NCLB: Act II

Yesterday at the New America Foundation, Sara Mead released a list of 10 ways NCLB could be tweaked to bolster prekindergarten programs. In a panel discussion, which I moderated, she highlighted three items:

1.) Require districts to use their unspent money for tutoring and choice on preK in schools that are in need of improvement;
2.) Allow schools required to restructure to transform into "early education academies" serving preK-3; and
3.) Expand Reading First so districts can use the money for preK literacy.

The ideas aren't meant to be a comprehensive preK agenda, Mead said. They can be "a bridge to get to places that people want to go to get a greater federal investment," she said.

But respondents on the panel wanted to see a comprehensive early-childhood education agenda.

"These are constructive suggestions, but they are at the margins," said Kathy Patterson, the federal policy director for PreK Now.

Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust said some of Mead's proposals would distract from improving K-12 schools more than they would help build preK programs. The proposal to spend leftover money from tutoring and choice, for example, would leave the preK programs with "an unstable funding source," she said. And the plan for preK academies wouldn't seriously address the needs of 4th and 5th graders, who would be moved out of the restructured school.

"I think we should be bold and say we want more than this," Wilkins said.

Mead explained that her ideas aren't meant to be "the cornerstone" of the federal preK investment and that New America supports House and Senate bills that would create a new title in NCLB to support preK initiatives.

Patterson said those bills are PreK Now's highest priority under NCLB. The group will be lobbying for them whether or not NCLB reauthorization is advancing next year. The idea has bipartisan backing and is a politically popular proposal that could win support in an election year, she said. (Learn more about the bills here, here, and here.)

I'm putting the issue on my watch list, mainly because the Senate bill is sponsored by a certain senator from New York who is running for president.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During the 1990s, two presidents proposed national tests. Congress rejected both. A Republican Congress brushed back a proposal by a Democratic president, just as a Democratic Congress killed a plan by a Republican president. Neither plan ever had much chance of passing. (Read this and this in the Education Week archives.)

That's the main reason why NCLB gave states the authority to set their own definitions of proficiency based on the tests they design. If President Bush or the law's congressional sponsors tried to nationalize testing, the idea would have flopped, which would have endangered the bill.

Now momentum appears to be building for the idea of creating national tests. The latest endorsement comes in a New York Times editorial.

"Many states have gamed the system—and misled voters—devising weak tests, setting low passing scores or changing tests from year to year to prevent accurate comparisons over time," the editorial in Monday's paper says. "The charade will continue, and children will continue to be shortchanged, until the country develops a rigorous national test keyed to national standards."

The Times joins the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, the Council of Great City Schools, and Aspen Institute's Commission on NCLB in advocating national tests. Diane Ravitch likes the Times' editorial, but her blogging foil, Deborah Meier, calls the idea "patently absurd."

What's ultimately important is where Congress and the president stand. So far, I haven't seen much enthusiasm for national testing.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

With Congress putting NCLB reauthorization on hold, it has turned to Head Start, higher education, and appropriations. Those subjects fill the Washington section in the current issue of Education Week.

NCLB's influence does appear in a story reporting urban districts' scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (Students in Urban Districts Inching Forward on NAEP). Kathleen Kennedy Manzo and Sean Cavanagh quote an expert who attributes the gradual gains, in part, to the districts' use of data collected under NCLB.

"From a systemic point of view, urban districts have been taking advantage of this data and direction to better align and organize their systems, and to build overall better systems to inform and improve instruction," said Heather Zavadsky, the director of policy and communication at the Institute for Public School Initiatives in the University of Texas system.

On the budget front, Alyson Klein reports that congressional Republicans are calling for the president to meet Democrats in the middle (Bush, Congress Still Battling Over Education Budget).

You can read about the Head Start bill awaiting President Bush's signature (Head Start Measure Expected to Launch New Era for Program) and the House education committee's bill to reauthorize postsecondary programs (Higher Education Act Renewal Advances). As you do, note that authorization for both bills expired four years ago.

Many folks are betting that NCLB won't be reauthorized until at least 2009. But if NCLB is on the same pace as Head Start and the Higher Education Act, we're looking at 2011 before NCLB is done. Does anyone think that's possible?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

NCLB isn't playing well in the early primary states.

