The Takeover of Public Education in America

In 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act was passed, forever changing the landscape of public education. Though many politicians have decried the act and made overtures to either update or radically change No Child Left Behind, it has remained intact. There are those who say that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) made needed improvements in public education, others who have been victims of the mandates of NCLB have a different story to tell. Many business leaders extoll NCLB for forcing schools to adhere to standards that raise the bar for students and prepare them for college or careers. Others will say that high school students today are not graduating with the needed background and foundation necessary for college entrance or a promising career. This has resulted in remediation being a large part of incoming freshmen’s curriculum.
Teachers today will most likely talk of an endless pattern of preparation to prepare students to take benchmark assessments that drill students on skill sets required to pass a standardized test. New teachers are overwhelmed at the degree of paperwork, data collection and feedback required by administrators to ensure the proper performance of the students on the tests. Veteran teachers mourn the loss of any degree of autonomy within the walls of their classroom. They feel trapped by scripted lessons that could just as easily be handled by a teaching assistant. One overwhelming constant is present in every public school in the country. This constant is the continual presence of preparation for the next test. The test is ever-present in all activities of the teachers, counselors and administrators. This is the state of public education today. The current state of education is a result of 30 plus years of education reform that has seen an increasing encroachment by the federal government into an area that, in the past, was reserved to the states. The passage of No Child Left Behind injected the federal government to such an extent that it fundamentally changed what takes place in the classroom and what is allowed taught by teachers of the core subjects.
This fundamental change came with the mandates NCLB dictated. The devastating effects of these mandates are addressed within the pages of this book. The information presented is an adaptation from research conducted in pursuit of a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership by this researcher. The information contained within was collected from scholarly work, current writings in the field, and information obtained from educators entrenched in the day-to-day teaching environment created by NCLB mandates. Much of the resources used for documentation are current to within five years. Other sources go further back in time, however, as the current state of education has been decades in the making.
The current events unfolding today are the result of an incremental, well-planned agenda that has been fostered on an unaware public and an all too trusting education profession. Some of the narrative reflects my opinions. They are, however, opinions developed from years in the education profession and an abundance of research.
As a former middle school and high school principal, serving in the education profession as a teacher and administrator for thirty-four years, I have shaped my views on the state of education today using the lens of experience and time. I had the honor of serving as an administrator in public schools, both as an assistant principal and later as a principal, during each phase of the testing regimen in Texas (with the exception of the latest implementation, STAAR). It was not until I retired in 2007 and was removed from the demands and pressure of operating a public school, that I was able to objectively evaluate my own educational paradigm. While I was working I experienced cognitive dissonance as it relates to my profession. I was convinced that through continued diligence, drive and determination, a more educated student would emerge. It was my belief that the profession was on the right track and we were operating in the student’s best interest. The increased demands I felt to provide the proper leadership to get the desired results grew in intensity with each passing year. Virtually all curriculum decisions made were data driven decisions required to have the best opportunity to obtain an accountability rating that met standards. All of this led to requiring faculty members to attend more and more staff development, identify those students with learning gaps as quickly as possible, and provide the necessary individual education plans that would hopefully correct any deficiencies. While all of this was productive in helping the student pass the state test, I was unaware of what the policy of No Child Left Behind was doing to the true educational opportunities for the students. In my eyes, student success and school success were linked to a label and a number on the accountability rating issued through the state and federal educational agencies. I was not aware that what was occurring was actually a limitation placed on information and knowledge. A limitation built around testing and preparation for the next testing cycle.