10 Changes to NCLB from the Teachers
of the Year
1) Fully fund
all education and assessment programs that are federally mandated.
2) Allow all
states to utilize a growth model for measuring individual student achievement
over time.
3) Use
multiple methods of assessment to evaluate student learning accurately and
report the results to the public.
4) Include
language that appropriately addresses the unique needs of students with
exceptionalities (disabilities as well as gifts and talents) while continuing to
set high standards for all students.
5) Provide
assessment information to teachers in a timely manner and professional
development in effectively utilizing such information, so that it can inform
instruction that will improve teaching and learning.
6) Evaluate current sanctions for failing Adequate Yearly Progress and replace them with proven methods of enhancing achievement.
7) Develop and
fund programs that promote meaningful parent and family engagement.
8) Modify
assessments and set realistic goals for English Language Learners.
9) Ensure every student is taught by a Highly Effective
Teacher who receives ongoing professional development.
10) Include programs for school leadership development that
addresses the need for administrators to become instructional leaders who
conduct regular classroom observations and provide productive feedback to
teachers.
Full Funding
Needed change:
Fully fund all
education and assessment programs that are federally mandated.
Unfunded mandates create an undue burden on local and state
resources. If a program is
important enough to be mandated, then it should also be funded.
Why the change is needed:
If our schools are going to ensure each student has success
with high expectations and standards that include a rigorous and comprehensive
curriculum, Congress should insist on the full funding of ESEA programs at their
authorized levels.
NCLB regulations state that “Nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government
to mandate, direct, or control a State, local education agency, or school’s
curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources,
or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any
costs ot paid for under this chapter”. We
believe that this section of the law should be enforced with vigor equal to that
being applied to states and schools to meet Adequate Yearly Progress.
As educators, we have learned that there is a big
difference between what is authorized (how much Congress knows we should spend)
and actual funding (what resources are provided to meet our students’ needs).
Since its 2002 inception, the President has failed to
request and the Congress has failed to appropriate funding levels promised in
the NCLB Act. In 2002, Congress authorized $26.4 billion and only
appropriated $22.2 billion. Each year since, the gap has grown wider.
In the current fiscal year, 2007, $39.4 billion is authorized but only $23.7
billion was appropriated. President Bush’s education budget for 2008 is
no better. Using 2007’s authorization level (NCLB is not authorized
beyond 2007) of $39.4 billion, the President has requested only $24.6 billion.
If Congress accepts the President’s request, it would bring the cumulative
shortfall since enactment to $70.9 billion.
Impact:
Oklahoma school districts struggle with the fact that federal program teachers must be rehired prior to the time they are notified of the amount of funds they will get for the year. School districts are then forced to come up with the money to pay the salary at a time when their federal funds are being cut.
Just this past week, one of the TOYS was told by her principal that their elementary "lost money" because there are a few schools within her district that did not meet AYP and therefore face sanctions--tutoring, transportation--that must be paid with district funds. The money has to be diverted from schools experiencing success in the district to those who are not - "Robbing Peter to pay Paul". Some schools do need additional funds to meet the needs of challenging populations, but to take it away from successful schools within the same district may put other schools at risk. We could ultimately end up in a “ping-pong” match, redirecting of funds to a new/needy source every year.
Growth Model
Needed change:
Develop a growth
model for measuring individual student achievement.
No Child Left Behind set out to close the achievement gap.
If the law is going to achieve this goal, we need to acknowledge the growth of
struggling students while challenging our gifted students, particularly in
lower-income schools.
Why the change is
needed:
Nearly all the rewards and punishments in NCLB focus on how
many students are testing at “proficiency” by the end of the year—a
middle-of-the road benchmark determined by each state.
If we can focus instead on how much progress each student has made over
the course of the year, we do two things:
1. Create an
incentive for the best teachers to take on the lowest-performing students.
The same applies to the best principals taking on the lowest-performing
schools and the best superintendents taking on the lowest-performing districts.
2. Encourage all students to continue improving their academic skills. Students who enter the year far below grade level usually need more than one year to become proficient, even when they are provided with an excellent teacher. Affirming their progress toward proficiency is critical to their success. Students who enter the year far above grade level should be pushed just as hard as their peers to excel.
