This year President George W. Bush's controversial No Child Left
Behind act is up for renewal, sparking debate among education think
tanks who alternately have declared it to be either the "best or the
worst thing ever to happen to schools". Educators in the field
seem to agree on one thing, however: that although it "has become part
of the education mantra", this law must be changed.
One area
everyone agrees that requires the most change is in the field of
special education. Educators would like "more flexibility", as
NCLB currently requires that "most kids with disabilities take the same
tests" as their non-special-ed peers. So, let's see...to increase
test scores so we look better, we change the requirements for kids who
would fail anyway, right? And then we can just let them slide
even more. After all, they'll probably ending up just bagging
groceries anyway.
While the NCLB Act was highly touted as something that would
bring a more equal playing field to all children, thereby attaining
President Bush's dream to "keep workers competitive", educators also
say now that even without NCLB, the "education of poor and minority
children would still be a low priority" and that the burden is "unfair"
to educators. Unfair? If educators don't shoulder the
burden of making a quality education available to every child, who will?
Let's face it, not all children learn in the same way, not all
children and families maintain the same priorities about education, and
not all people are cut out with the same cookie cutters. Is a
cookie cutter approach to education really going to work? Does a
standardized method of evaluating children's progress through the
school system really portray accurately the teaching success of the
school, or is it just one more way to attempt to fit round people into
square holes?
Admittedly, the public school system in this
country leaves a lot to be desired, but the way to fix it so that it
works is clearly not the one that is already leaving many children far
behind.
