I recently joined a new organization called Common Core, which will advocate for the subjects neglected by the federal law called No Child Left Behind as well as by the pending legislation intended to promote the so-called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Common Core will advocate for a rich, broad-based, content-rich curriculum that includes not only reading, math, and the sciences, but history, literature, geography, civics, and the arts.
I have been concerned about the quality of K-12 education for many years, growing out of my work as a historian of education. I have written extensively, served as Assistant Secretary of Education in the first Bush administration, was appointed to the national testing board (the National Assessment Governing Board) by President Clinton, and have been associated with various think-tanks over the past 15 years.
I have grown increasingly concerned about the neglect of subjects that are not part of NCLB, are not tested, don’t count in rating schools, or in any other sense. As more time is devoted to testing basic skills, less time is available for history, geography, civics, the arts, literature, even physical education.
Despite claims to the contrary, student achievement on national tests of reading and math has been unimpressive since the adoption of NCLB in early 2002. Math scores have been rising, but they rose even faster before NCLB. Reading scores are stagnant in the 8th grade, up some in 4th grade, but again, they rose even faster before NCLB was implemented.
I think NCLB has some good features and some bad features. I do not think the federal government should be telling districts and schools how to remedy low performance, because neither Congress nor the U.S. Department of Education knows how to do that.
The good part of NCLB is drawing attention to the need to improve education for low-performing students. The bad part is that NCLB has led to neglect of important academic subjects like history, literature, the arts, the sciences. It has also led to the neglect of high-achieving students, who are not challenged by the low bar set by NCLB.
The problem, I think, is that NCLB was targeted at low-performing students but has been extended to direct and influence and control the education of all students. At its origin, NCLB was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was specifically directed at helping low-income, low-performing students. It may have helped some who were its intended beneficiaries, but it has turned into the Law That Ate American Education.
We need a far more intelligent approach to improving education, and we need to rid ourselves of the language of business and management that now permeates discussions of education. Schools are not factories; students are not products. Test scores are not the be-all and end-all of education. They are one way of measuring, but they are often flawed, and they leave out many important dimensions of a full education.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
I am thrilled that you have weighed in on the Law that Ate American Education. I have been writing and speaking about its draconian requirements for the community of arts educators. I think I am among the few in that community who downloaded the whole law, read it, then tried to make it intelligible for colleagues. I have also emphasized how the law forwards the economic reasoning of Milton Friedman on choice, while treating public schools as more or less productive units in a “government-run” franchise. If quotas on test scores aren’t produced, on time, etc, close the school and fire the staff, and let the customer go elsewhere.
When not bashing NCLB, I write on policy issues in education, with a special interest in the arts. I have tried to make the case that the gold standard for a curriculum of excellence exists whenever you see some balance in studies among the arts, sciences, and humanities. I like this triad for policy discussions because it also leverages conversation about the complete failure of the National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and National Science Foundation to collaborate in proposing at least four or five models of excellence and balance in K-12 studies for consideration by policy makers. That failure is also a great opportunity for some one, or some group, who could set that conversation in motion in a way that transcends competitions for time and money.
In any case, thanks for trying to return the discussion to some balance. Please make a mental note that the term “academic” is used 811 times in NCLB and elsewhere as if it should be the all purpose and requisite adjective for discussing policy issues. I think the term should be ditched unless one intends to have all students become academics. There is an academic mission of schools, but schooling that is merely academic is dangerous. In the visual arts, being called an academic artist is recognized as praise only by other academic artists, and their numbers have been declining for more than a century. Academic art persists but is rarely praised or prized as the be-all of achievement in the arts.
When you refer to specific subjects (e.g., civics, geography, history, literature, the arts) I think you articulate a core more attuned to secondary than elementary education. I think you need to position skills in reading, math, and technology as tools for learning in all subjects. Don’t let the Common Core become a rehash of Cultural Literacy.
And if you want to insist on assessment in the arts, look at the Dutch national exam for high school which requires students to link their knowledge in the arts and humanities and to find connections between contemporary arts and antecedents. And a lot of the assessment is done online, with video clips and other cost-effective, content relevant strategies. Cheers from an old-timer.
Very interesting postings. Would like to find out more about the Dutch national arts assessment exam.
Interesting comments. Massachusetts is just now proposing legislation to establish a “Creativity Index” as a counterbalance to the MCAS exams in Massachusetts, strengthen role of the arts, humanities, experiential learning in education. http://www.maash.org. Dan Hunter, Director of the Mass Advocates for the Arts Sciences and Humanities, MAASH, is working with legislators to promote this idea.
Please note that the Thirteen/WNET editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness. No solicitations or advertisements will be allowed. Users may link to other Web sites relevant to discussion, but most often links to commercial Web sites will not be permitted.