Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

NCLB Outrages

Parents criticize school testing: Lawmakers hear complaints about No Child Left Behind law

Kansas teachers and parents, contact your elected representatives. Unlike Miller and Kennedy, many seem willing to listen.

by George Diepenbrock

Rebecca Moody, of Eudora, has a beef with the federal No Child Left Behind law.

âI think it needs to be rethought, re-evaluated and redone,â she said.

Earlier this year, her daughter, a fifth-grader at Eudora West School, lost interest in her favorite school subject â math â after her class had spent so much time preparing for a standardized test, Moody said.

Moodyâs concerns fit in Thursday morning as dozens of area parents, school board members, administrators and teachers asked two Kansas Democratic members of Congress to change the education law.

The 2001 federal law created a national policy that every child will pass state standardized tests in English and math by 2014.

âWe want to either make it better or try to do something because thereâs a lot of problems with the current law,â said U.S. Rep. Dennis Moore, of Lenexa.

Thursdayâs event was the third of four forums Moore is having on the federal law, which is up for renewal this summer. Mooreâs district includes eastern Lawrence. He was joined Thursday by U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda, Topeka, whose district includes western Lawrence and a wide swath of eastern Kansas.

Moore said he and Boyda would relay comments from teachers, parents and school administrators to their colleagues in Congress.

Several panelists said they would favor reauthorization of the law with âdramatic changes,â such as using a growth model, which measures student achievement over time.

âWe need to leave it up to individual states and school districts to determine qualifications of teachers, except when the federal government is paying salaries of teachers,â said Kansas Senate Vice President John Vratil, R-Leawood.

Many panelists and audience members blasted the law and blamed it for driving teachers out of the profession and discouraging development of gifted and other advanced students. Teachers and parents said the law also put too much pressure on teachers and students.

âWeâre asking kids to put all of their eggs in one basket on a multiple-choice test that they take one time a year,â said Barb Thompson, a sixth-grade teacher at Quail Run School.

And she said the law forces teachers to âteach to the tests.â

Andy Tompkins, a former Kansas education commissioner, said the law meant schools and school districts had to deal with a new level of federalism.

âTo say you are going to have everybody in the same place on the same day â guys, that ainât going to happen,â said Tompkins, a Kansas University associate professor in education leadership and policy studies who will become education dean at Pittsburg State University.

Moore also has written a letter critical of the federal government for underfunding the law that was passed in 2002.

âIn fact, since 2002, funding for NCLB has fallen nearly $55 billion short of the amount that the president and Congress originally agreed to provide,â Moore said in the letter he wrote with Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn.

Moore predicted bipartisan work on making changes to the law, and Boyda said members of Congress will listen to educators and âget rid of parts (of the law) chokingâ the education system.

Rich Minder, a Lawrence school board member who was re-elected this week, suggested even the lawâs name can create a negative effect.

âWe need to know that as a partner in education, we are saying something positive about all children rather than something negative about our administrators or teachers,â Minder said.

— George Diepenbrock
Lawrence Journal-World


This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.