Surviving Shock and Awe: NCLB vs. Colleges of Education

• Published in: English education Vol. 36; no. 2; pp. 104 - 118
• Main Author: McCracken, Nancy Mellin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Urbana National Council of Teachers of English 01.01.2004
• Subjects: Beginning Teachers; Children; Colleges; Colleges & universities; Comparative Analysis; Education; Education policy; Education reform; Educational Change; Educational research; English language; English teacher education; English Teachers; Federal Legislation; Figurative Language; Illiteracy; Language arts; Learning; No Child Left Behind Act; No Child Left Behind Act 2001; No Child Left Behind Act 2001-US; Paige, Rod; Politics of Education; Preservice Teacher Education; Professional standards; Research design; Rhetoric; Schools of Education; Shock and awe; Standardized Tests; State Departments of Education; Teacher education; Teacher Educators; Teachers; Teaching; United States > US; Iraq
• DOI: 10.58680/ee20042802
• ISSN: 0007-8204

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), signed into law in 2002, bears certain resemblances to the war on terrorism in Iraq. Of course, NCLB will not directly produce any civilian casualties or smashed buildings, but the political strategies used to roll it out have been eerily similar to those used in the war against terrorism. Disturbing rates of illiteracy in parts of the United States are said to be as destructive to the nation as attacks on life and property. Nothing short of all-out war, it is argued, will put an end to continuing threats of illiteracy. Lacking a literacy Osama bin Laden or Sadam Hussein, the Department of Education has targeted U.S. colleges of education for extinction. According to national press releases and prestigious forums on evidence-based policy, colleges of education repeatedly have ignored opportunities to put an end to the terror of illiteracy. This essay looks at NCLB from the perspective of the sections that impinge on colleges of education and suggests some ways English education professors might respond--first in these early days of "shock and awe," and then for the longer haul as the Department of Education discovers that reform in education, like victory in war, is "event-driven" not "time-driven," and that what is needed and what has been in place all along is a "highly flexible plan." The author wants policymakers to note that, just as in the Iraqi War of 2003, there is already in place a highly flexible plan for continued improvement in U.S. education, and that teacher preparation programs in U.S. colleges of education are at the heart of this plan. One highly flexible plan for leaving no child behind in U.S. education is a system whereby prospective teachers study their subject matter and apprentice themselves to scholars and clinical mentors over a period of years in an education that includes numerous tests and performance assessments. Finally, policymakers should note that any plan of attack in the field of education as in the field of war must be sophisticated enough to prevent collateral damage.