Why do we have to accept NCLB as inevitable? Like so many of the destructive, poorly executed and crony-laced programs foisted on us by the current administration, maybe this one should just be tossed on the trash heap, and rethought by people who believe in education, instead of destroying the public system for their own financial and theocratic benefit.

I don't think it should be a foregone conclusion that NCLB will stay. The heart and soul of education is being betrayed as principals push for higher test scores. No one in power questions the validity of tests; standards are not assessed to determine if they are reasonable, appropriate, or doable. All attention is focused on test scores as we forget all we know about child development and what is important in encouraging the growth of creative, self-actualized American citizens.

I am actually astounded that the a foundation associated with George Lucas would so easily accept a law that has caused schools to stop reading novels except in AP classes. Stories aren't being read for the story itself. Literature is discussed and written about in terms of testing, not in terms of what literature tells us about ourselves and how we relate to each other.

No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it still is a horrible mistake.

Perhaps they should allow educators to develop criteria for politician's performances.

This law has been a horrible mistake. It's top down, myopic focus has, at least in my state of Kansas, stopped in its tracks a wonderful school improvement model that was moving us forward at a respectable pace. Since NCLB regs have been co-mingled with our system, I have witnessed a significant decline in the educational improvement climate in our state.

I believe that there are at least two important elements currently not addressed in the NCLB debate. We have failed to take into account of both the health status of students as it relates to student productivity/achievement and the influences of the built environment on student performance. Let's look at health status - especially of children who grow up in old urban areas. Those children who live in old housing stock are still at risk of lead exposure and recent research suggests that blood lead levels much lower than the current CDC guidelines (i.e. as low as 5 micrograms per deciliter) have implications for cognitive (learning) development and perhaps for behavior (attention span, impulse control etc.). Also children in inner cities have higher rates of asthma and a link has been made with poorly managed asthma and behavior in school. Why aren't we devoting more money and attention to researching these issues in the context of NCLB? All the onus cannot be put on "poorly" qualified teachers or bad curriculum. Students are not empty vessels; they are living, breathing organisms and we have to pay attention to the influence of their physiologic development on academic achievement.

Now, let's turn to the buiilt environment especially in poor urban and rural schools - deteriorating schools put students in environments that may contribute to poor performance. We know that mold or damp environments, exposure to mice urine/feces, cockroaches etc. contributes to higher rates of asthma exacerbation. How can we put the highest risk children in these environments and expect them to perform their best.

Let's track other influences on student performances as well as the snap shot scores of high stakes tests. We should put research money into NCLB to evaluate the influence of lead and other environmental exposures on children's performance. And we should require schools to submit information on school environmental conditions so that we can determine if there is a correlation between performance and the built environment (data that has been sorely lacking for several years).

I wrote an anti-NCLB article for Newsday a year before the damn thing became law. This is terrible legislation and no one should accept it as inevitable (my more general treatise, "The Perfect Law", appeared in the Fall, 2004 issue of Dissent and is available free online at www.dissentmagazine.org).

I recently collaborated with a teacher and videographer to create a video for You Tube which can be seen at www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSTzLILQx3c. It didn't come out the way I thought it would, but it's still useful watching (the initial idea was that so many people STILL dont know what the law involves that I would explicate the principal provisions). I think the producers plan more versions.

Gerald W. Bracey
Alexandria, VA

We would have such a educated, thinking, innovated leaders if teachers worked together to write sound curriculum for politicians. Then we would guide them and allow them to soar using those sound, solid skills to run the country. What a country we would have......As opposed to the politicians who write educational laws regardless of whether these laws support curriculum, child psychology/child development and educational strategies .

Furthermore. politicians don't allow creative innovative thinking by teachers who have long experience, practice, and knowledge; rather, they tie teachers hands with unreasonable laws such as NCLB. Just think of the politician who made a law on the cutoff date of when a child could enter first grade. He based this law on his own child turning 6 in December.It was an arbitrary whim on his part, not based on child development, maturation, and studies. This has often caused children to be pushed into an educational environment before they were ready.

Why is NCLB insisting upon holding SCHOOLS accountable for student attendance and drop-outs? Shouldn't that be the PARENTS' job? If parents aren't around, we provide before-school and after-school care, breakfast, and lunch. If students come to school without supplies, like the outrageously priced #2 pencil and paper, teachers provide them. If students have emotional issues, we provide counseling. Let's not forget our ancillary purpose: If students are uneducated, we provide education. I would think the VERY least NCLB could hold parents accountable for is getting their children to school. Perhaps even on time?

In my opinion, NCLB has changed many things about K-12 education - for the better. For the first time in my long career, administrators are worried what will happen if students don't learn. They are focused on finding strategies to support their teachers who are successful and find strategies for those who are struggling. Finances are being diverted from food for meetings and expensive administrative retreats to buying textbooks, paying for teacher trainings and providing air conditioning (and other upgrades in working conditions) for classrooms. Underperforming schools are seeking help from the county offices to help them identify what they could be doing to better serve their students. Administrators are in the classrooms and attending trainings so they know the instructional materials and they know how they should be implemented. While the law wasn't written to support one pedagogy, I think the changes I've seen are pretty remarkable given that the federal government only funds 7% of the cost of public education. The rest is funded by the state and local initiatives. For those who don't want to comply with the requirements of NCLB they can choose not to receive the 7%. Not a bad trade if you ask me.

Greetings All

I see a continuing long line of "educators" who have missed the whole point of the standardized tests being used with NCLB. The point is to check and to make schools teach those topics that need to be taught. Not just what some teacher thought of at the moment. Teachers closed their doors and taught whatever they wanted. Nobody checked. Still don't for the most part. Teachers skip this topic or that and spend most of the time only on what the teacher wanted to cover. If you do not believe this went on, you have your head in the sand. There were exceptions of course, but they were exceptions. There has to be some review of students' knowledge, or lack thereof.

I became a public school teacher at the high school level after 21 years of military service. I have been doing public school teaching now for 15 years. The military tested individuals coming into to the service for a variety of reasons, one of which was to see if they could read and do simple math. A high school diploma was virtually worthless because in the "feel good" age, everybody got a diploma regardless of their ability. The special ed student who could neither read nor write got the same diploma as the valedictorian. This practice was widely rampant when I started, but with NCLB in effect, this practice is abating.

Schools are now being held accountable for failure to teach what is required. And by gosh and by golly, it is making a very positive impact on education. School districts are now properly evaluating standards, setting guidelines, and pacing programs. Administrators and teachers alike are evaluated at district level, school level, and classroom level. Students are also being held accountable with these tests. And the whole state of California knows what the scores are. As does the country. And quit gripping that it does not tell the whole story. There is no better snapshot of performance available.

Stop the whining about testing and holding schools responsible. This is exactly what needs to be done.

Regards
Bryan Wilkins