No Child Left Behind in Puerto Rico: How Does the No Child Left

Behind Act Affect Teachers Attitudes Toward Students from Low-

ncome Communities
Emely E. Medina-Rodrguez
De!artment of Social Science
"ni#ersit$ of Puerto Rico%
&a$a'(e) Cam!us
Leonard Ramirez
Latin American Recruitment and *ducational Ser#ices
"ni#ersit$ of llinois at Chica'o
1
Abstract: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was created in 2001 to close the achievement
gap between middle class hite st!dents and low"income minorit# st!dents in the $%&% NCLB is
also mandated in '!erto (ico and affects '!erto (ican ed!cational instit!tions% Altho!gh this law
has been st!died in the $%&) its impact on territories distant from the mainland is less !nderstood%
Little is *nown) for e+ample) abo!t how NCLB affects '!erto (ican teachers, attit!des)
especiall# those wor*ing with st!dents from low"income comm!nities% -!alitative research
methods were chosen to enco!rage teachers from an intermediate school in .a#ag/e0) '!erto
(ico) to e+press their perspectives from their own point of view regarding the NCLB Law and
related themes% The school serves st!dents from five s!rro!nding p!blic ho!sing pro1ects) and
ninet#"two percent of the st!dent bod# came from ho!seholds with an income below the povert#
level% &tatistics from '!erto (ico,s 2epartment of 3d!cation also showed that this school had not
met NCLB,s Ade4!ate 5earl# 'rogress re4!irement for the past five #ears% A snowball sample
identified seven teacher and staff members, participants) and the# were interviewed !sing an
instr!ment containing 26 open"ended 4!estions%
Teachers emphasi0ed the impact of the environmental and socio"c!lt!ral bac*gro!nds of
st!dents from this low"income comm!nit# on their lac* of s!ccess on standardi0ed tests and on
their academic life% Teachers e+pect st!dents to possess attit!des that reflect their lac* of interest
toward the ed!cational process% The# ass!me the children lac* critical e+periences and c!lt!ral
capital) and that this lac* leads them to become disinterested in their own schooling% The data
s!ggest NCLB aggravates teachers, low e+pectations of local comm!nit# st!dents% To f!ll#
!nderstand the implications of the implementation of NCLB in '!erto (ico we sho!ld consider
the vario!s factors that ma# affect the relationship between teachers and st!dents% e m!st also
2
e+amine options that reinforce the strengths of teachers and st!dents ta*ing into acco!nt the
special needs of st!dents and the challenges that confront teachers%
1 Introduction
.!ch has been written abo!t the No Child Left Behind Act in the $nited &tates) b!t less
is *nown abo!t the impact of this law in $%&% territories% '!erto (ico is a $nited &tates territor#)
and therefore $%&% federal laws m!st be followed as the# are in an# state of the !nion% Altho!gh
'!erto (ico has no representation leveling Congress) according to the 2002 $%&% Cens!s 776)
809 '!erto (ican st!dents in the island are covered b# the NCLB act% '!erto (ico has been
!nder $%&% power since 18:8) and has !ndo!btedl# had a great c!lt!ral infl!ence from the $nited
&tates; B!t this does not necessaril# mean '!erto (ican st!dents on the island have the same
needs as American st!dents or even as '!erto (ican st!dents living in the $nited &tates% There
are <%8 million '!erto (icans living on the island) and for the most part the# are &panish
spea*ers and have a Latin American c!lt!re% '!erto (ico,s political stat!s has molded its socio"
c!lt!ral e+pressions and social needs%
The No Child Left Behind was created in 2001 as a rea!thori0ation of the 1:6=
3lementar# and &econdar# 3d!cation Act (3&3A)) one of its principal ob1ectives being to close
>the achievement gap between high" and low performing children) especiall# the achievement
gaps between minorit# and non"minorit# st!dents) and between disadvantaged children and their
more advantaged peers? 11= &TAT% 1990 (=) '$BL@C LA 107A110BCAN% 8) 2002% NCLB
intends to close this gap b# holding schools and states acco!ntable for the progress of their
st!dents% &chools have to maintain Ade4!ate 5earl# 'rogress (A5') to avoid being labeled as a
>failing? school% A5' is determined b# each state in accordance with NCLB goals) and schools
3
have to !se standardi0ed tests states to demonstrate st!dents, proficienc# in core s!b1ects each
#ear% hen a school does not show A5') conse4!ences are grad!all# applied) beginning b#
labeling the school as >in need of improvement? the first #ear and c!lminating with the
