A letter I mailed this past week to Virginia's new senator-elect:
Nov. 15, 2006
Senator-Elect Jim Webb
1916 Wilson Blvd, Ste. 304
Arlington, VA 22201
Dear Sen. Webb:
First, my heartfelt congratulations! I was a supporter and for once my vote counted! I just retired from the faculty of the University of Tennessee, but I am a Roanoke native and have family here and in several other Virginia communities and as far as I know, we all voted for you. I’m writing as a constituent to let you know how I feel about an issue you will be addressing next year.
I am interested in educational issues because I’ve worked in that profession for 38 years (more than 20 as a teacher educator) and have three sisters who teach in the public schools in Virginia. I have seen the results of the No Child Left Behind Act both in Tennessee and Virginia and I believe this legislation is seriously flawed as a means of improving our public schools. I write to urge you to carefully consider your position on renewing NCLB. The problem is not with having standards per se, but with standards imposed entirely from without and top-down -- impersonal standards and rigid benchmarks that turn students into objects and disrupt connections between teachers and students and between students and their work. Virginia’s Standards of Learning framework (2003), for example, prescribe too much, making functionaries, technicians, out of teachers rather than supporting their professionalism as enacters of curriculum. The "Standards" fragment and attempt to deal separately with concepts, approaches, skills, and understandings that should be dealt with in an integrated fashion. Recent studies provide evidence that NCLB has resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum, and at a time when we should be promoting a diversity of curricula to match student needs and local school situations. In fact, the current régime of standards and high-stakes testing undermines the power of local communities to choose their own policies and programs and decide what is important and frustrates and inhibits good teachers. Many teachers end up teaching only what they know is going to be tested. The current régime also marginalizes many at-risk students and fails to recognize their unique curricular needs, resulting in high drop-out rates. Students are being pushed out of school, the curriculum and teaching are narrowed, and school experiences are severely limited by the unintended consequences of targeting school curriculum toward high-stakes assessments.
What has been missing from the debate about NLB, according to Gerald Bracey (a Virginian who you should consult on this issue), is any evidence that it has really produced meaningful higher achievement (as opposed to higher test scores). Standards and testing, with very rare exceptions, are not improving failing public schools, the schools most likely to be located in inner cities and rural areas. Overall, our urban and rural schools have more of the things that decrease school quality and less of the things that enrich it: more teachers who are uncertified in the subjects they teach; more crowded classes; less money for payrolls, training, materials and facilities. In short, we have never adequately invested in the people, programs or equipment necessary to improve our urban and rural schools. And, of course, NCLB is an unfunded mandate.
Furthermore, teachers, like my sisters, who are on the front lines of this issue, hold a low opinion of NCLB and very few believe its ultimate goal is even possible. We will never improve our urban and rural schools until we invest in highly qualified and well-prepared teachers, programs supported by research, up-to-date curriculum materials, and appropriate facilities for instruction.
In short, NCLB’s "standards" aren't really contributing anything positive to the improvement of education. I hope that you will think hard and consult with people like Gerry Bracey before you decide your own position on NCLB. Thanks for the “ear” and best wishes in your new role.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Bentley, EdD
