Re: Finn & Hess: NCLB threatens education gains.

[aburke5054@aol.com]

Getting all a-twitter when members of the theorizing classes seem to have changed their minds is a sign of someone with too much time on his hands.

In any event, NCLB is and has always been at root a civil rights law. (And it is, in my opinion, a civil rights law of the highest importance because it creates an urgency for action where action is needed). Joe Williams posted this quote and tag on the Democrats for Education Reform site...

In California, we have personally seen students who have not been taught, not been tested, and certainly not been reported because they do not have adequate English language skills even though they were born in this country. Because they are not included in the reports, districts suffer no consequences for their failure.” 



-- United Farm Workers President Arturo Rodriguez, in a letter to Rep. George Miller, expressing support for keeping NCLB strong.

NCLB offers a broad framework for improving schools (identify what kids need to know, test to see that they have learned it, use the best teaching materials and teaching practices, and train up teachers and administrators) and a timetable for action, but it does not take states and districts by the hand and make them do those things or even walk them through those things. The feds just jumped on Missouri because it failed to identify any of its districts as needing improvement and it dragged its heels on intervening in schools that failed to make adequate progress. 
 
Does NCLB need mending?  Of course it does, as the examples of Missouri and states invoking dodges such as large minimum group sizes and statistical tricks to avoid identifying schools for improvement demonstrate.  To believe that local assessments are going to induce districts and schools to take responsibility for the students that Arturo Rodriguesz says they have ignored is to believe in magic.  What is needed most, what would be most consistent with the civil-rights heritage of NCLB, and what would do the most good, would be to amend NCLB to include recourse for parents and children when schools fail to act.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: Erwin Morton <erwin@morton.net>
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Cc: ndsgroup@yahoogroups.com; ARN-state@yahoogroups.com; arn2-strategy <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 7:50 am
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Finn & Hess: NCLB threatens education gains.


Hi, Monty -- 
 
Chester Finn wrote this??? 
> At its heart, today's NCLB amounts to a civil rights 
> manifesto dressed up as an accountability system. 
Have I had it backwards all this time? I always thought 
NCLB was an "accountability" system dressed up as 
a civil rights manifesto. 
 
And perhaps I've been mishearing everything else 
Checker has been saying for the past however many 
years; or perhaps there's some serious "discovery 
learning", or at least an "Aha!" moment, going on here. 
 
But then there's this stuff about NCLB ... 
> threaten[ing] to undermine two decades of hard-won 
> gains on educational accountability 
Silly me. I always thought the goal of education reform 
was supposed to be gains in student learning and 
understanding. I guess that still doesn't matter, as 
long as we have measurement and accountability. 
 
It feels as if I've gone through the looking-glass -- or 
perhaps gone halfway through and gotten stuck in a 
twilight zone in the middle. 
 