Yesterday, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said the law is the product people "inside the Beltway in Washington" who believe "they know everything."

"Well, I got news for them: There's a lot of good, smart common sense out here in the real world," he said in Bow, N.H., town meeting where he played up his credentials as a trial lawyer who fought against big corporations.

"That crowd who thinks they know everything, those are the ones who said No Child Left Behind was going to be a wonderful, great panacea," he said, according to this Associated Press report in the Manchester Union-Leader.

(However, he did not explain why he voted for the law as a senator working at the epicenter of Washington.)

On Sunday in Keene, N.H., Mitt Romney said he liked NCLB's requirement that students be assessed every year. When he was Massachusetts' governor, the states saw gains students' achievement when it required high school students to pass exit exams.

The Republican is about the only major candidate to defend the law, The Washington Post notes in this blog post (which my colleague Michele McNeil wrote about on the Campaign K-12 blog). The Post's account noted that Romney didn't get much applause for his defense of NCLB.

P.S. For complete summary of where all candidates stand on K-12 issues, see this handy guide on edweek.org. We'll be updating this feature as candidates revise or elaborate on to their education proposals.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At the beginning of November, the National Education Association sent a letter to members of Congress, telling them they would earn favorable grades for co-sponsoring bills the union supports.

By the Nov. 16 deadline, several members obliged, according to the Congressional Record. The five NEA-backed bills that would make the most dramatic changes to NCLB received 47 new co-sponsors before the NEA's deadline. (For a complete list of bills that the NEA supports, see this list.)

More Democrats than Republicans jumped on the union's bandwagon. Of the Republicans, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, was most notable. He added his name to three of the bills, two of which were sponsored by Democrats. As I've noted before, it's ironic that NEA is encouraging House members to support Rep. Young's bill to significantly rewrite NCLB. The union gave the Alaskan a 'D' for his legislative work for 2005-06.

It's hard to tell whether the number of new co-sponsors is significant. But note that, by comparison, those same bills received just six new supporters in October. Perhaps, the NEA's letter influenced a few decisions.

Senators, however, didn't seem to take note. Only three senators added their names to the five major NCLB bills backed by the NEA.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has unveiled his $18 billion education plan. Over at the Campaign K-12 blog, Alyson Klein explains where the candidate stands on NCLB and Michele McNeil covers his proposals on teacher pay.

Sen. Obama's proposal set off a sound-bite debate over NCLB. He chastised his principle opponents for voting in favor of NCLB without fully funding it. The campaigns of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., shot back.

Spokeswomen for both campaigns noted that Sen. Obama voted as a state senator to require Illinois to implement the law even though it hadn't been fully funded, according to this Baltimore Sun blog.

REAUTHORIZATION NOTE: In his speech, Sen. Obama referred to a 2001 amendment that would have delayed the implementation of NCLB until the law is fully funded. That idea currently lives in a bill sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.

INSIDE BASEBALL NOTE: Here's a roster of people speaking in favor of Sen. Obama's plan. It includes teacher policy guru Linda Darling-Hammond; Christopher Edley Jr., former President Clinton's civil-rights adviser; the 2005 National Teacher of the Year; and K-12 professionals in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Darling-Hammond is advising the Obama campaign, according to this story in the Concord Monitor.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Toward the end of her latest entry on the Building Bridges blog, Diane Ravitch reports on her inside knowledge about how much Democrats want to change NCLB. The answer is: Not much.

"The law will no doubt get a new name, but the basic structure will not be abandoned," Ravitch writes after her meeting with a "very smart" Democratic congressman, whom she doesn't name.

She concludes: "One wonders, if the people who have to do the implementation say that it is not working, why would Congress push ahead? But apparently they are. It is time to realize that this law, in its next iteration, will be a product of the Democratic party. My guess is that no one in Washington wants to give up the power to tell teachers what to do."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post is the latest to point out that states are hiding "persistently dangerous schools" by not reporting them as required under NCLB. My colleague, Erik Robelen, first noted this four years ago.

