Biden on Merit Pay, NCLB
If you're curious about where vice presidential prospect Joe Biden stands on education issues, Michele McNeil reports about his statements on merit pay and per-K, and I explain his regret over voting for NCLB.
If you're curious about where vice presidential prospect Joe Biden stands on education issues, Michele McNeil reports about his statements on merit pay and per-K, and I explain his regret over voting for NCLB.
Phi Delta Kappa and Education Next offer side-by-side comparisons of the American public's opinion of NCLB.
PDK found that 16 percent of the public wants to "extend the law without change." Ed Next says that 21 percent want to "renew the law as is" and another 29 percent want "minimal changes." PDK's survey reports that 42 percent want to change the law "significantly," and Education Next said that 27 percent want "major changes." (Education Next provides a sample of teachers and found they are far more likely to dislike NCLB than the general public. Here's one teacher's opinion about the law.)
One reason for the differences is the options given to the respondents. PDK offered respondents the chance to say "don't know;" Education Next didn't. Ed Next gave the option of small changes; PKD didn't. Another reason may be PDK's sample, which doesn't look much like America, as Sherman Dorn points out.
But also look closely at the questions. PDK asked for an opinion of the "No Child Left Behind Act" with no description of what the law does. Ed Next described how NCLB requires states to set standards, assess students to see if they're making progress, and intervene in schools where students aren't meeting goals. People seem to like the law more when they know what it does.
This doesn't show that No Child Left Behind is "the most tainted brand in America," as Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., has said repeatedly in the past six months. But it does suggest that standards and accountability are popular ideas, even if NCLB isn't.
PROGRAMMING NOTE: Posting on this blog will be light next week. As Michele McNeil announced on Wednesday, she and I will be at the Democratic National Convention. We'll have a backpack full of equipment so we can take video, Twitter, and blog. You can follow us by signing at Ed Week's twitter feed or through Campaign K-12.
NCLB's accountability measures are changing the way schools meet the needs of students, especially minorities, according to researchers.
"NCLB provides new incentives for schools to improve these students' performance, and it seems like schools are doing so," David Figlio of Northwestern University wrote in yesterday's chat on edweek.org.
But the overall impact of federal and state accountability systems depends on the leadership of the principal and the individual choices of teachers, according to research published today.
In one study of 245 elementary schools in California, Melissa Henne and Heeju Jang of the University of California, Berkeley, found that the achievement gap between whites and Hispanics narrowed in schools where principals focused on improving instruction.
But another study by RAND Corp. researchers suggest that teachers are the final arbiter over how much influence the accountability measures have. Based on surveys of teachers in three states, the team led by RAND's Laura Hamilton found "large amount of within-school variance" of teachers' instructional efforts, even in districts that had aggressive responses to accountability systems.
Both of the studies are included in a new book published by Policy Analysis for California Education at UC Berkeley. You can read both studies and an introduction by PACE's Bruce Fuller at this page.
AFTERTHOUGHT: Bloggers, bloggers everywhere. In the edweek.org chat, Sherman Dorn asked the first question and Diane Ravitch of Bridging Differences added her own later. Figlio's partner in answering questions was the anonymous and provocative eduwonkette. Soon, we'll take over the world.
Contrary to my assertion that there was "nothing happening," I came back from vacation to find newsy tidbits in my inbox and on my RSS feed. None of them were better than a day at the beach, but they're worth listing here.
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings gave seven states the ability to offer tutoring one year before school choice for schools failing to make AYP. I'm guessing that civil right activists are unhappy that Alabama is one of them.
Spellings also created the National Technical Advisory Council, which will evaluate states' accountability systems. The panel includes the usual potpourri of researchers, practitioners, and business folks. It also includes Education Sector's Kevin Carey—the main voice of The Quick and the Ed. Does this mean bloggers are going to get a seat at the table in the future?
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and others introduced the Time for Innovation Matters in Education Act—or TIME Act. We knew that was coming.
Tom Loveless responds to the criticism of his report on how high-achieving students are faring under NCLB. (Link via Flypaper.)
A new Education Next poll finds that NCLB is increasingly unpopular. Half of those surveyed support an NCLB reauthorization with no or small changes. That's down from 57 percent in 2007. The law is especially unpopular among teachers. Three-quarters of them say the law should be "completely overhauled" or scrapped. In an online commentary for Education Week, Richard Whitmire looks into a crystal ball and predicts that a McCain administration is more likely to give teachers what they want on NCLB than an Obama administration. Given how complicated and counterintuitive the politics of NCLB is (see here and here), he may be right.
The New York Times editorial board lauds the stand that civil rights groups have taken against a bill to halt NCLB's accountability. (Perhaps they saw this.)
Reading the editorial, I realized: One of the most important things that happened to NCLB this year was an effort to stop something from happening. Kind of hard to keep a blog going under those circumstances.
I'm giving up. For the next two weeks at least. I'm headed off on vacation. The blog will be up and running again on Aug. 18. (You can get the next item delivered to your e-mail box. See the sign up, at right.)