replacement of school staff and the restr!ct!ring of the school personnel in the fifth #ear
(&chmidt 2007)%
The NCLB act has been highl# critici0ed in the $nited &tates for failing to accomplish its
ob1ectives) and especiall# for not closing the achievement gap it was created to close% The
standardi0ed tests !sed to implement it have also been critici0ed for being biased and for
ass!ming that getting good scores on the test will close ed!cational and economic gaps% The law
has also been acc!sed of narrowing the c!rric!l!m and den#ing st!dents a holistic school
e+perience% The literat!re identifies additional problemsD it does not differentiate between
comm!nities or social gro!ps) it treats st!dents from m!ltiple bac*gro!nds and m!ltiple needs as
if the# were all the same) and it affects predominantl# minorit# st!dents from poor !rban areas%
'!blic polic# decisions stemming from the NCLB law have also been critici0ed) arg!ing
that the law is !sed to advance private economic and political agendas and that it is being !sed to
avoid policies that directl# deal with these comm!nities, iss!es s!ch as !nemplo#ment or
!nderemplo#ment% &cholars arg!e this law enco!rages the disconnection between st!dents and
teachers% &ome agree that the c!rric!l!m has been replaced with practice for standardi0ed test%
The literat!re s!ggests that it is necessar# that teachers get involved in polic#"ma*ing decisions)
beca!se it is them who m!st implement these decisions%
This research tries to !nderstand how NCLB shapes teachers, attit!des toward their
st!dents from low"income comm!nities in '!erto (ico% @t also e+plores low e+pectations and
4
their impact on the st!dent"teacher relationship as the# are e+pressed and described b# the
teachers% .oreover) this wor* see*s to !nderstand) from the teacher,s point of view) how NCLB
re4!irements and low teacher e+pectations impact st!dent interest in and commitment to the
school%
2 Methodology
&even interviews with teachers wor*ing in a middle school near the $niversit# of '!erto
(ico at .a#ag!e0 were anal#0ed% The school was chosen based on its location and on the '!erto
(ican 2epartment of 3d!cation statistics; The .arina C% Eernande0 &chool is located near to and
serves st!dents from five p!blic ho!sing pro1ects) and ninet#"two percent of its st!dent bod#
come from ho!seholds with income levels below the povert# line% This school was labeled to be
>in need of improvement? for the past five #ears% &t!dents, age at the school range from eleven
to fifteen #ears with the e+ception of those enrolled in the special ed!cation program% &pecial
ed!cation st!dents constit!te half of the st!dent enrollment at .arina C% Eernande0 &chool and
range from eleven to twent#"one #ears old% .ost of these special ed!cation st!dents are not
assigned to a partic!lar grade b!t rather to a >wor*shop?%
Two mathematics teachers) one &panish teacher) one social st!dies teacher) two
co!nselors and the school principal were interviewed% Three of the instr!ctors that were
interviewed teach special ed!cation st!dents and three teach st!dents from seventh to ninth
grade% Teachers were recr!ited !sing a snowball or chain method recr!iting process beginning
with the school principal% Fpen"ended interviews were cond!cted in an attempt to capt!re
teachers, views abo!t the No Child Left Behind act% Teachers were as*ed twent#"si+ 4!estions
5
abo!t NCLB and st!dentsG college aspirations% @nterviews were appro+imatel# one ho!r in
length and were cond!cted between the months of Eebr!ar# and April of 200:%
The interviews were coded !sing the open coding method described b# &tra!ss H Corbin
(1::8)% Nine ma1or codes were derived from the data and anal#0ed witho!t a preconceived
theor#% Two main 4!estions were !sed as general g!ideD Iow does the No Child Left Behind act
affect the teaching practices in a low"income schoolJ and Iow does the No Child Left Behind
act affect teachers, attit!des toward st!dents from low"income comm!nitiesJ The anal#0ed data
allowed a better !nderstanding of the impact of NCLB on teacher attit!des%
3 Literature
NCLB affects disadvantage students
&chmidt (2008) see*s to demonstrate that NCLB schools with large amo!nts of
disadvantaged st!dents are more v!lnerable to NCLB sanctions% Ie foc!ses on two factors to
base his arg!ment) proficienc# gains and separation of s!bgro!ps scores% The proficienc# gains
model re4!ires all schools to reach a single proficienc# level in order to close the achievement
