July 2007 Archives

The reactions to Rep. George Miller's speech on the future of NCLB reauthorization are in.

In the Education Week story, Mark Walsh notes that Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon is disappointed by the pace of negotiations. The congressman's statement also says that he won't support a bill that weakens the current law's "three pillars:" accountability, flexibility, and parental choice.

The story also has an interview with the NEA's Joel Packer, showing that the union dislikes performance pay for teachers.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings suggests that she's willing to be patient and wait for a bill that doesn't "roll back" accountability measures. "While we all hope to see action on reauthorization soon," her statement says, "a comprehensive bill that has bipartisan support and holds firm to the goal of every child reading and doing math on grade level by 2014 is worth the wait."

Alexander Russo, who was working hard yesterday while I sat on airplanes, had an instant roundup, filled with links to the text of the speech and quick reactions. He questions what Miller accomplished with the speech.

Of Russo's links, perhaps the best is to Sherman Dorn, a historian of education and the author of a new book on educational accountability. Dorn points out that Miller waffles on whether the bill will pass his committee in September and how he would provide flexibility to rural districts.

Russo also points to eduwonk's guest blogger Sara Mead's post, which says that Miller doesn't provide "a lot of details" on key points such as multiple measures and teacher performance pay.

And eduflak says that there was nothing "earth shattering" in Miller's speech, but cautions that Miller's testing proposals could end up "softening assessment measures." State's can't be trusted, the argument goes, because they have already set the proficiency bar too low. Reading between the lines, eduflak adds that Miller's statement that graduation rates should be part of the accountability system is a sign that the chairman wants to extend NCLB's reach into high schools.

In the newspapers, the Washington Post's lead says that Miller wants "serious changes" to the law and notes later that McKeon says some of the chairman's proposals would be a "fatal blow" in the effort to reauthorize it this year.

The New York Times highlights Miller's call for accountability measures other than test scores in reading and mathematics.

Posted by at 9:14 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Back in town this morning, and I've found a link to Rep. Miller's NCLB speech on C-SPAN's homepage.

This link comes with a technical warning. My Firefox browser failed to access it, and Internet Explorer succeeded only after I downloaded RealAudio.

More later with links to news stories and reaction from the education community.

UPDATE: View Miller's speech, via YouTube (edited version):

Posted by at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Through the miracle of technology, even though I'm far away, I'm able to bring you a quick roundup of Education Week's latest NCLB stories.

In "Key NCLB-Renewal Bills Withheld Until Fall," Alyson Klein and I note that congressional committees have postponed action on NCLB until September, leaving some to question whether Congress has enough time to get a bill past before the presidential primaries dominate the political scene.
CORRECTED PARAGRAPH
In "12-State Study Finds Falloff in Testing Gains After NCLB," Scott Cech reports on the latest academic research on student achievement during the NCLB era. The new study says that post-NCLB state test results are unreliable indicators, and that, as recorded on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, 4th graders' reading scores in the 12 states researched have been essentially flat, while their math gains have slowed since 2002. The team lead by Bruce Fuller of the University of California, Berkeley, does not suggest that NCLB is responsible for the stagnation that he says occurred in the 12 states, but contends that states made more academic progress before NCLB became law.

Finally, in "Survey: Subjects Trimmed to Boost Math and Reading," Alyson Klein gives a quick summary of the Center on Education Policy's curriculum report.

Posted by at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I'm traveling today, so I wasn't there when Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., gave his speech on the future of NCLB. Education Week's Mark Walsh was there though, and filed this story.

I'll be back in the office tomorrow and will provide a roundup of reactions to what the chairman said today.

Posted by at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Public Education Network has convened public forums and focus groups over the past three years. The Washington-based group heard from educators, parents, and community leaders in cities such as Austin, San Francisco, and Orlando as well as other cities that have public education funds. (Those are private groups that provide grants and other supports to school districts.)

Here's the summary graph from PEN President Wendy Puriefoy's intro to the final report on those meetings, released today:

"Over three years, and at every hearing site, the public supported the goals of NCLB. However, until the act addresses the realities of inequities, limited expectations of student and teacher capacities, and the isolation of parents and communities from school reforms, it will engender more rhetoric than real difference in the success of all students."

