- Home
- Commentaries and Reports
- NCLB sustains a permanent underclass
NCLB sustains a permanent underclass
- By Daniel Pryzbyla Columnist EdNews.org
- Published 03/19/2007
- Commentaries and Reports
-
Rating:
Daniel Pryzbyla Columnist EdNews.org
View all articles by Daniel Pryzbyla Columnist EdNews.orgNCLB sustains a permanent underclass
By Daniel Pryzbyla
Columist EdNews.org
"Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows: Title I – Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged." Since its inception in 2002 the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education act has narrowly defined "improving" to impossible "one-size-fits-all" adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals via equally confining high-stakes testing. It shortchanges the most vulnerable.
"Section 1001. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and State academic assessments." It then lists 12 items how this "can be" accomplished. These, of course, were purposefully left vague in receiving approval of Congress before the "specifics" were outlined afterward. Likewise, in Section 1002, Authorization of Appropriations, Part B simply listed "Reading First." Nowhere did it state it was a specific single "reading program." If you were a congressperson having hundreds of other bills to read, some staff might have interpreted it to mean a more serious focus on "reading," especially since $900 million was allotted to the subject the first year. Maybe some Republican privatization pals knew, but this administration is not about sharing significant information to all players to begin with.
Nowhere in the Title I document does it mention "high-stakes testing" to be the sole "accountability" factor in determining "adequate yearly progress." Leaving out the details in the 12 items in "Statement of Purpose" proved necessary for President Bush's new pro-privatization education department, now under the tutelage of pro-religious schools Margaret Spellings. Its final item Number 12 proved a godsend for its wordsmith. On its content meaning, who would even raise an eyebrow? "(12) affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children." This is pro-privatization code meaning, "We will have numbers of charter, private charter, private and religious schools and their representatives available to help you get out of the 'failing' Title I public school by any means necessary."
Missing from NCLB or any accompanying law for "disadvantaged" students is "Improving Economic Security for Disadvantaged Families." Ignoring family socioeconomic and racial factors in NCLB deliberations was tantamount to heresy. Parent(s) and guardian(s) involvement in a student's academic and non-academic life has been seen as the pillar for potential successful child development. This is evident in non-Title I schools where economics and family involvement play significant roles in a child's social and education development. Since a vast majority of "disadvantaged" students were also in custody of "financially disadvantaged" single mothers, NCLB was a socioeconomic sledgehammer aimed specifically at Title I public schools. These impoverished single mothers are left to the mercy of the low-wage job market, having to work night shifts while trying to juggle "family obligations" too. Was it surprising to hear of young siblings taking care of younger siblings when their mother was working 2nd or 3rd shifts? No, not at all. Was it surprising to have low attendance when school/community meetings or report card conferences were held after school? No, not at all. Did this mean all single "economically disadvantaged" mothers didn't care how their child or children were doing in school(s)? No, not at all.
Single "economically disadvantaged" mothers in cities also depend on public transportation more than others who rely on cars. Their time frames are not compromising. The alpha males who dream up NCLB-type schemes wouldn't allow their wives, relationship friends or older sisters to stand on city corners in late evenings waiting for a bus or train to work these shifts, attend evening school events or report card conferences. "Out of sight – out of mind" applies to pro-privatization education plutocrats. "Honey, don't forget to pick up the kids. I'm going to work out at the gym today after I leave the office."
Even after the growing disparity between wealth and poverty shows up in the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times newspapers, NCLB Title I planners remain aloof from the effects on the "disadvantaged" student population it alleges concern. Using high-stakes test results to publish, including Title 1 schools on their "needs improvement" chain of demands, increases their marketing opportunities for private schools.
These schools, however, are not required by state or federal law to abide by similar NCLB high-stakes testing and spiteful consequences demeaning a school's students, teachers, principal and other employees. However, for the single "disadvantaged" mother, selecting another school outside the Title1public school high-stakes hassle can be one less drama she has to deal with in their hectic daily schedule. Equally important, but never publicized, if the private school doesn't meet expectations, they can always return and enroll in a public school.
The reverse is not always guaranteed. As the private education "marketplace" takes shape, so can school selection and rejection of students. This, in effect, is the unofficial sorting mechanism of the charter, private and religious school movement – while still receiving tax dollars per student.
High "mobility rates" in the inner-city includes families with students attending Title 1 schools during their K-12 school years. Short supply of decent, affordable housing adds dissatisfaction for single "economically disadvantaged" mothers, especially with the gentrification of many poor neighborhoods during the past decade. School and neighborhood friendships are frequently disrupted along with current and former teacher acquaintances. "Achievement of the disadvantaged" must be seen in the larger socioeconomic perspective it is, rather than the limiting "one size fits all" high-stakes tests and AYP.