gap% Iowever) for disadvantaged st!dents this re4!irement is a challenge beca!se the ne+t #ear
the criteria scores will get higher even if the school did not previo!sl# meet the threshold the
previo!s #ear% This p!ts disadvantaged st!dents in the position of having to reach higher
proficienc# levels in a shorter amo!nt of time in order to avoid NCLB sanctions and the
withholding of federal f!nds (&chmidt 2008%) Eor &chmidt this model !nfairl# affects schools
with m!ltiple s!bgro!ps which he describes as incl!ding low"income st!dents) gro!ps with
learning disabilities or those with limited 3nglish proficienc#%
6
To ma*e s!re s!bgro!ps are reaching the progress needed to attain statewide
re4!irements schools separate s!bgro!p scores from the collective school"wide scores% The
a!thor claims this model !nfairl# impacts schools with certain gro!ps of st!dents s!ch as those
with m!ltiple needs% This provision identifies partic!lar samples of st!dents failing the test to
sanction the entire school) ma*ing it more diffic!lt for schools with higher n!mbers of
disadvantaged children to reach statewide proficienc# levels% This ma*es those schools more
v!lnerable to federal sanctions than those schools with a homogeneo!s pop!lation%
Low Expectations:
einer (2006) reviews deficit theories and presents recommendations on how to
challenge deficit thin*ing% Ie describes the school c!lt!re as fostering deficit thin*ing% Ie
e+plains how the ed!cational s#stem str!ct!res and s!stains deficit thin*ing b# ass!ming
misbehavior or poor achievement are iss!es st!dents inherited from their families and that need
to be fi+ed% @ndivid!al behavior and character are in need of reform in order to solve p!blic
iss!es% This same approach can be seen in school practices and ass!mptions% einer states this
deficit thin*ing often hides st!dents and teachers abilities) which is especiall# powerf!l beca!se
is a practice that people tend to overloo* or ta*e"for"granted%
2eficit thin*ing in the ed!cational s#stem >ma*es teachers a mere referral agent and
locates responsibilit# for st!dent achievement be#ond a teacher,s reach? (einer 2006)% Ie adds
that ed!cators are also victims of deficit thin*ing) especiall# when parents and legislators insist
that teacher deficits are the sole reason for st!dents, poor achievement% einer e+plains that
these ass!mptions) school practices and traditions obsc!re both teachers, and st!dents, strengths%
7
E!rthermore he s!ggests that teachers ma# become disco!raged when the# face the fact that the#
cannot change these practices on their own% 3ven so he recommends teachers e+amine these
deficit arg!ments criticall# and develop strategies that foc!s on st!dents, strengths% Ie also
proposes that p!blic ed!cation sho!ld change its face b# ma*ing it important for teachers to
challenge those deficit ass!mptions%
Standardized testing: the misuse of data
&tandardi0ed testing is the method that NCLB !ses to meas!re academic achievement in
ever# state and for children from all *inds of socio"c!lt!ral and economic bac*gro!nd% (ivera
(2007) arg!es that data coming from standardi0ed tests has been mis!sed to prove that the polic#
wor*s for all *inds of st!dents% &he claims the mis!se of data ma*es this test to be tempered b#
ideological beliefs) s!ch as claims of tests been scientificall# based% .oreover) believing
scientificall# based means above social) c!lt!ral and economical factors% (ivera anal#0ed
disco!rses abo!t test scores statistics to reveal these ideologies come from ver# specific
historical and social conte+ts) especiall# from disco!rses claiming that intelligence can be
meas!re empiricall#%
(ivera e+amines disco!rses that s!pport the emphasis on testing and acco!ntabilit#) for
e+ample) those that claim teachers have alwa#s !sed e+ams to meas!re st!dent achievement or to
identif# children with disabilities) or those who emphasi0e the voice of the ta+pa#ers who
4!estion the performance of schools% E!rthermore she challenges the notion that strong
acco!ntabilit# based on testing is the *e# for a rigoro!s and challenging c!rric!l!m% (ivera
arg!es that the t#pe of disco!rse that emphasi0es testing and acco!ntabilit# is also !sed to 1!stif#
8
p!nishment for !nderperforming schools) pa#ing no attention to social or economic
bac*gro!nds) stigmati0ing children) and labeling schools as failing) witho!t considering the
factors that ma*e the st!dents perform poorl# on the tests% According to (ivera) data
interpretations >in some cases ma# not reveal the realit# of those who are often affected b# it?