Here are the complaints PEN heard most often NCLB:

1.) People consider NCLB's universal goal of proficiency to be "exceedingly unfair" in a system where not all schools get the same amount of resources.

2.) NCLB's accountability system relies too heavily on "faulty" tests.

3.) The law's definition of what constitutes a highly qualified teacher relies too heavily on state certification requirements and has little to do with the "qualities students and parents want in a teacher," such as commitment to the job and the ability to address the needs of students with differing abilities.

4.) NCLB pays "lip service" to parental involvement, but usually leaves parents and community leaders out of key decisions.

5.) The law's accountability rules emphasize punitive actions, such as giving students a reason to leave a particular school by exercising a right to transfer. "Instead, federal efforts should support communitywide plans for turning around low-performing schools," the report concludes.

PEN released the report today on Capitol Hill.

Posted by at 1:30 PM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend

In yesterday's post on the new report from the Center on Education Policy, I cited the education secretary's statement referring to "much other evidence" that shows schools are adding instructional time rather than taking it away from subjects other than reading and math.

Curious, I e-mailed Press Secretary Katherine McLane and asked her to show me the research. Here's a summary of her response:

McLane wrote that data from the 2003-04 school year in the department's School and Staffing Survey show that instructional time in grades 1-4 increased by two hours a week over the previous 15 years.

Citing the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB, she said 25 percent of elementary schools increased instructional time for all students from 2003-04 to 2004-05. Just 2 percent or less decreased instruction of arts, music, or physical education, by half hour or more per week, the survey said.

RAND Corp.'s recent survey of three states shows that the increased emphasis on reading and math is "not very dramatic, and probably the result of proper focus on curricular goals," McLane wrote.

That's the department's 2 cents. I'm sure people in the field have a perspective on this. Any comments from curriculum directors, teachers, parents?

Posted by at 11:36 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

The Center on Education Progress is out with the latest of many NCLB reports. This one documents how schools are emphasizing reading and mathematics at the expense of other subjects in the NCLB era.

The report says that 44 percent of the 349 districts CEP surveyed reported that they reduced time in at least one of the following subjects: social studies, science, art and music, physical education, and lunch and/or recess. Those districts cut, on average, 30 minutes a day from those subjects. That represents 31 percent of instructional time in those schools, the report said.

Not surprisingly, the emphasis on reading and math was strongest in districts that have struggled to make AYP goals.

The solution, CEP says, is to require assessments in social studies and science without adding testing time. That would be done by testing in subjects every year (reading and math in 3rd, 5th, and 7th grades and once in high school; social studies and science in 4th, 6th, and 8th grades and once in high school).

CEP also suggests that the federal government underwrite research that will help teachers incorporate reading and math skills into lessons for social studies and science.

In response, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings says she isn't convinced. In this statement, she suggests that many districts have added time to the school day for extra reading and math lessons so they haven't reduced instruction in other subjects.

She also dismisses CEP's testing proposal, saying it would "dilute the best tool we have to measure whether schools are giving students a good grounding in their most important subjects." The changes "would roll back the clock on the great progress we've made for our poor, minority and special education students."

Sec. Spellings obviously preferred CEP's research on state test scores, which she says painted NCLB in a favorable light. See Sec. Spellings' statement here and some remarks by President Bush here. And here is my story on the report that appeared in Education Week.

Posted by at 1:48 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Lobbyists, go ahead and make your vacation plans.

The House Education and Labor Committee won't be taking up NCLB reauthorization before Congress recesses for August. In the schedule it released this morning, the committee listed no NCLB hearings or markups.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., had targeted July for getting a bill out of his committee, but now he's postponed that until fall. Since the beginning of summer, the word has been that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., was planning on taking his NCLB bill to the Senate's education committee in the fall.

Now the question is: Can Congress finish a bill this year? When Congress convened in January, Washington insiders predicted that electoral politics would interfere with the NCLB debate starting in early 2008. Now, we're in July and Democratic senators in the primary field already have made statements about NCLB that may affect how they will vote on a reauthorization bill.

With no committee action scheduled before September, and the presidential campaign starting to heat up, lawmakers and their aides will have an uphill battle to complete NCLB reauthorization.