Impact:
Aaron entered my 2nd grade class as a
non-reader. By the end of the year,
he had advanced to a level 24 as measured by the Developmental Reading
Assessment, just shy of the level 28 designated as “proficient.” His remarkable achievement should be acknowledged as a
success on the part of Aaron, his family, his teachers, and his school.
When Maria entered my 2nd grade class, she was
already reading on a 4th grade level. In lower-income schools like mine, the staff is often
desperate to raise standardized test scores to avoid being put in school
improvement—a designation that tends to stigmatize the school as a failure,
drive away qualified staff, and strip both resources and autonomy from the
school community. A child like
Maria will pass with a “proficient” score whether or not she is pushed to
achieve her full potential.
In my class of 20 lower-income students, Maria is one of
six in the Gifted and Talented program. These
gifted lower-income students have the brilliance and the academic skills to go
to great universities someday, and they have the first-hand knowledge of their
neighborhoods to transform their communities.
If they are to develop perseverance, intellectual risk-taking, and joy in
their work, these students must be challenged.
A growth model meets the needs of students at both ends of the spectrum, the Aarons and the Marias, by pushing them to achieve their full potential. It provides the most meaningful measure of effective teaching, particularly for teachers in lower-income schools. A growth model also provides the most effective means of attracting and retaining highly effective teachers, principals, and superintendents in our neediest schools.
Multiple Methods of Assessment
Needed Change:
Use multiple methods
of assessment to evaluate students accurately and report the results to the
public.
We need a more holistic approach to assessing student
learning for the purpose of providing accountability-- one that balances
qualitative and quantitative analysis. Standardized
assessments do provide statistics and data for a baseline that can be used to
guide decisions made to improve student achievement on a large and generalized
scale. Standardized assessments do
little to measure the degree to which students progress in their ability to
acquire knowledge, think independently, develop unique, creative solutions to a
problem, collaborate with others;, make value judgments, develop new knowledge
from old, or any number of other accomplishments we deem as necessary 21st
century skills. People on both
sides of the standardized test debate acknowledge that these tests measure a
narrowed band of learning and marginalize populations of students.
Remarkably, even while supporters and detractors alike agree that these
indicators do not present a complete picture of learning, standardized testing
remains the cornerstone of school accountability. As with the issue of developing growth models that address
the needs of different learners, assessment must also be responsive to the
variety of ways that students demonstrate their knowledge.
Why the change is
needed:
Comparing student achievement globally raises qualitative
questions about the intrinsic nature of the social, political, and economic
structures of the student populations being compared. Yet we did just that to justify famous educational doctrines
such as 1983’s “A Nation at Risk”. Similarly,
although on a smaller scale, we could say that comparing student achievement
nationally or even community to community raises similar questions. (For example
the equity gap between large urban, small rural, and wealthy suburban
populations.) Yet we do just that
to create “The Nation’s Report Card”. When we examine the same premise inside an individual
classroom, teachers can answer these qualitative questions easily.
You can’t rely on a standardized mechanism for assessing holistic
achievement because students are not standardized.
The idea that “ALL…… WILL…. BY……” becomes a ridiculous
premise when accounting for individual learners’ needs and ways for
demonstrating what they really know and are completely able to do.
Impact:
My school was deemed low performing and non-improving over two consecutive years putting us into the sanctioned position of offering choice while conducting the required improvements necessary to raise student achievement. We were commended two years later by our State’s Board of Regents as one of the fasting improving schools in the state. Two years later we are struggling to continue to retain our improving status. Our original success can be tied to implementing a variety of strategies which included intense focus on specific areas of academic content, trying new curriculum materials, and most importantly an openness to utilizing innovative approaches to engaging students in their learning. One of the observations made during this stressful, high stakes time was the collaborative nature our learning community employed in tackling our problems and teaching our students. As testing has been expanded to all grades starting at grade three, we are seeing a negative impact on our ability to sustain and utilize the strategies that enabled our original success.
