I was listening to Public Radio this morning and the news program had a piece on No Child Left Behind. The discussion was focused around a recent report by the Center on Education Policy summarizing the 4 year record of NCLB.
The report basically concludes that results are mixed. Aside from issues of whether or not expectations are adequately funded and whether the approach is appropriately punitive, I think a major conclusion is that math and reading benefit at the cost of attention to other activities (an example used is history). Advocates claim that fundamental skills (i.e., reading) provide the basis for learning everything else (i.e., social studies). Critics note that what have been reported as achievement gains attributed to the program are deceptive and simply result from the common practice of school/teacher decisions to reduce the time spent on other topics. Hence, we claim to teach social studies in elementary school, but tend to actually do little of this as the time for achievement tests measuring reading and math approach.
Thomas Friedman had an article on a related topic this past week (sorry – I can’t link you to the NYTimes editorial). Examining the priorities of education from an international perspective, he notes that the U.S. is worried that students cannot compete in math and science (I guess the focus is on more advanced levels of education) and this is a concern for future economic competitiveness. In contrast, other countries worry that a lack of interest in the humanities will reduce higher level thinking capabilities so necessary for creative approaches in many fields. Everyone sees the connection between education and commerce and everyone is concerned (anxiety is the word Friedman uses) that national educational practices will limit the nation’s capacity to compete.