ADDENDUM: In commenting on my recent posts on testing, Eduwonk says that he believes other issues will be a bigger problems in the reauthorization debate. He identifies a myriad of questions around teacher quality that he says will be "sleeper issues."

Perhaps.

I highlighted testing in my posts here and here because the issue was emerging as Rep. Miller was circulating ideas for his NCLB draft. When Education Secretary Margaret Spellings expressed her opinion on the issue, I thought that newsworthy enough for a follow up.

I also wanted to point out that the politics of testing is one significant issue where NCLB's critics and supporters have staked out positions and don't seem to be budging.

UPDATE: A news alert from the House committee says that Rep. Miller plans to give a "major speech" on NCLB July 30. He'll be at the National Press Club at 10 a.m.

Posted by at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From contributor Mark Walsh

The early presidential debates finally got around to something more than lip service to education issues, as the CNN/YouTube debate on Monday night devoted a string of four questions to K-12 education issues.

The unusual format at the July 23 debate at the Citadel in Charleston, S.C., featured citizens’ delivering questions via YouTube videos, with CNN producers selecting which questions to direct to the eight candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The most provocative question came from Randy McGirr of Trona, Calif., whose heavy-metal style video was unequivocally opposed to the law: “NCLB was such scam. So now tell me, sir or ma’am, would you scrap the whole thing or just revise? Tell me the truth, don’t tell me no lies.”

CNN host Anderson Cooper directed the question to just two of the candidates—Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware.

“I would scrap it. It doesn’t work,” Gov. Richardson said bluntly to applause from the audience. “It is not just an unfunded mandate, but the one-size-fits-all doesn’t work.”

“The worst thing it does is it takes districts and schools that are not doing well, takes their funds away, penalizes them,” Gov. Richardson added. “If a school is not doing well, we help that school.”

Sen. Biden said it was a mistake that he voted for the law in 2001 “against my better instinct” because he had great faith in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was a leading Democratic architect of the broadly bipartisan-supported of the law.

“My wife’s been teaching for 30 years,” Sen. Biden added. “She has her doctorate in education. She comes back and points out how it's just not working.”

Cooper moved on to the next question, about whether as president the candidates would send their children to public schools or private schools. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut used that question for a short defense of the NCLB law.

“Accountability is very important,” Sen. Dodd said. “This is one country—we’ve got to have the best prepared generation of Americans that we’ve ever produced in our educational system. No other issue, in my view, is as important as this one here.”

“And getting the No Child Left Behind law right is where we ought to focus our attention here so that we have resources coming back to our states,” Mr. Dodd continued. “You measure growth in a child. You invest in failing schools. But I would not scrap it entirely.”

Other questions were about the candidates’ favorite teachers:

and whether they have delivered sex education lessons to their children:

(See also Alexander Russo's take on the debate and the ed questions here.)

Posted by Mark Walsh at 12:17 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Today Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings went up to Capitol Hill and took the opportunity to talk about the ongoing debate over testing.

Should it remain centered around a statewide test given once a year or should districts or even schools develop a series of tests that could eventually be used in accountability decisions?

As an architect of the current state-based approach, Ms. Spellings said she needs to be convinced there's good reason for change.

In her brief presentation to a forum convened by the Congressional Black Caucus, she said she would oppose anything she believes would "water down the ability of African American kids... to read on grade level."

In answering reporters' questions after the event, she said she's not certain that states are ready to implement such complex systems. More than five years after the original law passed, some states "still have issues" with implementing the current accountability system, she said.

Testing looks as if it will be the defining question in this reauthorization. When will Congress start providing answers?

Posted by at 6:03 PM | Permalink | 6 Comments | Recommend

I was a little disappointed when I read the guest list for this broadcast of "On Point," an NPR show out of Boston. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Susan Ohanian from the Educator Roundtable are zealous critics of NCLB and Amy Wilkins from the Education Trust is a staunch defender of it. After listening, I've decided that the show's producers were onto something.

The callers were just as strident as the guests. Parents said their schools ignore gifted children or that teachers have to surreptitiously teach anything that isn't test prep.

A teacher responded, saying the law's accountability measures ensured that the children in her high-poverty school don't fall through the cracks.

