Category Archives: No Child Left Behind

by | July 25, 2007 · 12:08 am

About those studies . . .

Paul D. Houston, the executive director of the American Association of School Administrators has penned an interesting editorial (free sub. req’d) questioning the recent spate of studies suggesting large public support for NCLB Act as we head into a new round of negotiations for the reathorization of the act.

“Isn’t It Amazing? A Few Words on Those No Child Left Behind ‘Studies’

In recent weeks, we have seen a flurry of “studies” on the No Child Left Behind Act that seem to conclude that it is a wonderful thing. I suggest it is time we look behind the headlines.

The latest study, commissioned by the Educational Testing Service, concludes that when the public learns more about this federal law, they tend to like it better. (“To Know NCLB Is to Like It, ETS Poll Finds,” June 20, 2007.) Now, far be it from me to suggest bias here, but one must ask: Who has benefited the most from No Child Left Behind? Would it be the teachers, who have faced pressures complying with regulations that bear little relationship to sound educational practice? Perhaps it is the children, who have seen their classroom studies narrowed to allow for more time for testing and test preparation? No, so far the greatest beneficiary of this law is the testing industry, which has had more business than it can handle. This has led not only to higher profits, but also to inaccurate results and huge errors in scoring and reporting.

So, a testing-industry study that shows that a law which requires massive testing is a popular thing seems unworthy of the coverage it has received.

The results of the ETS study fly in the face of the results obtained by the American Association of School Administrators, when we studied the same issues. (“Critics of NCLB Ask Congress to Overhaul It,” Feb. 23, 2007.) We concluded that the more the public knew about the No Child Left Behind law, the less they liked it. Who is right here? Well, it all depends on the questions asked. The ETS study asked whether the public liked a program that applied rigorous standards to schools and whether making certain that all kids learn is a good idea. The answer was a resounding yes. (Gee, do you think?)

The proponents of the No Child Left Behind law are fond of pointing out that whatever gets tested gets taught. True. And whatever does not get tested gets left behind. There is little doubt at this point that NCLB has narrowed the curriculum and focused on test results to the exclusion of a broader educational experience. And there is little doubt that overemphasizing results on a standardized test leads to more standardization and less innovation and creative expression—the coins of the realm in the global race for success.

Having the testing industry study the results of a massive program of testing is like having the cigarette industry do a study of lung cancer.

The AASA dug deeper, underneath the bumper-sticker goals of No Child Left Behind. We asked whether it was a good idea to emphasize testing so much that it takes away time for learning, whether testing kids in English who don’t speak English was reasonable, and whether it made any sense to treat a school that had fallen down in one area the same as another that had failed in all areas. The conclusion by the public was that it didn’t.

Having the testing industry study the results of a massive program of testing is like having the cigarette industry do a study of lung cancer.

In another recent NCLB study, the Center on Education Policy, which at least has no dog in the fight, found that after five years of placing a huge emphasis on testing, test scores have gone up. I am sure. Put pressure on the teachers and administrators in our public schools to produce higher test scores and they will do that. Ask them, however, whether the children actually know more and they will tell you that this isn’t the case.

An educational program built around tests has the same validity as a nutritional program built around Twinkies. Twinkies provide instant gratification, but it is hard to build a case that they provide the same nutritional value as a balanced meal. Some might even argue that the sugar and calories have a deleterious effect on one’s health.

The No Child Left Behind Act is currently undergoing reauthorization by Congress. People who have a vested interest in seeing that the law is renewed are lining up to ensure that it is approved with as few changes as possible. Many have no clue as to what broad effects this legislation has had on our nation’s children or our ability to compete internationally. Perhaps before building a case for No Child Left Behind, we need a conversation on what we really want from our educational system—higher tests scores or children who can fulfill their possibilities. Those are not necessarily one and the same.”

