Fwd: [arn2-strategy] evaluation of progess toward overhauling ESEA-NCLB

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

Begin forwarded message:

  From: "Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org>

  Date: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:42:40 PM US/Pacific

  To: "authenticaccountability" <authenticaccountability@yahoogroups.com>,
  "arn2-strategy" <arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com>

  Subject: [arn2-strategy] evaluation of progess toward overhauling ESEA-NCLB

  Reply-To: arn2-strategy@yahoogroups.com

  I have written up a set of notes on where 'we' are in efforts to overhaul
  ESEA/NCLB, mostly using the Joint Statement on NCLB as the taking off point
  for this evaluation. I hope you find this useful in your thinking about
  transforming the federal law, and perhaps it will spark ideas, especially
  about how to be more effective.

  Monty

  An evaluation of progress toward Joint Statement and FEA goals on NCLB

  As we head into a period in which Congress will not be working on ESEA/NCLB,
  but will return to it next year, working with a new progress, it seems a good
  time to consider the progress we have made and not made. I do this in hopes
  it helps clarify the distance we have traveled and need to travel, and thus
  to help us think about where and how to concentrate our efforts.

  I think we have made more progress advancing our proposals than we likely
  thought was possible when the Joint Statement on NCLB was released in October
  2004. Congress failed to reauthorize a basically unchanged (or worsened) law,
  a sign of our capacity to stop such a disastrous reauthorization.
  Unfortunately, this also means the law remains unchanged for now, indicating
  our current lack of capacity to win a law that meets our goals. Many of our
  ideas have gotten significant traction in one or both houses – but some key
  ideas still have little to no buy-in, and on others the buy-in or
  understanding is very partial. It will take a great deal more smart effort to
  hold on to our gains with members of Congress, to win over a new
  administration, and to thereby move closer to fulfilling the concepts in the
  Joint Statement and related positive ideas.

  In evaluating progress, I will use the Joint Statement and then some
  additional key points from subsequent Forum on Educational Accountability
  (FEA) materials. I would first note that the concepts in the Statement form a
  coherent whole. Not only should they not be used selectively, but using them
  selectively could undermine the overarching goal of having the federal
  government take steps to actually improve education. [If you want to look at
  the full Statement, it and FEA materials are on the web at
  www.edaccountability.org.] (That does not mean improvements cannot be made.)

  In composing this, I used the House draft and reaction to it, my
  conversations with Congressional staff and with people active in the ESEA
  overhaul effort, and reports public and private. No doubt other people with
  more information can strengthen this summary, make it more precise and more
  useful (this is an invitation to do so).

  Some general conclusions first:

  1) Congress continues to think in terms of framing the bill around
  accountability for outcome measures – not around accountability for making
  systemic improvements or around federal actions that can reasonably improve
  education. The work of re-framing is essential, but not easy particularly
  since most members think in terms of addressing this or that piece of the
  current law.

  2) Congress' conception of learning outcomes (achievement) remains largely
  rooted in test scores, though is increased willingness to consider additional
  (performance) measures (which is progress). They continue to think
  accountability requires annual scores of individuals, which it does not
  (though a regular flow of classroom assessing is necessary for instruction).
  They are reluctant to rethink the notion of strict comparability (all kids
  take same tests)– that is, to ask how much comparability is needed, what the
  tradeoffs are in the educational validity and benefits of various kinds of
  assessments for various assessment uses, and how various kinds of information
  can be organized and used. (The House pilot program, see below, makes some
  real progress on these points.)

  3) Major funding increases are necessary, but pessimism prevails on that
  issue.

  From the Statement:

  1. Replace arbitrary proficiency targets: Officially, neither house
  acknowledges the need to scrap the illusion that all children will score
  proficient in 2014, though some members recognize it. By 2009, the need
  should be clearer – but we will have to work hard to avoid Congress putting
  in a new arbitrary date or (worse) pretending to keep 2014 while
  incorporating a blizzard of exceptions and caveats. We will have to push for
  targets anchored in realistic expectations for improvement; several
  thoughtful ways to implement this have been proposed, by FEA and others.

  2. Growth measures: This is almost certain to be included in some way, tho
  its relation to an arbitrary target (point 1) remains to be clarified
  (currently allowed growth measures retain the arbitrary target). Another
  danger is in continuing to use in growth models the same kinds of low-level,
  mostly multiple-choice tests attached to high stakes, thereby perpetuating
  the teaching to the test that undermines education (and that is a major
  source of educator, parent and community opposition to NCLB). We will have to
  press for growth measures that incorporate multiple forms of assessments and
  are not attached to arbitrary targets.

