2+2=5

Sometimes this country's education system really boggles my mind. I know there's no easy fix and that, presumably, people are doing the best they can to make it work, but a lot of the policies seem counter-intuitive. Take my job for example. The students I tutor receive the help for free thanks to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and increased Title I funding to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). In other words, the government is paying for the tutoring the children receive.
Under NCLB, each state sets their own academic standards and determines the level at which each child should perform. There is no national standard set. So far, so good. All this testing and goal setting is, of course, put in place to make the states and their districts more accountable for the help the kids get. The government wants to make sure their money gets put to good use and the students are improving at a rate that is satisfactory. Fine. That makes sense.

Where things start to break down is in the lack of leeway educators are given in choosing and creating curriculum for their students. Like everything else about the program, it is strictly regulated by LAUSD, the state government, and the federal government. It is my job, as a tutor, to assess the students' abilities against state standards, to do all I can to make sure they reach those standards and give the student a post-assessment to see if they reached their goal. The big problem here is that test assessment covers a wider range of subjects than the government sanctioned curriculum covers. It's like the government asking students to be proficient in 10 categories, but only giving them help is three and forbidding any outside assistance.

At one point my company had an account to an online service that allowed educators to access supplemental worksheets; extra lessons to be used in addition to the main curriculum. That account is no longer available because it does not fall under the category of acceptable education material set by the state. Now I have to look elsewhere and find material on my own that may or may not pertain to the sanctioned curriculum. It's not that I mind looking for the material, it's that the state is asking for higher scores in subjects they are unwilling to provide material for.

I have a student who needs help in spelling. The lesson plans in the district approved workbook I am supposed to use do not cover spelling. It is meant as a reader. I asked my boss if they had any spelling material and she said no. I can only use what's in the workbooks and maybe adapt some of the reading lessons into something for spelling. Well, my student does not need the type of help given in the workbook. He needs something far more specific.

I understand the need for quality control and assurance, but limiting the resources of the educator creates two problems: The student will receive limited help in their given subject of need and/or the educator will go out on their own and find their own material to teach, standards be damned. Either way, the students are the ones losing out. They are not getting the help they need and the post-assessment test will show that. The government will either throw more money at the problem and hope it helps or stop funding because they think the status quo is ineffective. If the government approved curriculum matched the subjects being tested a lot of the program's deficiencies would disappear. I know that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one writing and passing the legislation. But still, honestly people, it's a simple game of matching things up. Test four subjects. Give help in four subjects. It's so easy a first grader could do it.