A few days after taking office in January of 2001 as 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush announced his plan for revitalizing our nations’ public schools.

He called his plan “No Child Left Behind” and described it as “the cornerstone of my administration.” President Bush emphasized his deep belief in our public schools, but even greater concern that “too many of our neediest children are being left behind.” On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107-110) into law.

Within NCLB were a number of measures designed to drive broad gains in student achievement and hold the states accountable for student progress. Five of those measures are presented below:

States were allowed to set their own annual benchmarks (learning objectives) provided they reached 100 percent proficiency by 2012-13.

States were required to conduct annual testing by the 2005-06 school year and to begin testing students in grades third through eighth annually in reading and mathematics. By 2007-08, they had to test students in science at least once in the elementary, middle and high school. The tests had to be aligned with state academic standards (benchmarks).

Academic Progress-states were required to bring all students up to “proficient” levels on state tests by the 2013-14 school year. Individual schools had to meet state “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) targets to this goal based on a formula spelled out in the law.

Report Cards: Starting with the 2001-03 school year, states were required to furnish annual reports showing a range of information including student achievement data.

Teacher Qualifications: By the end of the 2002-03 school year, every teacher in the core content had to be “highly qualified” in the subject that he/she taught.

Initially, citizens across the United States were enthusiastic about the No Child Left Behind Act, for it was perceived to be a panacea (cure all) for the problems of our nation’s public schools. Now, the mood of the nation has changed. Educational authorities, parents and special interests groups across the country are calling NCLB the greatest disaster in the history of public education. Some critics say that it is pulling the foundations of education up by the roots and undermining our educational system. Many states have applied for Waivers from the United States Department of Education to bring some relief to their districts from the stringent requirement of NCLB and the testing frenzy that it has created.

Please note that my opinion as presented in this article is limited to the state benchmarks (learning objectives) for students in grades kindergarten through eighth of the Natchez-Adams School District and the various public school districts of Mississippi.

Submission one:

Every requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act has been contingent on students attaining ratings of “Proficient” on the Mississippi Curriculum Test 1 and/or the MCT 2, which were designed to measure the degree to which test takers attained mastery of the benchmarks (learning objectives) of the Mississippi Curriculum Frameworks for grades kindergarten through eighth. Schools were required to show statistical evidence that 100 percent of their students in those grades scored “Proficient” by the end of the 2013-14 school year. It did not happen because the benchmarks were too difficult for the grades and subjects for which they were designed. When I first received a copy of the benchmarks of the Mississippi Curriculum Frameworks in early 2003, I served as Director of Special Services (Special and Gifted Education) for the Amite County School District. I read them carefully to determine what students would be expected to learn in each core subject of each grade. It was not long before I recognized that the benchmarks were too difficult, lofty, idealistic and most importantly unattainable for most students in the grades for which they were developed. Holding eight areas of certification in the state of Mississippi with one being in elementary education, another endorsement for elementary principal, other educational administrative certifications along with holding a master’s degree in educational psychology, I was shocked at what I saw particularly since each state had been allowed to set its own standards (benchmarks). I understood the NCLB requirement for high standards (benchmarks or learning objectives), but not standards that were so high that they were unrealistic. All teachers study curriculum and instruction in their college preparation courses, and the first thing that they learn is grade appropriateness — what children should learn in each subject of each grade. Teachers and administrators also know that a 100 percent expectancy level even over a 10 year period is too ambitious and cannot be achieved. I wish to point out that on the MCT 1 and MCT 2 scores range from advanced (highest), proficient, basic and minimal (lowest).

Submission two:

The tests were not the problem per se because they merely tested to what extent students had mastered the benchmarks of the Mississippi Curriculum Frameworks, and if the standards were too high, the scores would be low. Studies have questioned the content validity and reliability of tests with high standards (benchmarks) and low scores.

Submission three:

As a result of making the standards (benchmarks) of the No Child Left Behind Act too high, I believe the following: (1) Students have suffered irreparable damage to their self-esteem; (2) Many good and/or excellent teachers and school administrators have been embarrassed and humiliated by being demoted or fired and/or labeled ineffective; and, (3) School districts have received the brunt of blame for poor academic performance and low test scores which in actuality have resulted from unattainable benchmarks (learning objectives) developed, mandated and enforced by the state of Mississippi.

Lastly, I wish to ask this question: Will the Common Core Curriculum be the answer to the dilemma that our public schools are facing?

 

Fredericka Cain Todd, Ph.D. is a retired educator and administrator.