There are several important threads — the need for national standards and assessments; rethinking the difference between a highly qualified teacher and a highly effective one — at the ongoing NCLB discussion at NewTalk. But one comment raised by CK Board member Diane Ravitch jumps out:
My own preference would be for Congress to authorize national testing (à la NAEP), based on coherent curriculum standards, but without stakes or sanctions. The federal role should be to provide accurate information about student performance. It should be left to states and districts to devise sanctions and reforms. These jurisdictions are closer to the schools and likelier to come up with workable reforms. If states and localities don’t want to improve their schools, then we are in deeper trouble as a nation than any law passed by Congress can fix.
We assume accountability needs teeth to be truly enforceable, but Diane is right — an apples to apples comparison of how schools fare against each other seems likely to pour more sunshine onto what’s really happening than 50 states racing each other to the bottom by lowering proficiency standards. Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest.
6 years in and states still are not in compliance with NCLB from the small matter that sped students be tested on enrollment grade to tracking dangerous schools. Throw in dismal compliance to IDEA, and I believe you must realize state depts of ed have become too big and powerful to place students first over self preservation. Deep trouble indeed.
Comment by Anonymous — August 6, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Diane may be entirely correct about the role the federal government should have in education.
But then, how are schools supposed to become better? Just knowing that they are doing a poor job (from the federal tests) is not enough. There needs to be a viable path forward towards better student learning. Who is supposed to provide that?
It is not that states and localities do not want better schools. (For the most part, they do.) It is more that they do not know how to get to a better place. So if not NCLB, how do we enable our schools to improve?
Comment by Erin Johnson — August 6, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
I try to avoid issues where I don’t have first hand knowledge, but I’m impressed with analysis of Geral Bracey and others who say our suburban and low poverty schools are doing pretty well. The suburban educators who I know seem capable of using honest data-driven decision-making to improve. (after all, the kids and their families and our culture have some say in what comes out of suburban schools also) We need the Feds help representing their poor and minority students, but I don’t see how we can shame people into doing that. The disinfectant of sunlight will allow for honest discussions. And I’m really sick of the demonization of the NEA. Even if they were dead wrong on NCLB (and actually I prefer their position over my AFT’s but I’m just posing a what-if) what about their century of great work?
Yesterday’s discussion included plenty of people from a range of backgrounds, and most were critical of NCLB-type accountability. Today was more of shop talk regarding Standards, and I attribute that to the good manners of people who addressed the questions that Merrow asked. But education is a people business. Why keep getting back to the mechanics of curricula, assessments, etc.? The question should address our true goal of creating a learning culture for all. Why not talk more about the relationships that we need to build to get there? Why not articulate our disagreements and then shake hands on a series of compromises? I see this as implicit in Diane Ravitch’s praise of Richard Rothstein. Rothstein, to me, is no cynic. He has a full and mature view of human nature. Let’s cut back on the social engineering, and make some deals.
Comment by john thompson — August 6, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
John,
The devil is always in the details. You and I both agree that creating a learning culture is essential for quality learning. But how?
I guess if we have fairly low expectations for our suburban students then perhaps there could be an argument that they are doing okay. Certainly, the international comparisons suggest that our top students are not comparable to top students around the world.
One case example is the Bellevue School District in Washington. That district has had several high schools rank in the top 100 high schools by Newsweek. It certainly qualifies as a high performing suburban school district.
And yet in 2004, when the school district tested their students using the TIMSS format, William Schmidt concluded:
“The performance level of Bellevue’s eleventh and twelfth grade students was equal to eighth grade students in the top acheiving countries.”
bsd405.org/portals/0/aboutBSD/TIMSSBellevueReport.pdf
Hardly a ringing endorsement of our suburban schools. By the end of high school they were able to give their suburban students an eighth grade math education.
Our impoverished schools certainly need more help than suburban ones. But to conclude that our schools are all okay, except the poor ones, is not supported by the international evidence.
Comment by Erin Johnson — August 6, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Erin:
I’ve never been a huge Grant Wiggins/backward design fan (more on technical reasons than philosophical; it’s very hard for novice teachers in high-needs schools to get it right. It’s master teacher stuff), but his comment on NewTalk was interesting to me as a perspective on high achievement suburban schools:
“My 2 cents. I wish people would stop talking as if nclb were only or mostly negative. It has been instrumental in getting thousands of faculties off the dime – especially in non-urban schools where they have been able to pretend that they were far better than they are. Many districts that I have worked with have had to deal with sub-populations that they were basically ignoring for years in cluding districts that look really good by convetnional measures (like Princeton with its hispanic population). It has been far too fashionable to have an outside bogeyman to blame for problems that are in our own midst. The NY Times has it right, as do the Civil Rights groups: on balance the law is a good thing and no viable substitute has been proposed for the accountability piece. Sure, tweak it and overcome its crudeness. But we derail it at our peril. And you can quote me.”
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — August 7, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Erin
I can’t debate with you on suburban schools, and neither would I be qualified to design a plan to improve them. (although I’m still not convenced that the situation is that bad) Similarly, common sense says that the NCLB approach makes more sense for elementary schools and has the greatest potential benefit for helping high poverty students in low poverty schools who were previously hidden by averages.
But look how I’m breaking the cardinal rule of acknowledging contrary evidence. Political Scientists tell us that the road to success is repeating the same simplistic mantra.
But the evidence is that NCLB has been marginally effective or mostly negative, at the cost of billions.