By focusing on the small number of schools being identified as "persistently dangerous," the Post story overlooked substantive recommendations from the Department of Education's inspector general in this report. To fix the problem, the IG recommends the following:

"1) All violent incidents, according to state code, are factored into the [persistently dangerous schools] determination, without the use of disciplinary action qualifiers;
"2) Benchmarks for determining [persistently dangerous schools] are set at reasonable levels that are supported by objective and reliable data; and
"3) [Persistently dangerous schools] are identified based upon the most current year of data."

If Congress doesn't act on NCLB soon, would the Bush administration add these changes to the list of regulatory changes they'll be making?

P.S. I thank the Post's headline writers for putting "'No Child' Data on Violence Skewed" on top of this story. This blog is no longer the winner of eduwonk's "most obvious headline ever."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

When the NAEP scores released this week showed that achievement inched up in big cities, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said in a statement that they showed that "NCLB is working." She said the same thing—word for word—when state-by-state results came out in September.

Then and now, critics have questioned her use of the data. The point-counterpoint has been going on for two years.

Spellings’ strategy is probably a good one, even if it is a bit repetitive. But will it hold in the long run? Let’s say two years from now NAEP scores go down or even level off. Wouldn’t an education secretary working for a president who campaigned against the law* cite that as evidence the NCLB isn’t working?

Where would NCLB be then? Even if Congress manages to reauthorize the law in the next year, a new president could point to a slide in NAEP scores as a reason to re-open the debate and press for significant changes.

* For those of you just joining us, most of the current presidential field has had unkind things to say about NCLB. Even the candidates who like the idea of accountability say NCLB “isn’t working” or promise to reform it.

UPDATE: I have added a link to FairTest's statement on the urban district's NAEP scores. It's in the second paragraph on the word "now."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In the 20th Century, Congress was more likely to name a law after a couple of its members than a campaign slogan. In 1988, Congress passed and President Reagan signed the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary Schools Improvement Act.

Hawkins, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee at the time, died this week at the age of 100. The obituaries I've read (see here and here) highlight Hawkins' work on labor and civil rights. But he played a significant role in requiring schools to prove that their students are improving academically.

The 1988 law that bears Hawkins' name required schools and districts to document the change in achievement levels of students in the Title I program. If Title I students didn't show academic progress, their school needed to write a plan to help them improve. In schools where Title I students' scores didn't rise, the district would write a plan to improve the school. (See this summary of the bill.)

Today, the law looks tame compared with NCLB. The amount of testing is small and the accountability is soft compared with the current law. But one could argue that the small steps in 1988 were necessary building blocks for NCLB.

For more background, see this Education Week profile of Hawkins from 1989.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 6:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The legislative work to reauthorize NCLB has stalled in recent weeks. But the issues that the law has raised won't be going away, judging from the current issue of Education Week. In this week's paper, you'll find stories on improving low-performing schools and addressing the educational needs of children in poverty, as well as an essay on testing and accountability.

On the front page, Catherine Gerwertz writes up a new report calling for the creation of "turnaround specialists" to lead local efforts to improve districts' worst-performing schools ('Turnaround' Work Needs Rethinking, New Report Says). The report's authors acknowledge that such specialists don't exist, but they are working with a corporate consulting firm to develop some in New York City, Chicago, and other big cities.

Also on the front page, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo reports on the success of Boston's work to improve 10 schools (Students in Boston's 'Pilot' Schools Outpacing Others). The schools, which have small class sizes and extra time for teacher planning, are showing promise. A new evaluation says that compared with other schools, the pilots have higher promotion rates and graduation rates, as well as fewer discipline problems.

Inside the paper, Debra Viadero explains that a large research project has found "some improvements in quality," said Adam Gamoran, the leader of the project (No Easy Answers About NCLB's Effect on 'Poverty Gap'). But, he adds: "You're going to need a big improvement in implementation if you're going to get anywhere near the kind of improvements that are demanded by NCLB."

