Marco Polo left a comment, saying:

…if the arguments against it [NCLB] are good, then surely they should be made clearly. What is so fascinating and disappointing, is that the two “camps” seem to find no common ground, not to be able to speak the same language. I think it is important that they communicate.

Marco is right. Communication about important things is a worthwhile goal. NCLB is part of a big, many-sided debate, and it touches on deep-seated beliefs and values. I think most teachers in the US aren’t talking about it much because we believe that complaining leaves us open to charges of incompetence or, worse, whining.

Other similarly troublesome arguments we could tackle include The Death Penalty, Abortion, Atheism, or Evolution. Instead, teachers deal with more immediate situations, like who knows how to change the toner cartridge for the copy machine.

If there is any non-swampy common ground fit to occupy, we might want to map it to see what lies just past the edges of both camps. The question What is NCLB about? might be seen as a list of unresolved tensions:

  1. Teacher accountability vs teacher autonomy (trust);
  2. Student and family roles vs institutional functions (responsibility);
  3. Objective high stakes assessments vs anecdotal records (standardization);
  4. Education for social mobility vs education for participatory democracy (mission);
  5. Rigor vs accommodation (standards);
  6. Competition and free markets vs publicly funded institutions (fiscal policy);
  7. Maintenance of cultural norms vs cultural diversity (cultural values);
  8. Equity vs class differences (social justice);
  9. Education research vs practical knowledge (methodology);
  10. Knowledge as a received commodity vs constructed understanding (epistemology).

This list describes the social-political matrix we usually call The Classroom. Positions at the extreme edges of the issues describe imaginary worlds that lack the inconvenient limitations of space, time, and individual differences. One of the reasons that it’s hard for teachers to talk about NCLB is that finding common ground demands a common physics to define what is and is not possible. And there is no such thing as a generic classroom.

Can we find common ground there? In our dreams. I like the idea that school could help someone have a better life. But building a program of reforms around a slogan like No Child Left Behind won’t make it so. My clearest and simplest argument against NCLB is this: It won’t work.

A paper called Proficiency for All: An Oxymoron (Rothstein, Jacobson & Wilder, 2006) argues that

…the conceptual basis of NCLB is deeply flawed; no goal can simultaneously be challenging to and achievable by all students across the entire achievement distribution. A standard can either be a minimal standard which presents no challenge to typical and advanced students, or it can be a challenging standard which is unachievable by most below-average students. No standard can serve both purposes – this is why we call ‘proficiency for all’ an oxymoron - but this is what NCLB requires.

Rothstein acknowledges that while the goal of closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and middle class kids is laudable, it also means eliminating achievement differences within socioeconomic groups, which ignores the obvious limitations of individual differences.

In the meantime, while we are arguing (or whining) about the methods and techniques of instruction and measurement, the merits and demerits of rigorous standards and standardization, who’s worthy and who isn’t, and all the rest, we have this impossible target set for us.

It does nothing to further - and even impedes - the cause that it was apparently set up to promote. To serve this mandate in practice, there is pressure to push through curriculum goals whether kids are ready or not, and to devote more time to skills development while neglecting content area studies like science and social studies, focusing our efforts on the tested performance standards. Disadvantaged kids are further disadvantaged.

Short of scrapping the legislation (I did sign the petition), which appears unlikely, I support the NCTE recommendations for changes to the law:

  • Multiple assessments;
  • Professional development;
  • High-need students should have the best prepared teachers;
  • Re-examining the definition of “scientifically based reading research;”
  • Adoption of growth models to track increased achievement.

We need more good teachers, fewer tests, and flexibility to meet students’ needs as they are presented. But I’m not a policy maker. I’m an agent of the system - a witness to what it intends and what it actually does.