The beginning of a school year is a critical time for setting the stage for an exciting and dynamic environment for learning and for establishing a momentum for engaged and active participation. It is also a time for setting expectations, goals and support for a wide range of young learners. With the looming pressure of testing in October, many classrooms hunker down immediately to the task of reviewing test type questions and test taking strategies. This is not the same as teaching to the test, but it is essential in preparing concrete learners for a specific type of task. As a school community we were asked to postpone certain activities until after the testing period had passed. Many of the activities on this list included some of the collaborative and integrated “outside the box” strategies we had found successful in engaging students in learning, particularly effective in reaching at-risk, disconnected, passive, and non-compliant learners.
Many teachers in the building feel that the school year now begins in November because this is when the “real” teaching can begin. How can we be improving learning and raising authentic achievement by cutting into dynamic instruction by two months each year?
Special
Education
Needed Change:
Include language in No Child Left Behind that
appropriately addresses the unique needs of students with exceptionalities
(disabilities as well as gifts and talents) while continuing to set high
standards for all students.
The reauthorization of NCLB should implement the following changes:
· Provide IEP teams with the authority to determine how individual students with special needs will participate in state-mandated assessments (whether through general assessments, assessments with accommodations, or alternate assessments), rather than insisting on 1% and 2% rigid caps on the number of students allowed to take alternate and/or modified assessments;
· Implement state assessment systems that track individual students’ academic growth, and allow multiple measures of assessment to determine student progress;
· Regarding the Highly Qualified Teacher provisions in NCLB, multiple measures should be used to determine a Special Education teacher’s professional competence;
·
Authorize
additional funding to support and expand gifted education programs.
Why the Change is Needed:
As educators we strongly support NCLB’s efforts to ensure
that students with exceptionalities are being held to high academic standards
and are included in public accountability measures. The current legislation’s mandates, however, run contrary
to some of the premises in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA), which calls for individualized curriculum and
assessments that determine success based on progress toward goals and objectives
in a student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP).
Changes in the current law are needed for the following reasons:
· Some students who meet the eligibility criteria for receiving special education services cannot, by definition, meet grade level proficiency expectations at the same rate as their non-disabled peers;
· Many students with disabilities are being blamed for their school’s inability to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which increases negative perceptions and discrimination toward an already vulnerable population, and is reversing some hard-won inclusion efforts;
· Allowable state assessment accommodations do not always match IEP accommodations;
· High-stakes standardized testing has in some cases increased the level of dropout rates and retention of students with disabilities;
· Curriculum for students with disabilities is being narrowed to increase remediation efforts in reading and math while eliminating diverse learning opportunities such as vocational/career readiness, functional life-skills, and electives that keep special learners engaged in school and prepare them for life after graduation;
·
There are an estimated three million children with gifts and
talents in the U.S. whose educational needs go largely unaddressed.
Impact:
I have witnessed too often the hurtful consequences of a rigid law that does not adequately address the needs of students with exceptionalities. Higher dropout rates, lowered self-esteem, lack of interest in a narrowed curriculum, and humiliation of students with special needs are merely a few of the unintended effects of NCLB. The recommendations outlined above have the potential to improve educational outcomes and facilitate engaged learning opportunities for all students with special needs.
Timely Test Results
Needed change:
Provide assessment
information to teachers in a timely manner so that it can inform instruction
that will improve teaching and learning.
NCLB reauthorization frameworks must address the amount of
elapsed time between each state’s standardized testing window and the date
when student performance data is received. The timely delivery of test results
must be an essential norm of standardized testing practice if educators are to
effectively use student performance data to assess curricular programs,
implement standards-based instruction, and report “Adequate Yearly Progress”
as mandated by the current law.
Why the change is
needed:
On a national scale, large disparities exist in the
“timely” delivery of standardized test results to individual State
Departments of Education, local school districts, and classroom teachers. In
current practice, contracted and in-house scoring companies deliver test results
to some states within thirty days of their respective testing windows while
others await data for up to six months. States testing in October generally
receive results between February and April; those testing in March receive
results between July and September. Several states have cancelled scoring
contracts due to a lack of timeliness and/or inaccuracy in scoring. Others have
reluctantly opted to remove most or all written responses in order to shore up
reporting schedules, thus possibly limiting higher-level thinking components of
their assessments.