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Gimme Some Truth, National News, No Child Left Behind

by | July 24, 2007 · 6:36 am

No One is Eating Our Lunch

With NCLB reauthorization up for renewal (newest suggested name by Sens. Lieberman, Landrieu, and Coleman “All Students Can Achieve”), the Aspen Institute is playing a major part in drafting some suggested changes. Again, it mostly more of the same numbers-driven approach to assessment, this time supposedly funding individual state’s data systems to keep track of such numbers. At the same time, a new coalition, NCLB Works, composed of groups like the Business Roundtable and the Education Trust, have made it clear they like the NCLB moniker. It’s important to note that each time the more than 40-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act is reauthorized, a name change usually follows.

However, it is groups like the Education Trust and the Business Roundtable which are doing their finest work in pushing for the hostile takeover of the public schools, ostensibly under the guise of pushing for reauthorization of NCLB. Gerald Bracey offers a well needed response to one of the most often referred to pieces of analysis; international comparisons, and their use as a cudgel to attack the American public school system. Bracey points out that one part of these global education comparison studies that receive little discussion in the yearly hand wringing reports on our failings as a nation to educate our children, is the lack of a level playing field when it comes to poverty. Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust is quoted recently as saying, “Our most affluent kids are getting their lunches eaten by kids in other countries. The system we have has not served our children well. There is no point pouring more federal money into very broken bottles.” Baloney.

Gerald Bracey sums up this research succinctly:

“Thus, for reading and science, the two categories of US schools with the smallest percentages of students living in poverty score higher than even the highest nation, Sweden in reading, Singapore in science. In math, the top US category would be 3rd in the world.

It is only in American schools with 75% of more of their students living in poverty where scores fall below the international average.”

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, National News, No Child Left Behind, Quote of the Day

by | July 18, 2007 · 9:40 pm

Knowledge,Research, Education and Reform

I was following the links from the latest Carnival of Education today as well as making the rounds of some of my regular online education stops. The theme that hit me today concerned what we know about how to make schools or education work. Below are links, quotes and comments from the posts that got me thinking.

Tim Fredrick at the The Teacher Research Blog had a post on Scientifically-Based Research & Teacher Research. He writes:

And, when I think about it, nothing about teaching reminds me of “science”. Even my best methods, the ones that always work, I find that they don’t always work with every student. Classroom teachers know that not everything works every time with every student. It just doesn’t. Naming methods as based on “scientific research” intimates that they work in every scenario. Just as I get suspicious that the newest diet method is “easy” and “fast,” I get suspicious when educational products work all the time – even most of the time – for everyone – even most teachers….

When will politicians and policy-makers learn that education is not something else? It is not business. It is not medicine. It is something entirely of its own and the person who is most qualified to decide if a method or educational product works is the classroom teacher. Reading the document from NIL was helpful in understanding what is meant by this oft-used term. But, I couldn’t help but get the feeling that the document intimates that knowledge about good teaching is not created by teachers, but rather by “scientists”. This does not sit well with me and it should not sit well with other teachers, as well.

This is pretty close to my position. I understand the value of research but also think that the limitations of research get lost when it moves from the academic community to policy discussions. Some of this is related to Sherman Dorn’s insights on Folk Positivism.

That brings up the issue of tests and accountability. I really like what Dr. Jan had to say on this topic:

In education, we have a tendency to measure not what we want to (need to) measure but what we can measure… it’s a lot like measuring someone’s height because you can’t measure their weight. If a person’s weight is proportionate to their height then measuring their height might be a prediction of their weight; but if not, then what’s the point of measuring their height?

In other words, why are we measuring the stuff we are measuring with standardized and criterion-referenced tests when what we really want to measure is children’s ability to collaboratively problem solve and effectively communicate?

I especially like the formulation of the ends of education as “children’s ability to collaboratively problem solve and effectively communicate.”

Dr. Jan is responding to a post by Greg Farr. Farr is much more sanguine about the state of knowledge than Tim Frederick (or me). He takes a theme from a paraphrase of Dr. Brian McNulty:

“All the research has basically converged. It is all pretty much saying the same thing. WE KNOW WHAT TO DO. The question is, why aren’t we doing it?”

