Rewriting NCLB to Emphasize Success Not Sanctions

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

REWRITING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Providence Journal Opinion Column -- July 11, 2007
by Julia Steiny

Congress is wrestling with the reauthorization of their its education 
law No Child Left Behind (NCLB). To my mind fixing the law is 
philosophically simple: shift its emphasis from the persistent pursuit 
of the negative to seeking out the positive.

Instead of putting the focus on identifying and punishing failure, 
elevate and broadcast success.

By now we know all about ineffective urban schools, and anyone 
interested can find examples close at hand. But NCLB has done nothing to 
inspire us with images of what urban schools - or any schools - would 
look like when we're really doing things right.

The law assumes that it can force schools to improve students' test 
scores by getting tough with "sanctions." I'm all for accountability, 
but punishment needs to be the last, not the first, resort. By all means 
continue publicly reporting tests scores, good and bad - and impose 
consequences, if necessary - but focus attention on understanding the 
promising results. Study success.

Success is so incidental to the NCLB strategy; the law speaks to it 
virtually not at all. In psychology circles, obsessing about what you 
don't want is considered an anxiety disorder.

Consider briefly, how the 1,200-page law works. NCLB required states to 
create massive state testing programs that assess all kids in grades 3 
to 8, and once more in high school. To keep track of students who had 
been ignored historically - racial minorities, low-income and 
special-needs students - states set 37 "performance targets" for each 
school, and report were required to report how well students are meeting 
these targets.

Each of the 37 targets is an opportunity to fail. Missing one classifies 
the school as "in need of improvement," which is NCLB's euphemism for 
"failed." The law mandates that every year states must publicly identify 
schools and districts "in need of improvement," teachers who are not 
"highly qualified," and subgroups of students who are not proficient. 
States must raise their performance expectations incrementally until all 
children, in all subgroups, are deemed "proficient" by their state tests 
by 2014.

If NCLB continues on its current path, in 2014 virtually all U.S. public 
schools will be failures.

The good news is that the law has forced the states to build educational 
data systems with 21st-century technologies and standards. These systems 
aren't completeas yet, but they are impressively sophisticated. They can 
tell us which colleges best prepare teachers in math, which financial 
investments have paid off in better academic results, and which children 
need what kind of reading help. This is huge.

Indeed, I predict that these state data systems will be the only truly 
useful legacy of the flawed law.

However, by using these powerful systems to shine light on the worst 
schools, not the best, the law is doing little or nothing to improve the 
educational experience or future prospects of the students themselves. 
Drop-out rates are going up, and students show up at college needing the 
same amount of remedial work as they did before the law's passage.

If we studied the most successful schools, what lessons might we learn?

The first thing such a study would tell us is that the punitive nature 
of the law has turned many states into liars. For example, according to 
the state tests, students in Mississippi are far more proficient than 
students in Massachusetts. The National Assessment of Education Progress 
- the gold-standard, national test - begs to differ, indeed reverses 
that assessment, putting Massachusetts students at the top of the 
nation. This tells us only that some states protect their struggling 
schools and students from being labeled failures by setting sadly low 
standards. It does not help draft success.

The next thing we'd find is that most of the schools approaching the 
100-percent proficiency mark have easy kids, plentiful resources and 
flexible working conditions. No big lesson there either. Yes, we could 
better understand the variations in quality among the well-to-do 
suburban schools, but the law's focus is trained on poor kids' schools 
with many disadvantaged children because they receive federal Title I 
money.

After eliminating lying or unchallenged schools, we'llwe would at last 
get to those that manage somehow to cope successfully with the 
tremendous difficulties most schools face and to change the trajectories 
of students' lives. They're out there, schools that nourish learning and 
a love of learning in youths, no matter their backgrounds. States have 
more than enough data to identify these successes and pool 
information.about them.

What would we find then? I'll I'd bet most, if not all of them, would 
have staff members who know the students really well and have found ways 
to work effectively with the families and communities. Surely many have 
would have partnerships with external institutions, universities or 
businesses that expand their resources. Maybe they focus on helping the 
students think positively about their futures and about the impact they 
can have on their own communities.

In any case, imagine research backed by hard data from, say, the New 
England states, California and Ohio. That would be compelling. Educators 
and the public could finally see what they were reaching for, instead of 
what they're struggling to escape.

Laws are blunt instruments at best. And lawmakers tend to think in terms 
of creating rules that can be enforced with consequences. Even so, armed 
with reality-backed information about the states' school successes, 
Congress actually could actually use its powers to rework NCLB so that 
it encouragesd and enablesd best practices. They The nation's leaders 
badly need to get over thinking they can punish schools into excellence. 
It can't be done.

Julia Steiny is a former member of the Providence School Board; she now 
consults and writes for a number of education, government and private 
enterprises. She welcomes your questions and comments on education. She 
can be reached by e-mail at juliasteiny@cox.net or c/o EdWatch, 
Education and Employment, Providence Journal, 75 Fountain St., 
Providence, R.I. 02902.

   
http://www.projo.com/education/juliasteiny/content/projo_07112007_steiny.6407fc87.html#