My previous comments on NCLB have not always been positive, but I am an empiricist and would be convinced otherwise given logical argument or persuasive data.
I am presently attending the “Teaching American History Grant” meeting and an unofficial theme at the conference has been that history is being squeezed out of the curriculum by a preoccupation with “tested” subjects. The problem appears to be especially prominent at the elementary level because individual teachers feel pressure to “encourage” students to perform in some, but not all content areas, and these same teachers make decisions about how the day’s time will be spent. Translated – teacher performance is evaluated based on student language arts and math test performance and teachers focus on these areas. Elementary students tend not to be tested in other areas (e.g., HISTORY). A reactive theme at the conference seems to be – hey, history content can be used to develop reading and writing skills.
This perspective must be widely held and is in need of remedy. A representative from the Department of Education (Department of Education Acting Secretary for Innovation and Improvement Michael Petrilli) addressed the group and reacted to the “squeezing” issue. He did not comment on whether or not the issue was real. Rather, he argued that the teaching of history did not have to be a casualty of NCLB and this was certainly not the intention of those who supported the legislation. He suggested that we need a more positive vision of what schools can look like under NCLB and the problems (e.g., achievement gaps) were certainly real.
He encouraged the audience to differentiate proximal from distal causes. He rejected that distal cause of resources arguing that NCLB has added resources. He focused on the distal cause of political problems (I assume he did not mean Republican vs. Democratic) which appear to be an attack on special interests groups. For example, many object to scripted methods for early reading instruction, but it may be the way to go. More experienced teachers move away from struggling schools resulting in higher average salaries in affluent schools. It would not be popular to move experienced teachers where they are most needed.
The solution NCLB provides “political cover to drive school reform.” I interpret this to mean allow the feds to serve as the heavies for doing what has to be done (popular or not). Mandate certain methods of teaching reading and put the best teachers were they are needed – and blame the decision on NCLB.
What about history? It is tot likely that an emphasis on history will be created by mandated testing. The pressure is not moving in that direction. However, the freedom is there to set such expectations at a state or local level. Why not use the content of history to develop math and literacy skills? Students need to read something – why not history?
I hope I have summarized this accurately. I have tried.
What I am trying to evaluate at this point is whether this is a reasonable position to take. Has the actual distal cause been identified? Will “encouraging” necessary steps (scripted reading, moving qualified teachers) result in long term gains?
Why do “interest groups” encourage practices that have been defined as not ideal in the first place? Wouldn’t the answer to this question be the true distal cause? Perhaps interests groups have not come to the same conclusion regarding what are the most effective practices. Perhaps what are the most effective practices for struggling students are not what represents the best practices for entire groups. Since the presenter encouraged the audience to consider incentives to change, how about a broader consideration of incentives. The opportunity to use expertise to move out of unpleasant work circumstances seems to be allowed in most professions. Skill and cumulative service typically are motivated by incentives such as the opportunity to move up in most organizations, to gain more authority or independence, to take on tasks personally defined as more meaningful, increased salary, etc.
I am not a behavioral psychologists, but I have had arguments with some and I find it very difficult to deal with the position that whether or not a consequence is a punishment or a reinforcer is defined by whether the behavior increases or decreases in frequency. Perhaps we should be attempting to understand why the frequency of more experienced teachers working in struggling schools is decreasing rather than seeing if a more powerful external consequence can be applied to change the existing contingency.