Farr then explores some of the things we do know and outlines his resolve to put this knowledge into practice. I think Farr will find some success and I applaud his his “time to stop talking and start doing” program.

Yet I continue to have misgivings about the way ideas move from research to policy and practice. I believe that the desire for utility (mostly on the part of researchers) and simple answers (mostly on the part of policy makers) blinds many to the limits and tentative nature of (even scientific) research findings. I am much more comfortable with data guided policy than data driven policy and prefer policy makers and practitioners who are cognizant of what research (scientific based and other) and data can tell us and what it can’t.

Related links:

What Works Clearinghouse
The National Center for Fair & Open Testing
Think Tank Review Project
MMSD Classroom Action Research

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, No Child Left Behind

by | July 18, 2007 · 2:43 pm

YearlyKos: Education Uprising/ Education for Democracy

As part of the YearlyKos NetRoots Convention (Chicago, August 2-5), TeacherKen has put together a great panel based on the Education Uprising/Education for Democracy ongoing project.

This project has been so rich in ideas and insights that I suggest you read all the material linked to the post on the Education Policy Blog. Here is the basic description:

The design of American education is obsolete, not meeting the needs of our students and our society, and ignores most of what we have learned about education and learning in the past century. This panel will explore a new paradigm, including some specific examples, of how education in America can be reshaped in more productive and democratic fashions.

And a little more in the way of excerpts:

Education Uprising – Education for Democracy

Historically, one of our society’s central problem in improving public schools has been our disagreement over the purposes of public schools. We believe in three central purposes: preparing students to participate in our democratic society, empowering students to learn on their own, and encouraging them to explore their dreams.

A free and adequate public education is a right of every child. Not all children attend public schools, but all Americans must support public education that both fosters democracy and is treated as a right. Public education is a public good. It is a part of the commons for which we are all responsible. We start this brief essay by discussing the nature of education as a public good before we delve into meeting the individual needs of students, the curriculum, instruction, teachers, and accountability.

Education as a Public Good

There are two parts of education as a public good. One is the role of education in developing citizenship—not reflexive obedience but a deliberative and engaged public. If adults need the skills and confidence to debate public policy and act wisely, students need to learn those skills. The other part of public education is the obligation to operate democratically—to provide equal educational opportunities and to operate transparently and accountably.

Subtopics include: Fostering Democracy, Being Treated as a Right, Guaranteeing Equality, Building Relationships, Experimenting with Curricula, Supporting Teachers and Using Assessment.

Sherman Dorn, Mi Corazon and Marion Brady will be joining TeacherKen on the panels.

I doubt I will be able to attend, but I plan to follow along in the cybersphere.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, National News, No Child Left Behind, Take Action

by | July 2, 2007 · 8:51 pm

Juile Underwood on NCLB

From the Wisonsin State Journal:

Underwood: Federal schools measure is failing
Federal schools measure is failing
By JULIE UNDERWOOD
June 28, 2007

No one can argue against the idea of holding our public schools accountable for the quality of education provided for our children. No one can dispute that we must do more to ensure that all children receive an excellent education.

But the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) does little to help either of those goals. When it comes to providing the constructive feedback necessary to help schools improve, the mechanism prescribed by NCLB fails miserably.

This reporting mechanism, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), creates misperceptions that our schools are “failing,” when AYP often has little to do with the quality of schools.

Further, use of the label “failing” demeans the very educators who have dedicated their professional lives to improving schools in the face of complex challenges, many of which are outside the realm of the public schools.

Locally, the recent AYP reports (Wisconsin State Journal, June 13) — which labeled all four of Madison’s public high schools as “failing” despite state data much to the contrary — served only to mislead the public. They join a long and growing list of examples of the inadequacy and punitive nature of this so-called measure.

Under NCLB, a school can be labeled as “failing” for a number of reasons, including many that have nothing to do with actual achievement — for example, simply because fewer than 95 percent of its students within a single demographic subgroup took the test. It’s no wonder that many schools across the nation rate highly on state measures, yet fail to make AYP.

