No Child Left Behind

For those who don't know, the "No Child Left Behind" act, as well as other such similar acts, is a way of making sure that as many children as possible obtain their high school diploma. That may sound good in theory. After all, more high school graduates mean a better-educated workforce, right?

In theory. In practice, however, this doesn't work, especially given the fact that the act achieves the boost to graduate numbers by lowering standards and pushing children through to the next grade when they are incapable of handling the work. It contributes to the growing trend of high school graduates who can't spell to save their lives, and it makes the actual diploma mean less than it ever has in the past.

When I was in high school, a law was passed that made it illegal for a child to not be in high school until they received their diploma or turned 18, whichever came first. This was an attempt to keep the dropout numbers down, and an attempt to raise the amount of graduates. After all, if you had to be in school, you may as well learn, right?

In reality, it wasn't so simple. All that it meant was that people who had no academic leaning slacked off until they turned 18, then left, no longer being legally bound to attempt their classes. The only difference between this and pre-law behaviour was the age at which those people finally left school. The majority of the people who would benefit from the "if you have to be here you may as well learn" attitude were the ones who were already interested in learning anyway.

But that was just the beginning. After I had left high school, a new law was passed, one that made an even greater leap towards getting more people to graduate. They made it so that a student could only fail a grade a maximum of 3 times before they had to be passed to the next grade. All this has done is enabled people to sit around, learn nothing, and get a diploma in the end anyway, so long as they actually stay in school. They're more likely to leave as soon as they're 18 anyway, but if they're so inclined, they can go to class every day fail each grade 3 times, and end up getting the same certificate of (supposed) merit as the people who actually worked during their classes.

If someone doesn't mind staying in school for 36 years, they can obtain a high school diploma without ever advancing beyond a grade 1 education.

School board directors may as well stand on the streets and hand diplomas out to any random passer-by. It would mean about as much as if they had actually attended classes, after all.

So what happens when you can get a high school diploma without working for it? The diploma itself starts to mean less. It may be required more for employment nowadays, but when it means less than it ever did before, why even bother requiring it? In the past, you got a diploma by working for it. Even if you just barely graduated, you still did actual work. You still proved that you knew something, even if it was only half as much as other people. Some proof was required that you got something out of the classes you sat through.

When you reached the bare minimum that you needed to know to pass, you passed. Now the bare minimum is measured in time rather than knowledge. It cheapens the value of the diploma. And speaking from a purely personal point of view, it angers people who actually worked hard and put in the effort to get it.

The concept behind "No Child Left Behind" is part of the reason that half your coworkers might not be able to spell ‘coworker' correctly. Why the cashier at your local department store needs a calculator to tell you how much change you get when you pay for a $15.99 item with a $20 bill.

Here's an interesting comparison. When I was nearing the end of my high school, I read an article comparing high schools on the east coast of Canada with schools on the west coast. School boards on the east coast wanted a low number of allowable dropouts, which contributed to the law that said you can't leave school until the age of 18. As a result, we had a high number of graduates but overall school-wide test scores were below the nation's average. On the west coast, they had a higher number of allowable dropouts, which meant a lower percentage of graduates with diplomas but school-wide test scores tended to be above the national average. Those that stayed wanted to be there, wanted to work, and that was reflected in their schools' statistics.

Quality over quantity. Apparently some bureaucrats forgot that little adage when they were making the new laws.

There are plenty of newspaper articles that lament the lowered standards of North America's educational system, throwing out statistics than only 36% of high school graduates know this thing, 41% know that thing, but a lot of them gloss over why the standards have been lowered in the first place. The attitude of "getting to the finish line at all costs" has made it so the cost is nothing. Which makes the value the very same. I can't understand how people thought this would be a good plan of action. Lowering educational standards doesn't result in people getting smarter. It results in averages dropping. Lower standards mean lower quality.

The standards of public school education won't rise again until the people in charge learn that very basic fact. Using the comparison of east and west Canadian schools as a perfect example, you won't get higher standards until you start allowing people to fail again. It sounds unfair, but it's true. Allow people to fail, allow the high school diploma to mean something again, and those who graduate will do so with a higher average than they're doing now. There'll be motivation again. They'll be a chance for those with no motivation to leave, and that will allow those with no motivation or willpower to stop getting the same benefits as those who did the work and pushed themselves to reach the finish line with pride.

Let us have the chance to fail, and we'll start to rise above it all once more.