In the Washington section, I recap the opposition to the NCLB discussion draft mounted by the National Education Association and its California affiliate (NEA Leads Opposition to Law's Renewal). Many of the details I've covered in the blog (see here, here, and here). Check out these fresh quotes:

"What we do not need is another bad No Child Left Behind bill," said Reg Weaver, NEA's president. "We learned from the last time [when NCLB was created] from not getting involved," said David A. Sanchez, the president of the California Teachers Association.

Also note that the CTA spent $12.6 million last year on statewide elections.

In a short story, I highlight a proposal from Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., to allow 12 states wide flexibility in designing accountability systems in exchange for increasing the rigor of their standards (Alexander Bill Offers States More Latitude). Many folks in Washington are saying this is a proposal to watch carefully.

Alyson Klein writes about the showdown over education spending (Jousting Continues Over Budget Increase for Education). Since the story went to press, Congress sent the education appropriations bill to President Bush, who promptly vetoed it. More to come on this.

Finally, W. James Popham explains why today's assessments are poor measures of instructional quality (Accountability Tests' Instructional Insensitivity: The Time Bomb Ticketh). "They tend to measure the socioeconomic composition of a school's student body, rather than the effectiveness with which those students have been taught," he writes. It would take several years for testing experts to figure out how to remove bias from tests, he concludes.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Former White House aide Karl Rove suggested in August that the administration would use executive power to change NCLB if Congress failed to reauthorize the law. As prospects for an NCLB bill dimmed last week, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings said that she wants to standardize graduation rates across states.

"I think we need some truth in advertising," Spellings told the Associated Press.

In the nearly three years since Spellings took her current job, she has moved aggressively to change NCLB policies. She has created a pilot program for states to use growth models, rewritten rules for assessing special education kids, and approved changes to states' NCLB plans that this new report suggests has made it easier for schools and districts' to make AYP.

Now she's talking about graduation rates. What could be next? If you have any ideas, send them here.

SIDENOTE: Critics have called the Bush administration's previous graduation-rate policy "a travesty" and "laughable." It has approved states' rates that are deceptive and their goals that aren't challenging, they say. In the AP story, you'll note that North Carolina once said it's graduation rate was 95 percent—a number it published with the federal Education Department's blessing. Once the state changed its formula, the rate dropped to 68 percent.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Several studies have documented how states have set low expectations to make it easier for their schools and districts to make AYP. The latest one is here. But Education Sector's Kevin Carey digs a little deeper in this report, explaining the statistical sleights of hand states use to avoid declaring their schools and districts in need of improvement. Here's a quick list based on Carey's research:

Delay the pain: Set long-term goals that postpone large portions of the achievement gains until the deadline for universal proficiency looms. Several states hold schools accountable for making a third of the progress toward the goal in the first eight years under the law, leaving two-thirds of the achievement gains for the final four years before the goal at the end of the 2013-14 school year.

Raise the 'n' size: The 'n' identifies the number of students each school must have in a subgroup (i.e. African-Americans, Hispanics, English-language-learners, and special education) for that subgroup's scores to count under the accountability measures. In states with high 'n' sizes, schools may not have to meet achievement targets in all subgroups. That improves schools' odds of making AYP.

Increase confidence intervals: The measure is much like the margins of error that pollsters report. If a school falls short of its AYP goals but is within the margin of error, it is considered to be making AYP. But states never report schools that meet achievement goals within the margin of error as failing to make AYP, Carey points out.

Index performance: Some states give schools partial credit for students who achieve in categories below proficiency. The indexes can give schools too much credit for low levels of performance, Carey writes, especially if states set low expectations.

Average it out: In determining whether districts are making AYP, many states allow districts to average students' scores across the three grade spans: elementary, middle, and high schools. More than half of states also say that a district would fail to make AYP only if its students fail to reach the achievement goals in every grade span.

The U.S. Department of Education has approved each of these statistical methods in the states, Carey writes. And every year, states submit proposals to change how they measure AYP. "State amendments to accountability plans are always designed to make it easier for schools to demonstrate success, not harder," he writes.

Carey also notes how Alabama has used each of these statistical methods to increase the percentage of schools making AYP. The percentage grew from 23 percent in the 2002-03 school year to 87 percent three years later—all without major increases in student achievement.

