The soft bigotry of low expectations: George W. Bush and No Child Left Behind, part 2

In the planning of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), there was much hand-wringing over the dearth of quality teachers and the inability to accurately measure the performance of an educator.  The big buzz-word of "accountability" resulted in reams of standards written for teachers to implement in their lesson plans.  No such standards were devised for Principals (whom George W. Bush identified as the true measuring stick of a school's performance) or any other administrators.

A common practice in public education is that the most veteran teachers get the cushiest jobs, a standard way of operating for most unionized professions. What would make a profound difference in the success of our public schools is if the most veteran and highly qualified teachers were given the toughest assignments. These teachers are the ones who know how to handle incorrigible students, willful neglect ( or constant hovering) by parents, and micro-managing by administrators. However, they have achieved tenure and do not want to go back into the snake pit. Therefore, rosy-cheeked and optimistic, yet ill-prepared and terrified new teachers are shoved in front of the most ornery, least academically motivated students. The results are predictable: teacher burnout and student dropout.

The loudest and most frequent complaint about NCLB was that it forced instructors to "teach to the test." One reason that so many teachers bemoan "teaching to the test" is that they do not possess the mastery of the subject that is necessary to impart their knowledge to their young scholars. There is no reason why creative instruction methods cannot be employed to teach students the material they need to know to achieve high scores on the tests without neglecting more soulful, holistic activities. A wise observer of public education once mentioned that "learning disabilities are better termed teaching disabilities."

Amongst the general populace, a long tradition of American skepticism of "book-learnin'" reared its' ugly head. A large swath of our nation distrusts the influence of eggheads in their ivory towers, putting more faith and value in useful hands-on endeavors.

Parents wondered about the relevance (a favorite buzz-word in education today) of the tests, and George W. Bush assured them that these tests were designed to encourage parental involvement. In other words, when your child performs poorly on the test, and you start whining about how somebody ought to do something about it, we have your answer ready: tutoring or transfer schools.

All of the complaining belies one fact: NCLB is not mandated. Any state or school district can choose not to participate. The only consequence is that non-participation means no federal money will be coming in. Utah proudly declared their intention to ignore any aspect of NCLB that conflicts with the state's own guidelines. The Feds half-heartedly threatened to withhold funds, then went back to business and usual.

An oft-ignored and deplorable part of everyday life in public schools is how much districts take for granted the brightest of their lights. Continuing a disturbing practice, NCLB provided no guidelines for gifted and high-performing students. Since it is known that these students will serve as an anchor for testing statistics, teachers and administrators consider their jobs done, and no further challenges are offered to the kids who crave challenge and mental stimulation the most. These students become bored and resentful. If they do not resort to trouble-making activities, they at the very least woefully underachieve. An unintentional success in closing the achievement gap is the abandonment of our most intellectually curious and creative students.

NCLB was not set up for testing in high schools. However, they were not completely ignored. NCLB required that military recruiters are allowed the same access in propagandizing to students as colleges and universities. Hmmm, maybe Bush was planning something....

As NCLB came up for renewal during the twilight of Bush's presidency, he pushed to expand the testing regimen to include high school students, to make the tests more difficult, and to differentiate expectations for college and non-college bound students. This is another sore point for the willfully blind teachers and administrators who dwell in our nation's schools. I taught at a high school that graduated less than 50% of its' students. Many students did indeed want to enlist in the military, or several of them already had jobs lined up, usually helping a relative run a business.  I commented to my Principal that these students required different curriculum in order to get everything out of high school that they needed. I also stated what was to me, the obvious: A lot of my students are not going to go to college nor do they want to. My Principal's eyes grew wide while she accusingly yelled, "Why not?!?" I did not reply, only sadly shook my head at her refusal to participate in reality.

Congress dragged its' feet re-authorizing NCLB, and left it in the hands of the incoming Obama administration. Recently, Obama announced his intention of dropping the 2014 proficiency goal, replacing it with a nebulous "College or Career Ready" requirement. He also wants to drop the AYP measure and adopt a more "nuanced" way of judging schools. At this point, what that means is anyone's guess and I heartily wish the best of luck to the bureaucrats who will be assigned the task of defining infinite shades of gray. One thing that Obama has already done that has strangely not provoked any controversy amongst the teacher's unions is that federal stimulus money will not be allowed to go to school districts that prevent test scores from being used on teacher evaluations.

States often complained that the Bush administration never fully funded NCLB. Claims were made that the regulations of NCLB increased school districts' paperwork burden by 6,680,334 hours at a cost of $141 million. States declared that the funds provided by NCLB were not enough to cover the costs of implementing it. While it may have been fun to conjure up those numbers, the reality is that lack of money is far from the main reason for the underachieving of our schools. But throwing more money at the problem is an easy way for everyone to feel better, and President Obama is doing just that.  While school districts froth at the mouth over which textbook company will give them the best perks and which hot new systems management training to send the teachers to for professional development, students wither away from lack of motivation, not lack of resources.

George W. Bush forced the United States to take a long, hard look at what constitutes success or failure in our public schools. This is an issue that has no resolution, but we must keep re-visiting and re-examining our assumptions. Bush's business-inspired approach insisting on best practices, standards, and accountability is hard to dispute. What will keep the debate raging for years to come is how to accurately measure the minds and abilities of millions of children.

Coming up next: George W. Bush and the promotion of Democracy