Steve A. Davidson, Ed.D.
Guest Columnist EdNews.org

No Child Left Behind calls itself "An Act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind." Section 1001 (3) of the Act says that improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged can be accomplished by "closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers."

It is a noble goal.  Just as no one wants to "leave any child behind", who could be against closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children?  Politically, this mantra is a popular flag to wave.  Educationally, it doesn't pass muster.

When comparing scores between the high- and low-performing students, the achievement gap between the two groups can increase, decrease, or remain the same.

In the following examples, let's use "H" to designate high achievers and "L" to designate low achievers.

There are three ways for the achievement gap to remain the same:

1. Neither H or L moves up or down;
2. H and L decrease at the same rate; or
3. H and L increase at the same rate (although this is a good change

for both groups, the gap does not change)

There are five ways for the achievement gap to widen (an NCLB no-no!)

4. Both H and L decrease, but L decreases more;
5. H does not change, L decreases;
6. H increases, L does not change;
7. H increases, L decreases; or
8. Both H and L increase, but H makes more gain than L (this shows positive movement for both groups, but alas, the gap still widens)

There are five ways for the gap to close (a tenet of NCLB, right?)

9.

L improves, H makes no change (bad for the high achievers);
10. L improves, H decreases (bad for high achievers);
11. L makes no change, H decreases (bad for both groups);
12. Both H and L decrease, but H decreases at a higher rate (bad for both groups); or
13. H and L both increase, but L at a faster rate (the only option that positively closes the achievement gap under NCLB!)

It is argued by leaders of the Department of Education and other NCLB proponents that the achievement gap is narrowing because of this law.  How so?  Can data show the gap closing as described by #13?  If the gap is closing due to the effects of #9-12, is that considered success under the law?  And what is so wrong with #3 and 8?

Therefore,
  (A) Of the eight negative effects (widening the gap or making no change), two actually produce positive results; and
  (B) Of the five opportunities to actually close the achievement gap (which is a goal of NCLB), only one would be considered acceptable.

Each student, regardless of wealth, health, or IQ, should make some amount of academic progress (large or small) in a year's time.  Because every child makes educational achievement at his or her own unique, and unequal, rate, there will always be fluctuations in the so-called "gap" between individual students and AYP sub-groups.  "Closing the gap" appears to be an over-rated and faulty goal of NCLB that, if pursued to its fullness, is detrimental and counter-productive to "improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged" (NCLB, Sec. 101), as well as their "more advantaged peers."  Our goal should be to maximally improve the academic achievement of all students, regardless of arbitrary, volatile gaps. 

Steve A. Davidson, Ed.D.
Email: [email protected]
http://www.EducatorRoundtable.org

Published March 12, 2007