Laboratory Outreach and the NCLB

If you have anything to do with education in the U.S., you probably recognize "NCLB" as the "No Child Left Behind Act", a positive-sounding and well-meaning piece of legislation that the U.S. government uses to encourage states to reform their educational practices. Although managing schools is the responsibility of the states, the federal government can impose its own standards by threatening to withold federal funding if schools and teachers don't meet specific benchmarks regarding test scores and certifications. You can read more in the NCLB wikipedia article.

This all sounds like a good idea; after all, specific, quantifiable results could show us that teachers are doing their jobs and schools are turning out educated Americans. NCLB is an outcome-based approach to reforming and improving education in this country, which is a noble goal. Even the name inspires a positive image, just like the Patriot Act. However, like that other piece of legislation, the good intentions of NCLB may have negative side effects. The most obvious is that teachers, under pressure to raise test scores in their district, will naturally "teach to the test." The quantitative result there comes with the sacrifice of qualitative experiences, inside the classroom and out.

Which brings me to my opinion of NCLB as an outreach coordinator. It seems that field trips (such as a class would take to a nuclear science laboratory) do not fit into a curriculum that is focused on improving test results. A recent Newsweek article, "No Child Outside the Classroom," reported that classes are making fewer visits to all kinds of learning destinations: museums, aquariums, etc. Quoted from the article:

Compton Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles has halved its trips in the past three years. "They were all academically based," says principal Claudia Ross, but they no longer fit a budget focused on test scores, not general enrichment.

As someone whose majority of effort is spent introducing students to the wonders of nuclear science at NSCL, this news is devastating. Our lab's outreach programs do have quantifiable outcomes, and I can show how they meet state science standards... but the most exciting part of my work is the intangible sense of amazement that visiting kids get in their eyes. It's hard to measure how many of them have been steered ever so slightly towards a career in science (or, dare I say, nuclear science), since it's usually the first and last time I'll ever see them. Anecdotally, however, I know there's at least one former PAN student here at MSU who's a science major. I've talked to dozens of kids who asked about the education they'd need to get a job at NSCL. Anecdotes don't translate into test scores, but then neither do dreams. The impact of a field trip wherein students see possibilities for their future may be far more significant than one could measure on the SATs.

As a scientist, I cannot argue with the need to use facts and measurable outcomes in advancing our educational system. But as a human with a passion for science, the No Child Left Behind Act seems too cold and calculating.