NCLB: Act II

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)

The secretary of education and others have praised Massachusetts for the rigor of its academic standards. But the state's standards aren't challenging enough to prepare high school students for college, according to a new study. Thirty-seven percent of college freshmen took a remedial course in the fall of 2005. See the Boston Globe story on the study.

The study highlights "the fundamental dilemma" with NCLB, says openeducation.net. If Massachusetts sets its standards any higher, it would turn low-performing kids into dropouts, writes Thomas J. Hanson, the superintendent-turned-blogger who runs the site. What such kids actually need are viable educational options that actually prepare them for the workforce, whether as a plumber or an auto mechanic.

Only when raising standards is discussed against a back drop of creating meaningful options for students who cannot handle the academic rigor associated with college level work will we be able to increase expectations without increasing our drop out rates.

Despite proponents spin on the law, NCLB fails to address this fundamental dilemma. In fact, it likely prevents school districts from taking the steps to increase standards because increasing standards will only bring about more penalties for schools.

And because the law governs the actions of our public schools, we have situations like that of Massachusetts, where 100% proficiency goals get confused with the goal of college readiness, and students are caught in the absurdity of it all.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One intriguing idea in the Forum for Education and Democracy's report is the proposal for a "continuous progress index."

NCLB takes a variety of measurements—test scores in reading and math, test participation rates, and other indicators such as science scores, attendance rates, etc. If a school fails to meet their goal in any of them, it fails AYP. The Forum report calls the NCLB method a "confusing statistical gauntlet" that is unfair to schools.

It should be replaced by a single measurement that combines the results of various factors, such as scores on tests measuring "higher-order thinking and understanding," progress students are making toward graduation, and "diagnostic information," the report says.

NCLB hawks have opposed indexes. Combining information from a variety of sources could cover up significant weaknesses in the school, they argue.

But they may be changing their tune. When I talked to Kati Haycock of the Education Trust about the forum's premise that the time is ripe for major changes in the federal involvement in K-12 policy, she said she's contemplating the type of index she might support in the next version of NCLB. "I don't see anyway around it," she said. It's the best way to incorporate other subject areas into accountability without adding new complexities to to AYP. The trick, she said, will be finding a way that a cumulative index score gives an accurate portrayal of a schools' performance.

We didn't talk about the specifics of the Forum for Education and Democracy's proposal. Neither of us had read the report at that point. Frankly, the report doesn't provide enough specifics for someone as thorough as Kati Haycock to take position on.

With Haycock and the forum both thinking of ways to make an accountability index part of NCLB's future, there's a good chance it will happen.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In my story about one of the many reports pegged to the 25th anniversary of A Nation at Risk, I quote two experts suggesting that that federal policy is not about to undergo dramatic changes in the next few years.

Congress only makes dramatic shifts infrequently and the time probably isn't right, Jack Jennings of the Center on Education Policy told me. Kati Haycock of the Education Trust predicted that changes to NCLB would be "evolutionary, rather than revolutionary."

That may end up being correct. But one VIP may be out to prove them wrong.

Yesterday at an event by the authors of "Democracy at Risk," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said: "This is exactly the right time to pause at the end of this administration and at the beginning of the next administration and rethink" the federal role in K-12 schools.

And that effort has to happen at the presidential level, Miller added. Judging from the lack of a sustained or serious debate during the current campaign, it may be hard to get the next resident of the Oval Office to pay attention to the debate.

The future federal role will include many of the ingredients of NCLB, he said. He called funding, accountability, and opportunity "the backbone" of the federal role.

And funding is especially important to Miller. "If that conversation isn't had first and satisfactorily revolved, I'm not going to waste my time," he said.

P.S. Much of the April 23, 2008, issue of Education Week is dedicated to the 25th anniversary of A Nation at Risk. Don't miss Howard Gardner's commentary about why NCLB and other standardized approaches won't work in the three distinct types of school districts across the United States—or satisfy these three Jesses.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The leaders of the House Education and Labor Committee agree that their attempt to reauthorize NCLB is at a standstill. But they disagree about who is to blame for that.