Number 10 on the dysfunctional academic chart of NCLB "Statement of Purpose" reads: "Significantly elevating the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development." Utilizing only tests to determine a student's academic performance forces the already "quality of instruction" teachers present in Title I schools to dumb down their curricula to "teach to the test." Exactly what kind of "professional development" did they have in mind for already qualified teachers? Proper diction for testing drills? How to walk up and down isles to find cheaters? How many NCLB stalwarts have taught in a Title I public school to begin with? Obviously, none – or maybe this insulting recommendation for more "professional development" was another alpha male sick humor joke. At the K-8 level, data reveals 70 percent teachers are still female. Is basketball's "March Madness" required for their "professional development" to be employed in the department of education? At Title I schools, there's no time for gym class or recreation because of NCLB "Testing Madness." Do you think they ever sat down in a Title I public school and talked with a single "disadvantaged" mother of 2, 3, 4 or more children? Not likely. If they did, they'd see another reality of life. That's too threatening. They'd rather deal with data – it doesn't breathe, miss a bus at 11p.m. to arrive on time to work in the white suburbs – or cry. However, they can air their anger and frustrations too. So can their children.
Many have tolerance levels even below former Secretary of Education Rod Paige when he spent his first 2 years demanding implementation of NCLB rules to state superintendents. They're not "darlings" all the time. Add to their personal résumé the knowledge of drug pushers and gang lords in a neighborhood with threats to join "or else." It is doubtful the "professional development" NCLB had in mind would even know how to help teachers resolve these type issues either. When the student pleaded with the teacher not to make him stay after school, it seemed absurd. It was only a 15-minute minor punishment to include some one-on-one reading. The next 2 days the student didn't show up. On the 3rd day, he arrived. Both his "black and blue" eye sockets were still healing. He got "gang jumped" outside school after serving his detention. Being tardy after school can also have its consequences.
Although some areas in cities have mixed racial populations, those you read about or see on TV after a shooting in a neighborhood are often detached, entrenched islands populated with "economically disadvantaged" families and children of color. Astronomical 40% unemployment rates are not uncommon. Gutting state and federal jobs and/or skill training programs to "save tax dollars" has proven disastrous. Jail and/or prison become a turnstile instead. Often, the incarcerated can be family members, extended family, friends or acquaintances of students in Title I classrooms. Usual nervousness and excitement of students before high-stakes testing is minimal. Those feelings are often expended on more serious dramas outside the school instead.
NCLB has proven to be another punishment tool for Title I students, parents, schools and staff, similar to a landlord's eviction notice. Worse, it sustains a permanent underclass.
Published March 20, 2007
Columist EdNews.org
"Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows: Title I – Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged." Since its inception in 2002 the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education act has narrowly defined "improving" to impossible "one-size-fits-all" adequate yearly progress (AYP) goals via equally confining high-stakes testing. It shortchanges the most vulnerable.
"Section 1001. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and State academic assessments." It then lists 12 items how this "can be" accomplished. These, of course, were purposefully left vague in receiving approval of Congress before the "specifics" were outlined afterward. Likewise, in Section 1002, Authorization of Appropriations, Part B simply listed "Reading First." Nowhere did it state it was a specific single "reading program." If you were a congressperson having hundreds of other bills to read, some staff might have interpreted it to mean a more serious focus on "reading," especially since $900 million was allotted to the subject the first year. Maybe some Republican privatization pals knew, but this administration is not about sharing significant information to all players to begin with.
Nowhere in the Title I document does it mention "high-stakes testing" to be the sole "accountability" factor in determining "adequate yearly progress." Leaving out the details in the 12 items in "Statement of Purpose" proved necessary for President Bush's new pro-privatization education department, now under the tutelage of pro-religious schools Margaret Spellings. Its final item Number 12 proved a godsend for its wordsmith. On its content meaning, who would even raise an eyebrow? "(12) affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children." This is pro-privatization code meaning, "We will have numbers of charter, private charter, private and religious schools and their representatives available to help you get out of the 'failing' Title I public school by any means necessary."
