policy and advocacy
Headlines of the Week
Doubling Up on Literary Classes (New York Times editorial)
April 3, 2006
There is something strange about criticizing schools for trying to teach children to read. A new annual survey on the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act has many educators fuming. In it, school districts acknowledge that the law has generated improvements, but they also assert that scary trends are afoot: a majority say that they have had to “narrow” the curriculum to focus on math and reading for children who needed to be brought up to speed.
How is that a bad thing? There is little evidence in the data, compiled by the Center on Education Policy in Washington, that schools are throwing out other crucial courses and chaining well-performing students to a narrow range of basic classes. Three-quarters of the districts say that the law has not caused them to cut back on art and music—which are typically the first to go—and a large majority assert that science instruction has remained intact.
There is nothing sinister about, say, doubling up on literacy classes for children who have been allowed to reach middle school without the reading skills they need to absorb history and social studies. Nor is it wrong to borrow class time from other areas to invest in the all-important struggle to make sure that students can actually read. The real crime is that millions of them are still being passed along without mastering basic language skills.
No Child Left Behind will make an enormous difference if it forces schools to perform their fundamental mission—teaching young children to read. But for that to happen, many districts will need to reverse the insidious practice of piling uncertified and poorly educated teachers into their high-needs schools. The study suggests that we are still a long way from that. In this school year only about a fifth of districts say they have intensified efforts to find expert teachers for high-need schools and only about 5 percent are offering financial incentives to attract good teachers to those schools. That will need to change if children in poor neighborhoods are to be given the chance to succeed.
Schools Need the Arts (New York Times letter to the editor)
April 2, 2006
To the Editor:
Re "Schools Cut Back Subjects to Push Reading and Math" (front page, March 26):
Across the nation, schools are trimming back financing for music and the arts in the name of "efficiency" and "core subjects." This is beyond short-sighted. It's stupid.
In the name of No Child Left Behind, we are going to leave some of our brightest students totally behind by never touching their talents to sing, paint, act, dance, or play an instrument. While experts and futurists warn that the future economy will be driven by the "creative class," there are determined efforts to diminish the value of the arts.
Numerous studies affirm that a student schooled in music improves his or her SAT and ACT scores in math, foreign language, or creative writing. Creative students are better problem solvers; that is a trait the business world begs for in its work force.
While the No Child Left Behind standards mandate arts as part of the core curriculum (which is an admirable first at the federal level), many school districts see the arts as expendable, extraneous, or extracurricular. They are essential.
Nine out of 10 parents surveyed opposed cuts to the arts in our schools, yet many policy makers seem tone-deaf to this critical part of educating our children. In my state, we by law now insist that every child receive music and art instruction by a certified teacher. It's time that America force the issue and finance it fully. No child should be left behind!
Mike Huckabee
Little Rock, Ark., March 31, 2006
The writer is the governor of Arkansas and chairman of both the Education Commission of the States and the National Governors Association.