Guest Editorial: Public Education's Trojan Horse

By Lowell C. Rose

THE PUBLIC is so uninformed about the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act that participants in the 35th PDK/Gallup Poll were unwilling to say whether they viewed it favorably or unfavorably. And responses to questions they were willing to answer indicate that, as public familiarity with NCLB grows, the likely result will be disapproval.

The problem is not the goals of NCLB. The problem is implementation strategies that are certain to work against those goals. The public frequently applies common sense to complex issues. Improving student achievement and closing the achievement gap are among its top priorities. However, it has consistently indicated that reform should come through the existing public schools and that decisions affecting schools in the community should be made locally. NCLB does not meet either criterion.

Specific NCLB strategies rejected by respondents to this year's poll include:

• using a fixed standard, instead of improvement, to judge a school;
• basing the judgment of a school on a single test administered annually;
• measuring a school's performance and student proficiency in English and math alone;
• emphasizing English and math to the possible detriment of other subjects;
• focusing on sanctions rather than on helping schools that need to improve;
• judging special education students by the same standard used for all other students; and
• relying so heavily on standardized testing that it may produce unwise teaching to the test.

The gulf between public preferences and NCLB strategies is so great that, as controversy grows, the support needed to sustain NCLB will be missing. One concerned educator viewed the poll results and noted, "We do not have to attack NCLB. All we need to do is inform the public regarding its provisions, and the public will do it for us."

But educators should take no pleasure in events as they are playing out. For all its flaws, NCLB forces us to recognize that too many students, disproportionately minorities and those living in poverty, fail to find success in school. A failed NCLB will be no cause to celebrate; it will mean that a golden opportunity to address stark inequities has been lost.

The irony is that the framers of NCLB could have avoided these problems by following the act's mandate to ground programs firmly in scientifically based research. Had they done so, there would be no fixed standard that ignores where groups start, no reliance on sanctions instead of assistance, no tutoring by outside providers, and no fixed goal that ignores improvement shown by students. And the goal of proficiency for all students would be couched in more realistic terms.

Things need not be as they are. Fixing NCLB is easy. Just take baseline measures of schools and breakout groups, set reasonable goals for improvement on the basis of scientifically based research, and measure improvement using same-student cohorts. These simple changes would make NCLB an effective tool in helping to close the achievement gap.

NCLB is widely regarded in the education community as a scheme to replace the public schools with a system fueled by vouchers and focusing on private entrepreneurs. Given the ease with which the act can be fixed, it is reasonable to conclude that, if NCLB's intent is to improve student achievement, the necessary changes will be made. If that does not happen, those who regard NCLB as public education's Trojan horse will have their fears confirmed. -- Lowell C. Rose, executive director emeritus, Phi Delta Kappa International.

PDK Home | Site Map

Last modified 23 September 2003
URL: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0309ro1.htm
PDK International respects your privacy
© 2003 Phi Delta Kappa International