Why restructure? Does it really do anything?

Restructuring Under NCLB Found Not to Really Do Much

This week's final post comes in under the NCLB act. As you know from previous posts, I am very pessimistic about the impact of NCLB. The biggest issue I find is that it has made us focus on testing more than learning over the past few years. In this article, research was conducted on 23 districts and 48 schools that needed improvement over the past 5 years. During the study, they found that the "solutions" offered through the legislation did not really transform the schools enough to have a significant impact on their achievement levels. This is cited as being the options for low-performing schools:

"The models—closing the school and sending students elsewhere; handing it over to a charter-management group or other outside entity to run; replacing most of the staff; or “transforming” it through changes in personnel, curriculum, and other areas—build on, but are not identical to, strategies called for in No Child Left Behind."

How can we say these things will make change? What if the students really don't care about school and they fail regardless of who is in front of them? Now, I do like the idea of converting to a charter school because it alleviates some of the pressures of strict AYP testing. There are some privileges that become available to charter schools not readily available to public schools. Firing staff or making significant personnel changes do not always get the buck either. There is no specific way they pick through the teachers. What if they just fired everybody? If I were doing a fine job, with good reviews and recommendations by my supervisors and peers, I'd be a little pissed off (excuse me) that I was fired because someone, who more than likely has no clue what I do as a Tech Ed teacher, thought I wasn't doing a fine job. There are teachers everywhere who probably shouldn't be teaching, but they are allowed to because the administration really does not take the time to see how effective they are. But again, is it really the teacher's fault 100% of the time. If you are in the poorest neighborhood, there is a large chance that, I don't know, the students could care less about school. Gangs, violence, and drugs probably rule and tests are irrelevant to them. How do you fix those situations?

Now there will be controversy though tied in to new money for education. The government wants to tie performance and these "tought" options at restructuring schools to new funding. How is that supposed to help if funding was inadequate in the first place? There may be some amazing teachers that refuse, on principle, to teach to the best of their ability because of their classroom environment, resources, and salary. What would happen if we started paying them more (instead of furloughing them) and giving them the resources they needed? Things would change. I think the biggest issue amongst us all, administrators, teachers, and students, is motivation and morale. Education is on the verge of becoming either the best thing we have or just something you do because it's the law. We have to receive motivation that is truly intrinsic. I want to be paid well for what I do, especially if I have advanced degrees. I also want to be able to go ask my principal or CTAE director for something and be able to get it, not told "no". Students want to feel a sense of accomplishment, whether superficial or real, so why don't we oblige them if it helps them achieve more and do better in school?