NCLB Leaves Gifted Students Behind

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

THE GIFTED CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND

Washington Post Op. Ed. -- August 27, 2007
by Susan Goodkin and David G. Gold

With reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act high on the agenda 
as Congress returns from its recess, lawmakers must confront the fact 
that the law is causing many concerned parents to abandon public schools 
that are not failing.

These parents are fleeing public schools not only because, as documented 
by a recent University of Chicago study, the act pushes teachers to 
ignore high-ability students through its exclusive focus on bringing 
students to minimum proficiency. Worse than this benign neglect, No 
Child forces a fundamental educational approach so inappropriate for 
high-ability students that it destroys their interest in learning, as 
school becomes an endless chain of basic lessons aimed at low-performing 
students.

These predictable problems were reported as early as 2003, when the Wall 
Street Journal warned that schools were shifting their focus 
overwhelmingly toward low achievers. Expressions of concern from 
distressed parents and educators of gifted children have come in 
increasing numbers ever since.

No Child is particularly destructive to bright young math students. 
Faced with a mandate to bring every last student to proficiency, schools 
emphasize incessant drilling of rudimentary facts and teach that there 
is one "right" way to solve even higher-order problems. Yet one of the 
clearest markers of a nimble math mind is the ability to see novel 
approaches and shortcuts to attacking such problems. This creativity is 
what makes math interesting and fun for those students. Schools should 
encourage this higher-order thinking, but high-ability students are 
instead admonished for solving problems the wrong way, despite getting 
the right answers. Frustrated, and bored by simplistic drills, many come 
to hate math.

Talented writers fare no better in language arts education. Recently, a 
noted children's author recounted her dismay when fifth-graders 
attending one of her workshops balked at a creative writing exercise. 
She was shocked to learn that the reluctant writers were gifted. The 
children, however, had spent years completing mundane worksheets 
designed for struggling classmates and thus rebelled at an exercise they 
assumed would be yet another tedious worksheet.

One suggested revision to address these concerns is "growth modeling," 
which tracks the progress of all students, including those already 
scoring above proficiency. But as long as No Child requires that every 
student reach proficiency by 2014 and it continues to focus only on 
grade-level material, teachers will lack incentives to appropriately 
educate students who can master their grade's curriculum well before 
spring testing. Nor will growth modeling prompt schools to provide an 
enriching curriculum that goes beyond the basics.

The response of many parents to this situation was summed up succinctly 
by one of our numerous friends, colleagues and family members who have 
pulled their children from neighborhood schools: "We've learned that the 
real solution is called 'private school.' "

Perhaps if more policymakers sent their children to public schools they 
would address these unintended but disastrous consequences of No Child. 
Rather than trying to rectify this situation, however, many politicians 
advocate a voucher program that would only encourage more parents to 
desert public education.

Some politicians justify vouchers with the Orwellian claim that taking 
money from public schools to pay private tuition will improve the public 
schools by forcing them to compete for students. This claim is absurd 
given the uneven playing field between public and private schools.

Most obviously, private schools can reject any student who would require 
extra time from teachers. Thus it is left to public schools to handle 
children with behavior problems or severe learning impairments, and 
non-English speakers. Until private schools receiving vouchers are 
required to accept all applicants, vouchers simply allow them to 
cherry-pick public school students, giving them an insurmountable 
competitive edge.

Ironically, the private schools to which President Bush and his allies 
are so anxious to hand public funds are also exempt from the 
standardized testing these politicians declare to be the critical 
measure of educational success. Private schools need not impose upon 
their students the drudgery of preparing for and taking weeks of 
standardized tests and can offer an enriching curriculum beyond the 
basics without worrying about No Child sanctions. Given these one-sided 
constraints, no one could honestly claim that vouchers do anything but 
drain resources from the public schools this act was supposed to improve.

In adopting the No Child law, Congress finally addressed the shameful 
neglect of students in failing schools, particularly inner-city schools. 
Now it must address the fact that the requirements it imposed are 
driving away many of the concerned and involved parents critical to our 
ailing public school system.

Susan Goodkin is executive director of the California Learning 
Strategies Center, an education think tank. David G. Gold is a lecturer 
and consultant on strategic issues in negotiation.