Leave No Counterpoint Behind. I am generally opposed to No Child Left Behind, for largely three reasons: 1) the effect that high stakes testing has on school curricula; 2) the pressure it places on teachers; and 3) the scope of it as a national experiment in education policy.

No Child Left Behind, of course, divides a school into identifiable sub-populations; thus measuring the achievments of whites, blacks, urban, rural and whatever else have you. Success is measured by end of year tests. If any one of the school's subgroups fails to improve a certain amount in this testing each year, the school can be deemed failing. Enough years of failing means the school might come under new managment, or be tossed altogether. This is a greatly simplified account.

Because of the high stakes of the tests, (and this is not new to NCLB--but NCLB takes up the high stakes testing model with vigor), schools are pressured to teach to the tests. Hence, you lose the semester classes that focus on more minute details...and more sadly, the types of classes that allow teachers to craft their own syllibi. That is my central complaint to school policies that demand high stakes testing. Particular to NCLB, I wish the various states could try different policies. If it turns out high stakes tests are the way to go- so be it. I just wish we didn't federalize the policy.

In any event, an op-ed in today's Washington Post offers an opposition argument to mine. Not so much on the above points- but in praise of No Child's sub-catagories. The argument is this: by dividing schools into sub-groups, the schools can no longer hide their problem areas. For instance, some of the most highly regarded schools in America, (Langley High in Virginia and Bellaire in Houston) have failed a prong of NCLB because of sub-groups not succeeding on the tests. Here is some of the commentary (talking about Rod Paige, our Education Secretary):

Where he refuses to yield an inch is on the idea of "disaggregating" the scores of various subgroups from schoolwide results. Many a school problem has been hidden under a blanket of "average" scores. That can be especially easy in schools where most students are high achievers because underachieving subgroups tend to get submerged in schoolwide numbers. That, says Paige, is why NCLB insists on making sure that each subgroup, and not just the overall student body, makes "adequate yearly progress." Without disaggregation, he says, there's no incentive to make it happen.

Langley's Clendaniel -- surprise! -- agrees. "We were upset to be identified as a failing school, when we knew what terrific work we are doing. But I have to say that the next year, we did go out and remediate the heck out of those [special-ed] kids. The teachers took it personally, do a lot on their own time. And now we don't have any underperforming subgroups."

Clendaniel may not be a convert to NCLB, but the controversial program does, he admits, "make you pay attention to individual students more closely than you might have before."