” NCLB should be funded at the level promised in the 2001 reauthorization. Since the law’s passage, the gap between the amount that Congress promised for NCLB programs and what it has actually provided for NCLB programs has grown to $55.7 billion. Current funding is not enough to serve all eligible students, and many of the students who are being served are not being served sufficiently–particularly in districts with the greatest concentrations of poverty.” AFT

Once again, we note that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) still leaves much to be desired. And although well-intentioned, there is an urgent need today, for legislators to go back to the drawing board with educators and fine tune the NCLB Act.

What we seem to have today is a test-centered curriculum. And even though we have a blitz of mandated standardized tests, there are additional test-instruments used in the classroom which assess information taught on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. And lest we forget, the extended day comes complete with workbooks and computer programs which provide more test practice.

What is needed is an Individualized Educational Plan(IEP) for each school and a balanced program of instruction. Hence, a well planned prescription for improvement must fit the child and the school. There must be funds available to provide for adequate resources as well as a cadre of professionals who are highly qualified teachers.

These educators must be supported by paraprofessionals whose training, like that of any competent educator, is cumulative and continuing. Therefore, educators must have access to meaningful staff development as well as affordable courses of study through accredited colleges and universities. In addition to the aforementioned, teachers must be treated as professionals, rewarded as professionals and held accountable to the standards of their profession. They must be allowed and, in fact, encouraged to be involved in the decisions that affect their work and the academic performance of their students.

Twenty-First Century schools must have reduced class size which is any teacher’s dream. Once there is reduced class size, individualized and small group instruction will be possible. And research has proven the following:

1. There will be fewer student disruptions, enabling teachers to offer more effective instruction without interruption.
2. There will be improved student achievement and graduation rates will be enhanced .
3. There will be more opportunities for the retention of qualified teachers,
4. There will be more student engagement and less anonymity in the classroom.
5. And last but not least, there will be better teacher ability to keep in touch with parents

In 1993 Albert Shanker, like many others, was advocating the creation of a set of national education standards. These standards would tell schools what students at different grade levels would be expected to learn, and they would tell parents how well their child, and their school’s school, performed compared with others. The standards themselves would force schools to remain focused on their primary mission–teaching children.

The NCLB Act must insure that education is a priority. Current funding must be enough to serve all eligible students. All students who are being served have the right to be served sufficiently- particularly in districts with the greatest concentrations of poverty where no child must be left behind.

Yes, Leo Casey you are right:

“Educational research affirms the absolute centrality of experienced, accomplished teachers to the education of young people, especially for students living in poverty and at academic risk. But while we are looking for the pot of gold at the end of the standardized testing rainbow, the real work of placing highly qualified teachers in every classroom — and especially in the classes of students living in poverty and at risk for academic failure — will be dealt a serious body blow by this diversion.”.

Kevin Carey criticizes Leo Casey’s take on growth measures to evaluate teacher effectiveness.  Casey cited a 2003 RAND Corp. study which cast doubt on the use of student-achievement growth measures to evaluate teachers (something pushed by the As…

The spin has begun, with Diane Schemo’s NYT article Tougher Standards Urged for Federal Education Law, Leo Casey’s pointing out that growth models can’t accurately measure teacher contributions to student achievement,  Michele McLaughlin’s ide…