Is Innovation in Education Being Left Behind?

In 2002, The Bush administration instituted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in hopes of bringing greater accountability to teachers and school districts across the nation.  Not only was the intent of the NCLB Act a way to increase accountability, but also a venue to allow parents and students a choice as to which school district they would prefer to attend in hope of bringing greater equality to education. The Act’s purpose was also to help bolster the country’s reading literacy program.  Much controversy surrounds or looms over whether or not the Act has stifled creativity and innovation in the classroom because of the increased drive and emphasis for students to pass nation-wide standardized tests. Through my personal observations and by talking with several practicing educators, the consensus seems to be unanimous, that the pressure “to perform” has compelled teachers to teach to the test and steals their time and energy from teaching life skills, critical thinking, and hinders them from instituting a more collaborative, “hands-on” approach to instruction.  There seems to be a dichotomy brewing in these United States when it comes to our country’s education. There has been a wind of change breezing through since NCLB was enacted. On one hand…a good hand, the Act has drawn attention to the growing needs and problems facing students and school systems in America, which alternatively has turned our thinking about traditional schooling to a more progressive, collaborative one; ergo the new “buzz” term for classroom being : learning community.  Since the Act, many universities have changed and revamped their program to meet the needs of a more diverse student body; not only diverse in ethnicity; but in learning style, which I personally believe is absolutely on the right track! I just do not quite understand what took place in the American educational system since the dawn of the NCLB Act. Almost simultaneously, the Act forces teachers to teach to the test, while a new movement, ideology or  philosophy emerges to bring about a more collaborative, less individualistic, less competitive, more team- friendly, hands-on, practical, innovative method of learning.  I find it to be quite the conundrum. It may seem as though one institution is fighting against another, but I believe that maybe, out of this struggle, a new paradigm is forming.  If the two ideas would merge; the traditional view with the progressive, constructivism with direct- instruction, and “teaching to the test’ with a creative, collaborative approach, then possibly a strong, well -balanced system would grow and take shape into something formidable that will best meet the growing, changing needs of our country’s student body.