  3. The idea that schools should report progress on reform has some traction,
  but the idea that implementing reforms should be a central component of
  accountability basically has not (see FEA's Redefining Accountability part
  III for an elaboration on this concept). It does not fit well into NCLB frame
  which focuses only on achievement data, and it would reintroduce in ESEA
  paying attention to inputs and processes not just outputs. This will need
  major continued effort.

  4. Use multiple indicators: Some aspects of this have been accepted by House
  leadership, less clear about Senate acceptance. Increased emphasis on
  graduation rates is almost certain to be included. Lots of possible devils in
  details, from creating new sets of separate hurdles on graduation rates (more
  ways to fail) instead of a composite index including multiple factors, to
  too-strict limits on what can be included or how much weight various
  indicators should be given. There is a tension between avoiding having too
  many indicators (especially with stakes attached) and ensuring school focus
  does not reduce to a few indicators. This tension cannot be adequately
  resolved so long as high stakes are attached with punishment the likely
  consequence.

  5. Research on accountability: Don't know of explicit proposals to study
  accountability impact. But, for example, pilot program on multiple measures
  (see 6) would presumably be studied

  6. Help states develop assessment systems with multiple, including local,
  measures. Dems in House and leadership are willing to establish a pilot
  program for states to develop systems that include multiple, including local,
  assessments; some interest in Senate, but seems more cautious and less
  expansive. FEA members have now started to say it should not be just a pilot,
  but be available to all states, with funding to support them – closer to what
  Statement calls for. No sense yet on degree to which that will be supported.
  Debate still looms over use of local (including classroom) assessments – is
  in House draft, with somewhat rigid criteria; not yet a clear signal on
  Senate side (Rs oppose local measures). [Note that the pilot program, as
  drafted, would be part of moving the recommendations of FEA's Expert Panel on
  Assessment.]

  7. Strengthen enforcement to ensure assessment quality: Supposedly, the new
  Department regulations address some of this, but to really deal with multiple
  measures and useful diagnostics, Congress will have to respond to our call in
  point 6 (above).

  8. Decrease the testing burden and re-establish a grade span requirement for
  the amount of testing to be done each year: This has almost no support in
  either House to date. Few groups want to prioritize it. How can we build
  support for this proposal?

  9. Teacher and administrator preparation and professional development:
  Kennedy and Miller bills on teacher preparation are better than NCLB, but
  fall short of FEA calls to focus prof dev on collaboration largely under
  local control (see Redefining Accountability for details): they continue to
  view prof dev as an externality to be delivered or purchased. Seems to be
  some understanding of this when talking with staffers, but thus far no
  indication they are ready to further re-write their proposals (or that other
  members will do it for them).

  10. Improve state and local capacity to make positive changes: Both houses
  recognize need to do this. Whether they will provide significant funding for
  it, or how they will exactly approach this, are what remain unclear.

  11. Ensure improvement plans are given time to take hold: The Miller draft
  had some recognition of this point, but addressed it in very cumbersome if
  not confusing way. Needs to be made clear, partly via Statement's point 12
  and partly via supplemental FEA ideas.

  12. Replace sanctions that don't work with useful interventions: FEA further
  called for eliminating mandated specific sanctions (such as 'reconstitution')
  with stages of intervention that districts or states would undertake based on
  thoughtful improvements (systemic reforms and outcomes) that are targeted to
  specifically identified needs. The Statement calls for states and localities
  to be held accountable for implementing systemic changes – but, as per above,
  Congress has not grasped this point yet.

  13. Raise authorized levels of NCLB funding to cover expenses of meeting
  requirements of this Statement, and

  14. Fully fund NCLB so all children are covered: 

             We keep hearing Congress is unlikely to spend much more on
  education given debt, war, etc. How to get Congress to more than double,
  perhaps triple, NCLB funding remains unknown. Latest FEA idea is to move
  Title I to the mandated federal budget category, but we have not started to
  pitch that idea.

  A bit more on FEA concepts:

  Family involvement (point II in Redefining Accountability) develops the idea
  of federal funding support for family involvement in schools and for families
  to help their children learn. Active FEA members have not been working these
  issues very directly, unclear to me what support these concepts have.

  FEA called for funding greatly expanded professional development by using
  what is now funding for supplemental services and transportation, making
  those programs local options. This idea has not received support, thought
  expanded prof dev has. Our proposal to require states to match the prof dev
  amounts also has not obtained support.

  Monty Neill, Ed.D.

  Deputy 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

  __._,_.___
  Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

  Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)

  Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully
  Featured

  Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

  __,_._,___

Vote in the National Cheney Impeachment Poll

http://www.usalone.com/blogvoices.php?Cheney%20Impeachment%3F

Add this text to your own email and blog signatures!