DOC PREVIEW
CSUN SED 610 - The Side Effects of NCLB

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 6 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

November 2006 | Volume 64 | Number 3 NCLB: Taking Stock, Looking Forward Pages 64-68 The Side Effects of NCLB Gordon Cawelti If we focus only on math and literacy, what happens to the rest of the curriculum? Curriculum leaders have long contended that what schools teach must reflect the needs of society, the needs of the learner, and the recommendations of scholars in various academic fields. Accordingly, schools teach about environmental problems, require courses on the importance of good nutrition and exercise, select history units that focus on noteworthy topics, and so on. However, as knowledge continues to grow, schools face a shortage of instructional time as they seek to accommodate these three components within a balanced curriculum that prepares students for the future. Today, federal legislation has complicated this broader view of knowledge. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) focuses heavily on using reading and mathematics test scores to determine whether schools are making progress in reducing achievement gaps among various subgroups of students.This narrow focus has resulted in a serious imbalance that denies many students access to the high-quality curriculums that students in more affluent schools enjoy. NCLB is now the prescribed treatment for the achievement gaps in U.S. schools, but it has some serious side effects. Side Effect 1: A Skewed Curriculum Marshall S. Smith, one of the architects of standards-based reform, recently commented on the effect of standards-based education on the curriculum: This is a narrowing-the-curriculum problem. If we focus only on math and language literacy, what happens to the rest of the curriculum? In California, we have lost a very high percentage of our arts, music, physical education, and other teachers and rarely have K–8 foreign languages. My sense is that it is time to begin to redress this imbalance. (“Chat Wrap-Up,” 2006, p. 35) Schools end up narrowing the curriculum because they are under considerable pressure to show adequate yearly progress in reading and math. For example, one large urban U.S. high school in which I worked had subgroup pass rates in the range of 15–30 percent, a long way from the 100 percent pass rate that schools are supposed to achieve by 2014 (Cawelti & Protheroe, 2001). No wonder teachers were under pressure to focus on raising scores. Elementary schools are also feeling the crunch, despite state and district guidelines that supposedly require time allocations in a variety of subjects. A study that predates NCLB legislation (Hargrove et al., 2000) offered this conclusion about the effect of high-stakes testing on the curriculum: Of greatest concern is the enormous amount of time that is being spent on reading, November 2006 Page 1 of 6ASCD11/27/2006http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.459dee008f99653f...writing, and mathematics at the cost of instruction in science, social studies, physical education, and the arts. The elementary teachers studied typically spent 75 percent of their time teaching reading and math, leaving inadequate instructional time for other subjects. The public seems to be aware of the legislation's effect on the public school curriculum. A recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll asked a random sample of respondents, “How much, if at all, are you concerned that relying on English and math only to judge a school's performance will mean less emphasis on art, music, history, and other subjects?” Seventy-eight percent of respondents indicated that they were concerned either “a great deal” or “a fair amount” (Rose & Gallup, 2006). Moreover, in its 2006 study about the effect of NCLB on school districts, the Center on Education Policy noted evidence of a narrowing curriculum. According to the study, 71 percent of school districts reported that they have reduced instructional time in at least one other subject to make more time for reading and mathematics. In some districts, struggling students receive double periods of reading or math or both ... sometimes missing certain subjects altogether. (p. vii) Many school leaders are well aware of the curriculum imbalance resulting from NCLB's test-focused approach. However, they are understandably fearful, not only of seeing their schools labeled as “failing,” but also of jeopardizing funding and public support. Side Effect 2: Discouraged Teachers Teachers are becoming increasingly concerned about the effect of high-stakes testing on their teaching. In a study of 376 elementary and secondary teachers in New Jersey, teachers indicated that they tended to teach to the test, often neglected individual students' needs because of the stringent focus on high-stakes testing, had little time to teach creatively, and bored themselves and their students with practice problems as they prepared for standardized testing (Centolanza, 2004). Moreover, the focus on high-stakes testing is negatively affecting teacher morale. Assessment results often discourage teachers who have worked hard to close achievement gaps with their students. For example, if teachers have the goal of helping students in special education attain scores in the proficient range on state tests—and their students never come close—this repeated failure demoralizes teachers. Side Effect 3: The Funny Numbers Game W. Edwards Deming, a major force behind the quality movement in the United States, repeatedly warned that a heavy reliance on single goals or other narrowly defined evidence of success tends to encourage people to tweak the system rather than make the fundamental changes needed in schools and classrooms to ensure student mastery of standards. Making the right numbers appear becomes more important than improving the system. Thus we see “negotiations” between state education agencies and Washington bureaucrats on the need to exempt English language learners or students in special education programs as well as maneuvering by some states to lower their cutoff scores to show higher numbers of “proficient” students. In addition, each U.S. state defines “proficiency” somewhat differently, and these definitions rarely line up with how proficiency is determined at the national level. For example, Texas reported that 83 percent of its 4th graders met the state proficiency standard in reading, whereasthe most recent round of testing by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that only 23 percent of


View Full Document

CSUN SED 610 - The Side Effects of NCLB

Documents in this Course
Week 2

Week 2

6 pages

Week 11

Week 11

3 pages

Load more
Download The Side Effects of NCLB
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view The Side Effects of NCLB and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view The Side Effects of NCLB 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?