A recent Washington Post article discussed the trials and tribulations of Raymond Park Middle School in Warren Township, Ind. The school has lost its two art teachers; in addition, home economics, most foreign language, and some physical education classes have been eliminated. Instead of an art department, the school now has a computer specialist producing data and charts to evaluate progress toward meeting performance targets. A consultant works with the staff to improve instructional quality, and the curriculum is reorganized into blocks that conclude with an assessment. Students now spend four or five hours each day on reading and math.
Similar stories have appeared in recent months in newspapers across the country, mostly citing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) as the culprit. No Child Left Behind, critics say, is narrowing the curriculum and squeezing the creative elements out of children's days. But while this "NCLB as villain" story is compelling for readers, it is not an accurate reflection of the realities of what the law requires or of good educational practice. No Child Left Behind does not explicitly or implicitly require schools to eliminate non-core classes and devote additional time to reading and math. Moreover, instead of simply concentrating on how much time is spent on teaching, educators must instead focus on how the curriculum is taught.
Raymond Park Middle School is a classic example of the difficult and often painstaking decisions school officials now must make as standards-based accountability becomes the focal point of determining school effectiveness under NCLB. It may also be an example of doing more of the same instead of doing things differently in order to improve student learning. As with all new education trends, the "devil is in the details." The move toward focusing greater attention on all students, particularly disadvantaged students, is a powerful force for greater educational equity. Too often, however, educators responding to this move tend to overreact and miss the critical points. In this case, as schools respond to demands for better achievement, too frequently they are doing more -- for example, more math or more reading -- but they are not doing much differently. This is a potentially debilitating strategy because more is not always better.
This is why: If a school has low reading or mathematics achievement, and it is already allocating a sufficient amount of time for reading and math instruction, it is likely that there are other factors causing the low student achievement. If this is the case, then simply spending more time on reading or math is not likely to lead to improvement.
Instead, school leaders must examine instruction to gauge its effectiveness. Are teachers teaching the curriculum? Do teachers receive substantive professional learning experiences to help them meet the diverse needs of their students? The John Porter Professional Development Center at Learning Point Associates has cited critical requirements for high-quality professional development. Some of these requirements include aligning curriculum more closely with standards, using relevant data to inform decisionmaking, offering collaborative and reflective experiences to teachers, benchmarking the results and using that data for feedback and improvement, and sustaining this work over an extended period of time.
A collaborative of school districts I formerly led, the First in the World Consortium, participated in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). We learned that even though some high-achieving Asian countries had a much longer school year, their students' amount of class time was not much different from the traditional American school year. So, other factors likely led to the higher Asian student achievement. Some of these factors may be societal, but the TIMSS data also indicate that these countries do a better job than we do of delivering a coherent and deep curriculum. Although the schools in our consortium were already doing well overall, we were able to use data from our performance on TIMSS to see where our instruction was falling short and where we needed to improve. We did not cut out classes that students enjoyed or take other drastic steps. Instead, we used data and we got even better. Struggling schools have an even greater imperative to take these steps.
Two specific examples from the TIMSS data we used shed light on the concept of improving quality and not quantity. When analyzing the TIMSS video study on mathematics teaching in Japan, Germany and the United States, one of our eighth grade teachers was struck by how Asian teachers demonstrated math concepts by tracing the problem around the board space so students could visualize the entire process. Unlike the traditional American process where teachers ask students to put their problems on the board, Asian teachers attempted to bring deeper mathematical understanding by allowing students to see the flow of the problem. Given the high mathematical achievement of Asian students, it was her conclusion that using this approach would improve her students' work.
A second curriculum change was the result of analyzing the sequence of topics taught in mathematics in the countries with the highest student achievement. After reviewing the data, one of the consortium districts learned that it was introducing fractions too early. Teachers in that district had expressed concern with the difficulty students were experiencing on fraction problems. The unit on fractions was moved to the next grade level. The data, as well as applying research on learning, provided the teachers with the evidence that they could improve the math program by making the change. In this instance less was actually more.
This is why when challenged to improve student learning, rather than the typical knee-jerk reaction of doubling instructional time (and crowding out other important subjects) or just extending the school day or school year, schools must pay more attention to improving teaching and learning. Improving the quality of time spent by students in class will have a more profound effect on their learning than just focusing on the quantity of time they spend.
Consider NCLB. For over two years, NCLB has been attacked by some, criticized by others, praised by more still, and is now a political football, as well as an educational initiative. Yet, the fundamental principles of the legislation -- accountability for results, using proven programs that work, and relentless attention to closing the achievement gaps -- are key strategies to improve the organizational capacity of school systems to deliver higher-quality education to all students. Surely some of the specific provisions will change over time as policymakers learn more about how they are working in practice, but right now, the task at hand is to build into school systems the knowledge to address some very difficult challenges that require change and improvement in practices.
The opposition to NCLB says a great deal about how difficult this sort of change is and why the tendency is to do more instead of different. For example, NCLB contains provisions that require teachers to demonstrate subject matter competency by holding a college degree in the subject they teach or demonstrating expertise on a test. For new teachers, the requirements are normally met in their preservice training. For experienced teachers, the requirements must be met by complying with the provisions of their state's HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation). As an April 2004 study from the National Council on Teacher Quality shows, the response to HOUSSE has been less than enthusiastic. Instead of developing rigorous standards for veteran teachers, many states are ducking the issue. Remember, this is not an abstract issue. The University of Pennsylvania's Richard Ingersoll estimates that one in three classes in high-poverty schools are taught by teachers who did not even minor in the subject they teach. Just spending more time on reading and mathematics will not improve learning in environments like this.
Notably, for many years, school leaders often said that if only they had the leverage to require teachers to meet higher standards and change teaching practices, they could improve student achievement. Then along came NCLB, and the response was that the requirements are too cumbersome, expensive, and pejorative for experienced teachers. In some instances, all three complaints have some validity, but overall, using NCLB as leverage to write substantive HOUSSE plans would yield better results.
School leaders also recognize that learning happens in the classroom (not in board meetings, state capitals, or in Washington, D.C.) and have pleaded for greater leverage to change instruction and curriculum to increase effectiveness. No Child Left Behind provides the leverage, both through the statute's specific provisions for schools needing improvement and, more importantly, through the wealth of data it produces that schools can use to improve their practice.
No Child Left Behind provides an achievement-oriented framework for school improvement, yet states and local school districts have the latitude to make decisions regarding implementation. Raymond Parker Middle School officials chose to make some drastic changes to their education program. That decision may or may not have been the correct one for that school, but it is by no means a choice that schools everywhere must make.
Eliminating classes and simply focusing on reading and math will not improve student learning unless there are substantive changes in the quality of what is currently being done in the classrooms through professional development. Using data to improve instruction means reflecting on practice and doing things differently, not just doing more.