Despite the name, AYP reports do not actually measure “progress.” To measure progress (and get a truer picture of how our schools are doing), we need to look at how the same students perform over time — where they started and where they finished.

The AYP from year to year compares different groups of students. It does not follow a child’s learning from the beginning to the end of the year.

By 2014, NCLB has legislated that 100 percent of the students — including those who have special needs, lack English proficiency, come from disadvantaged circumstances, etc. — must be proficient in reading, math, and science or their schools will receive the dreaded failing grade. How absurd!

By ratcheting up AYP targets for what constitutes “adequate” achievement to unattainable levels and then shaming any school that fails even in one area, NCLB has set the stage to flunk our entire system of public education.

Nothing would delight educators more than to see dramatic increases in student achievement, especially our students from disadvantaged groups. The education community ardently supports high expectations that challenge children to excel.

It is clear that AYP merely masquerades as accountability and adds nothing of value toward the goal of providing the best possible education for all children. Genuine school improvement requires legitimate and meaningful assessments that provide useful feedback for educators and produce a fair and accurate picture for parents, policymakers, and the general public.

Underwood is dean of the UW-Madison School of Education.

Thimas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, Local News, No Child Left Behind, School Finance

by | June 27, 2007 · 1:15 am

Why Teacher’s Quit

“The combination of the increased needs of children and the increased testing and paperwork pressures of No Child Left Behind is a lethal one for many teachers. What started as exciting and meaningful work becomes overwhelmingly stressful and unfulfilling.

Inadequate funding, across all school districts in California, still places severe limitations on reducing class size and providing students with emotional support services. Additionally, many districts are more concerned with the stigma of low test scores than they are with providing adequate support for teachers. “

Full story By Mark Phillips in the Marin Independent Journal (hat tip to Jim Horn at Schools Matter).

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, Elections, National News, No Child Left Behind, School Finance

by | June 25, 2007 · 1:54 pm

Russ Feingold on NCLB

Contact Senator Feingold, Senator Kohl and Representative Baldwin and let them know what you think!

Thomas J. Mertz

FEINGOLD QUESTIONS ADMINISTRATION’S CONTINUED SUPPORT OF NCLB
Administration’s Top-Down Approach to Education Contradicted by Education Secretary’s Recent Op-Ed
June 22, 2007

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is leading a group of Senators in calling into question the Administration’s continued support of the No Child Left Behind law following a recently published op-ed by the Secretary of Education that expressed support for state and local control of education policy. In a letter to the Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, the Senators cited her June 9th Washington Post op-ed, where she said that a move toward a national test would be “unprecedented and unwise” because states and localities have primarily held the leadership role in public education. Feingold and the other Senators questioned why the Department of Education does not extend this same rationale to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and they urged the Administration to work with Congress to reform key provisions of NCLB during the congressional reauthorization process. The letter was cosigned by Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

“NCLB has hamstrung state and local decision-making by establishing a federal accountability system that measures and punishes our students and our schools based on, among other things, annual high-stakes standardized testing,” Feingold said. “This is the wrong approach, and the groundswell of opposition to the NCLB – from parents, educators, and administrators alike – shows just how flawed it is.”

The Administration’s proposal for NCLB reauthorization, released earlier this year, did not embrace enough of the themes Secretary Spellings expressed in her recent op-ed. Under the Department’s recommendations, states would still be required to annually assess students and states and districts would still be required to implement sanctions that may not be working in local schools and districts, including transfer options and supplemental educational services. Feingold opposed NCLB in 2001because he did not believe a federal policy centered on standardized tests was the best approach for Wisconsin students, teachers, and school districts.

“As Secretary Spellings points out, states and local districts are the ones developing the curriculum used in our nation’s schools and they’re the ones paying most of the costs of education,” Feingold said. “I hope Secretary Spellings’ recent op-ed signals a shift away from the Administration’s top-down approach to education and back toward empowering those who are working in the classrooms every day.”