Carey also ranks states based on how easy it is for their schools to make AYP.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The number of ironies in the NCLB debate never ceases to amaze me. The latest comes in the fight over education spending.

On one side, there's President Bush. He's been praising NCLB in speech after speech after speech. He proposed a $1.1 billion increase for law's Title I. You'd think that he'd be happy if Congress lavished more money on his favorite program. Think again. He's says the money he proposed is enough. The $1.5 billion increase Congress would give Title I is too much, the White House says in this statement threatening to veto an appropriations bill with education spending.

On the other side, there's Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. In a hearing this spring, he showed his contempt for the NCLB, saying the law puts too many mandates on states. You'd think he wouldn't want to put new money into the law. Think again. He's committed to increasing federal education funding across the board.

The unusual alliances started when President Bush formed a bond with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., to get the bill passed. They continue today in this funding fight. And new ones are sure to form when Congress gets serious about reauthorizing the law.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Kevin Carey at the Quick and the Ed is the latest blogger to fall under Richard Simmons' spell.

After an entertaining and frivolous post about heading to a mall to meet Simmons, Carey follows up with an interview of the TV fitness instructor. The transcript starts out light-hearted, but then Carey starts to take Simmons' ideas about physical education seriously. The next day, he posts about how Simmons' ideas have merit. The messenger in his sequined tank top and tight shorts may be easy to dismiss based on his appearance. That persona is "frivolity with a purpose," Carey writes. Simmons reaches millions on television by standing on a chair chanting "P.E. in schools; that's the Golden Rule." People in the audience start cheering with him. Advocates for other causes would love that kind of exposure.

I've made jokes (here and here) at Simmons' expense. But I see Carey's point. Simmons may not succeed in changing NCLB to include a P.E. But his advocacy may lead to changes in the way people in our country view schools' role in ensuring children are physically fit.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The fight over funding has begun in earnest, and NCLB's fate is caught up in it.

The White House yesterday issued a "statement of administration policy" saying the president would veto Congress' bill to finance education and other domestic programs. "It includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending," the statement says.

The bill, which the House has passed and is awaiting a Senate vote, would increase funding for Title I—NCLB's largest program—by $402 million more than the president's budget. It also would provide more money than the president proposed for several smaller programs, such as the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. Overall, the labor, health and human services, and education programs in the bill would get $22 billion more than the president proposed, the White House statement says.

In his response, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., says the president is shortchanging the law and his veto of an appropriations bill would make it difficult to secure congressional passage of a bill to reauthorize NCLB.

"This week, by saying he will veto additional funding for America’s schools," he writes, "President Bush sharply reduced the prospects for good faith bipartisan negotiation over the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Congress seeks a much-needed increase in education funding, and the president rejects it."

Rep. Miller adds: "The president proved, yet again, that he is not serious about creating a world-class public education system. He thinks he can have his education legacy on the cheap. He is profoundly mistaken."

That's the end of round one. More to come.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Even though NCLB is stalled in the House and Senate, its supporters aren't giving up.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., introduced a bill yesterday that would make a deal with up to 12 states. In exchange for increasing the rigor of their standards, they could bypass many of NCLB's prescriptions. The states' standards would have to be aligned with the states' definition of college readiness or international or national benchmarks. But states would get complete control over how to determine whether schools are making AYP and how they will fix the schools that don't reach their achievement goals.

"In other words, instead of saying: 'Do it exactly this way' to the states," Sen. Alexander said when introducing the bill yesterday, "the federal government would be saying: 'Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.' "

It's early, so it's hard to know how much support this bill will get. On paper, it looks like it answers criticisms that NCLB is too prescriptive. But it also keep NCLB's focus on improving student achievement.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is endorsing it. "This legislation is a reasonable and responsible step forward as Congress moves toward reauthorizing No Child Left Behind," she says in this statement.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The current issue of Education Week gives updates on NCLB's future in the short and long term. As a bonus, it offers four commentaries suggesting changes to the law.

