When can we expect NCLB to be extinquished in our classrooms?

Hello,
I am an art teacher in a Chicago Public School. As you know Arne Duncan was "CEO" of our schools. He was appointed by Mayor Daley. Our school board is also not elected- it is appointed. If our experience under Rennaisance 2010 is any indication, we won't see NCLB extinguished very much. NCLB, and testing is being a primary mechanism to label schools as 'failing' so that they could be closed and reopened in a variety of ways. One of these ways has been as non-union charter schools which are run by private operators. These new schools are required to only have a minimum of 50% of their staff certified. And, of course, they work longer school days, often until 5pm, and for less pay and benefits. Our public schools are also facing other forms of sabotage. My school lost five teaching positions because we were told we would have a declining enrollment. We waited more than 20 school days before the board acknowledged we had an enrollment (500) larger than last years. We are still short one and a half positions.

I have very little faith that Arne Duncan will put the needs of our children first. I think that he very much will put the interests of the charter school/privatization movement first. I urge you to look at COREteachers.org as well as substancenews.net. Be aware that the internet version of the Substance newspaper is a month behind the print version. What we teachers in CORE- Caucus of Rank and file Educators are doing is taking back our union and standing up for quality public education. If you can make it, this Saturday we are having a public hearing at Malcolm X college on Rennaisance 2010. But in the least, I think it would be important if you were to ask Arne some hard-hitting questions on his track record here in Chicago. It is only by this type of pressure that the new administration will be forced to do something actually in the interest of public education. Thank you.

In an email I asked Jerry Pournelle for his suggestions about the most important issue in education. Here is his response (posted with permission):


The most important work current is Murray's Four Simple Truths.

The most important of those is:

This is not Lake Wobegon. Half of the children are BELOW AVERAGE.

BELOW AVERAGE children do not benefit from a real university education and do not gain much benefit from a world class university prep education in school. They do benefit from SKILL TRAINING, and it is a terrible thing to do to a below average child to make him spend his youth in college preparation when he is not going to get into a college and if he does get into a college he is not going to benefit from a college education.

HALF OF THE CHILDREN ARE BELOW AVERAGE and DO NOT BELONG IN COLLEGE. They are, however, citizens, and deserve a decent education directed to their capabilities, which are not likely to be intellectual -- and so what? We don't need more than half our citizens in intellectual jobs!! And much of the vital work that must be done in this Republic would bore the living hell out of bright kids.

Here is his response (continued):

Next important fact: if we do not give our top 20% a real world class university education we are headed for the tubes. Like it or not, the economic and scientific health of the nation depends on the upper 20% of the population, and nothing we can do will change that; but by trying to give a university prep education to ALL the children we deprive the upper 20% of any real university prep education. By insisting that all children achieve proficiency in algebra to graduate high school we insure that none of them will achieve proficiency in algebra (none but the brightest who just get it on their own) because the teacher, trying to see that no child is left behind, must spend more than half the time with the non-achieving kids who are not in fact going to learn algebra no matter how hard the teacher works. Jaime Escalante broke his heart teaching calculus by rote to a number of educationally deprived children. He worked their tails off and succeeded; but that was not education, that was skill training, and few of those children have ever needed or used calculus in their subsequent careers.
Escalante was to be admired and demonstrated that rote learning is a VERY useful tool and can be used to teach proficiency in more academic areas than we supposed -- but it is NOT education in the sense of teaching children to think.

In education, teaching how to learn and how to reason, HALF THE CHILDREN ARE BELOW AVERAGE and don't get very much out of intellectual education. They do get a very great deal out of SKILL TRAINING.

In education, teaching how to learn and how to reason, HALF THE CHILDREN ARE ABOVE AVERAGE and will go nuts of they are given skill training as opposed to real education.

Here is his response (concluded):

I have greatly over simplified the numbers here, and kids don't neatly divide into two groups like that, but anyone with real classroom experience will understand what is being said here. Those with only University educations will NOT understand this.

No Child Left Behind is well intended, but it's a formula for disaster.

The teaching profession exists to protect the least competent teachers. The purpose of education is to employ teachers and the purpose of teachers unions is to see that no teacher is ever left behind. The result is that the only kids who get a decent education are those who can afford private schools, which insures that social class will be inherited and preserved.

I agree with Rich's first post. Being an elementary teacher, I don't experience the pressure that many secondary teachers feel to "prepare" their students for the real world. For many years it has been and continues to be a commonly held myth that one must hold a degree to be "successful" in life. The fact is that a degree no more guarantees success than the paper it's written upon, especially with the recent phenomenon of adult education. Is this to say that it is not worthwhile to pursue a college degree? Not at all - just not for everyone. Point in case; I could make more money as a local convenience store manager than I currently make as a degreed teacher.

As a teacher in Oklahoma, I have the pleasure of working a second job at Wal-Mart. One of the least desired positions in the store was held my JD, a sweet old man in his 80s. He cleaned the bathrooms. JD probably never had more than a high school diploma if that, but he loved what he did. It's all he'd ever known. I speak in the past tense because JD died not long after taking the janitorial position, but after speaking with and getting to know him it was easy to see that he was happy. And isn't that what matters? Our materialistic society says that we need money and things to be happy, but how many of you know someone like JD who is completely content with where they are in life? I dare say you know at least one or two.

Yes, we should be giving our children a well-rounded, "liberal" education. Students should be exposed to all disciplines, but not expected to master them all. We should be focusing on students' strengths not trying to fit them into a mold. Everyone is different. Not one of us is the same. Therefore we all have different strengths and learn at a different pace. It is no coincidence. In conclusion, teach all to the best of their ability and encourage student to focus on their strengths, yet challenge them to climb one rung higher on the ladder of their own personal success.