There is a high school in a Georgia County (in the Metro-Atlanta area) that will remain nameless. I know about the school because I lived within two miles of it. I could be writing about any school in the State or the nation for that matter. Anyway, the school is considered one of the top academic schools in the State. It received an award from the state for having the highest percentage of students meeting and exceeding state standards. However, this year the school did not meet the federal No Child Left Behind Law (NCLBL). How can this be? How can a school that has such high academic achievement in one set of tests, fail in another. It’s because of the math! If you go to the NCLB website they will lead to believe that things are working just fine.

The NCLBL divides each school into subgroups based on various factors, e.g. ethnicity, English language learners, students with disabilities, students from poor families. If anyone of the subgroups does not “pass” then the whole school fails.

Some argue that this is good. Making sure everyone meets the mustard. But others ague that it penalizes the whole because of a subgroup. It’s a dilemma. And one that calls for careful discussion.

But what has the NCLBL done? In one sense, the Feds are pitting one group of students against another. For example, the unnamed school cited here has about 13 percent Hispanic, 9 percent Asian, 50 percent white and 25 % African-American. I have no data on other subgroups, e.g.. students from poor families, etc. So if any one of the sub-groups does not attain an average test score in let’s say reading or math, then the whole school is warned—you didn’t make it. It sounds like a good thing. Keeping the school accountable. But the typical remedies involve very old psychology. In the old view, students are like vessels into which one pours knowledge and wisdom. Tests are designed to measure trivial pieces of this knowledge. If your subgroup didn’t make it, then we’ll pour more of that trivial knowledge at you, and prepare you to take the test. Very little is done to the infrastructure of the school, or to re-think the purpose of schooling, and how to meet the needs and challenges of students—at least in the model being used in Georgia.

In schools that are made up of a single group, say all white or African-American, the chance is higher to meet the test standards because only a single set of scores is used to create the average score for the school. In a way, the Law discriminates against schools that have integrated, and work with students with all abilities. Doesn’t make sense, does it.

There is a very good possibility that there is very little mixing of the subgroups in this school. So students who are not doing well academically are less likely to be in courses with students who are doing well. This is distinctly unfortunate. In studies done looking at the value of heterogeneous grouping, students at each end of the academic continuum do better academically, as well as socially. As long as the Federal Law stays in place, there will be little room for harmony and innovation in teaching and learning.

The Federal Law takes away from schools the ability to create a learning environment that will be tailored to the needs of students, and the abilities of teachers. It rules from a distance, and removes the locus of control away from the school, and places it in the incompetent hands of bureaucrats.