Dominic F. Sankar

Posted on 6/30/09

As a newly minted "No Longer a First Year Teacher", it is
now time to turn my attention to all of the reflections I
have collected or completed over the past year, and really
dissect them. Several key areas, which will be
instrumental to next year’s success, require careful
scrutiny, and then there are one or two things that just
leave me scratching my head.

As I prepared to enter my first year, I struggled with the
ideology of “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Where would I
stand? Could I justify actions that led to the promotion
of a student I felt did not truly deserve it, or would I
teach (and grade) the way I learned? Further complicating
the matter was the question of how could I water-down my
lessons, and at the same time, identify those higher
achieving students?

As discussed on this message board (by Mr. Ed/7th/GA on
6/14/09) in “NCLB is Killing Gifted Ed and impacting gifted
students' future”, I agree that it is extremely difficult
to cater to one demographic of (low-performing) student,
and yet reach or engage students in need of more rigor.

Lesson differentiation can help to engage students with
different learning styles, and increases the interaction
between such students. However it has been my experience
that sometimes these lessons are detrimental to some
students, who lose focus and manifest this with poor
behavior. I believe that in some cases (and not in all)
that this moves beyond a teacher’s ability to
differentiate, and into the realm of disengaging a certain
level of student.

In agreement and in accordance to Mr. Ed/7th/GA, the focus
of NCLB is on the lower performing students. I also agree
that the focus of NCLB garners more attention in larger
classes when the range of learning levels are more diverse
and therefore encompass a greater spectrum, than it does in
a smaller class where the range has less diversity. How
then does a policy that is geared towards developing
students at the tail end of a spectrum, help students that
are in the middle or in the higher end, and how does this
policy help those students improve?

A central ideology of education is the furthering or
expansion of abilities and potentials. When a policy
creates an all-encompassing curriculum to elevate a certain
demographic of students, it has a trickle effect on other
students, teachers and eventually the culture of an
educational system. Another aspect of NCLB was identified
in comments by Ms. Brown (06/15/2009: NCLB on this same
site) who identifies the detrimental and seemingly unfair
effects on Special Education. Ms. Brown comments that
students in a special education class are being set up for
failure, because they are subject to the same assessments
as general education students, and whose progress are also
measured alongside the general education students. In
comments in response to Ms. Brown’s post, Mariana
(06/20/2009, Re: NCLB) writes that her students were
affected by unfair standards, which assessed special
education students based on statewide tests, not on actual
progress made.

Once again NCLB proves that it hinders more than it helps.
There are compelling arguments and discussions that show
that an all-encompassing policy that only caters to the
improvement of scores of low-performing general education
students, does not work. Not only can it create an
unfocused and crippling environment for high-performing
students, it also fails to facilitate the improvement of
students in the middle of the pack. Furthermore NCLB may
be having a less than desired effect on the assessment of
students in a special education setting. (Word Count 596)

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one