| Abstract: | The No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education 2002 U.S. Department Of Education 2002 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107–110) Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Education http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html, (accessed 1 July 2004) Google Scholar]) has inadvertently engendered literacy programs that are often inappropriate or incompatible with young children's development. It overlooks children's need to access their many intelligences, especially those that enable them to negotiate between and among symbol systems. Inherent in its focus on “scientifically based research to inform their classroom” (Center on Education Policy 2004 Center On Education Policy 2004 Title I funds: Who's gaining, who's losing & why by T. W. Fagan & N. L. Kober Washington D.C. Center on Education Policy Google Scholar], 7), is an emphasis on “a standardized, explicit, and systematic approach to teaching reading to students at risk of reading failure” (Manzo 2004 Manzo, KK. 2004, 4 February. Reading programs bear similarities across states. Education Week, 1: 13 Google Scholar]). Yet, numerous theorists recommend that young learners, especially those that are challenged due to learning disabilities, or cultural or economic diversity, can learn best by using alternative symbol systems that match their “stronger intelligences.” Premier among these “alternative symbol systems” are the arts. This article addresses the issues associated with No Child Left Behind Act and the educational implications of its repudiation of the arts in the literacy development of young learners. |
