The Birth of "No Child Left Behind"

William Bennett and the Demand for Accountability

I'll admit that I only recognized William Bennett's name as being the author of The Children's Book of Virtues. I did not know that he was a former Secretary of Education and that he pushed for accountability in schools. I thought I would learn more about him from this chapter, but I didn't. The chapter focused on the federal government's move towards accountability of schools, the implementation of state standards and testing, and the always important No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, but not on William Bennett as a person. But that is OK since the chapter did give me some background on why NCLB became a law. One thing I like about Peterson's book is that he doesn't come out and attack an idea, pointing out all the flaws. Instead, he shows the different sides and a reader can then form his/her own opinion. This is the case when he goes into the background of NCLB.

Bennett became the Secretary of Education during the Reagan administration and he helped to bring education to the forefront. He never tried to establish national standards, nor did he suggest that students be tested annually; however, he did believe that education was a state/local responsibility that did need to hold the education system accountable for student failure. He preached the three Cs: content, character, choice. These three Cs were his driving force in the excellence movement that would hold all schools to a higher standard. The downside of this was that the accountability created even more centralized control over the schools. Schools have to report to the district, districts have to report to the state, the state has to report to the federal government...which leaves the schools subjected to more scrutiny and control. This all lead to the first comprehensive federal school accountability law. The dirty words that are whispered throughout schools by hundreds of teachers...NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND...

In theory, I believe NCLB to be a good law. At least, a law with good potential but a few kinks to be worked out. NCLB, passed by the Bush administration in 2002, lays out how schools will be held accountable for student success or failures. The main points are:

• States have to set curricular standards in reading, math, and science.
• States then develop a set of tests that are aligned with those above standards.
• States need to determine the level of proficiency; what score does a child need to be proficient? What standards does he/she need to demonstrate competence in?
• All students in grades 3-8 are tested, as well as students being tested once in high school.
• By 2014, ALL STUDENTS should be proficient in reading and math.
• In schools not meeting AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) for 2 years, parents may send their child to another school in district that has met AYP.
• Schools failing to meet AYP for 5 years are to be reconstituted.

So the problems? Without national standards, the states are making their own AND determining what is proficient. The playing field is uneven. We all know that there are easy teachers and hard teachers. An A in one class is the same as a C in another of the same subject. This is similar to the states. States can set their own bar in order to for their scores to look better when compared to other states that demand more from their teachers and students. Also, all students are held to the same standards. A mentally disabled student is expected to take the same test as his/her peers and meet proficiency. And when he/she doesn't? The scores tell the child that he/she isn't as smart as his/her peers, and the school's overall AYP is lowered. ARGH!!!

This is when I get on my bandwagon...

I have been teaching for 10 years. For the first few, I stayed in my classroom doing what I needed to do to help my students. Did I honestly go through the standards and make sure I was hitting each and every standard daily? No. But I did (and still do) make sure that I taught my students the skills that they need to be successful in life. As I have progressed in my career, I have become more jaded about the entire education system in my district. As I complain to my husband, he tells me that other districts around the country are the same. I just need to do what I need to do and not get riled up about NCLB, AYP, IEPs, AIPs, testing, and everything else that teachers are inundated with each day. In my mind, I try to go through what it is exactly that bothers me. As I stated earlier, in theory, NCLB is good. Schools should be accountable and this law has made education focus on students and what can be done to help them succeed. However, this issue of accountability in Peterson's book is missing something. What about the accountability for teachers?

I firmly believe that in order to improve our education system, we need to begin improving our teachers. Not only the new teachers, but also the teachers who have been teaching for 10-15 years. I am not saying that all teachers should go back to school, but all teachers do need refresher courses or professional development that will help them to change with the changing population of students and educational trends. Going back to Albert Shanker and unions, teachers do need to be held to a higher standard of accountability, despite the problems that arise with tenure and grievance procedures. Good teaching should be rewarded and bad teaching should be condemned, but this is seldom the case. Until there is something in place that will hold all teachers truly accountable, I do not see how the education system can really improve.

Peterson, Paul E. "William Bennett and the Demand for Accountability." Saving Schools: from Horace Mann to Virtual Learning. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2010. Print.