Delayed reporting of test results also compromises the
ability of state and local educators to utilize the data in proactive decision
making. Evaluations of curricular programs, school improvement plans, and
individualized student learning goals are subsequently devalued when any piece
of the performance picture is missing. Classroom teachers know that frequent,
accurate feedback promotes effective educational growth. Delayed feedback leads
to learner apathy and inaccurate assessment of instructional practices. Although
a systematic testing schedule is not needed in order for states to effectively
utilize student performance data, timely reporting of such data is essential.
Impact:
Each year I encourage my students to do their absolute best on state standardized tests, yet many remain unmotivated by assessments results that remain a mystery to them until well after the school year has ended. As my students set goals for academic improvement, their enthusiasm wanes if these performance “snapshots” lack the appropriate visibility when compared to classroom or district assessments. My students invest in the here and now. In order for a test to be taken seriously, feedback must be timely and reinforce or redirect individual goals. My students are empowered to take charge of their education by understanding and utilizing their individual performance data. My colleagues and I take the time to help them own the results and to recognize that standardized tests depict only one aspect of their academic portrait. Once students are well-informed, they become increasingly vested in their overall growth.
Timely, accurate test data enables students, parents, and educators to make sound educational decisions. Regardless of state testing schedules, data reporting must be delivered to state and local educators in a timely manner in order to advance collaborative decision making and ultimately student performance.
Replace Sanctions
Needed Change:
Evaluate current
sanctions and replace them with proven methods of enhancing achievement
NCLB must develop an intervention model for schools that
fail to meet AYP that is consistent with current research. If we are to close
the achievement gap in our country, we must create a network of assistance and
leadership for students, teachers and administrators in schools of need. We must
also recognize that failure to meet AYP benchmarks may stem from various
circumstances, none of which will be remedied through punitive sanctions.
Rather, challenging educational environments can best be overcome with focused
goal setting, encouragement and monitoring of individual student growth, and
professional development and support.
Why the change is needed:
Should schools be held accountable? Of course! Should they
be penalized and demoralized in the process? Of course not! We must begin to
address the socioeconomic and cultural issues of why schools are not meeting AYP.
Sanctions need to be replaced with funding for prescriptive improvement,
celebration of growth, empowerment of teachers, and opportunities to attract
staff with leadership and exemplary teaching skill-sets.
Sanctions are reactive measures that have shown little to no improvement
in school performance. They often undermine school efforts by creating a
powerless environment. Rather than spend funds to fix a problem, funds should be
focused on prevention and development.
Present NCLB School Improvement Sanctions for Schools
Receiving Title I funds are intended to motivate schools to improve academic
performance of those students/subgroups failing to meet AYP. But rather, they
are humiliating punishments that further drain an already taxed system. In
accord with current brain research, we need to strive to create schools for
students and teachers that possess a balance between challenge and low threat.
“Excess stress and threat in the school environment may be the single greatest
contributor to impaired academic learning.” (Jensen, Teaching with the
Brain in Mind) Sanctions are threatening: to districts, which filters to
administrators, then to classroom teachers and unfortunately to students.
Schools failing to meet AYP are provided with no incentives to encourage
improvement. Families in schools
failing to meet AYP are offered Transfer/School choice options the third year of
failing to meet AYP and tutoring provided by an outside source the fourth year
with the sole financial burden for providing transportation and tutoring falling
on the under performing school. Per the Gallop Poll four out of five respondents
(80%) prefer offering help to students in schools in need of improvement. Only
17% prefer transferring those students to a different school. Schools with more
sub-group populations also are at a higher risk of these sanctions simply by the
make-up of their school, while other environments are rewarded with no sanctions
simply as a result of a population that is more homogeneous. When an extremely
diverse school boasting 25 sub groups fails to meet AYP in just one of those sub
groups, the sanctions are the same. There is no mention of the growth and
achievement of the students and staff in reaching AYP for the other 24 sub
groups. The employment of these sanctions reeks of “placism”: discrimination
against people based on where they live. This
is not to suggest lower standards for sub groups or challenging learning
environments, but rather flexibility, time and support in realistically
attaining them rather than punishment and shame through sanctions that do not
address the issues. We can recommend that every child reach minimum competency,
but it is foolish to think they will all do it at the same rate given the
disparity that exists in communities across our country.