she e+plains that the mis!se of data disco!nts disadvantage gro!ps in the name of scientific
testing and prod!ces detrimental conse4!ences s!ch as marginali0ing st!dents or p!nishing them
for !nderachieving%
Teachers invo!vement:
The necessit# of teacher involvement is st!dents, c!lt!re) life) problems and comm!nit#
is disc!ssed b# (e#nolds 2007) especiall# after the implementation of the NCLB% &he critici0es
that NCLB standardi0ed test re4!irements ma*es the c!rric!l!ms disengage with st!dents, dail#
realities% (e#nolds arg!es teachers, lac* the freedom to determine what teachings are more
consistent with their st!dents, needs% 'artic!larl# when the c!rric!la e+cl!de important topics in
the classrooms) classrooms where social forces alread# deters the practice of critical thin*ing%
Therefore) the a!thor s!ggests that st!dents ma# e+perience alienation from the school
environment) beca!se their lives are not part of the c!rric!l!m%
Iowever) she gives e+amples of scholars whose pro1ects help teachers to e+amine their
teaching methods to incl!de alternatives to meet the personal and ed!cational needs of st!dents%
&he also cond!cted s!rve#s to teachers who had created lessons to help st!dents deal with their
problems% Erom the res!lts (e#nolds concl!ded that >social development m!st precede
children,s consideration of the social force that affects their lives%? Additionall# she e+plains
9
these lessons were designed to help children control their emotions) managing anger and solving
social problems%
Einall# she s!ggests teaches to promote respect in their classrooms and show concern for
st!dents% .oreover she recommends teachers to ac4!ire c!es to remind st!dents the lessons
ta!ght when conflicts arise% The a!thor attrib!tes the lac* of teacher engagement with st!dents,
social needs in part to NCLB test re4!irement% &he arg!es that >creating a c!rric!l!m of basics
s*ills that can be meas!re b# standardi0ed tests is 1!st another wa# of ignoring st!dents, real
needs%? (e#nolds s!ggests that even with NCLB p!nitive policies teacher sho!ld g!ide st!dents
in their personal development%
NCLB cannot c!ose the achievement gap
An#on (2007) e+plores the government,s rhetoric abo!t NCLB f!nctioning as a 1ob
polic#% &he tries to demonstrate how the economic realit# of disadvantage gro!ps shortens the
power of ed!cation to lead people o!t of povert#% The a!thor arg!es that NCLB is !se as an anti"
povert# meas!re ass!ming that having a higher ed!cational level will lead low"income
individ!als o!t of povert#% 3ven so An#on claims that >for ed!cation to lead to better 1obs there
has to be 1obs available%? Therefore she e+plains that the $& 1ob mar*et is limited) and is
prod!cing primaril# povert# wage 1obs and onl# a few highl# paid ones% $& economic realities
ma*e having a college degree not a g!arant# of having a highl# paid 1ob% An#on advice that
those promise of a good 1ob and better pa# impl# b# NCLB are false) beca!se for minorit#
st!dent and low"income individ!als academic achievement is no g!arantee of economic s!ccess%
10
Eor An#on) the government wants to ma*e seen as if NCLB has the power to close an
achievement gap that was created b# other factors that a better ed!cation cannot fi+%
4 Results
After cond!cting the interviews and ta*ing field notes) nine ma1or codes were selected
beca!se of their relationship to each other and to the literat!re% The first was related to the
teachers, comments that e+pressed their low e+pectations of st!dents, academic achievement% @n
one ma1or code named deficit) two s!b topics were identified) first) the lac* of parental
involvement in their children,s academic life and second) the st!dents, lac* of academic and
e+trac!rric!lar e+periences which are ass!med to contrib!te to b!ilding c!lt!ral capital%
@n the interviews) teachers e+pressed low e+pectations for their st!dents, behavior in the
classroom) attit!de toward learning and academic progress% The# tho!ght their st!dents,
academic performance in class and on standardi0ed tests e+emplified an !ncaring attit!de toward
school% Teachers e+pected st!dents not to follow the cond!ct code in classrooms and be
irresponsible in their dail# schoolwor*% The# ass!med that the# wo!ld not be prepared to disc!ss
homewor*% As one of the teachers e+plainedD
>@ as* them for information) then @ wait for the children to bring me the
information the ne+t da# so @ can contin!e the class) b!t no) onl# two or three brought
the assignment% B!t see) this is the wa# the# do it% The# go to the librar# and print it
directl# Kfrom the internetL) b!t @ as* them if the# *now something of what is there) and
one even told me that the librar# printers ran o!t of in* and that is wh# she did not
brought it?
