Re: Questions about NCLB standards, assessments, and school

[aburke5054@aol.com]

 Right. NCLB grants states flexibility up to a point. If states had total "flexibility," what would be the point of federal law in the first place? If you want to call NCLB's regulations extremely restrictive, more power to you. What you say about USDOE's definition of SBR precluding adoption of "holistic" or "constructivist" approaches is nonsense. 
 
 Art
  
 -----Original Message-----
 From: shays@ccwebster.net
 To: arn-l@interversity.org
 Sent: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 2:06 PM
 Subject: Re: [arn-l] Questions about NCLB standards, assessments, and school improvement
 
  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 
 
 
 
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.