What would you change about NCLB

I posted this comment in an eSchool News Talkback discussion forum, Rethinking Accountability
The question was this:

What changes would you make to the law’s accountability system?

I would offer up instead of NCLB, my state’s rigorous Missouri School Improvement Program.

Instead of looking exclusively at achievement, MSIP uses 3 overall areas.

First, Resource standards look at things like a well rounded curriculum with fine arts and electives, staffing, and class sizes. Second, Process standards look at the instructional design and practices, differentiation, and instructional support. Finally, Performance standards focus on student achievement and dropout rates.

Schools are complex institutions made of individuals. Simplistically focusing only on test scores in reading and math, while important, miss es the point. The test currently drives the curriculum. While inextricably linked, this is topsy-turvy. Curriculum should drive the test. The cart and the horse are closely linked, but NCLB has the cart pulling the horse.

The purpose of schools to teach students how to learn, not to teach them how to take an achievement test. Evaluate a school upon its purpose, learning. Evaluating it on something other than it’s purpose, derails it from it’s mission.

If you evaluate using achievement test scores, then the purpose of the school will become test scores. Rich schools will do well. Poor schools will not.

If you evaluate the teaching methods, support, climate, achievement, and resulting graduations, then these will again become the schools missions. Teaching students to learn is the mission of schools, not test scores.

There is more on my blog What is School 2.0?

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

no comments yet.