In my news story, I report that the current effort to reauthorize the law is "mired in backroom negotiations" that are unlikely to yield progress in the legislative process this year (2007 NCLB Prospects Are Fading). The story went to press with a quote from a Senate spokeswoman saying that chamber's education committee expected a NCLB bill to clear that chamber this year. That timetable has changed (see here and here). Edbizbuzz says this story, and blog posts related to it, state the obvious. Not really. This story confirms what many insiders had predicted: NCLB isn't headed for passage in the House this year. And it starts to sketch out the possibilities for the next year and beyond.

For my piece on education's role in in the 2008 presidential election, I found that the candidates don't have many nice things to say about NCLB (The Next Education President?). But leading candidates from both parties like the testing-and-accountability ideas the law is built on. "The horse is out of the barn," a political scientist told me. "Whatever happens, we're going to have a pretty heavily testing-driven accountability system." First Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. Now this. It's a big week for horse quotes.

In the Commentary section, four writers offer their big ideas to improve NCLB. Arnold Packer says the law should create the types of tests that assess skills employers seek, such as critical thinking, oral communication, and working in teams (Know What the Real Goals Are). Robert C. Pianta writes that the law needs new ways to identify highly qualified teachers. The current measures—seniority and credentials—aren't cutting it, he says (Measure Actual Classroom Teaching).

Mike Rose says that NCLB currently creates a culture of compliance focused on student test scores. The law needs changing, he concludes, so "we will begin to develop more fitting ways to talk about children and the schools that shape their lives" (Seek a 'Fuller Language of Schooling').

Peter Hlebowitsh says federal policymakers should remember the Hippocratic oath when considering NCLB's future (First, Do No Harm). The current law "denies children attending high-poverty schools a comprehensive, enriching, and life-enhancing education," he writes. The federal government should revert to its "historic moorings," he concludes. It should offer money for schools to assist specific populations and to conduct research that measures the nation's educational progress.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Eduwonk has a long list of complaints about yesterday's Washington Post NCLB story. Eduwonk's criticisms are valid on policy grounds. But he glosses over that the story has two basic ingredients of excellent journalism.

1.) Peter Baker prods important people to say things publicly that they have said privately. He digs up telling quotes from meetings that happened in January and last week. (My favorite is from Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., on the president's promises for NCLB funding: "I bought a horse from that man once. I'm not going to buy another horse from him.") He reports on a conversation that the convalescing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., had with the president. He explains the most obvious reasons why NCLB reauthorization is stalled. He also shows why the unusual Bush-Kennedy-Miller alliance is fractured today. It's not because of major disagreements about policy. It's about broken promises—perceived or actual—about funding. As I have written on this blog before, that is the next NCLB battle. Unlike reauthorization, that fight will happen between now and the end of the year.

2.) The Post story has everyone talking. Most of my conversations yesterday with education policy folks touch on the Post story. The Post's Web site has a long list of bloggers who have linked to it. It even missed some (see here and here).

Did Baker miss the chance to explore the details on accountability, teacher pay, and other vital issues in reauthorization? Yes. But that's for reporters and bloggers who focus on exclusively on policy to dig into. It'll be nice if the Post joins us. We'll have plenty of opportunities to do so in the next three years.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, a spokesman for the House Education and Labor Committee told me NCLB probably wouldn't clear the House in 2007.

Now, the prospects in the Senate are fading as well.

On Friday, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., issued a statement saying that he and Chairman Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., agreed they should continue working on the bill rather than push one through to meet an "arbitrary deadline," according to this Associated Press story.

Also last week, Sen. Kennedy told the Washington Post that NCLB won't reach the Senate floor until 2008. The Post story also covers a lot of ground on the unusual alliance between Sen. Kennedy and the president.

Today, Melissa Wagoner, Sen. Kennedy's spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in an e-mail to me that the panel still may mark up a bill this year. But, she added, the committee's work on the bill is more likely to be next year.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 9:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

"I was able to stick to my morals. I did not have to touch a single test booklet. I didn't have to read a single direction," he told the Associated Press. "I sat there quietly while the students were working really hard on this really unnatural assessment that they are not used to."

He said he expects to receive a letter of reprimand for leaving his class in protest Tuesday instead of giving the state tests.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I want to add something to last night's post on the NEA's letter to members of Congress.

