Re: Strong Letter

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

Art ... we seem to be moving a little closer towards understanding.   
Let's take a couple of the bits, individually ...

"The states do these things [operate public schools, set standards,  
devise tests, identify schools that need improvement, improve schools  
in need]".

(1) Can the states set any standards that they want?  Can they, for  
example, require that students understand some thing at some point  
between third and sixth grade [e.g., "When matter interacts with  
other matter under ordinary circumstances, it changes in various  
ways, but it does not disappear nor is it created; the amount of  
matter (mass) remains constant"], leaving it up to individual  
districts and/or sites to determine when to best teach that content/ 
skill, or must every state devise standards that are grade level  
specific?  Are states free to frame their standards in language of  
their own choosing, or is the argument between "students will  
understand" vs. "students will know" always going to fall to the  
latter because of federal testing requirements?
(2) Are the states free to create and/or purchase any test that they  
want?  Are they free, for example, to administer tests at grade level  
spans (to measure standards set as in the example given, above), or  
must they test every kid at every grade level every year?  Are states  
free to administer a performance-based examination as their state  
assessment (or even part of it), use portfolios of student work, or  
have students complete benchmark projects?
(3) In identifying schools in need of improvement, are states free to  
use tools of their own device?  Can they, for example, look at  
individual student growth over a period of time, or must they adhere  
to a formula that measures achievement against absolute standards in  
each grade level?  Are they free to use multiple measures of student  
achievement to track improvement, or must they rely -- by definition  
imposed by the federal government -- on a single measurement tool?
(4) If schools are in need of improvement, is a state free to support  
them by adopting a holistic, constructivist approach to instruction  
if it feels that is the best way to improve student performance?

"If NCLB is to make any sense at all, states are probably going to  
have to invest more in their schools and schools are going to have to  
do a lot of things differently."

I would agree that states probably need to invest more in their  
schools to make significant improvement.  I think we also agree that  
-- for a variety of reasons -- some states have not done as good a  
job as possible serving all students equitably (the primary reason  
for Federal intervention, via Title I, in the first place).  Can we  
agree that Title I is one way to get more money into schools, but it  
is -- in itself -- not enough (nor is it designed to be)?   This  
leaves one large unanswered question in NCLB -- where (and how) are  
states going to get the money needed to make the changes/improvements  
mandated by NCLB?  And please do not respond by saying "that's the  
problem of the states", because it is a problem only because of NCLB.

You describe the problem in the context of two adversaries:  "The  
people who don't want to spend any more money and the people who  
don't want to do anything differently if it's going to help somebody  
else and not them."  I would point out that this Administration does  
not give Title I money to anyone that chooses to do "anything  
differently" from the way that its experts say things should be done  
-- schools must adopt specified materials that match prescribed grade- 
specific standards, instruction must be presented as discrete facts/ 
skills that can be tested in a proscribed manner, materials and  
approaches must be "research-based".  It seems that if NCLB really  
were a "federalist" approach (as opposed to a centrist approach), it  
would set broad standards and goals, and states would be free to meet  
those standards/goals any way they pleased.  I don't see it that way.

Finally, at the beginning of your response, you attributed several  
"dubious assumptions" to me.  The "money to support historically  
unsuccessful efforts ..." refers to the basis of ESEA:  Title I is  
set aside to provide resources earmarked to historically underserved  
segments of the student population; how is this "dubious"?  The "We  
know you don't have the money ..." is another reason that Title I is  
offered; it is recognition that states have historically not budgeted  
enough money (consciously or for lack of resources) to serve "Title I  
children".  I admit that I am reading something into the reason  
several members of Congress voted for NCLB -- but when my Congressman  
says he voted for it because our state cannot raise taxes and does  
not possess the funds to do the things required by NCLB, then I think  
there is a circuitous acknowledgment in the creation/reauthorization  
of ESEA that the states cannot do it alone (for reason of politics  
and will).  The "best thought out plans [for systemic reform] are the  
ones supporters of NCLB reject" is, indeed contentious ... but  
efforts to support systemic reform through better and on-going staff  
development, site-based planning & the formation of learning  
communities, peer-coaching and backward-mapping curriculum  
development should all still be on the table -- it doesn't really  
matter if a school chooses a constructivist or DI approach to  
instruction and/or materials ... both approaches benefit from the  
systemic efforts at change that must be in place for any approach to  
work.  But no ... NCLB is a wolf-in-sheep's clothing; while  
professing recognition of the state's right to direct educational  
policy, it severely restricts freedom in the states to pursue  
policies that contradict its "approved" policy (even when they work)

Scott Hays

"The greatest problem of communication is the illusion that it has  
been accomplished."
-George Bernard Shaw