The current economic climate make it unlikely that President-elect Obama can enact the full range of education intitiatives his campaign promised, but one pressing issue cannot be deferred, writes Diane Ravitch on Forbes.com. The reauthorization and redesign of NCLB. Six years after its bipartisan passage, she notes, we have nothing to show for it.
NCLB has turned every school into a test-preparation factory, focused solely on reading and mathematics. They are the only subjects that count in a school’s ranking, so teachers routinely reduce attention to history, science, foreign language, literature, geography, the arts and other non-tested subjects. With this narrowing of the curriculum, students may be getting dumbed down even if their scores go up. Do we really want a society where our fellow citizens know nothing of history, literature, science and the arts?
First, Ravitch says, the Obama administration should “eliminate the goal of universal proficiency by 2014, because it is unattainable. Period. No state or nation has ever achieved 100% proficiency.”
Second, it should recognize that the federal government is best at providing accurate information, such as what children in each grade need to know to be abreast of international standards (that is known as the curriculum) and whether our children are meeting those standards (that is, testing); third, the administration should expect states and districts to fashion appropriate reforms and remedies for their schools.
Congress, Ravitch concludes, is not the right place to decide how to fix our schools. And more money isn’t the answer if we don’t have the right vision for improving education.
Universal proficiency is out of reach. Thus federal interference has reduced the national conversation about education to trying to get points heard that would have been obvious to the average high school sophomore.
The helping hand strikes again.
Ah, now that an eminent scholar such as Diane Ravitch has stated the obvious, the time has come to not only follow her recommendation and remove the 100% proficiency requirement, but to also ask, “How could this possibly have happened?” While reading this blog I came across a book by Daniel Heller, “Curriculum on the Edge of Survival.” Heller uses this very problem to illustrate how poor our rhetorical skills are, not just in school, but as a nation. “For instance, the current federal education law declares that all students meet the standard by the year 2014. But as worthy a goal as this is, doesn’t simple statistical reality tell us that 100 percent attainment is not possible due to natural fluctuation and variance?”(2007, xvii). Yes, simple statistical reality does tell us this. But some of America’s finest minds–I won’t name names–went right along. So that we don’t make similar errors and lose another generation, they should explain themselves.
“How could this possibly have happened?”
Because one of the hallmarks of politics in recent years has been an inability or an unwillingness to distinguish between slogans and policy. “Universal proficiency” is great slogan — anything else just wouldn’t cut it as a sound-bite. But anyone who was serious about workable policy would know that it was a goal in the “something to strive for” sense, not in the “we’ll ding you if you don’t reach it” sense.
I’m also left with the sense that there were a lot ed-policy people in DC so far removed from actual schools that they didn’t realize how problematic the goal was — who were so convinced that schools were almost willfully dysfunctional that all it would take to get them on the right path was a few sanctions and some shaking up.
Rachel, I agree that one of the worst unintended consequences (and they are legion) of NCLB is the impression it left it created that all would be well if educators would somehow stop making excuses and do their job. On the other hand, the transparency it created and the concern for all groups of kids is a genuine benefit. We’ve all seen, however, the way change happens in schools — things change, things change back. While I’m now fan of NCLB for the way it’s demonized teachers and narrowed the curriculum, I don’t think simply removing the burden of accountability is a step in the right direction. The great question is this: what does a practical accountability system look like? Absent a good answer, I tend to agree with Diane Ravitch, that the best we can do is transparency. Let the federal government create a single national assessment tht all students take. The burden of action then falls to states and localities; it’s up to respond if their students don’t measure up.
Robert,
Given the current educational structure schools are doing the best they can. So distant authorities can set as many bars as they wish, it still will make little difference in student learning.
So if states and localities fail (and they will) what then?
Changing what happens in the classroom needs tremendous support for improvements in curricula, communication about quality teaching techniques and assessments that are directly related toward classroom instruction.
Just setting the bar high enables frustration more than change.
I’m afraid you’re not going to get a lot of traction with the idea that “just setting the bar high enables frustration more than change.” That’s as close to a non-negotiable as you’re likely to find.
It dosn’t matter where the bar is set if there is no motion towards a better direction.
Our children are not learning much and that hasn’t changed over the past 30+ years.
Contrast that with the type of change that Singapore did in 5 years with their early reading program. On the 4th grade PIRLS, Singapore improved their performance from 2001 to 2006 by 30 points to become the top country in English, while the US during that time fell 2 points. Singapore’s feat is remarkable as 75%+ of the students are learning English as a second language. Why didn’t the US improve during that time?
High bars are great if there is a path to get there.
Rachel,
You make excellent points. That distance of policy makers and commentators from actual schools is an ongoing disaster which, for obvious reasons, gets little attention.