No child left behind

Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education 2002) has inadvertently engendered literacy programs that are often inappropriate or incompatible with young children's development. It overlooks children's need to access their many intelligences, especially those that enable them to negotiate between and among symbol systems. Inherent in its focus on “scientifically based research to inform their classroom” (Center on Education Policy 2004, 7), is an emphasis on “a standardized, explicit, and systematic approach to teaching reading to students at risk of reading failure” (Manzo 2004). Yet, numerous theorists recommend that young learners, especially those that are challenged due to learning disabilities, or cultural or economic diversity, can learn best by using alternative symbol systems that match their “stronger intelligences.” Premier among these “alternative symbol systems” are the arts. This article addresses the issues associated with No Child Left Behind Act and the educational implications of its repudiation of the arts in the literacy development of young learners.

Notes

Patricia T. Whitfield, Ph.D., is Director of Teacher Education at Lyon College in Batesville, Arkansas where she holds the endowed Rountree Caldwell Professorship of Education. She has been a teacher educator for 25 years in both public and private higher education, working primarily with underserved diverse populations. She began her career as an elementary teacher and has been a professor, program director, division chair, assistant dean and dean in education. Her research interests are: multicultural education; diversifying the teaching force; and supervision of instruction. She is strongly committed to social justice, especially in education.

An abbreviated version of this article has been presented at the February 2005 meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators in Chicago, Illinois.

In fairness, three of the 12 strategies for the Act's accomplishment do address the needs of underserved children: “(2) meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation's highest-poverty schools”, “(3) closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers”, and “(5) distributing and targeting resources sufficiently to make a difference to local educational agencies and schools where needs are greatest”.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Patricia T. Whitfield

Patricia T. Whitfield, Ph.D., is Director of Teacher Education at Lyon College in Batesville, Arkansas where she holds the endowed Rountree Caldwell Professorship of Education. She has been a teacher educator for 25 years in both public and private higher education, working primarily with underserved diverse populations. She began her career as an elementary teacher and has been a professor, program director, division chair, assistant dean and dean in education. Her research interests are: multicultural education; diversifying the teaching force; and supervision of instruction. She is strongly committed to social justice, especially in education.