Impact:
Painted Stone, one of the
most a diverse elementary school in Kentucky, has increased their AYP from 13/14
subgroups to 18/19 subgroups in a one-year timeframe. This school is tailoring
their services to meet the needs of their increasingly unique population. They
are on their way to meeting the needs of all students in their school.
Rather than celebrate the fruits of their labor, they incurred NCLB
sanctions. It is defeating to school leaders, teachers and students who work so
hard to make progress to be humiliated in district reports and local newspapers
as failing. It also confuses
parents and the community who are pleased with the education their children
experience at that school. In
addition, funds have been rerouted from other schools within the district that
are meeting AYP to Painted Stone to enable the school to increase services. This
weakens successful learning environments in the process.
A neighboring district,
less than 10 miles from Painted Stone Elementary in Kentucky, boasts the highest
per capita income in the state and has no significant populations to report as
subgroups. The media gave them front-page headlines reporting that they have
been successful in meeting NCLB standards in their schools. That is deceiving to
the public, who has little knowledge of how scores are reported.
The fifth year of failing
to meet AYP requires the school be restructured with one option being to replace
all or most of the school staff, including the principal. The TOY from Illinois
recently met a young man who attends Southern Illinois University and attributes
much of his success to his teachers at Sherman Elementary School on Chicago’s
South Side. He credits them with having a direct positive influence on his life,
keeping him on the straight and narrow. He ascertains that he was able to find a
way out because of his teachers. Should he return to Sherman Elementary, he
would not find his teacher there. They were the first school in the US to remove every faculty
member and administrator from its payroll.
NCLB and sanctions incurred from not achieving AYP are all about numbers,
but any successful educator (or parent) knows that learning occurs through
relationships, which unfortunately cannot be quantified into AYP data.
Parent Involvement
Needed change:
Develop and fund
programs that promote meaningful parent engagement.
There is an irrefutable positive correlation between
parental involvement and student achievement.
The influences of the home are fundamental to a child arriving at school
ready to learn. Parents plant the
seeds for all future learning and instill in their children attitudes which will
help them in their school careers. Involved
parents who work together with teachers and demonstrate the importance of an
education can make the difference between a child who succeeds, and a child who
performs poorly. Teachers know that parents are doing the best they can with
regard to raising their children and being advocates for education with the
resources that they have available. No
Child Left Behind needs strengthen this important home/school connection by
funding parental education programs that will help children thrive.
Furthermore, legislation needs to be developed which will provide working
parents with paid time off for school visits, parent conferences and for
volunteer activities in the schools their children attend.
We realize that, as professionals, we need to find new ways to reach out to parents. Spanish immersion programs for teachers must be funded to increase the number of bilingual teachers. Attendance advocates can help parents get truant students back in school by overcoming the obstacles that too many families face (transportation issues, daycare for younger students, lack of medical care). Family rooms in schools would provide educational materials, access to community resources, and even educational programs (such as English classes) to parents.
Why the change is
needed:
There is great emphasis in America on teacher quality, and
on how teacher quality is the single biggest factor impacting student success in
the classroom. Parent effectiveness
is no less important. Parents who
read to their children, help with homework, attend parent conferences,
demonstrate positive attitudes about schooling and education, volunteer to work
in their child’s school and encourage hard work, ensure their child’s
success in school, and ultimately in life.
American parents work hard. Parents
of disadvantaged students often work more than one job, thus making it difficult
to attend school events and reinforce learning in the home.
Children whose parents do not value education have no reason to value it
themselves. Programs need to be funded which will provide parents of
struggling students the information and strategies they need to be effective
parents. Parental involvement needs
to begin at birth and continue through high school. After all, children do not come with instruction booklets.