Cheers -- 
 
-- Erwin 
 
 
Monty Neill wrote: 
> Joel Packer of NEA forwarded this. It further opens what now might > become an opportunity to go after the absurdity/insanity in NCLB, that > by threatening educators and testing children, the kids will all score > "proficient" in 2014. While multiple measures, multiple (local and > performance) assessments and sanctions have been at least modestly > (though inadequately) addressed in the House discussion draft on NCLB, > 2014 and AYP have not. It is the entire interlocked structure that is > causing the reduction of schooling to test prep in two subjects, with > ironically an ensuing slowdown in score gains in reading and math on > NAEP at grades 4 and 8. BTW, FairTest does not support Fordham's > support for national tests, nor do we believe that state > accountability systems have been a beneficial approach to school > improvement - indeed, they have had many of the same damaging effects > as NCLB. That is, NCLB is state systems on steroids. Monty 
> Just published in Checker's newsletter (Fordham Fdn) - NCLB continues > to produce interesting bedfellows. 
> 
> From Checker's and Rick's Desks 
> 
> Leave no (none, zero, nada) child behind? 
> 
> Passed by Congress in late 2001 and signed by President George W. Bush > one year after his inauguration, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) > is the most ambitious federal education statute ever. 
> 
> After five years of experience with a statute that aims to produce > ''universal proficiency'' (in math and reading, mainly in grades 3-8) > by 2014, and with reauthorization looming, it's time to draw some > conclusions about how NCLB has unfolded on the ground--and how it > ought to be changed. 
> 
> Much has been written about NCLB's particular testing regimen. Far > less has been written about the law's remedies, whereby a Title I > school that fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) is subject to > a parade of stiffening interventions designed to change it and give > new options to its students. Our new book pries into this facet of > NCLB to examine these remedies and their effectiveness (you can read > more about our findings here and here). 
> 
> But as Congress sets about reauthorizing the law, diving into its > innards to tweak this and that, it will pay insufficient heed to > NCLB's main problem, which is not concerned with tests or remedies but > with philosophy. 
> 
> The law began with the noble yet naïve promise that every U.S. > schoolchild will attain ''proficiency'' in reading and math by 2014. > While there is no doubt that the number of ''proficient'' students can > and should increase dramatically from today's 30-ish percent (using > the National Assessment definition of proficiency), and while the > achievement of children below the proficient level also can and should > rise closer to proficiency, no educator in America believes that > universal proficiency will, in fact, be attained by 2014, not, at > least, by any reasonable definition of proficiency. Only politicians > promise such things. The inevitable result is cynicism and frustration > among educators and a ''compliance'' mentality among state and local > officials. (See here, here, and here.) 
> 
> At its heart, today's NCLB amounts to a civil rights manifesto dressed > up as an accountability system. This provides an untenable basis for > serious reform, as if Congress declared that every last molecule of > water or air pollution would vanish by 2014, or that all American > cities would be crime-free by that date. 
> 
> There is evidence from states such as Florida and California that the > act is causing them to restructure reasonably good schools, to > confound their own pre-existing (and sometimes superior) > accountability regimens, and to fracture coherent school improvement > strategies. NCLB is also pushing states to move aggressively in too > many schools at once, ensuring that capacity won't be up to the > challenges at hand. 
> 
> Whatever the political value of promising to ''leave no child > behind,'' the results thus far threaten to undermine two decades of > hard-won gains on educational accountability. NCLB's dogmatic > aspirations and cobbled-together design are producing a > compliance-driven regimen that recreates the very pathologies it was > intended to solve. 
> 
> It's time to relearn the lessons of the Great Society, when ambitious > programs designed to promote justice and opportunity were undone by > utopian formulations, unworkable implementation structures, and a > stubborn unwillingness to acknowledge the limits of federal action in > the American system. In the end, Washington is not well-positioned to > effect radical change in a sphere that depends primarily on state and > local action, or successfully to require states and districts to adopt > measures whose efficacy hinges on gusto and creativity rather than > compliance. 
> 
> No matter how finely the legislative craftsmen tune NCLB 2.0, powerful > cultural and political forces will continue to impede school > improvement. A sense of urgency and outsized aspirations is > commendable, but there's a world of difference between determination > and delusion. We have spent forty years since the LBJ era learning how > hard school reform actually is. Yet too many otherwise serious people, > such as the members of the Aspen-based NCLB Commission, sustain that > pretense, indeed worsen it by suggesting that sixty-plus technocratic > changes and considerably more federal control will cure what ails the law. 
> 
> Wrong. What Washington can do best, given the structure of the > American federal system, is deploy its ''bully pulpit'' to change the > political climate, set common standards, collect and disseminate data, > cultivate research and technical expertise, nurture pioneering state > efforts and cast a spotlight upon them, and promote a clear > understanding of what constitutes unacceptable school performance. > Given different machinery, Washington might be able to do more. Until > that day comes, however, responsible governance demands that the feds > do what they can do well--and not sacrifice hard-won gains in the > service of sloganeering. 
> 
> This piece was adapted from No Remedy Left Behind: Lessons from a > Half-decade of NCLB, recently published by the AEI press. This book > will be discussed at a forum on October 16th (see here). 
> 
> by Frederick M. Hess and Chester E. Finn, Jr 
> 
> 
> Monty Neill, Ed.D. 
> Co-Executive Director 
> FairTest 
> 342 Broadway 
> Cambridge, MA 02139 
> 617-864-4810 x 101; fax 617-497-2224 
> monty@fairtest.org 
> http://www.fairtest.org ;
> Donate: https://secure.entango.com/servlet/donate/MnrXjT8MQqk ;


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com