No! Not more time on reading and math!

Why is the New York Times reporting on this like it is bad? Here is the scoop:

Thousands of schools across the nation are responding to the reading and math testing requirements laid out in No Child Left Behind, President Bush's signature education law, by reducing class time spent on other subjects and, for some low-proficiency students, eliminating it.

Schools from Vermont to California are increasing — in some cases tripling — the class time that low-proficiency students spend on reading and math, mainly because the federal law, signed in 2002, requires annual exams only in those subjects and punishes schools that fall short of rising benchmarks.

The changes appear to principally affect schools and students who test below grade level.

The intense focus on the two basic skills is a sea change in American instructional practice, with many schools that once offered rich curriculums now systematically trimming courses like social studies, science and art. A nationwide survey by a nonpartisan group that is to be made public on March 28 indicates that the practice, known as narrowing the curriculum, has become standard procedure in many communities.

The survey, by the Center on Education Policy, found that since the passage of the federal law, 71 percent of the nation's 15,000 school districts had reduced the hours of instructional time spent on history, music and other subjects to open up more time for reading and math...

Honestly, what good is history, science, or art without reading and math skills. The student is going to be hard pressed to learn anything in any of those subjects if they can't read the notes on the board, the textbook at home, or the questions on an exam. On top of that, compared to mathematics, who honestly cares about music?

I think this is a fantastic trend, god forbid we graduate literate students who can do basic math.

-Mr. Alec