Here's the take of Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the committee: "Congress offered the president an opportunity to resuscitate his legacy by working in a bipartisan way on comprehensive reforms to the No Child Left Behind law, and he rejected it."

And here's the perspective of Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the senior GOP member of the committee: “Unfortunately, more than a year into their congressional majority, Democrats have all but ignored the pressing need to revitalize this law that impacts our nation’s schools.”

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you want to spend your day reading 26,000 words of federal rules, this link's for you. You won't find the word "bulldozer" in it. That kind of rhetoric is saved for speeches.

For a concise summary of the Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings' latest effort to revise NCLB, try the Department of Education's short summary of the rules. Or maybe you'd prefer the extended one.

And don't overlook the story I wrote with Lynn Olson story for edweek.org.

More to come on this.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As promised earlier this month, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings is set to propose rules today requiring a uniform high school graduation rate. But her proposal goes far beyond graduation rates, according to information provided to me. It would require states and school districts to take steps to ensure that students have access to choice and supplementary educational services and give them several new reporting and monitoring responsibilities.

Here's a quick summary:

Choice and SES
Districts would need to take action to expand participation in choice and SES before they can use the money reserved for those services for general purposes under Title I. Those actions would include:

•Coordinating with community groups to notify parents of their options to transfer their children to a new school and/or to enroll them in free tutoring;
•Informing parents of their eligibility for choice and/or SES two weeks before the beginning of the school year;
•Ensuring that forms used to sign up for choice and SES are "widely available" to parents on the Internet and through other sources;
•Letting students sign up for SES throughout the school year; and
•Giving tutoring companies access to schools so they can tutor students there.

If a district doesn't do these things, it would need to reserve its set-aside for choice and SES to spend on those services in the next academic year.

Every school year, districts would be required to report data on participation in choice and SES, including the number of students using those options and the number of eligible students who didn't take advantage of them. The districts also would need to publish a list of schools in the district that students are allowed to transfer to under NCLB.

States would be given new responsibilities to monitor tutoring companies. They would need to check whether the companies' instruction matches the state's academic standards; addresses the individual needs of students; and helps students achieve proficiency on the states' tests.

"N" Size
States would be required to reevaluate the minimum number of students in a demographic subgroup that a school or district must have to be held accountable for that subgroup. The number is commonly known as the "n" size. Under the proposal, each state would be required to validate that their "n" size was "no larger than necessary to ensure the protection of privacy for individuals and to allow for statistically reliable results of the aggregate performance of the students who make up the subgroup," the rules say.

State Testing
The rules would clarify that states' tests should assess students on more than basic skills. The proposal says that state tests should include questions "that measure both higher-order thinking skills ... as well as knowledge and recall items to assess the depth and breadth of mastery of a particular content domain."

The rules also would require states to publish their reading and mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress alongside the scores on their own tests. Districts also would be required to list the states' NAEP scores when publishing their own scores on state tests.

High School Graduation Rates
States would be required to use graduation rates that track cohorts of students as they progress through high school. They would need to have those methods in place by the end of the 2012-13 school year. The formula is the same as the one all states agreed to use in a 2005 compact among the nation's governors.

In reporting graduation rates in the 2008-09 school year, states, districts, and schools would need to publish data for every subgroup of students tracked under NCLB. To make AYP, districts would need to meet state goals to improve their graduation rates. Starting in the 2012-13 school year, all schools' AYP status would be determined based on their graduation rates.

The rules also would force states to adopt goals that would demonstrate "continuous and substantial" progress on improving their graduation rates.

Secretary Spellings is planning an announcement of the new rules today at 12:30 p.m. Eastern time in Detroit. Edweek.org will have more on this later today.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

On Earth Day tomorrow, members of the House's K-12 subcommittee will be working at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge in Laurel, Md. They'll be at a hearing on the No Child Left Inside Act, which would authorize $100 million a year for states to develop curriculum to address environmental issues. For background, see this post from July.