11
Teachers did not e+pect st!dents to wor* at 100M intellect!al capacit# since the# see
them as disinterested in school% According to teachers) !ncaring st!dents can be identified b#
their negative attit!de toward schoolwor* and b# their academic achievement) which incl!des
low grades and low scores on standardi0ed test%
Teachers asserted that st!dents lac* c!lt!ral and ed!cational e+periences o!tside their
comm!nit#% The# see this as a detriment to c!ltivating st!dent interest in the ed!cational process%
Fne teacher commented that >latel# man# st!dents come Kto schoolL with specific learning
disabilities and it is possibl# beca!se the# lac* previo!s ed!cational e+periences or ma#be
beca!se the# are c!lt!rall# disadvantaged%? The# attrib!te this lac* of e+periences to their socio"
economic stat!s) b!t with the caveat that the socio"economic part is onl# an obstacle) b!t not the
reason for academic fail!re% 3ven so) teachers feel that their st!dents are !nable to achieve
!pward social mobilit# beca!se the# have been acc!lt!rated to the comm!nit# living standards)
which the# describe as welfare dependant and !nacc!stomed to a!togestion%
(egarding parental involvement) teachers do not e+pect parents to provide
comprehensive c!lt!ral e+periences for their children) as do more economicall# privileged
ho!seholds% As a teacher e+plains) >The# Kst!dentsL are not e+posed to man# e+periences as
when #o! parents have mone# and e+pose their children to broader e+periences% Then when the
teacher disc!sses certain topics st!dents *now beca!se the# have traveled or been e+posed to
c!lt!ral events% The# are aware of certain topics so that when the teacher disc!sses them) the#
alread# *now%? Teachers claimed that most of the parents of their st!dents do not provide an
e+ample of !pward social mobilit# or academic s!ccess to their children) b!t rather an e+ample
12
of social stagnation and resignation with their life st#le% Teachers all!de to the parents, low
ed!cational levels and governmental financial assistance as an e+ample of this social stagnation%
Teachers believe that famil# s!pport and ed!cational val!es are an important part of
st!dent,s academic s!ccess% Therefore) if the parents do not get involved in their child,s
academic life the st!dent will not obtain the academic progress teachers, believe is necessar# to
achieve s!ccess% Teachers emphasi0ed that st!dents lac* the parental stim!l!s to inspire socio"
economic progress% The# feel that the comm!nit# and the parents of their st!dents fail to provide
social) academic and c!lt!ral e+periences that enco!rage st!dents to aspire to higher academic
goals%
Teachers attrib!te the lac* of e+periences to the st!dent,s environment% Living in a p!blic
ho!sing pro1ect affects st!dents, self"esteem% Teachers perceive that their st!dents have a self"
image of a poor person witho!t opport!nities to s!cceed% As this teacher comments) >loo*) it is
li*e a c#cle) the# Kst!dentsL don,t have an# other wa#) the# don,t have the opport!nities to
e+pand their hori0on% The# can,t see o!tside from where the# live and @ thin* that) has an
infl!ence on them and the school%? Teachers feel the comm!nit# does not s!ppl# st!dents with
broad c!lt!ral e+periences and opport!nities for !pward mobilit#% Children will not be able to
imitate or aspire to be s!ccessf!l professionals since the# are not e+posed to s!ccessf!l
professionals in their comm!nit#% Teachers s!ggest that the st!dents feel safe within their
comm!nit# environment and are satisfied to onl# f!lfill their comm!nit# e+pectations%
E!rthermore) the# maintain that their school is not capable of offering socio"c!lt!ral e+periences
to their st!dents beca!se the school is part of p!blic ho!sing and is part of the comm!nit#%
13
Teachers feel st!dents cannot identif# with the school c!rric!l!m beca!se their comm!nit# has
not offered them the c!lt!ral e+pos!re necessar# for the st!dent to be interested in learning%
Einall#) teachers believe the school fails the NCLB standardi0ed test beca!se of the lac*
of importance that st!dent give schooling% The# stated that man# of their st!dents are not
committed to their academic progress; therefore) the# feel test scores will not affect them in an#
wa#% According to one teacher) >most of them Kst!dentsL sta# in the basic part not beca!se the#
