Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
APPEARED IN


View All Articles

Download PDF

DIRECTORIES:

Job Opportunities

Tutors

Workshops

Events

Sections:

Books

Camps & Sports

Careers

Children’s Corner

Collected Features

Colleges

Cover Stories

Distance Learning

Editorials

Medical Update

Metro Beat

Movies & Theater

Museums

Music, Art & Dance

Special Education

Spotlight On Schools

Teachers of the Month

Technology

Archives:

1995-2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

JANUARY 2003

No Child Left Behind: Research and the Art of Teaching
by Dr. Lorraine McCune

Enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) will ensure that all children learn by supporting educational activities evaluated by “scientifically-based research”. Teachers beware. The salvation offered by this plan is both limited and long-range. It is limited because, at present, only a handful of practices meet the “scientifically-based” test. The academic strategies include one-on-one tutoring for at-risk students in reading, as well as teaching phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, guided oral reading with feedback, and peer tutoring in kindergarten and elementary reading and mathematics. High quality preschool experiences, evaluated over the long term (1962 interventions evaluated 20 and more years later) improve a variety of life outcomes for at risk children, and “Life Skills Training” in junior high has been shown to reduce tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and illicit drug use. Effects in the preschool and Life Skills research were analyzed over many decades. This is surely long range.

Let’s not leave today’s children behind while we wait for scientific validation of known educational effects. All of the academic effects noted above involve relationships between an instructor, a child, and some material to be learned. The more intimate, detailed, and knowing these relationships are the more the child will learn.

The Report of the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy (November 2002) recommends that the U.S. Department of Education develop a strategy of “randomized trials” to determine the efficacy of various educational practices. A good idea perhaps, but in many ways limited, and definitely most useful in the long range. Randomized trials involve random assignment of children to a group that experiences the practice to be tested or a control group. Presumably the practices under test are believed to be very good for children. How do we justify offering these practices to only some children? What instruction will the others receive?

Another problem: How do you measure success? Standardized tests are often the answer, but limitations in such tests are apparent. Can we really effectively test the educational progress we value most in children?

And another: Will all teachers deliver the educational practice under study in the same way? Perhaps not. In fact, should they? Children are individuals: teachers vary in style...in ways they seek to reach children. Such variation might or might not undermine the research agenda, while suiting instruction to individuals.

But supposing all of these problems can be solved. What happens while we wait the 10, 20, or 30 years needed to evaluate basic practices and their replication? Children can’t wait: They grow up every day. So again it falls to the teachers. William James identified teaching as an art. Let’s look to science for help, but continue to ply our art.#

Dr. Lorraine McCune is a professor at the Rutgers University Graduate School of Education. She can be reached at www.generalcreation.com in the “Ask Dr. McCune” section, or at www.educationupdate.com

 

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

Name:

Email:
Show email
City:
State:

 


 

 

 

Education Update, Inc.
All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2004.