Missing from NCLB or any accompanying law for "disadvantaged" students is "Improving Economic Security for Disadvantaged Families." Ignoring family socioeconomic and racial factors in NCLB deliberations was tantamount to heresy. Parent(s) and guardian(s) involvement in a student's academic and non-academic life has been seen as the pillar for potential successful child development. This is evident in non-Title I schools where economics and family involvement play significant roles in a child's social and education development. Since a vast majority of "disadvantaged" students were also in custody of "financially disadvantaged" single mothers, NCLB was a socioeconomic sledgehammer aimed specifically at Title I public schools. These impoverished single mothers are left to the mercy of the low-wage job market, having to work night shifts while trying to juggle "family obligations" too. Was it surprising to hear of young siblings taking care of younger siblings when their mother was working 2nd or 3rd shifts? No, not at all. Was it surprising to have low attendance when school/community meetings or report card conferences were held after school? No, not at all. Did this mean all single "economically disadvantaged" mothers didn't care how their child or children were doing in school(s)? No, not at all.
Single "economically disadvantaged" mothers in cities also depend on public transportation more than others who rely on cars. Their time frames are not compromising. The alpha males who dream up NCLB-type schemes wouldn't allow their wives, relationship friends or older sisters to stand on city corners in late evenings waiting for a bus or train to work these shifts, attend evening school events or report card conferences. "Out of sight – out of mind" applies to pro-privatization education plutocrats. "Honey, don't forget to pick up the kids. I'm going to work out at the gym today after I leave the office."
Even after the growing disparity between wealth and poverty shows up in the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times newspapers, NCLB Title I planners remain aloof from the effects on the "disadvantaged" student population it alleges concern. Using high-stakes test results to publish, including Title 1 schools on their "needs improvement" chain of demands, increases their marketing opportunities for private schools.
The reverse is not always guaranteed. As the private education "marketplace" takes shape, so can school selection and rejection of students. This, in effect, is the unofficial sorting mechanism of the charter, private and religious school movement – while still receiving tax dollars per student.
High "mobility rates" in the inner-city includes families with students attending Title 1 schools during their K-12 school years. Short supply of decent, affordable housing adds dissatisfaction for single "economically disadvantaged" mothers, especially with the gentrification of many poor neighborhoods during the past decade. School and neighborhood friendships are frequently disrupted along with current and former teacher acquaintances. "Achievement of the disadvantaged" must be seen in the larger socioeconomic perspective it is, rather than the limiting "one size fits all" high-stakes tests and AYP.
Number 10 on the dysfunctional academic chart of NCLB "Statement of Purpose" reads: "Significantly elevating the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development." Utilizing only tests to determine a student's academic performance forces the already "quality of instruction" teachers present in Title I schools to dumb down their curricula to "teach to the test." Exactly what kind of "professional development" did they have in mind for already qualified teachers? Proper diction for testing drills? How to walk up and down isles to find cheaters? How many NCLB stalwarts have taught in a Title I public school to begin with? Obviously, none – or maybe this insulting recommendation for more "professional development" was another alpha male sick humor joke. At the K-8 level, data reveals 70 percent teachers are still female. Is basketball's "March Madness" required for their "professional development" to be employed in the department of education? At Title I schools, there's no time for gym class or recreation because of NCLB "Testing Madness." Do you think they ever sat down in a Title I public school and talked with a single "disadvantaged" mother of 2, 3, 4 or more children? Not likely. If they did, they'd see another reality of life. That's too threatening. They'd rather deal with data – it doesn't breathe, miss a bus at 11p.m. to arrive on time to work in the white suburbs – or cry. However, they can air their anger and frustrations too. So can their children.
Many have tolerance levels even below former Secretary of Education Rod Paige when he spent his first 2 years demanding implementation of NCLB rules to state superintendents. They're not "darlings" all the time. Add to their personal résumé the knowledge of drug pushers and gang lords in a neighborhood with threats to join "or else." It is doubtful the "professional development" NCLB had in mind would even know how to help teachers resolve these type issues either. When the student pleaded with the teacher not to make him stay after school, it seemed absurd. It was only a 15-minute minor punishment to include some one-on-one reading. The next 2 days the student didn't show up. On the 3rd day, he arrived. Both his "black and blue" eye sockets were still healing. He got "gang jumped" outside school after serving his detention. Being tardy after school can also have its consequences.
Although some areas in cities have mixed racial populations, those you read about or see on TV after a shooting in a neighborhood are often detached, entrenched islands populated with "economically disadvantaged" families and children of color. Astronomical 40% unemployment rates are not uncommon. Gutting state and federal jobs and/or skill training programs to "save tax dollars" has proven disastrous. Jail and/or prison become a turnstile instead. Often, the incarcerated can be family members, extended family, friends or acquaintances of students in Title I classrooms. Usual nervousness and excitement of students before high-stakes testing is minimal. Those feelings are often expended on more serious dramas outside the school instead.
NCLB has proven to be another punishment tool for Title I students, parents, schools and staff, similar to a landlord's eviction notice. Worse, it sustains a permanent underclass.
Published March 20, 2007
