NCLB: Act II

Thanks to a new guidebook from the Department of Education, here are four steps to improving chronically low-performing schools:

"Signal the need for dramatic change with strong leadership ...
Maintain a consistent focus on improving instruction ...
Make visible improvements early in the school turnaround process (quick wins) ... [and]
Build a committed staff."

The panel of researchers that wrote the checklist said these are the best ideas they've found. But they warn that completing the list may not necessarily yield gains in student improvement.

"The recommendations in this guide are based on a collection of case studies of low-performing schools that improved student achievement in one to three years. The panel feels compelled to emphasize that the level of evidence is low because none of the studies examined for this practice guide is based on a research methodology that yields valid causal inference."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

You wouldn't expect Charles Murray and Richard Rothstein to agree on anything.

Murray, a co-author of The Bell Curve, is a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute—the Bush administration's think tank of choice for foreign policy. Rothstein, a tilting-at-windmills researcher who has tried to debunk many assumptions behind current school reforms, is a liberal that works for the Economic Policy Institute—the labor movement's think tank of choice.

But Murray, on your left, and Rothstein, on your right, agree on one thing: NCLB is bad policy.

NCLB is a "a monumental mess," Murray writes in a new essay for The New Criterion. NCLB is a "failed" law, Rothstein wrote in The American Prospect in December.

Murray on NCLB's goal of universal proficiency: "The notion of making all children proficient in math and reading is ridiculous." Rothstein wrote a 2007 paper entitled "'Proficiency for All'—An Oxymoron."

Murray in The New Criterion: NCLB, like all policies spawning from what he calls education romanticism, "asks too much from students at the bottom of the intellectual pile, asks the wrong things from those in the middle, and asks too little from those at the top. It short-changes all of them."

Rothstein in the 2007 paper: "The conceptual basis of NCLB is deeply flawed; no goal can simultaneously be challenging to and achievable by all students across the entire achievement distribution."

Murray and Rothstein wouldn't agree on how to fix federal policy. But they—and others across the political spectrum—believe its time to start over.

Hat tip: I discovered Murray's essay through Checker Finn's critique of it in this week's Gadfly.

UPDATE: Eduwonk says this debate over determinism is "the next hot thing!"

Jay Greene e-mailed me to say he fact-checked Murray and Rothstein in the Fall 2007 issue of Education Next. "The net effect of their arguments is to provide aid and comfort to those who would resign themselves to the educational status quo and explain away the school system’s shortcomings," he wrote in a story headlined "The Odd Couple." Who is Oscar and who is Felix?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's a question I'm trying to answer:

Would the rules proposed by the Department of Education make it easier or harder for schools and districts to make AYP?

If you have a theory, post a comment or e-mail me.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Of all of the methods to track students' academic growth, the "value added" approach is probably the most appealing.

Growth models, and possibly the value added method, will certainly play an important role in NCLB's future. But statisticians and education researchers are starting to question the value-added model's accuracy and utility for making decisions on teacher pay and other important policies.

"If anybody's going to be using these things for high-stakes policy decisions, we want to add a large grain of caution here," Tim R. Sass, a Florida State University professor, tells my colleague Debra Viadero in Scrutiny Heightens for 'Value Added' Research Methods.

In ‘Value Added’ Pioneer Says Stinging Critique of Method Is Off-Base, William L. Sanders defends his method against the criticism.

Other NCLB stories in the May 7, 2008, issue of Education Week:
Reading First Doesn't Help Pupils 'Get It' with my blog item and Sherman Dorn's extended remarks saying I quoted him "slightly out of context"
Debate Emerges Over Proposed Rules on SES, Choice
Full Appeals Court to Reconsider Ruling That Revived NCLB Suit

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The future of NCLB's Reading First program is in jeopardy. It's been a target of Democrats since they won the majority of Congress in 2007. Last week's Department of Education report is the latest strike against it. The reading comprehension of children participating in Reading First isn't growing as fast as that of children in a control group, the study says. For more, see Kathleen Kennedy Manzo's reporting.

Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., who controls the federal purse strings in the House, wasted no time calling the program a failure. "Previous reports have shown that a political friend of the administration has a greater chance of raiding the Reading First cookie jar than the best program on the block that doesn’t have [a] special political connection," Obey said in a statement.

Flypaper's Mike Petrilli rushed to the program's defense by pointing to the study's flaws. Sherman Dorn wasn't buying it, calling Petrilli's defense "about as credible as Hillary Clinton's defense of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war."

Now Petrilli links to a long interview with Reid Lyon, who explains why he thinks the report is flawed and inconclusive. Here's what Lyon tells ednews.org: "Reading First is the largest concerted reading intervention program in the history of the civilized world."

