Arnie Duncan labels NCLB "toxic"

I read the following article this morning. Arnie Duncan was interviewed about the impact and future of NCLB. I've attached the link for your review and consideration:

http://www.onpointradio.org/notes-and-updates/2009/03/arne-duncan-no-child-is-toxic/

I think Mr. Duncan makes some good points during his interview, but NCLB's problems go far deeper than simply "rebranding." There is nothing inherently offensive about the name or the mission of NCLB (in fact, I rather like the name), but I think we can all agree that the means are fundamentally flawed. Arbitrary performance based standards at the expense of content or comprehension are not the answer. This was especially evident during the last two weeks when hundreds of schools across the country simply stopped teaching in order to focus on their statewide standardized assessments.

In any event, read the article and let me know what you think.

Is Mr. Duncan on the right track?

How do you do it?

I feel like the kid in the back of the classroom who's spent the entire semester watching, listening, not saying anything and then on the last day of class finally, slowly, raises his hand.

Everyone looks back.

I have a question, directed to our teachers.

How do you do it?

How do you reconcile the back-to-basics mandates of NCLB with the goals of technology integration? How do you juggle a curriculum that, by design, must focus on basic skills while at the same time using technology to promote improved problem-solving and critical thinking skills, higher-order thinking, differentiated instruction, greater communication, collaboration and creativity and other so-called "21st century skills?"

Will you share?

Because it seems to me that this goes to the heart of the ongoing debate about the meaning and merit to continued investments in technology and technology integration.