Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | C | College Student Journal

NCLB, school-based instructional policy and decision-making: a proposed research agenda.

Article Excerpt
The delivered curriculum, or the curriculum the students actually experience has always been a function of teacher decision making. Since the inception of high stakes accountability, the curricula to which students are exposed have become a focal point of school reform efforts. This article argues that the null curriculum is expanding in ways that are a function of educators' paradigmatic perspectives and that these perspectives are actually manifestations of school policy in the quest for comprehensive school reform. The actual or delivered curriculum is a function of several factors including social class, sex, prior academic performance, and teachers' instructional paradigms. Furthermore, educator's instructional paradigms are arguably rooted in prior professional experience and school-based contextual variables. The impact of these paradigmatic perspectives has serious implications for all students; however, low performing and minority students seem to be at-risk not only due to their non-school variables, but possibly due to how a combination of these variables are manifested in the instructional policies enacted at the school and district levels. The increased probability that the null curriculum expands by not only excluding various disciplines but also reducing the academic rigor contained in the actual curriculum represents a dour combination of educational experiences for those students who can least afford these outcomes.

Mixed Results of Contemporary School Reform Efforts

Since 2002, No Child Left Behind has been the dominant school reform effort encompassing every state and over 90,000 schools. A recent report from the United States Department of Education (2007) suggests that there has been success in improving student performance as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). More particularly, minority students are purported to have raised achievement in reading and math and closed the achievement gap. However, there are signs that, even if you accept these results, they are coming at a cost. Eisner (1994) stated that the null curriculum is that curriculum not taught in schools either deliberately or by neglect and it is as important as what is taught. The null curriculum is a result of the explicit instructional decisions teachers and schools make. In an article on the impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on the instructional climate, Cawelti (2007) stated that the strong emphasis placed on the basic skill testing requirement of the NCLB legislation has resulted in a situation where many children spend most or all of the day on reading and math. Additionally Moon, Callahan, & Tomlinson (2003) reported that in high poverty, high minority schools teachers and school administrators are pressured to narrow the curriculum and teach test taking skills to the extent that one month prior to the high stakes test approximately 79 percent of instructional time is spent on these activities as compared to 25 percent in low poverty schools. The significant narrowing of the curriculum excludes subjects such as the arts, social studies, and the sciences. Schemo (2007) and McGuire (2007) both assert that non-tested areas have been adversely impacted to the extent that they are nearly nonexistent in some schools. These subjects are among the first choices of where to take time so that increases in the instructional time allotted for English Language Arts and mathematics can occur. However, these decisions are not uniformly applied, but rather target low achieving students who are disproportionately comprised of high poverty and minority students. Neal and Schanzenbach (2007) present research that reveals students at the "bubble" or those students near a state's proficiency cut score receive the bulk of instructional attention and teacher time in an attempt to improve their chances of meeting these expectations. Furthermore, those students deemed too low to make the cut are often neglected or receive little in the way of instruction. This approach is tantamount to educational triage where the students who are deemed most at-risk are given minimal attention and only those deemed "savable" are provided intensive instruction. Neal and Schanzenbach (2007) also report that at best high achieving students show no improvement as a result of accountability systems such as NCLB. This double edged sword where both low performing and high performing students are not benefiting from the instructional decisions made by schools is alarming. To further compound this practice, the impact on the average student appears to be limited as well. In discussing the systemic impact of NCLB, Lee (2006) reports that there is little or no evidence that NCLB is improving average student achievement and narrowing the achievement gap.

In a recent report from the Center for Education Policy, McMurrer (2007) advances the notion that there are significant differential educational outcomes for students concerning the narrowing of the curriculum. Specifically, the report shows that four significant changes have occurred since 2001-2002 with regard to the allocation of instructional time:

1) 62 percent of the surveyed school districts increased time for reading and math

2) 44 percent of the districts reduced time for non-tested subject areas

3) the degree of these changes were a function of whether the schools were labeled in need of improvement

4) there is a greater emphasis on test taking skills and the tested content.

McMurrer also reports that the reaction by teachers is mixed as to whether increasing the instructional time allotted to English...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!