qualified.” Do we consider a teenager on the day they pass their written permit exam to be Highly Qualified Drivers, based on a showing that they are making progress toward earning their license?  Do we consider pre-med undergraduates to be Highly Qualified Doctors based on a showing that they are making progress toward becoming doctors?  In what other profession do the words highly qualified refer to someone who is in the early stages of their training?  Instead of tackling the greater problem of improving teacher training programs and providing funds for bright young professionals to enroll and complete these programs, like countries with successful public education systems, the new bill is simply lowering the bar.  The idea that the U.S. Government is even bothering to confer the distinction of “Highly Qualified” upon any teacher with this revised definition is laughable.

Finally, one of the changes I consider to be most harmful involves increasing the budgetary allocations for developing newer and more frequent standardized tests.  In a time of budgetary crisis, why are we allocating more money to hand over to companies like Pearson Education, McGraw-Hill, Riverside Publishing, or ETS K-12, which we know produce flawed and inadequate products?  As is, many states are already spending an exorbitant amount of money on standardized testing without any tangible improvements.  This simply does not make any sense.

Needless to say, my initial cautious optimism about the reauthorization of NCLB has been replaced with a grim frustration.  If teachers want to do what is best for our students, it will continue to be in spite of, rather than because of, current national policy.