The bill would increase student achievement in core subjects, improve the health of children, and develop a skill critical for the 21st Century workforce, says the coalition of almost 200 environmental groups supporting the legislation.

"We'll be passing on complicated environmental problems to future generations," the coalition says in this action alert. "We must give the next generation a solid understanding of these problems and the basic tools to overcome them and make informed choices in their own lives." The action alert also notes that House committee leaders included much of the No Child Left Inside bill in the NCLB discussion draft that they circulated last year.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, will be the star witness at the hearing. Nancy S. Grasmick, Maryland's state superintendent, also will be there, as will a local principal and a conservation biologist. The hearing is scheduled to be outside, I hear.

I won't be there, unfortunately, because I'll be on assignment in Chicago. If you're planning to attend, I'd recommend wearing Gore-Tex.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Richard Simmons is at it again. The fitness icon has been a frequent diversion from my dispatches on fascinating (but not necessarily popular) topics such as growth models and graduation rates.

Simmons hit the morning airwaves this week to promote bills to insert physical education into NCLB. He's also calling on viewers to contact presidential candidates and ask them to address the issue. Here are links to appearances on Today and Good Day New York.

But he's not in this alone. The American Heart Association also is on board. Its Web site includes background on the FIT Kids Act, which would require states to address P.E. under NCLB. The site includes a nifty side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate versions of the FIT Kids Act. The heart association is having its lobbying days April 28-29 in Washington and will be urging its members to promote FIT Kids when they walk door-to-door on Capitol Hill. Now that a exercise guru whose outfit of choice is dolphin shorts and a tank top has raised raised awareness of P.E. among millions of morning television viewers, can doctors and researchers who favor lab coats and surgical scrubs put P.E. on the congressional agenda?

It's not looking likely for 2008. But maybe it'll happen in 2009.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In June, you'll be able to see what life is like at Baltimore's Frederick Douglass High in an HBO documentary. After 30 minutes of searching the Web, here's the school's story in numbers:

All of the school's 1,185 students are African-Americans. Of the enrollment, 460 are freshman, 240 are sophomores, 284 are juniors, and 201 are seniors. Its attendance rate is 68.9 percent.

It has never made AYP. Every year, it has missed its AYP goals in reading. Special education students met the AYP goal in mathematics in 2002-03. That's the only year a subgroup has met its goal.

In 2006-07, 21.2 percent of Douglass students scored at proficient or above on the state's English test. That's compared to 48.1 percent in the Baltimore City district and 70.9 percent in the state. Here are the Algebra test scores from the same year: Douglass, 21.3 percent; Baltimore, 48.1 percent; Maryland, 70.9 percent. You'll find the scores here.

In a survey earlier this year, 52.8 percent of students agreed with the statement: "I feel safe at school." (To see the complete survey results, go to this page and download the spreadsheet for school 450.)

Probably not going to be an uplifting documentary.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last month, I channeled Andy Warhol and predicted that in the future, everyone would be blogging. The folks at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation are making me look prophetic. This week, they launched "Flypaper."

In one of the early posts, Fordham VP of Just About Everything Michael J. Petrilli parses a paragraph from my story about the American Federation of Teachers' campaign efforts on behalf of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. I paraphrased a comment from AFT Pennsylvania President Ted Kirsch, saying that he believes the New York senator is “more emphatic about overhauling” NCLB than Sen. Barack Obama. Petrilli points out that Kirsch understates it, pointing out that Clinton is "determined to kill" NCLB. He suggests the AFT has been wishy-washy on the law.

Consider the context of the Kirsch's remarks. He was discussing the AFT's decision to endorse Clinton back in October. Since then, both Clinton and Obama have ramped up their rhetoric against NCLB. After spending months in Iowa and New Hampshire in town hall meetings, they concluded that bashing NCLB is a good applause line and could be winning votes. In The New Republic recently, Josh Patashnik make the same point, noting that Obama has begun to sound "more and more like a traditional liberal Democrat" on NCLB and other K-12 issues.

Semantics aside, here's what I found interesting about the story: Members of AFT and other unions that have endorsed Clinton don't appear to be focused on NCLB or any other issues. The Democratic primary in Pennsylvania appears to be a personality contest.

