He was 19 or 20, and as he served my iced tea and took my food order, he asked what brought me to town. I explained that I was doing a workshop on integrating technology into the classroom.

“Computers are the WORST thing that ever happened to education!” he said.

Surprised, I asked why. He spoke of having to take a remedial math class in order to graduate from high school. He said that a room full of students spent the whole period every day working problems on computer using a program whose name I recognized. He had a teacher if there were any questions, but, he said, the teacher would just point to information on the screen and tell him to figure it out. He eventually graduated because he got his girlfriend to explain the lessons to him. Now he’s waiting tables to make ends meet as he pursues his first love: acting.

Allowing for a little hyperbole in his story and a little frustration with a teacher who probably just wanted him to think for himself, my waiter had a valid point. Computer remediation was a really bad idea FOR HIM. He’s a very interpersonal guy — he spent 10 minutes talking to a total stranger (me) as if we’d known each other for a long time. He would have excelled had he been in a small class where he could talk things through with his teacher and his peers. In fact, that’s what happened, informally, when his girlfriend tutored him. That’s how he passed.

Last week the Department of Education released a report that its gold-plated program, Reading First, isn’t living up to its hype. Students enrolled in the program score no higher on standardized tests (on average) than students who aren’t enrolled in it. Ironically, Margaret Spellings, Secretary of the Department, recently compared Reading First to the cure for cancer in its effectiveness. Last week’s report leaves the current administration with some ’splainin’ to do.

More revealing, though, were comments left by teachers on the Washington Post site. Many of them defend the program from the gut, saying those schools that haven’t excelled are probably not well trained or are doing it wrong. They see their own students making progress. The program works for them.

I couldn’t help thinking of my waiter. The Reading First Report demonstrates a simple, obvious principle: a program that works well for one student could be a disaster for another. Schools insist, however, on a rush to conformity, with every student in every class doing the same thing. This does not put student needs first.

We’ve already spent $6 billion (yes, “b”) on Reading First. Wouldn’t it be great if we could keep that program and use it with the kids who respond to it, but also provide training and materials for 2 or 3 other programs that focus on other learning styles? Students could learn using the approach that would be most successful for them.

Let me say that again, because it may appear to be a radical proposal: let’s put students first.

I woke up early this morning, made some tea, and turned on the news. At about 5:00 CNN started announcing that President Bush has decided to repeal the legislation known as No Child Left Behind. I’m so excited I can hardly sit still to type this!

The TV is in the other room, so I hope I get the quotes right. The President acknowledged “unintended consequences” of the legislation. “I remember saying, ‘What gets tested gets taught’,” he said, adding, “I didn’t realize that would mean that what isn’t tested doesn’t get taught.” He went on to apologize to teachers of music, art, and home ec. He encouraged elementary schools to let children go outdoors for a few minutes of recess today if the weather is good.

“I wanted to create the best-educated work force in the world, creative thinkers, problem-solvers, deciders like me,” the President said. “I didn’t realize I was creating workers whose best skill is the ability to pass a standardized test.”

Commentators say this is “a political move” that is “designed to win votes among educators” in the November elections. I’m sure they’re right, and I don’t care. This is wonderful news for kids with special needs, kids whose first language isn’t English, and kids from lower socio-economic groups.

Don’t take my word for it — check out clips at the CNN website, or Fox news.

Today should be declared a holiday or something!

‘No Child’ Law May Slight The Gifted, Experts Say

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; Page C01

Some scholars are joining parent advocates in questioning whether the education law No Child Left Behind, with its goal of universal academic proficiency, has had the unintended consequence of diverting resources and attention from the gifted.

Proponents of gifted education have forever complained of institutional neglect. Public schools, they say, pitch lessons to the broad middle group of students at the expense of those working beyond their assigned grade. Now, under the federal mandate, schools are trained on an even narrower group: students on the “bubble” between success and failure on statewide tests.

Teachers struggling to meet the law’s annual proficiency goals have little incentive, critics say, to teach students who will meet those goals however they are taught.

“Because it’s all about bringing people up to that minimum level of performance, we’ve ignored those high-ability learners,” said Nancy Green, executive director of the District-based National Association for Gifted Children. “We don’t even have a test that measures their abilities.”

A study published last month by two University of Chicago economists, analyzing fifth-grade test scores in the Chicago public schools before and after enactment of the law in 2002, found that performance rose consistently for all but the most and least advanced students.

“We don’t find any evidence that the gifted kids are harmed,” said Chicago economist Derek A. Neal. “But they are certainly right, the gifted advocates, if they claim there is no evidence that No Child Left Behind is helping the gifted.”

Read the entire article here. What do you think about this?