We are participating in a political scientist’s dream case study. The EEP have put together an amazing machine. But the voters in presidential and congressional elections don’t seem like they are going to be persuaded. Honestly, I’m hoping that the NEA’s congressional war chest comes to our rescue.
But there is a wildcard – evidence and common sense. I don’t want to sound naive, but we have two bites at the apple. We can persuade Obama. Failing that, Obama won’t get bogged down in the details. We will rehash all of this again during the congressional proceedings and the implementation. There is no law engraved into gold tablets in Heavan saying that states and local districts have to implement NCLB II in the same ridiculous manner. In my experience, few administrators will go on the record, but they’ve seen the failures. Perhaps, together, we can say we won’t be fooled again.
Actually there is another wildcard – teachers. We don’t agree on much but teachers have decided. I followed the AFT’s leadership on NCLB. It was against my best judgement, but being a team player I would do the same at that time. Now, teachers won’t allow their unions to be nearly cooperative.
Of course there could be a third wildcard. All those policy analysts and lobbyists could make a career change. If NCLB II looks too much like NCLB I, when teachers throw in the towell, those education experts could replace us in the classroom. They’d need some professional development, but Grant Wiggins could provide that.
Comment by john thompson — August 7, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
Robert, John,
The biggest problem with NCLB is opportunity cost. That is by focusing time, energy and money onto a NCLB type system (a system that was designed to fail), our schools/ed reformers are distracted from educational reforms that would make a huge difference in all our schools (impoverished and well-off suburban).
So, say we improve NCLB and take out some of the more obnoxious accountability provisions. What then? Will schools then magically become better? The underlying assumptions of NCLB are incorrect. NCLB is trying to “solve” problems that do not exist. We have enough real problems that should be addressed.
It is not easy nor obvious how to develop a quality educational system that encourages great student learning. There are only a few countries around the world that have succeeded at developing a school system that is centered on improving student learning. (We certainly do not qualify.)
Robert, I agree that good data can bring sunshine into this discussion. Certainly, well-off suburban schools have been taking credit for the quality input that well-off parents give to their children and ignoring those children that do not have the same family support. And perhaps, there should be some credit to NCLB for insisting on reporting that data. But the real question is what do we do with that data. How do we improve?
Comment by Erin Johnson — August 7, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
One of the things that has always irritated me is that NCLB, with its well-intentioned emphasis on accountability was that it was supposed to make bad schools act like good ones. The opposite seems to be happening: good schools (especially good urban schools) are acting like bad ones, stressing math and reading to goose their test scores. What I like about Diane Ravitch’s comment is that it’s a rational, non-punitive approach: set the standards, devise the assessments, report the results and get out of the way. Instead of forcing every school to focus monomaniacally on a few nuance-averse tests, the data becomes simply that, data. If a school is unconcerned about national standards because they stress problem solving or (your pet excuse here) well, fine. Tell it to your parents and voters come budget time. Let the sanctions, where warranted, come from states and localities–your customers in short. Right now, it’s virtually impossible to innovate for fear that your scores might go down. If my local school board can sell the town on a new curriculum, I can make an informed decision, knowing there might be some short term slipping, for example.
Mind you, I’m a hardcore national standards, curriculum and assessment guy. But a federal role that sets the standards, measures and reports makes sense to me. Let the pressure come from the largest stakeholders. That’s probably more effective in the long run than scapegoating the Feds and NCLB.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — August 7, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Erin,
This is a record. I agree on all three points. Get rid of NCLB-type accountability, and we still have the challenge of improving schools without a clear path.
And the opportunity costs include not only the billions of dollars, time, but also the nonrenewable energy of teachers. My nightmare (which I usually don’t have being an optimist)is that we get an ambiguous situation on NCLB II accountablity, and rather than fight veteran teachers leave, and that the same ol thang as the last six years wears down the newcomers.
Comment by john thompson — August 7, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Standards are only as good as the student learning that they enable.
I, too, agree with Diane regarding the appropriate role of the federal government as a monitoring agency of the states. But am very skeptical regarding how national standards will do *anything* to improve student learning.
Our schools are not designed to improve. We have no way of improving curricula. No way to improve teaching. And no way to improve the assessments that we give our children. Consequently, we have no way to improve student learning.
Adding distant, national standards will not change that.
Core Knowledge is such a breath of fresh air in the curricula world. It would be absolutely wonderful if all our children could experience the rich content contained within the sequence.
But the biggest question is how. How do we enable our children to learn well when we are saddled with a school system designed more for maintaining the status quo than improving? And the status quo is not particularly good. How do we improve our schools?
I am not scapegoating the Feds nor NCLB. But am highly critical of *any* ed reform that does not improve student learning. (Frankly, that is most of them.)
So how would you envision national standards ever translating into quality student learning?
Comment by Erin Johnson — August 7, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
John, I suspect that we have more in common than in difference.
The feds can not improve education regardless of how much money they pour into NCLB (I, II, …) because they are not responsible for the student learning. Authority without responsiblity has never succeeded in improving anything.
One of our school systems greatest challenges is that nobody is actually *responsible* for ensuring that each and every student receives a quality education.
It has been quite fashionable to heap blame onto “ineffective teachers” but teachers have only a limited time with a particular student, limited time in preparing lessons, poor curricula that they need to work with, and limited perspective on what each student needs.
So if teachers are not to be held fully accountable for enabling quality student learning, who is?
Comment by Erin Johnson — August 7, 2008 @ 3:12 pm