can,t progress and it is not beca!se the# don,t *now) b!t beca!se the# don,t care% The# don,t see
the "val!e of the test% The# thin* nothing is going to happen to them beca!se the# are not being
graded and beca!se the# will not get an#thing from them KtestsL%? 3ven so teachers see s!ccess
on the test as a meas!rement of the commitment of st!dents to their ed!cation%
5 nalysis
2ata shows teachers have low e+pectations of their st!dents) specificall# for two ma1or
reasonsD (1) beca!se st!dents come from a low"income marginali0ed comm!nit# and (2) beca!se
half of the school,s enrollment participates in the special ed!cation program% .an# st!dents have
learning disabilities% These factors contrib!te to teachers thin*ing that their st!dents have deficits
that will not allow them to achieve academic s!ccess% The first deficienc# is the lac* of parental
involvement in their children,s academic life) which for the teachers means that the st!dent will
be lac*ing famil# s!pport to aspire to be more academicall# s!ccessf!l% 3ven more) parents do
not provide socio"c!lt!ral e+periences that motivate st!dents to aspire to a profession that can be
reached academicall#) for e+ample seeing one of their parents achieve social mobilit# thro!gh a
1ob that re4!ires a degree%
14
Another deficit the st!dents have is the lac* of the social and c!lt!ral e+periences o!tside
of their school and comm!nit#% The# lac* c!lt!ral e+periences s!ch as fieldtrips to m!se!ms)
landmar*s and !niversities) which e+pose st!dents to iss!es and ideas that stim!late the
development of academic interests and professional career paths% The# also lac* social
e+periences s!ch as camps or hobb# gro!ps) which e+pose st!dent to people from m!ltiple
bac*gro!nds with ideas different from their own% Einall# teachers interviewed tho!ght that the
most severe deficit the# confronted was the limited academic capacit# of their special ed!cation
st!dents to s!cceed academicall#% Ialf of the st!dents bod# are special ed!cation st!dents with
learning disabilities that rang from the mild to the severe% These did not allow teachers to
demand better academic competence from their st!dents% Eor teachers these factors affect the
interest that st!dents have toward academic life and therefore their academic s!ccess%
&ince NCLB was implemented teachers redefined their idea of academic s!ccess) which
has been foc!sed on standardi0ed test scores% &t!dents who do not meet this re4!irement are not
considered s!ccessf!l% To achieve the ade4!ate scores NCLB re4!ires teachers redesign their
teaching methods toward a c!rric!l!m that can assist st!dents to achieve the re4!ired test scores%
This means that the c!rric!l!m is narrowed) which ma# contrib!te to st!dents becoming even
more disinterested in their ed!cation% The st!dents do not identif# with the c!rric!l!m as it
becomes monotono!s and lin*s st!dent needs to tests scores% The combination of these two
factorsD (1) the deficits identified b# teachers and (2) a narrowed c!rric!l!m) which is !naware of
the st!dents, needs ma# ca!se st!dents to disengage with their own ed!cation% &t!dents do not
give importance to standardi0ed tests that might increase their s!ccess as defined b# teachers nor
15
do the# obtain the scores needed to f!lfill NCLB re4!irements% This in t!rn ca!ses an increase in
teachers, low e+pectations of their st!dents%
Aggravating these attit!des is the fact that teachers will not integrate into the process the
ac4!isition of comprehensive) holistic learning) which ta*es into consideration st!dents
comprehensive needs% Teacher attit!des ma# lead st!dents to believe that the# do not care abo!t
their well"being% Therefore) this co!ld increase the disengagement of st!dents with their
ed!cation even more and ma# e+acerbate behaviors that teachers identif# as !ncaring% Nalen0!ela
(1:::) s!ggests that a complete appreciation of the material) ph#sical) ps#chological and
spirit!al need of st!dents sho!ld g!ide teachers in the ed!cational process% To obtain this *ind of
ed!cation einer (2006) recommends teachers to criticall# e+amine deficit e+planations abo!t
their st!dents and search for strategies that foc!s on their strengths%
@n the '!erto (ican conte+t the sit!ation is aggravated since '!erto (icans do not have a
sa# in the ed!cational policies implemented in the island beca!se of their political stat!s vis"O"vis
