NCLB might be focusing the market for software producers, instead of closing the achievement gap

Thanks to billions of dollars of funding allocated to underachieving schools, the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) might be focusing the market for software producers, instead of closing the achievement gap between poor and wealthy school districts. Technology expenditures may be slowly displacing funds for basics like qualified teachers in the classrooms where they are needed most, effectively opening a new "digital divide." Under pressure to raise test scores, underachieving schools have become prime targets for education software manufacturers and have spent heavily on computer programs and systems to teach students. Ironically, this investment has resulted in some of the poorest school districts in the nation having more digital access than their richer neighbors in the suburbs. But critics argue that software is no substitute for quality teachers and leaders and that federal money should not be spent on "drill and kill" programs that focus exclusively on remedial skills, because such programs teach no skills that will remain with the student but merely stress repetition of information. "When tests shift from more remedial skills to more advanced skills, student performance drops off completely, because students don’t have an underlying understanding of math and reading, they’ve just learned recipes or rote skills," charges Harvard University education professor Chris Dede. "Now that this whole [drilling] movement is resurrecting, we can expect the same dismal results." Critics also maintain that research on the effectiveness of software typically is of poor quality and often funded by the companies themselves. Some officials from school districts like Baltimore’s that have made impressive gains in academic achievement say that software companies sometimes seem to take credit for what are the results of much more comprehensive school improvement efforts. Others recommend directly contacting the school districts that are held up as examples of the products’ success before making purchases. But the software companies view their products as investments that can yield results and save districts money in the long run. CEO John Murray of Plato Learning, the nation’s second largest vendor educational software vendor, says that "technology shares the load" as schools continue to grow and can reduce the number of teachers needed. Vendors acknowledge that they are responding aggressively to the sense of desperation over NCLB among school districts that serve poor student populations, because such districts are where the needs and new funding are greatest. But they say school officials are hard-nosed about demanding evidence of effectiveness, precisely because of the pressures. Beyond the dispute of the overall effectiveness of the computer software loom ethical questions about the courting of school administrators by software companies. Vendors sometimes create a sense of obligation by providing free products to schools on an introductory basis or wining and dining administrators or even treating them to trips. Many also employ trusted former school leaders as sales representatives.