The tenor of the show reminds me that people everywhere have strong opinions about this law.

The legislative process is about compromise. Will lawmakers be able to find a middle ground on NCLB when they and so many people they represent have firm convictions?

Posted by at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The issue of the week in the House appears to be testing. In the Senate, it's teacher quality.

At least that's the conclusion you can draw from reading the reactions to yesterday's introduction of the All Children Can Achieve Act. The bill is mentioned here.

The bill follows many of the recommendations of the Aspen Institute's Commission on NCLB, which would require schools to use students' test scores to evaluate their teachers.

New York City Chancellor Joel I. Klein likes the bill because it focuses on "teacher performance, not on teacher credentials," according to this Associated Press report.

The NEA's Joel Packer responds that allowing uncertified teachers into classrooms is "experimenting with children, and then two or three years after the fact seeing if these teachers are doing a good job."

In this story from the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., highlights seed money in the bill that could be used to lure the best teachers to the lowest-performing schools.

The Senate is bound to duke it out over testing. But the reaction to this bill shows that teacher issues will be a big battle in NCLB reauthorization.

Posted by at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Three centrist senators unveiled their version of NCLB reauthorization today. Details aside, the proposal has one intriguing suggestion: rename the law. Sens. Lieberman, Landrieu, and Coleman call their bill the All Students Can Achieve Act.

Despite the new name, the bill would retain NCLB's goal of all children achieving proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. It would change some important policies, though, following many recommendations of the Aspen Institute's Commission on NCLB. The bill would identify highly effective teachers and determine accountability for schools based on the growth of student achievement. It would invest in state data systems to accomplish those changes. It would give the National Assessment Governing Board the job of establishing voluntary national standards.

Also today, a new coalition formed and made it clear that it likes the NCLB moniker, using it in its name. NCLB Works includes the Business Roundtable, the Education Trust, and several civil rights groups.

NCLB is the latest name for the 42-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress usually changes the law's name with every reauthorization. Would a new name make it easier or harder to complete reauthorization this year?

Stayed tuned.

Posted by at 3:52 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

A lot of comments across the Web—like here, and here, and here—about a Congressional Quarterly report that Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon doesn't like the Democratic draft of an NCLB bill.

McKeon is especially concerned about the language that would allow districts to use so-called multiple measures in determining AYP, according to one of his aides. The aide pointed to a July 13 letter from the Education Trust and civil rights groups calling for "extreme caution" in allowing for scores from new tests to be used in calculating AYP. Any such alternate tests would "dilute Title I's clear focus on the literacy and mathematics skills that students need" and could confuse parents because of conflicting information.

The interesting subtext here is the politics. Several press reports have pointed out Republican divisions over NCLB. But here we're seeing the Democratic divide.

The groups that signed the July 13 letter are part of the Democratic coalition (e.g. the Center for American Progress, the National Council of La Raza, and the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights). So are the groups that comprise the Forum on Educational Accountability, which is working hardest to introduce new tests into the AYP structure. The Forum includes the NEA, AFT, and a host of other groups traditionally aligned with Democrats.

FairTest—which is spearheading the coalition—goes so far as to say that tests under NCLB should "first help teachers to teach better, and secondly contribute, when they are technically adequate, to accountability information." That proposal will never fly to believers that statewide testing should be the central element of any accountability system.

What does this mean for efforts to get an NCLB bill ready for the House to consider?

Aaron Albright, the press secretary for Democrats on the Education and Labor Committee, said Miller is "working hard to introduce a bill as soon as possible, and we are working in a bipartisan way."

McKeon tells CQ that he believes the Education and Labor Committee won't vote on an NCLB bill before Congress adjourns for August recess.

Posted by at 4:21 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

In the latest twist on the NCLB name, environmental groups have announced their No Child Left Inside campaign.

"In the classroom, NCLB causes science teachers to bypass environmental science when it does not appear to relate directly to state tests," says the coalition, which includes the Sierra Club, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and several of other environmental groups.

"Beyond the classroom, teachers have to forgo valuable, hands-on field investigations rather than take time away from test-related instruction," the group adds.

They're pushing an amendment to NCLB that would boost spending on environmental education and would:

Start a grant program in which states develop standards for environmental education, create public-private partnerships for financing it, and share effective practices in environmental education.

