Re: Questions about NCLB standards, assessments, and school improvement

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

Art

First, let me make the obvious crystal clear ... a person does not go  
far in trying to convince another of the correctness of their  
argument when they say things like, "This is complete nonsense as was  
most of the rest of what you said."  You may disagree with my  
conclusions, but they are not nonsensical.  But back to the points at  
hand ...

(1) Nothing from "Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance:  
Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child  
Left Behind Act of 2001," indicates that the Federal government would  
reject state standards written to spans of grades, rather than to  
specific grade levels.  However, the requirement that, " Beginning in  
2005-06, the mathematics and reading/language arts assessments must  
be given in each of grades 3 through 8 in addition to one of the  
grades 10 through 12," indicates that -- since the assessments must  
be tied to the standards, and the assessments must be given every  
year -- "grade-specific" standards are mandatory.  This certainly is  
the message we were given during the standards-writing process in  
California (directions given by those in control of the process,  
those aligned to USDOE, and those to whom we as developers ultimately  
had to answer), and I suspect the same took place in other states, if  
not all.  If this is the case, then the individual states are NOT  
free to devise standards in any way they want, but must conform to  
NCLB requirements for grade-specific standards.

(2) Based upon the citations you selected in regard to types of  
assessment that NCLB requires states to us, it would appear that  
states have flexibility ... but only to a point.  There are definite  
restrictions on the right of states to do as they wish.  For example,  
if an individual state wishes to administer a test in mathematics,  
reading and science at the end of third grade, sixth grade, eighth  
grade and sometime in high school ... because that is the way they  
chose to write their standards (see above) ... their proposal will  
not be acceptable to USDOE.  A state could choose to develop (or  
purchase) what we call a "performance-based assessment", but there is  
a high likelihood that this option would also be rejected by USDOE.   
Clearly, states are NOT free to utilize other measures of performance  
in their plans under NCLB (portfolios, projects, and the like).

(3) If the "formula" for determining which schools are in need of  
improvement is the "percentage of kids meeting standard in a  
particular year", then once again, it does not seem as if the states  
have much flexibility in this matter.  Even in those states where  
"growth-models" are being attempted as a pilot, the fact that  "the  
key is that the results of the growth models can not reduce the  
numbers of schools that would have otherwise been identified for  
improvement under the original rules" sort of suggests that the  
original rules are still being applied by someone FOR the state, even  
if the state wishes to use a different model.

(4) In that "holistic" and "constructivist" materials and/or  
instructional strategies do not meet the narrow definition of  
"scientifically-based research" used by USDOE, it is also very clear  
that no matter how successful or researched based such programs might  
be, USDOE will not accept state plans to improve under-performing  
schools with such efforts.

The way I look at it, and from the evidence that you yourself have  
provided, NCLB appears to be extremely restrictive in terms of what  
states can and cannot do to qualify for Title I money.  Nor do I see  
how, in making these requirements, states can escape the fact that  
they must provide additional resources and funding in order to meet  
them.  Put another way ... NCLB does not require the states to  
provide additional funding, but it makes demands that can only be met  
by doing so.

Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net

"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all- 
powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers  
control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because  
they love their servitude."

                       Aldous Huxley, Brave New World