A copy of the letter is available here: http://feingold.senate.gov/pdf/ltr_spellings_062207.pdf

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Budget, National News, No Child Left Behind

by | May 13, 2007 · 5:15 pm

Accountability Manifesto

Jim Horn (of Schools Matter, The Education Policy Blog and Monmouth University) thinks it is time turn the tables on the “failing businessmen and politicians” who have been promoting and legislating ill-conceived accountability requirements for our schools and start demanding that they be held accountable for their failures.

Jim has posted an initial list and I think it is a good one.

§ all American citizens will have health insurance coverage that offers equal coverage and facilities for mental and physical health;

§ the federal government will have devised a menu of school integration plans from which school systems across America will choose in order to live up the Supreme Court decision of 53 years ago which declared that separate schools are inherently unequal;

§ American business and government will deliver to the American people a practical plan for full employment in jobs that offer livable wages;

§ All families in America will be offered affordable and quality child care whose cost will be based on income;

§ A minimum wage, workmen’s compensation, and social security withholding will be provided to all workers, both citizens and immigrants. Businesses that do not comply will be forced to close until they do comply.

§ State governments and the federal government will devise a funding structure for public schools that is not dependent upon property taxes.

§ Business and government will take the action required to reduce greenhouse emissions of Americans to a level that will sustain a healthy planet.

§ A national action plan that includes private and public commitments will be offered to rebuild the infrastructure of America, to offer adequate and affordable housing for all Americans, to reenergize the arts, to enhance our parks.

§ Once these things are done, American businessmen and politicians, if they still have the urge to do so, may continue their public school reform initiatives–if they are willing to include the public in each and every step of their reformations. Otherwise, forget it.

I’d add something about a just system of taxation. What else belongs here?

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Elections, No Child Left Behind, School Finance

by | April 18, 2007 · 3:25 pm

1% of Teachers Find NCLB Effective Tool to Assess Quality of Schools

TeachersNetwork.org conducted a recent survey with 5,000 teachers in 50 states. Some of the findings:

“Survey results show how for the majority of teachers the emphasis of NCLB on high-stakes testing is not working. Only 37% of respondents found standardized tests “somewhat useful” but 42% deemed them “not at all” helpful to their teaching. Over 40% claim that these tests are encouraging them to use rote drill, and 44% report that the tests are pushing them to eliminate curriculum material not tested.

Over 40% believe that NCLB does not result in teachers making instructional decisions that are best for their students or that it’s helping to reduce the achievement gap in education-its primary goal. And fewer (3%) agree that it encourages them to improve their teaching effectiveness with all students. Fewer still (1%) find it is an effective way to assess the quality of schools.”

Continues here.

Robert Godfrey

Leave a comment

Filed under AMPS, Best Practices, No Child Left Behind

by | March 25, 2007 · 2:31 am

Accountability Frankenstein Published

The long awaited (at least in my house) book from Sherman Dorn is now available for order. There will be a series of podcasts from the book, the first is here. This is what the publisher has to say:

Accountability Frankenstein
Understanding and Taming the Monster

Sherman Dorn
University of South Florida

To understand the current moment in school accountability, one must understand the larger contradictions in education politics. Accountability Frankenstein provides a broader perspective on the school accountability debate by exploring the contradictions inherent in high-stakes testing. Accountability Frankenstein explains the historical and social origins of test-based accountability: the political roots of accountability, why we trust test scores while we distrust teachers, the assumptions behind formulaic accountability systems, and the weaknesses with the current carrot-and-stick approach to motivating teachers.

Accountability Frankenstein answers the questions of educators and parents who want to understand the origins of accountability. This book challenges the beliefs of fierce advocates and opponents of highstakes testing. It provides a rescue plan for accountability after the failures of high-stakes testing, a plan to make accountability smart, democratic, and real.

CONTENTS: Acknowledgments. Preface. 1. The Political Origins of Accountability. 2. Trusting Tests. 3. How Trustworthy are Test Scores. 4. Setting up Goals and Failure. 5. Consequential Thinking. 6. A Better Way. References.

Thomas J. Mertz

Leave a comment

Filed under Accountability, AMPS, Best Practices, No Child Left Behind