Parents, particularly those of struggling students, need to learn how to
be effective with regard to their children’s educations, so that our nation
does not have to pay the price later in the form of welfare or incarceration.
Impact:
In Omaha, the Family Room at Gomez Heritage Elementary
school is always buzzing with parents reading to younger children, making
educational games, or talking with a family advocate.
Parent conferences occur throughout the year in all public
schools, however many parents do not or cannot attend a conference.
Too many parents come to conferences and can’t even talk directly to
teachers because they don’t speak the same language.
Teachers report having conferences with high achieving students’
parents, but seldom see the parents of students who aren’t achieving.
In addition, homes of disadvantaged students are often being run by just
one parent whose time is very limited due to work and household
responsibilities. Many parents of
struggling students were struggling students themselves, and need support and
encouragement with regard to helping their own children be successful in school.
Parents need to know what is happening in our public schools, yet they
often do not attend school events or volunteer to help out in their child’s
school. They just cannot find the
time or do not know what to do. Parents
who are granted paid time off from work would be able to form the home/ school
connections successful students are fortunate to enjoy.
In addition schools need the funding and support to offer tutoring
classes to parents whose children can not demonstrate basic skills.
This measure will significantly improve student achievement in
America’s public schools.
English Language Learners
Needed Change:
Modify
assessments and set realistic goals for English Language Learners.
As a result of a large number of ELLs performing poorly on
standardized assessments, many schools fail to make AYP and are subject to a
series of corrective actions. By
definition, ELLs are not proficient in English. Consequently, ELLs will struggle with any assessment that is
written in English. Also, very few
ELLs are represented in the norm sample of state standardized assessments.
Moreover, ELLs exit the subgroup once they attain English language
proficiency. For AYP calculations,
these students are counted for only two additional years in the ELL subgroup.
Demonstrating improvement on annual standardized assessments for ELL
subgroups is extremely difficult due to the constant ingress and egress of group
members.
Why the change is needed:
Understanding how students
acquire a second language can help explain the poor performance of ELLs on
standardized assessments. NCLB
mandates ELLs to be assessed in reading and writing after just one year in U.S.
schools. Second language
acquisition research shows it can take the average ELL five to seven years (or
more depending on the student’s formal education in his or her native
language) to develop full academic language proficiency in English.
We propose including ELLs in the
NCLB accountability system in a more appropriate manner.
First, allow states to use AYP growth models that acknowledge progress in
student achievement within the year or over time.
Second, permit the use of alternative measures to provide a
multidimensional perspective of student growth such as performance-based or
holistic assessments. Third,
increase research and investment in reliable and valid assessments for ELLs,
including native language assessments. Additionally, until a normed and field
tested English Language Arts assessment (with representative samples of ELLs) is
developed, allow states to use the English Language Proficiency test to meet
federal requirements. Lastly,
states should also be allowed to incorporate additional measures into an
accountability index to assess ELL performance in schools (NEA 2005).
Such measures could include attendance, graduation and dropout rates,
percentage of students taking honors and AP classes, and results from other
state and local assessments (NEA 2005)
Impact:
I watched a third grade ELL who
has only been in this country a little more than a year struggle with the
reading passages on the state assessment. As
per his accommodation, I orally translated each lengthy passage in Spanish. He
was unable to employ good reading strategies such as underlining key information
and referring back to passages to answer test questions.
His responses included some written words in English with many linguistic
errors. To a certain degree, his
responses were a measure of his English proficiency rather than his academic
aptitude. Additionally, a test
section that would normally take an English native speaker two hours to
complete, took this ELL student an entire day. It is important to note that ELLs
are not guaranteed accommodations. For
example, if a school is unable to find a translator for a particular language,
the ELL is required to take the assessment without translation. Moreover, if a
student does not receive a passing score on the assessment he will suffer
academic consequences.
Highly Effective Teachers
Needed change:
Ensure every student
is taught by a Highly Qualified Teacher who receives ongoing professional
development.
This model should
include these components: commitment to all students, the ability to manage and
monitor student learning, and capacity for reflection.
