It's amazing how many people still don't get it. The goal of 100 percent
proficiency is not simply a rhetorical flourish or an inspirational appeal
to a generalized American can-doism. The goal of 100 percent proficiency
is supposed to spur states to improve their schools. Many people seem
unable to see the forest of school improvement for the trees of students'
test scores.
Art
-----Original Message-----
From: bobschaeffer@earthlink.net
To: arn-l@interversity.org; arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 4:56 AM
Subject: [arn-l] "Zero Percent Chance" to Reach NCLB Target
"NO CHILD" TARGET IS CALLED OUT OF REACH
GOAL OF 100% PROFICIENCY DEBATED AS CONGRESS WEIGHS RENEWAL
Washington Post -- March 14, 2007 -- Page One
by Amit R. Paley
No Child Left Behind, the landmark federal education law, sets a lofty
standard: that all students tested in reading and math will reach grade
level by 2014. Even when the law was enacted five years ago, almost no one
believed that standard was realistic.
But now, as Congress begins to debate renewing the law, lawmakers and
education officials are confronting the reality of the approaching
deadline and the difficult political choice between sticking with the
vision of universal proficiency or backing away from it.
"There is a zero percent chance that we will ever reach a 100 percent
target," said Robert L. Linn, co-director of the National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing at UCLA. "But
because the title of the law is so rhetorically brilliant, politicians are
afraid to change this completely unrealistic standard. They don't want to
be accused of leaving some children behind."
The debate over the perfection standard encapsulates the key arguments for
and against No Child Left Behind.
Critics, including some teachers unions and many testing experts, view the
law as a forced march toward an impossible education nirvana. They are
lobbying Congress to reduce the 100 percent target and delay the 2014
deadline. They are also pushing for the elimination of sanctions -- which
can cost millions of dollars and result in school takeovers -- that school
systems face for failing to make yearly progress toward the goal.
But critics face an uphill challenge because of the rhetorical power of
the argument for a universal proficiency target and a deadline. Anything
less, advocates say, will hurt children, especially society's most
vulnerable: poor and minority students.
"We need to stay the course," U.S. Deputy Education Secretary Raymond
Simon said. "The mission is doable, and we don't need to back off that
right now."
President Bush is pushing this year for reauthorization of one of his top
domestic programs. In a joint House-Senate hearing yesterday, senior
Democrats and Republicans said they would work toward renewal of the law.
But in interviews in the days before the hearing, some key lawmakers said
that universal proficiency is all but impossible to meet.
"The idea of 100 percent is, in any legislation, not achievable," said
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate education
committee. "There isn't a member of Congress or a parent or a student that
doesn't understand that."
Kennedy added that the law's universal proficiency standard served to
inspire students and teachers. But "it's too early in the process to
predict whether we'll consider changes" to the 2014 deadline, he said.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a former U.S. education secretary and
supporter of the law, said Americans don't want politicians to lower
standards.
"Are we going to rewrite the Declaration of Independence and say only 85
percent of men are created equal?" Alexander asked. "Most of our politics
in America is about the disappointment of not meeting the high goals we
set for ourselves."
Foes and supporters alike praise the law for drawing attention to student
achievement gaps. The law requires testing for all students in reading and
math from grades 3 through 8 and once in high school; it also requires
reporting of scores for groups of students including racial and ethnic
minorities, those from low-income families, those with limited English
skills and those with disabilities who receive special education.
But testing experts say there are vast academic differences among children
of the same racial or socioeconomic background. Countries with far less
racial diversity than the United States still find wide variations in
student performance. Even in relatively homogenous Singapore, for example,
a world leader in science and math tests, a quarter of the students tested
are not proficient in math, and 49 percent fall short in science.
"Most people are afraid that once you acknowledge this variation, then you
have to tolerate major inequities between black and white students," said
Daniel Koretz, a Harvard University education professor. "That's not
necessarily true, but that's why the political world does not really
address the issue."
Although no major school system is known to have reached 100 percent
proficiency, Education Department officials pointed to individual schools
across the country that have reached the standard as evidence that it is
possible. In Virginia, schools have achieved universal proficiency on
reading and math tests 45 times since 2002, officials said.
The only school they cited in the Washington region as having met that
mark was the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in
Fairfax County, a regional school with selective admissions. Principal
Evan M. Glazer said his school, which has an elite reputation, was hardly
a representative example. On whether the nation can replicate that
success, Glazer said: "I don't think it's very realistic."
Fairfax County School Superintendent Jack D. Dale said it was "absurd" to
expect total proficiency, especially when federal officials require
immigrant children who have been in U.S. schools for little more than a
year to meet the standard. His 164,000-student system, the largest in the
Washington region, is sparring with the Education Department over the
immigrant testing rule.
Dale and other critics of the law have called for No Child Left Behind to
measure the growth of students from year to year instead of expecting them
to meet fixed benchmarks. But Dale said he understood why federal
officials and lawmakers take a different view.
"How can you publicly state it's okay to have some children not meet
standards?" Dale said. "Politically, you're committing suicide if you say
it."
Some experts predict that states will weaken their definition of
proficiency to make it appear that all students are on track. The law
requires students to meet "challenging academic standards" but allows each
state to define proficiency on its own terms and design its own tests.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who voted against the law in 2001 and
remains a leading critic, derided the universal proficiency standard.
"It's just like a communist country saying that they used to have 100
percent participation in elections," Hoekstra said. "You knew it wasn't
true, but a bureaucrat could come up with that answer. And that's what
will happen here."
Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.), ranking Republican on the House
education committee, said the 2014 deadline forces educators to pay
attention to each student. He said he is open to slight changes in the law
to exempt certain students with disabilities from the proficiency
requirement. But he said he won't back down from the law's core ideal,
citing his own six children and 28 grandchildren. "Which one of them would
I like to leave behind?" McKeon asked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301781_2.html
------------------------------------------------
Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.