What do we learn about NCLB? [br] [originaltext]M: Good evening. Today we have

M: Good evening. Today we have Dr. Diane Ravitch with us. She was once as one of the most important supporters of No Child Left Behind policy, or NCLB. But in her new book, she strongly opposed to NCLB. But why did you support the policy so vigorously before?
W: For many years, there has been widespread recognition mat the performance of American students was less than optimal. NCLB seemed to offer a reasonable plan to strengthen basic skills of all students, which would men make them stronger in other subjects and prepare them better for college and the workplace.
M: What motivated you to change these views and write your new book?
W: As I saw the actual effects of NCLB, I came to realize that the focus on test scores in reading and math was having negative effects on subjects that were not tested, like history, geography, science, literature, foreign languages, etc. Because of the high stakes attached to NCLB testing, there was no incentive to teach anything that was not tested. Billions have been invested in materials to prepare for state testing. Yet the results have been meager to date, even in the subjects that are constantly tested.
M: What message are you trying to convey about the current and future state of the American school system in your new book?
W: I hope with my book to cause policymakers to rethink their reliance of testing, accountability, and private-sector choice as solutions to the problems of public education. I would like to see a renaissance of educational values; I would like to slow the momentum to reduce all education to a test score and to privatize public services.
M: Many reviews have been very positive but some say you have changed your views on education completely. What has changed? What has not changed?
W: I have never changed my fundamental principles, which center on the idea that all children should have access to an education of high quality, one that includes not only basic skills, but history, geography, foreign languages, literature, science, and other studies, as well as physical education and health. Accountability and choice are means, not ends. I concluded that they are not effective means, because they subvert the goal. So I abandoned the means, but not the end, which is what matters most.
M: You talk in your book about your education in Houston. How does your experience compare with that of students today? What has improved? What has declined?
W: I had a good education, but not a great education. I don’t want to romanticize the public schools of my generation. Yet, despite their inadequacies, the schools understood that all students should have a broad education. Most tests were essays and demonstrations of knowledge, not standardized, multiple-choice questions. The current reliance on standardized tests is a product of advancing technology, but it has a bad effect on education because it narrows our means of gauging what students have learned. So now they learn to guess the right answer, instead of demonstrating knowledge and comprehension.
M: One criticism of your book is that you are "necessarily vague about how to achieve your goals." What concrete actions would you recommend at this point for American educational reform?
W: My book was intended to be a critique of what we are doing now in national policy. Part of the critique implies different policies. For example, policymakers seem to have agreed on putting non-educators into positions of authority at every point in the education system: So we have school superintendents who are lawyers, businessmen, military veterans. We have principals who have little experience as educators but took a course to learn how to be a principal. And there is great enthusiasm among journalists for recruiting new college graduates to be teachers, who will remain in the classroom for only two or three years, then leave for other professions. I strongly recommend that we make education more professional, not less so. That we have superintendents who have extensive background in education; that we have principals who have been master teachers; and that we insist on high qualifications for new teachers and commit to building a better and stronger profession. At the same time. I believe we must have in every school a strong curriculum that ensures that every student will get a solid education in all the major subjects, not just those that are tested.
M: In your opinion, what are the root causes of the high dropout rate nationally?
W: Students drop out for different reasons. Some leave because they want to earn money to help support their family; some leave because they are discouraged after failing in school repeatedly. Some girls leave because they are pregnant. Some leave, but return at a later date. The most consistent predictor of school leaving is poverty, which is also correlated with low achievement. So failure breeds failure.
M: Yes, OK. Thank you for all the insightful view on the education system.
W: You are most welcome.