Who is really getting left behind?

First things first. I want to congratulate all the brick and mortar schools (our traditional Mat-Su Valley public schools) for their students’ outstanding performance on the State Based Assessments.

The results were posted in August and those tests were administered in April. Three years ago we were half way up, with 18 of our 36 schools making adequate yearly progress. Last year, we had three additional schools make the cutoff score — or 31 points — necessary to make the benchmark for AYP. Now this year we had seven more schools — 28 of 38 — make the grade. Even then, the 10 schools that did not make AYP had gains and improvement in their subgroups, which consist of nine identified groups from the obvious Caucasian to Alaska Native, and special education students to economically disadvantaged. It is a cumbersome points system that also includes participation and graduation rate.

I believe the federal No Child Left Behind mandate is flawed, under-funded and punitive. If schools do not make AYP, instead of the federal government supporting those schools with additional resources to provide academic assistance, they actually start instituting punitive measures in increments. After five years of not making a certain cutoff score, the school could be dismantled and re-staffed.

How demoralizing would that be to lose a neighborhood school with dedicated, committed teachers? That would equate to (responding to) a train wreck with innocent victims (kids) without First Aid providers or the government saying you’re on your own following a federal disaster. If assistance does come, say from the state, it comes in the form of an incentive reward for the highest performing schools rather than resources (money) going to schools that have not made the grade for those struggling student populations. Explain that to me!

I have heard it said that the federal mandate is like a Russian novel — everyone dies at the end!

I believe schools can find ways to use the benchmark test to best help all students, with staffs making accommodations while increasing learning and achievement. Assessments are designed to drive curriculum. They are not an end in themselves. We need to keep that in the forefront and not be collecting data just for the sake of collecting it. We have to keep asking ourselves, “How does this assessment best facilitate learning for all students, whatever their liabilities or assets?”

Some say that the federal mandate is leaving thousands of students behind, especially those students at the top and middle, because the bulk of the effort is going toward those identified at being at the lower level of ability to get a bump in points to make the grade. I am not in any way saying we need to ignore or dismiss those students, but not at the expense of other students at higher levels.

The training and support for teachers, I believe, should be in differentiated learning, or accommodating the entire learning curve of student abilities and assets. Now that is a tall order (and not just for teachers), but that is really what we need to be striving toward for every student in every school. That would take more funding, smaller class sizes, more support — from all stakeholders, like students, parents and the community — and training for teachers. That’s what I would want if my children were still in school; remediate their liabilities and build on their strengths.

If the No Child Left Behind mandate was intended to leave not one student behind, we should demand that each and every student have the opportunity to excel to his or her highest potential, no matter where that student falls along the learning curve. Sometimes we get in the way and hold some students back at the top end because we are are chasing a certain cutoff score with our lower performing students. Is this to prove a point or make a grade deemed ‘adequate?’ Is that how we want to define learning and achievement for our children?

As professional educators, concerned parents and contributing and successful community members (which we hope our students become) we need to speak out and do the right thing. Demand from the federal government a workable, fully funded learning and achievement goal -oriented document to ensure that truly no child is left behind. This should not be a high-stakes test-driven mandate with punitive measures and a number crunching point system that is so far from what is really important in the lives of our children — learning. We need learning that never ends with a test, grade or graduation, but is ongoing, shared and empowering to meet the difficult, demanding challenges of the future.

If you feel as strongly as I do about the many inadequacies in the federal mandate No Child Left Behind, please write your congressional representatives in Washington, D.C. The mandate is coming up for reauthorization during this legislative session.

Michael P. Carson is a 30-year veteran teacher in the Mat-Su Borough School District.