the $nited &tates% .oreover this law shapes '!erto (ico,s own ed!cational laws as for e+ample
the most recent 2epartment of 3d!cation circ!lar letter) which ta*es the res!lts of standardi0ed
test to reform '!erto (ico,s school c!lt!re) even tho!gh the law do not ta*e into acco!nt the
academic and social needs in school li*e this one% Eor e+ample) the letter !rges principals to stop
fieldtrips that are not related to academic achievement) even tho!gh teacher !rge for more
st!dent e+pos!re o!tside the school and their comm!nities%
Ereire (1:70) e+plains that >.an# political and ed!cational plans have failed beca!se
their a!thors designed them according to their own personal views of realit#) never ones ta*ing
16
into acco!nt (e+cept as mere ob1ects of their actions) the men"in"a"sit!ation to whom their
program was ostensibl# directed%? The agenc# of the teacher in ma*ing decisions for the welfare
of st!dents each da# is red!ced b# this law which does not ta*e into acco!nt the realities of
'!erto (ico,s low"income comm!nities% NCLB does the opposite of what democratic societ# is
loo*ing to do with an impartial and fair ed!cation% .ore than an#thing) a p!blic polic# sho!ld
enco!rage an ed!cation where the strengths of the teacher and the st!dent are reinforced% here
the teacher is enco!raged to meet and interact with their st!dents, comm!nit#%
!i"liogra#hy
Apad!rai) A% (2009)% The capacit# to aspireD C!lt!re and the terms of recognition % @n N% (% al)
Culture and public action . CaliforniaD &tanford $niversit# 'ress%
Abedi) C% (2009)% The No Child Left Behind Act and 3nglish Lang!age LearnersD Assessment and
Acco!ntabilit# @ss!es % Educational Researcher %
American Eederation of Teachers% (2001)% NCLBD @ts 'roblems) @ts 'romise% AFT Teachers
Policy Brief Number 18 %
An#on) C% (1:80)% &ocial Class and the Iidden C!rric!l!m of or*% ournal of Education ) 67"
:2%
An#on) C% (200=)% hat PCo!ntsP as 3d!cational 'olic#J Notes toward a new paradigm% !ar"ard
Educational Re"ie# ) 6="88%
An#on) C%) Qreene R% (2007)% No Child Left Behind as an Anti"'overt# .es!re% Teachers
Education $uaterly ) 1=7"162%
Bialosto*) &% (2008)% 3d!cation and the (is* &ociet#% Anthropolo%y Ne#s %
Brice"Ieath) &% (1:8<)% &ays #ith #ords . Cambridge D Cambridge $niversit# 'ress %
17
Choms*#) N% (2000)% Choms'y on (iseducation . '!blisherD (owman H Littlefield '!b) @nc%
Ch!bb) C%) (avitch) 2% (200:)% The E!t!re of No Child Left BehindD 3nd itJ Fr mend it%
Education Ne)t ) 9:"=6%
Cochran"&mith) .% (200=)% No Child Left BehindD < #ears and co!nting% ournal of Teacher
Education) p%::%
Crawford) C% (2009)% 3d!cating 3nglish LearnersD Lang!age 2iversit# in the Classroom% ames
Bilin%ual Educational *er"ices %
2arder A%) Baltodano .%) Torres (% (200<)% The critical peda%o%y reader. New 5or* D Eo!ndation
for critical pedagog# %
2emaree R% .%) 2avid) &% (2002)% Education Reform from the Top +o#n, The Federal
-o"ernment Early This .ear Passed the (ost Comprehensi"e Education /e%islation in Recent
(emory. &tate Legislat!res%
Earahmandp!r) (% (2007)% NCLB data"driven reform movementD Conte+t!ali0ing data%
+ataCr0tica ) :"10%
Eetterman) 2% (1::8 )% Ethno%raphy *econd Edition . CaliforniaD &AQ3 '!blications %
Qibbone#) (% A% (2008)% h# an $ndemocraic Capitalism has Bro!ght '!blic 3d!cation to its
RneesD A .anifesto% P!1 +E/TA 2APPAN ) 21"<1%
Qranger) 2% (2008)% No Child Left Behind and the spectacle of failing schoolsD The m#tholog# of
contemporar# school reform% Educational *tudies ) 206"228%
Iinman) .%'%) &oto) @% (2006)% Ta*ing Fff @diological BlindersD Lessons from the &tart of a &t!d#
on 3ffective Teachers in Iifg% ournal of Education ) 91"99%
Ioo*s) B% (200<)% Confronting class in the classroom % @n 2% A% al) The critical peda%o%y
reader . New 5or* D Eo!ndation of critical pedagog# %
18
Io!ston) '% 2% (2007)% The &even 2eadl# &ins of No Chilld Left Behind % P!1 +E/TA 2APPAN )
79="798%
I!rsh) 2% (2007)% 3+acerbation @ne4!alit#D the failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act%
Race3 Ethnicity and Education ) 2:6"<08%
.aranto) (% (2009)% Fptions for low income st!dentsD 3vidence from the &tates % @n E% Iess)
/ea"in% no chid behind4 (pp% 6<"8:)% New 5or* D 'algrave .acmillan %
.artSne0"(amos) L% .% (2009)% No Child Behind o las sed!cciones contradictorias de la derecha
conservadora% Re"ista electr5nica de Educaci5n y Psicolo%0a. Numero 6.
