The opponents of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act are probably all gathered around a big table trying to figure out how they're going to explain these National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results that show that students are scoring higher in US History from 2001 to 2006. This flies right in the face of all the assertions from NCLB critics that the act is "narrowing the curriculum" and that subjects like US History are getting shortchanged. Here's a quote from a New York Times article on the results.

A number of studies have shown that because No Child Left Behind requires states to administer annual tests in math and reading, and punishes schools where scores in those subjects fail to rise, many schools have reduced time spent on other subjects, including history. In a recent study, Martin West, an education professor at Brown, used federal data to show that during 2003-4, first- and sixth-grade teachers spent 23 fewer minutes a week on history than during 1999-2000.

Given such circumstances, lawmakers and educators are likely to puzzle over why achievement in history has increased. Some suggested that the fourth-grade results were tied to better reading skills.

The answer to the question why US History scores rose even with less time spent on the subject is right there in the quote. The results rose because of better reading skills. As my boss put it, "They did better with 23 less minutes because it was spent TEACHING THEM TO READ." This is what I've been saying all along. If students can't read or do basic math, why are we worrying about other subjects like science, social science or the history? If they can't read, they won't excel in those subjects either. Let's focus our limited instructional time on these basic skills first. Once they're at grade-level in language arts and math, then we can apply our efforts to mastering additional subjects.