Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB - (Page CoverD)

4) To foster a national environment for teaching excellence, the reauthorized NCLB needs to promote a comprehensive teacher development system. Teachers need to be prepared before they begin to teach, and then they need much more support throughout their careers. Good teachers want to lead, even more than they have in the past. They believe students need career teachers who will stay with them more than one or two years and master deep knowledge of content and pedagogy and deep understandings of the communities they serve. While the No Child Left Behind law’s accountability measures clearly have pushed teachers to better consider the needs of historically underserved students, its inadequate tools and unrealistic performance goals have left many of them frustrated and disheartened. A number of Teacher Leaders Network members, like Kathie Marshall in Los Angeles, are “mad that the federal government has made education even more political through the poorly worded, underfunded, impossible-to-implement No Child Left Behind Act.” However, they are all hopeful that the federal government can make good on NCLB and its lofty goal to leave no child behind. These accomplished teachers are ready to lead the way — so all of America’s children can do more than just pass standardized tests — and prepare future leaders to participate fully in the 21st Century global economy and our democratic society. References i Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). A Marshall Plan for Teaching. Education Week. Volume 26, Issue 18. January 10. Retrieved June 1, 2007: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/01/10/18hammond.h26.html ii Cavanagh, S. (2007). State Tests, NAEP Often a Mismatch. Education Week. Volume 26, Number 41. June 13, p. 1 iii Viadero, D. (2007). Evidence Is Thin on Student Gains from NCLB Tutoring. Education Week. Volume 26, Number 41. June 13, p. 7 iv The Commission on No Child Left Behind (2007). Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved June 18, 2006: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03389.pdf vi Center for Education Policy (2006). Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on Public Schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 1, 2007: http://www.cep-dc.org/ vii Gustin. G. (2007). Errors Found in State Achievement Tests. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21. viii Kamras, J. and Rotherham, A. (2007). America’s Teaching Crisis. Democracy: A Journal Of Ideas. Issue #5. Summer. Retrieved June 26, 2007: http://www.democracyjournal.org/article2.php?ID=6535&limit=3000&limit2=4500&page=3 ix Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Evaluating No Child Left Behind. The Nation. May 21. Retrieved: June 2, 2007. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond x McLean, V. (2007). High Quality Science Teaching by a Highly Qualified Teacher. Washington, DC: Congressional Testimony, May 21, 2007. Retrieved June 1, 2007: http://edworkforce.house.gov/testimony/051107ValdineMcLeantestimony.pdf Nation’s Children. Washington DC: Aspen Institute. Retrieved May 15, 2007: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.938015/k.40DA/Commission_on_No_Child_Left_ Behind.htm v Government Accounting Office (2003). Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/01/10/18hammond.h26.html http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.938015/k.40DA/Commission_on_No_Child_Left_Behind.htm http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.938015/k.40DA/Commission_on_No_Child_Left_Behind.htm http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.938015/k.40DA/Commission_on_No_Child_Left_Behind.htm http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03389.pdf http://www.cep-dc.org/ http://www.democracyjournal.org/article2.php?ID=6535&limit=3000&limit2=4500&page=3 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond http://edworkforce.house.gov/testimony/051107ValdineMcLeantestimony.pdf http://edworkforce.house.gov/testimony/051107ValdineMcLeantestimony.pdf

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB

Executive Summary The Future of American Education in the Making It is Time to Align NCLB Intentions and Consequences The Teacher Leaders Network Encounters NCLB from the Classroom NCLB Demands Results and So Do We Attention Alone Does Not Equal Effective Accountability Standardized Tests Fall Short of 21st Century Demands For What Future Is NCLB Preparing Students? As Testing Expands, the Curriculum Shrinks The Drive for Data Presents Potential for Significant Change Data Systems Don’t Keep Pace with Real-Time Instructional Needs AYP Highlights the Good, Bad, and Ugly of NCLB Does “Highly Qualified” Set the Teaching Bar Too Low? Teaching Quality Must Be More Than a Number Every Student Deserves a Highly Effective, Well-Trained Teacher Conclusions References

Teacher Leaders Network - NCLB

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.