.atT!) T% (2007)% /earnin% by the numbers, critical discourse analysis of representations of no
child left behind public la# 1789117 in Puerto Rico. (aster:s dissertation. ;ni"ersity of Puerto
Rico9(aya%<e=c .aster,s dissertationD $niversit# of '!erto (ico".a#ag/e0%
.athis) % C% (2009)% No Child Left Behind and the @nsomnia 'lag!e% The Clearin% !ouse ) <0"
<<%
.c2ermott) Rathr#n A% and Censen) La!ra &% (200=)% 2!bio!s &overeignt#D Eederal Conditions
of Aid and the No Child Left Behind Act% Peabody ournal of Education ) <: B =6%
.c(e#nolds) R% (2006)% The No Child Left Behind Act (aises Qrowing Concerns% Encounter )
<<"<7%
.introp) I%) &!nderman) Q% (200:)% 'redictable Eail!res of Eederal &actions"2riven
Acco!ntabilit# for school improvement and wh# we ma# retain it an#wa#s% Educational
Researcher ) <=<"<69%
.oore) .% (2008) C!l# =)% NCLB and Iispanics in .ar#land% Post9Ne#s#ee' (edia %
Neill) .% (2006)% Fverha!ling NCLB% Rethin'in% *chools %
'atton) .% -% (2002)% $ualitati"e research and e"aluation methods . CaliforniaD &age '!blication
%
19
(200:)% Pol0tica P>blica *obre /a ?r%ani=aci5n Escolar . Re@uisitos +e -raduaci5n En /os
Ni"eles Elementales . *ecundaris 27967789677A. 2epartamento de 3d!caciUn de '!erto (ico%
httpDVVwww%de%gobierno%prVde'ortalV&erviciosVCartas%asp+
(2002)% P;B/1C /A& 178B1173 AN. 83 67763 No Child /eft Behind Act of 6771. 3d!cation)
@ntergovernmental relations%
(e#nolds) '% (% (2007)% The P'edagog# of the FppressedPD The Necessit# if 2ealing with
'roblems in &t!dentsG Live % Educational !ori=ons ) =<"60%
(ivera) (% (2007)% Leaving most Latino children behindD No Child Left Behind lesgistation)
testing) and the mis!se of data !nder Qeorge B!sh administration% +ata Critica ) <"10%
&chmidt) T% (2008)% *cratchin% the *urface of No Child /eft Behind. &an (afael) CaliforniaD
$np!blish thesis fromD 2ominican $niversit#%
&en) A% (2009)% Iow does c!lt!re matter% @n N% (% al) Culture and public action . California D
&tanford $niversit# 'ress %
&tone"&!nstein) B%) Chisering" &trater) 3% % (2002)% Field#or'in% . New 5or* D Bedford
p!blisher %
&tra!ss A%L%) Corbin C%.% (1::8)% Basics of $ualitati"e Research. CaliforniaD &age '!blication%
Nalen0!ela) A%) 'rieto) L%) Iamilton) .% (2007)% @ntrod!ction to the &pecial @ss!eD NCLB and
.inorit# 5o!th% Anthropolo%y and Education $uaterly ) 1"8%
Nalen0!ela) A% (1:::)% *ubtracti"e *choolin%, ;.*.9 (e)ican .outh and the Politics of Carin%%
New 5or*% &tate $niversit# of New 5or* 'ress%
illis) '% (1:77)% /earnin% to /abour. 3ngland% &a+on Io!se%
20
21