NCLB--"choices for parents" discussion
In this section, we will be providing information on the NCLB strand: "choices for parents." In its review we will talk about "what it says," "what it says vs. what the reality may be (based on critique, evidence, experience, etc.)," and what it really says (connecting it to a larger structural reality). Information on NCLB can be found at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml. A starting place for constructive critique can be found at http://www.rethinkingschools.com/. Feel free to help in the research of this area or feel free to comment on what's here.
posted by adam at 4:04 PM
2 Comments:
HOUSTON, P. (2006). THE GAP CLAP TRAP. SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR, 63 (7), P. 50
This commentary discusses how it is easy to agree with the overarching goals of NCLB, but it is “increasingly difficult to stipulate that the law is either benign or noble.”
Houston worries over a number of issues, specifically:
(1) the “forced change” nature of the legislation, resulting in a narrowed curriculum—believing that “whatever gets tested gets taught.”
(2) placing labels on schools that cause a loss of confidence in public education and acceleration toward privatizing, and
(3) that, mathematically, nearly every school will be reported as “in need of improvement.”
Most poignantly and provocatively, Houston points out that “as we try to overcome the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’, it would seem prudent to address the issue of the hard bigotry of high expectations with inadequate resources. It’s not merely whether the mandates of NCLB were fully funded—it is clear they weren’t—but whether the social capital is provided to schools, families, and communities to overcome years of racism and neglect.”
ANALYSIS/REFLECTION
Houston cuts right to the heart of what I perceive is the agenda of No Child Left Behind—the ultimate dismantling of free public education in favor of privatized, free-market driven, capitalist schools for which future workers can even be more easily slotted into assigned positions. I look forward to being unhinged from this notion, but I doubt much of a case can be mounted against it.
I've been following this discussion with a great deal of interest. I think you are all raising some important questions and providing an authentic and critical search for good answers. To join this search, I wanted to add some of the contradictions by which I've been struck in reviewing the administration's agenda (and which speaks to a sort of Orwellian 'double-speak' that Jon Lee has brought up in other discussions on this blog):
(1) The issue of scientifically-based resaerch. Not only does the government not provide much by way of research that meets their own definition of scientifically-based research, but this is also an administration who wants to posit "intelligent design" as an equally plausible explanation as evolution. To my knowledge, intelligent design is not scientifically-based (should we also assume wizardry is equal to chemistry?)
(2) Vouchers and charter schools provide choice, but what accountability, then, do these more 'private' schools have. I thought the idea of NCLB was oversight..., but we're convincing parents to get out of schools that have the most accountability? There is lots of good discussion above, also, regarding the nature of skimming the best students off the top, leaving so-called 'failing' schools in even worse shape. Who are we trying to help here? It doesn't sound like we are trying to help those who need it most (which, for an administration who engenders such a religious agenda, doesn't seem to square with my notion of Jesus or Christianity)
(3) Then, there is the notion of free-market, for-profit, 'corporate' schools (also a notion that runs a bit counter to a religious agenda as I can't quite see Jesus playing the stock market and working for the highest profits!). What is the goal in the free market? What is the goal of a corporation? What is the goal of a 'corporate' school? Education? Or profit? What if mediocrity brings in the most profit? Will we sacrifice education for profit? I think we know what the free market will decide.
(4) The very nature of the high stakes accountability related to NCLB is to leave children behind. Related to the free-market, the only way it can work is if there are losers. Everyone can't be a winner in the free-market, else there would be no profit--so we depend on losers. Again, related to the discussion above, we see, traditionally, who loses. It does not appear to me, in much of our research, that anything speaks to the contrary.
I certainly advocate more discussion along these lines and welcome nuanced views of any of the four items above.
Post a Comment
<< Home