Effective teachers need to model lifelong learning by engaging in
professional research, development and learning communities. Let us look to
teachers demonstrating
their effectiveness in the classroom rather than just the qualifications for
entering it. Teacher effectiveness
should be measured on two key indicators: improved student achievement that
is measured by individual growth model assessments and evaluations by
their principals or peers.
Why the change
is needed:
Current NCLB
legislation focuses on a teacher having the right certification to enter the
classroom. This focus leaves little
room for evaluating a teacher’s current effectiveness based on multiple forms
of assessment. In continuing to
meet the diverse needs of our students, including students in special education
and English Learners, we have to go beyond content knowledge to a teacher’s
proven effectiveness in raising student achievement.
Impact:
Susanne Frensley is
an amazing teacher who was selected as Tennessee’s 2007 Teacher of the Year.
We have so many dedicated teachers across our country that to be selected
as the best in your state is an incredible and humbling honor.
Put yourself in Susanne’s mindset several years ago. Because of her dedication to reach all students and her
commitment to find alternative ways to make that happen for students who
aren’t “turned on” in some of the traditional course offerings, Susanne
pursued coursework to be able to offer art history classes as an alternative
fine arts course for the students at her high school.
As students took the course, they found a teacher that could communicate
with them, who demonstrated enthusiasm, a commitment to learning, and the
ability to create a welcoming and safe environment for all.
As a result of her efforts, the courses have been offered for several
years with waiting lists to get in.
Now fast forward to
today and put yourself in Susanne’s classroom.
You will see a teacher who is no longer considered a certified or highly
qualified teacher under the current NCLB definitions as interpreted by her
state. Just a few months after
having been selected as the top teacher in her state, she has had to have two
letters sent to the parents of her students letting them know that their
child’s teacher is no longer considered certified or highly qualified.
All but two of the courses she is teaching will need to be dropped for
the following year. When sharing her experience, she says, “The real loss is
experienced by the students. They
thrive in these classes, and there is a place for all children in my classroom
and I can now no longer offer them that opportunity.”
The current NCLB
teacher quality section states that each individual state must have a plan to
ensure that all teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified.
If a teacher is deemed not to be certified or highly qualified, parents
are to be notified. The school has to establish annual, measurable objectives to
ensure that they meet this requirement and report that information to the state.
We would agree that being highly qualified is essential for valued
results in the classroom, but Susanne’s story demonstrates that the intent of
the law is currently at odds with its application when it comes to determining a
highly qualified teacher. The
opportunity is at hand to embrace the changes needed so that Susanne’s story
doesn’t get repeated and our children are not cheated of what they deserve.
Effective Leadership
Needed change:
Include language in
NCLB that addresses the need for administrators to become instructional leaders
who conduct regular classroom observations and provide productive feedback to
teachers.
No Child Left Behind will
close the achievement gap if the law recognizes the importance of outstanding
administrators. Their quest will be to lead our nation’s educators to
challenge all students to utilize their higher order thinking skills to reach
their maximum potential. The new legislation must address the lack of wording in
the current document to develop a definition of both a highly qualified and
highly effective administrator. The
law must also construct a mechanism that will provide continued support in both
training and time that will provide administrators with the resources necessary
to create an environment that is conducive to learning. NCLB legislation should include the development of a national
certification program for administrators.
Why the change is needed:
Current NCLB legislation is focused solely upon the
educator. The importance of having
an effective teacher in the classroom cannot be under valued.
Teachers are in direct contact with the students on a daily basis, and
should be held to the highest standards. However,
the most important central figure in the learning community remains the
administrator. An administrator has the ability to change the climate of an
entire building or district in either a positive or negative manner.
Administrators do have a direct impact on the lives of the student population.
Schools require strong leadership to thrive.
The role of administrator is challenging.
Schools are filled with students who require an enormous amount of
personal attention. In many cases,
it is the school administrator who shoulders the brunt of that responsibility.
This leaves little time for administrators to focus upon instructional
leadership. Much less time is
available to develop programs or relationships that will foster the growth of a
positive and productive learning environment.
As a result, educators work as individuals instead of a team. Equations
like this yield negative results. Administrators
become burnt out and unproductive. Teachers
are more likely to become frustrated and ineffective. In the end, it is the students who suffer the most.