He concludes that the report's findings are:

not a cause for mourning and political opportunism, but a cause for deliberation and careful consideration of all the possible explanations—ineffective treatment, poor implementation, diffusion of funds, active treatment in the control condition, and many other factors.

It is also a time to be very careful in drawing conclusions from this study and to be very clear about its limitations in making inferences about the success of the policy and the success of the instructional model emphasized in the model. It has been the bane of education to implement policy with very little research foundation and very little effort at rigorous evaluation. Change is hard!

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you thought the Bush administration was finished putting its stamp on NCLB, think again.

On Friday, the Department of Education published a new "interpretation" regarding the classification of ELL students. The proposal would standardize how each state determines when ELL students are ready to exit a program designed to serve their unique needs.

My colleague Mary Ann Zehr explains over at Learning the Language.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

President Bush and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings introduced the 2008 Teacher of the Year at the White House yesterday. (See photo at right.) As usual, the president called on Congress to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. But, he added, "The good news is the act doesn't go away without reauthorization; it still exists."

What he didn't mention was Reading First. Maybe he and his speech writers knew the results of the interim report on the program. You can read about the report's findings in this news story on edweek.org.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Alyson Klein attended a conference on performance pay yesterday and didn't expect to hear the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee sing a sample of a jazz standard.

"You gotta give a little, take a little...."

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., serenaded attendees at the American Federation of Teachers' conference. Miller, right, gave a speech on NCLB reauthorization, which is stalled, in which he reiterated his support for including some form of performance pay in the renewed version of the law.

He wasn't specific on any details, although he said any pay for performance must be developed with teachers and unions. But the clear signal of his little song—the chorus of " The Glory of Love" as performed by Benny Goodman and Bette Midler, among others—is that unions may have to compromise with lawmakers on this sensitive issue. The National Education Association and the AFT shot down the performance pay provisions in Rep. Miller's draft bill, released last fall

Miller also reiterated his support for using multiple measures—indicators beyond standardized tests—to measure student performance under the law. For someone who just a few years ago seemed pretty skeptical of multiple measures, Miller was enthusiastic, noting that colleges "are asking for portfolios" from applicants, not just test scores.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Not everyone likes the NCLB rules that the Department of Education proposed last week. The chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee objects to the way the package has become a "slapdash" substitute for legislative actions. Representatives of school groups are balking at the quick timeline from proposal to implementation. You can read about that in my story in the latest issue of Education Week.

But you don't have to give Washington insiders all of the power in this debate. Whether you're the mother of a special education student in Massachusetts or a school administrator in Kansas, you can voice your opinion. Education Department officials will hold public hearings in four cities in mid-May. They'll be in Boston, Seattle, Kansas City, Mo., and Dunwoody, Ga., north of Atlanta. Dates, times, and locations are in this Federal Register notice.

Show up and let them know what you think about uniform graduation rates, "n" sizes, and the rest of the rules that may be in effect for the 2008-09 school year.

Other NCLB-related stories in the April 30, 2008, issue of Education Week:
Young People Drawn to Aid in 2008 Race (See also Alyson Klein's contribution over at Campaign K-12 about the deafening cheers for Barack Obama's anti-NCLB rhetoric).
Nebraska Education Sees Policy, Leadership Shifts
Ed. Dept. Again Rejects Utah's Bid to Use 'Growth Model' for NCLB

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has won the latest round in the legal battle over NCLB.

A federal judge ruled in favor of the federal government yesterday in all counts in Connecticut's lawsuit seeking flexibility under NCLB and to have it declared an unfunded mandate. Judge Mark R. Kravitz said that the U.S. Department of Education hadn't overstepped its authority when it rejected the state's application to implement the law.

Because the state hadn't exercised its administrative appeals of those decisions, the judge refused to rule whether NCLB was an unfunded mandate.

"It is truly unfortunate that the court is unable to reach this issue because the state failed adequately to raise it in the context of the state's proposed plan amendments," the judge wrote.

Back in January, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that NCLB is an unfunded mandate. The outcome of that case is pending the appeal. For background on that case, see this post from January.

Here's a copy of the Connecticut ruling. There will be more to come on this blog and edweek.org.

UPDATE: I've received the following statement from Samara Yudof, press secretary at the U.S. Department of Education: "Secretary Spellings is delighted with the judge's decision and emphasized that today's decision is a resounding victory for children and their families who seek to make a brighter future for themselves through education. No Child Left Behind provides parents and educators with the tools they need to measure their children's progress and to ensure their access to the American dream."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)