Offer professional development for teachers--similar to other federal efforts in math and science education.

Require states taking environmental education money to develop "environmental literacy plans" that explain how the states will ensure that high school students will develop their knowledge of the environment.

The champion of their cause is Rep. John P. Sarbanes, D-Md, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee. That gives him the chance to offer amendments when the committee takes up the bill. He's a freshman--usually the least powerful legislators. But many believe first-termers will be an important voting bloc in this reauthorization.

Posted by at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A new study out of Chicago suggests that low-achieving and high-achieving students haven't benefited from No Child Left Behind.

When comparing changes in Chicago students' test scores pre- and post-NCLB, researchers Derek Neal and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach found a "strikingly consistent pattern" in the test scores of students with lowest-achievement test scores. They scored "the same or lower" under NCLB's accountability system than they did in the 1990s under the Chicago's accountability measures.

When looking at gifted students, the researchers found "mixed evidence of gains" in the NCLB era.

Kids in the middle--the ones closest to proficiency--performed better under NCLB than they did before.

This study lends credence to common critiques of that law encourages teachers to focus on the so-called bubble kids--the ones that are close to reaching proficiency.

Growth models can fix the problem by rewarding schools for progress of students' at the lowest end of the spectrum. But this study brings to mind the question about gifted students. What incentives will schools have to reach out to gifted students if the ultimate goal of NCLB is proficiency for all by 2013-14?

We'll link to the study once it's posted online.

To come: Education Week's Debra Viadero is at a panel discussion where Neal presents the research. Respondents to the presentation include an Education Department official, two critics of the law, and one supporter of it. Expect to see a story soon.

UPDATE: The report is now online. Click on the upper right corner of the site announcing the event at the American Enterprise Institute.

UPDATE II: AEI now has a link directly to the pdf of the study. And Debra Viadero's story is here.

Posted by at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Here are some of the key details in yesterday's bill introduced by Sen. Burr and Gregg:

Creates differentiated consequences for schools based on how far they are falling short of their AYP goals. The ones farthest from their targets would get the most support; others would get targeted help based on their needs.

Expands the current growth model program run by the U.S. Dept. of Ed. to make all states eligible. (Currently, 10 states are in the program, and the dept. has capped the pilot at that.) Like the department, the bill would create the department's requirement that growth models set a path to proficiency for all children be proficient by 2013-14.

Scores of English language learners would not be counted in schools' AYP results for two years (the department's current policy is one year). Once an ELL student is considered proficient in English, his or her score will count in the ELL subgroup for two extra years--making it easier for schools to make AYP.

In school choice, the bill would require Title I funds to follow the student to their new public school.

It would formally authorize the department's Teacher Incentive Fund and would create an adjunct teacher corp to recruit math and science professionals to teach those subjects in high school.

Things of note that are missing from the bill:

Private school choice--something that's on the Bush administration's wish list.
Block grants or other new flexibility--something that conservative Republicans want.

Eduwonk believes we're going to hear a lot about this bill in coming months and that it limits the terms of the debate about the overhaul of the law.

You'll find the statements of Sen. Burr and Gregg here. (Scroll down toward the middle of the page.)

Posted by at 10:10 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Some people predicted House Democrats would introduce an NCLB bill this week.

Wrong chamber and wrong party.

Sens. Judd Gregg and Richard Burr--both Republican members of the Senate's education committee--released their version of a reauthorized bill today. From the press release on Sen. Burr's site, it doesn't look as if they would change much.

They would keep most of Secretary Spellings' "core principles." That includes goals of proficiency by 2013-14, annual testing grades 3-8, focus on reading and math.

It also promises: "Additionally, the bill would streamline the accountability timeline to make it easier for schools to develop and implement plans to improve student achievement and to focus on what matters most—teaching and learning. It would also expand options available to parents and place a greater emphasis on teacher quality."

We'll know more about that when we can see the bill in the Congressional Record tomorrow.

P.S. The bill includes the Graduate for a Better Future Act, which I wrote about here.

P.P.S. Secretary Spellings likes the bill.

Posted by at 4:32 PM | Permalink | 5 Comments | Recommend