Presently, many new administrators are unprepared to take
the jobs they are filling. A degree
from a graduate program is not enough to prepare them for the rigors of an
administrative position. There is a
definite need for a formalized mentoring program that will give administrative
prospects the foundation they need to find success. Additionally, there is the need for ongoing training and the
time to develop programs that will lead to the creation of a positive climate at
the building level. It is
imperative that both administrators and educators be included in the development
of this model. Their experience and
input is crucial to the effectiveness of the implementation of the final
product.
Impact:
The development of legislation that helps produce strong instructional leaders will have an immediate impact on the learning environment. Administrators will have both the ability and the tools required to help all members of the learning community create a focus and a vision that will challenge our children as never before.
Teaching for Tomorrow
To this point, we have discussed how No Child Left Behind
must change to better meet the present needs of the students, parents, teachers
and schools who make up our educational system. We’d like to close our statements by taking a moment to
discuss how all of us – families, educators and policy makers alike – must
work together to shape our children’s future.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that “institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human
mind” and advance to keep pace with the times. To prepare our children
to meet the social, political, economic and environmental challenges of their
times, education needs to expand its vision beyond traditional constructs.
Policy and practice must reflect our need for responsiveness, vision,
innovation, and collaboration. The
curricula and methodologies we choose, the teaching we practice, and the
assessments we use to measure our success must all work toward this goal.
Teaching for tomorrow means going beyond the core
curricular focus of the industrial age.
Success in the 21st century will require a flexibility of
thought, an ability to identify problems and create solutions, and a willingness
to change on personal, professional, and societal levels.
Our curriculum must enable our students to think creatively as well as
critically about their ever-changing status as civic participants, family
members, and workers. It must
foster the entrepreneurial spirit needed to thrive in a rapidly changing global
market. It must engender a
willingness to tackle complex social, political, and environmental challenges.
It must develop information and communications literacy and corresponding
ethics – critical areas in a global society whose every means of thinking and
knowledge building are already being transformed by technology.
Finally, our curriculum must teach the health, wellness and life skills
necessary to become personally and socially responsible global citizens.
Already, we as teachers incorporate these new elements into
our practice. Our work itself reflects the change we seek.
We collaborate. We question our assumptions and challenge our own beliefs.
We incorporate the development of artistic and creative thinking into all
areas of teaching. We create curricular models that respond to the needs of our
communities. We embrace technology as a tool, and study its effect on thought
and communication. We view
education as a lifelong process of growth in response to ever-changing needs.
We are educators. We
know how to create the conditions for successful teaching and learning within
our schools. To teach in the way we
must, however – to ensure that all children, schools, and communities are
equally prepared to face the challenges which lay before them -- we must also
work to achieve Jefferson’s vision of holistic institutional change.
This can only be done in full partnership with leaders and policy makers.
Today, we invite our leaders and policy makers to join our effort.
For No Child Left Behind to truly help prepare all children
for the world before them, it must rise with us to this challenge.
Education policy must embrace a broadening of content, and assessment
systems must measure learning and growth comprehensively.
They must assess the development of creative thought, interpersonal and
intercultural communication, collaborative knowledge building, cross-contextual
awareness, and other skills areas not readily measured by today’s standardized
instruments. They must enable
communication of knowledge in a broad spectrum of media.
As a whole, they must be authentic –
as closely connected as possible to the learning context and purposes.
We cannot afford to hesitate. Our global competitors have
already begun developing and implementing curricular models and assessment
systems which acknowledge this 21st century need for flexibility and
creativity. In a sense, these
conditions highlight the very need we’re describing – to address our
weakened global standing in education, our educators, leaders and policy makers
must think creatively, flexibly, and collaboratively about what we teach, how we
teach it, and how we measure achievement.
To be sure, this is a tremendous challenge to all of us in
education. But it is a challenge
which plays directly to our strengths as a nation – a challenge to respond to
a critical national and global issue with the vision, innovation, and creative
spirit. America has always been at
its best when responding to such challenges.
We believe that by working together, we can become the change we seek.