I'm headed to the beach in the hometown of Rep. Peter Hoekstra. On most mornings, I'll sneak out of the cottage while the rest of my family sleeps. I won't be thinking about AYP or SES. I'll be asking myself: Do I pedal or do I paddle?
In the evening, there will be no question of where all of us will be. See below.
Which students are improving fastest in the NCLB era: those at the top or the bottom of the achievement ladder?
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation issued a report last month suggesting that the test scores of those in the bottom 10 percent of achievement are rising faster than those in the top 10 percent. The study cited scores from the state version of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
When the report came out, I asked: Doesn't this mean NCLB is working as intended?
But the Think Tank Review Project—made up of self-appointed gadflies in their own right—asked its own question: Do other NAEP data substantiate the conclusion? When Gregory Camilli of Rutgers University analyzed data from the national long-term trend NAEP, he found almost no change in the gap between the bottom 10 percent and the top 10 percent. He writes:
In sum, the state and long-term data sets give different results, and this problem needs to be addressed before gap statistics can be used confidently to describe the effects of accountability policies.
As in many debates over education, the research appears to be inconclusive. With the delay in NCLB reauthorization, there will be more chances for researchers to answer the question of whether NCLB has had a positive impact on the achievement of students at all levels.
With NCLB on the back burner until next year, Rep. Michael N. Castle, R-Del., has introduced a bill that could be the starting point for discussion in 2009.
The bill includes lots of ideas from the bipartisan discussion draft that leaders of the House Education and Labor Committee released last year, according to this press release issued jointly by Castle and Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif. They are the most important Republicans on the education committee.
According to a summary on Castle's Web site, the bill would:
1.) Require states to rewrite their standards to make them compatible with expectations for colleges and the workplace.
2.) Ask the National Academy of Sciences to explain the best method for comparing states' standards.
3.) Create two "separate and distinct school improvement and assistance systems" and two separate ways of redesigning schools, depending on the severity of the student achievement problems in those schools.
4.) Revive the Reading First program. See H.R. 1939 sponsored by Castle and McKeon.
5.) Establish a uniform method of calculating graduation rates.
Time reporters may point to this as a sign that NCLB could move quickly next year. But, remember that the discussion draft didn't advance last year.
Time is reporting that NCLB is on track for a quick reauthorization in the next Congress. The Democratic Congress has done the background work for NCLB and children's health insurance. If the Dems add to their majority, as expected, they should be able to move both issues through the legislative process, the article says.
The article assumes that congressional Democrats will be united on NCLB issues. But in the past two months, it's become clear that Democratic interest groups disagree on the law's most important details. See the dueling statements from the "Broader, Bolder" and Klein/Sharpton crowds. And look at my item from last week about the split between civil rights groups and the NEA over accountability. Congress' Democratic leadership will have a lot of work to do to satisfy both sides of the debate. (Republicans, by the way, have their own divisions over education policy.)
Charlie Barone sees the potential for the combination of health and education policies to bridge the Democrats' divide. That would take some crafty legislative maneuvering.
One more comment on the Time article: Notice how it only quotes senators. If the reporters talked to House members, they might have heard about how hard it's going to be to unify Democrats on NCLB. (See entries here or here.)
Who out there thinks that Congress will be done revamping NCLB in 2009?
NEA President Reg Weaver defends the Graves-Walz bill to freeze accountability in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. In a letter to the editor, Weaver writes the bill is a "common-sense, moderate approach to NCLB's current system of snapshot, multiple-choice tests." He adds that NEA is working with education, civil rights, and other organizations to change NCLB. He's referring to the Forum on Educational Accountability.
Yes, some civil rights groups are part of the forum. But many more—including the biggest ones—came out against the Graves-Walz bill. Take a look at the following paragraph from the June 18 letter circulated by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights:
LCCR believes that NCLB is a civil rights law, and that some of the requirements of NCLB constitute, in essence, the rights of children to obtain a quality education. The NCLB Recess Until Reauthorization Act calls itself a 'temporary suspension' of those same requirements. Even a temporary suspension of a civil rights law, and therefore of the civil rights of our children, is unconscionable.
The Leadership Conference represents a long list of groups (including the NEA!). It's founders are some of the most important leaders of the 20th Century's civil rights movement. It's voice represents a consensus of the civil rights community. (Charlie Barone gives a complete scorecard of the Graves-Walz' bill's opponents.)
There hasn't been any significant legislative movement this year on NCLB. One source suggested to me that the most important development is the way the civil rights community stopped the Graves-Walz bill before it gained momentum. More than anything else that has happened this year, the statements of LCCR and others will frame the future debate over accountability in federal programs.
AFTERTHOUGHT: In the letter to the Journal, Weaver tries to rebrand NCLB as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It looks as if the NCLB era will end soon—something I suggested in one of this blog's earliest posts.
This reminds me that I'll need a new name for my blog. ESEA: Act X doesn't have a very good ring to it.I'm open to suggestions.
Laura Bush defends NCLB in USA Today.
Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I was doing something else. Don't believe me: I'm in the background early in this video.