Alert readers noted that I changed my item minutes after posting. I cut a reference to the 'D' NEA gave Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska., for the 109th Congress. In preparing the item, I had read that on NEA's site and written it in my notebook. But I pulled that sentence after the link in the item went to the wrong page. On that page, which was for NEA's 2005 report card, Young was not graded.

After checking with NEA, I can confirm what was in my notebook last night: Young received a 'D' from the union for 2005-06 (here's the link). NEA did not publish the grades for Young and Alaska's senators in 2005 at the request of the NEA-Alaska, Randy Moody, NEA's manager of federal advocacy, told me this morning. The state chapter changed its mind in 2006, and the national union published the grades for Young and the state's senators.

As I pointed out last night, it's ironic that NEA is encouraging House members to co-sponsor a bill introduced by Young, a member who has consistently opposed the union in the past. For more background, see here, here, here, and here.

Moody also explained why the union changed its grading policy in 2005 to include help members of Congress give the union, such as co-sponsoring specific bills.

"So many votes are procedural and sometimes very partisan," he said. "There's a lot of work members do—either positively or negatively—that isn't reflected in an up-or-down vote."

In the coming weeks, it'll be interesting to see if members sign up to support the NEA's favorite bills to improve their grades for 2007.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

One way to stop narrowing of the curriculum is to expand learning time in schools, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., says.

In the next version of NCLB, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee wants to include grants to increase the number of days in the school year or to extend the school day. That would curtail schools' focus on improving reading and mathematics scores at the expense of other subjects, he told an audience yesterday.

Kennedy said his bill also would require states to track the amount of time students study music and the arts.

"We will include a new program to provide funding for states, districts and schools to expand learning time for students—to provide more time for arts and music education and experiential learning, as well as reading and math," he told the audience at the Walnut Hill School in Natick, Mass., which bills itself as "America's Premier School for Arts and Academics."

"And we will ask states to keep track of how much time students are spending in arts and music, to ensure that all students receive a full and well-rounded education," Kennedy said.

The senator did not say when his committee would take up NCLB, but his spokeswoman told me this week that the senator and his staff are still optimistic the Senate will pass NCLB by the end of the year. (See the story here.)

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Joe Williams at Democrats for Education Reform has the scoop on the NEA's latest lobbying tactics.

The union sent a letter today to members of Congress telling them that it will grade them based, in part, on the bills they co-sponsor. The union included a list of 17 NCLB bills that would earn members of Congress credit on NEA's report card for 2007. (I've confirmed the veracity of the letter with a Capitol Hill source and the NEA.)

Even before today's developments, a House Education and Labor Committee spokesman told me that the prospects for NCLB clearing the House in 2007 are "unlikely." (See the whole story here.) Maybe the odds just got a little longer.

IRONY ALERT: One of the bills on the NEA-approved list is sponsored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska. That's the same bill I wrote about last week. On report cards dating back to 2001 (when NEA ranked members on their votes alone), Young never supported the NEA's position more than 31 percent of the time. In the 2001-02 congressional session, he didn't side with the union once.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On Tuesday, Madison, Wis., teacher David Wasserman refused to give state tests, saying he had moral objections to NCLB's testing requirements. He sat in the teachers' lounge while a colleague proctored the test for him, according to this Associated Press account.

Wasserman planned to halt his protest today after the district superintendent threatened to fire him. "I can't jeopardize health insurance for my family," Wasserman, 36, told the AP. "I want to still hold by my morals, which I feel very strongly about. But I have a family to think about."

This is a small and isolated story. But it resonated across the Web. I found the AP dispatch on Web sites for CBS News, a site for Gannett newspapers in Wisconsin, Yahoo, a Washington radio station, and This Week in Education. (Alexander, there's the link you asked for.) It also appeared in the AP feed on edweek.org.

This story is another example of how NCLB engenders strong reactions, both pro and con. And the heat of those reactions gets publicity, giving one side or the other evidence to support its case for or against the law. No previous version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act created such buzz and strong opinions.

Maybe that's one reason why it's been so difficult for Congress to make progress on NCLB reauthorization.

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