Unraveling of NCLB (was NAACP and NCLB)

[Richard Hake <rrhake@earthlink.net>]

In his ARN-L <http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html> post 
of 2 Mar 2006 15:26:19-0500 titled "NAACP and NCLB," Peter Majoy 
(2006) wrote [bracketed by lines "MMMMM. . . . .":

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Finally, we get this from the February 10, 2006 press release from 
Harvard's Civil Rights Project. . . .[HCRP (2006) regarding their 
report "The Unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How Negotiated 
Changes Transform the Law." The findings make clear that NCLB must be 
amended in significant ways, but that the ad hoc approach adopted by 
the Department of Education is only making matters worse. The authors 
recommend that policymakers revisit some of the basic assumptions 
that NCLB is based upon and include educators in the process to 
develop a systematic approach to revising the law 
<http://tinyurl.com/meple> (correcting and compacting Majoy's URL). 
The "ad hoc" refers to deals being made with various states, a way of 
denying the conclusion "that NCLB must be amended in significant 
ways.."
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

According to the Harvard Civil Rights Project Press Release [HCRP 
(2006)] (my CAPS):

HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP
A new study by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (CRP) 
shows how the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is being 
changed through a series of negotiations between the U.S. Department 
of Education and individual states.

This study reports that DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN APPROVING 
CHANGES IN HOW STATES IMPLEMENT NCLB BY NEGOTIATING CHANGES 
INDIVIDUALLY WITH EACH STATE. The authors contend that this process 
of making compromises with individual states has altered the meaning 
of accountability since no two states are now subject to the same 
requirements.

According to Gail Sunderman, the report's author, "These changes are 
a response to the growing political opposition we are seeing in 
states and the increasing number of schools and districts that are 
being identified as needing improvement. Rather than deal 
systematically with the problems in the law, the Department of 
Education has adopted a political strategy to changing NCLB. But this 
also suggests that the law is not working very well."
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 
THE FINDINGS MAKE CLEAR THAT NCLB MUST BE AMENDED IN SIGNIFICANT 
WAYS, but that the ad hoc approach adopted by the Department of 
Education is only making matters worse. The authors recommend that 
policymakers revisit some of the basic assumptions that NCLB is based 
upon and include educators in the process to develop a systematic 
approach to revising the law.
HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP-HCRP

Chester Flinn and Diane Ravitch (2006) have also complained about the 
unraveling of NCLB, bur they suggest the enforcement of rigorous NCLB 
standards rather than the amendment of NCLB, writing in the Wall 
Street Journal (my CAPS):  

F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D
From the outset, some educators protested that NAGB's "proficient" 
was too ambitious, but the board stuck to its guns. . . . [according 
to F&D, the bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) 
sets NAEP's <http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/> standards and 
policies - both F&D are former members of this board!] . . For the 
past 15 years, both NAGB and the Department of Education, which 
manages NAEP, have resisted pressure from politicians and educators 
to back away from, or dumb down, the "proficient" standard. With 
NCLB, however, that's begun to change. More voices are demanding that 
NAEP focus attention on the much-lower "basic" standard. Explains a 
spokesman for the Tennessee Department of Education: "NAEP's basic is 
comparable to our proficient." FEDERAL OFFICIALS SHOULD PUSH BACK, 
INSISTING ON NAGB'S "PROFICIENT" AS THE GOLD STANDARD. They should 
continue to highlight -- and deplore -- any gaps between it and state 
test results. But the White House and Education Department now crave 
proof that NCLB is succeeding and seek to accommodate state pleas for 
"flexibility" and pacify governors threatening to withdraw from NCLB.
F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D-F&D


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>


REFERENCES
Finn, C.E. & D. Ravitch. 2006. "Basic Instincts," Wall Street 
Journal, 27 February, p. A14, freely online for a short time at 
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114099836758883771.html>, but copied 
into the archives of Math-Teach by Wayne Bishop at 
<http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=1340952&tstart=0>.

HCRP. 2006. Harvard Civil Rights Project Press Release "New Harvard 
Research Shows How the U.S. Department of Education is Changing the 
Meaning of 'No Child Left Behind' Through Negotiated Deals with 
States," online at 
<http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/nclb_unravel.php> 
or (more compactly) <http://tinyurl.com/meple> [courtesy 
<http://tinyurl.com/create.php>]. For the executive summary 
<http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/esea/nclb_unraveling.php>. 
For the full 60-page report see Sunderman (2006).

Majoy, P. 2006. "NAACP and NCLB," post of 2 Mar 2006 15:26:19-0500; 
not yet on the archives 
<http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives.html> as of 3 Mar 2006 
10:28:00-0800.

Sunderman, G.L. 2006. "The Unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How 
Negotiated Changes Transform the Law." The Civil Rights Project at 
Harvard
University; online at 
<http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/esea/NCLB_Unravel.pdf>.