Other NCLB-related stories from the April 16, 2008, issue of Education Week:
Papal Visit Spurs Plea for ‘Saving’ Catholic Schools (also see my comments on the Fordham report detailed in the story)
Districts Cultivate Common Ground on English-Learner Curriculum
Ed. Dept. Chided on Graduation Oversight

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In the April issue of Governing, Donald F. Kettl, right, says that "[President] Bush's original version of NCLB seems doomed."

Kettl recounts the ironies of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that NCLB is an unfunded mandate. The court relied on language originally inserted by Republicans to side with the liberal National Education Association. I made similar points when the court issued its opinion back in January.

Kettl concludes that the court's decision presents a dilemma for both Republicans and Democrats.

The right may have to pony up a lot more cash to keep faith with the unfunded mandate provision or else back away from what it touts as a major legislative success. At a time when there is going to be precious little money for discretionary domestic programs, the left will have to find a new way of holding local schools accountable while inevitably providing them with far less money than they want.

Doesn't sound like an easy task for the current Congress or any other. But does that mean NCLB is doomed?

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

When Pope Benedict XVI arrives in Washington, his presence will put the spotlight on the plight of Catholic schools. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute put out "Who Will Save America's Urban Catholic Schools?" It also notes that Catholic schools are more popular than the pope himself.

“At the very time when all of us are struggling with how to create new good schools in the inner city, we have good schools in the inner city that are closing down,” Fordham's Michael J. Petrilli tells my colleague Erik Robelen in this Education Week story.

Over at Swift & Changable, Charlie Barone gives a Harper's Index of private school participation in NCLB's Title I. The bottom line: Private school officials feel as if school districts are hoarding Title I dollars and services. The numbers tell a similar story.

Those same Catholic school leaders endorse President Bush's $300 million proposal to give private school choice to students in the lowest-performing schools. But the vouchers won't solve all of the schools' problems. As Fordham notes, parochial schools in Milwaukee and the District of Columbia are struggling despite the private school choice programs in those cities.

Increasing federal aid to Catholic schools through Title I or vouchers would help those schools. But, as the Fordham report concludes, the federal government alone can't "save" Catholic schools.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

With minor fanfare last week, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced that she would require states to use a uniform method of calculating graduation rates.

By the end of the week, the Department of Education's inspector general released a report saying states would be closer to that goal if the department hadn't cut them slack on graduation rates.

"If the department had been more assertive in requiring states to implement a longitudinal student-tracking system shortly after the enactment of NCLB, all states now could have four years of student data," the report says. "Instead, less than a quarter of the states are using a system that complies with the requirements of the law."

In its response, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education says that the department offered states "reasonable flexibility" if they didn't have the data records needed to calculate an accurate graduation rate.

The office also says states will need until 2012-13 to "fully implement" a graduation-rate formula that requires states to track the percentage of students who earn a high school diploma within four years of starting high school.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Arizona Senate has put up a roadblock to the proposal to opt out of NCLB. Last week, the Senate K-12 education committee essentially tabled an opt-out of NCLB bill in a tie vote. The bill's House sponsor hopes the committee will pass the proposal when absent committee members attend the next committee meeting, according to this brief in the current issue of Education Week.

But, as I've written before, it's unlikely that any state is going to leave NCLB. Even if one chamber in a legislature agrees to leave NCLB behind, that doesn't guarantee the other will go along, as we've seen in Arizona. Then the plan must get the governor's approval—that looks unlikely in Minnesota, according to this news report. In Virginia, the governor signed an anti-NCLB bill. But the legislation is structured so that the state board of education gets the final say. If the board ignores the bill, the state sticks with NCLB. I hear that's almost certainly going to be the outcome there.

In the end, these opt-out bills appear to be ways for state politicians to take a stand against NCLB without needing to make the difficult budget decisions to replace the money the state would lose if their state actually left the program.

Other NCLB-related articles in the April 9, 2008, issue of Education Week:
States to Face Uniform Rules on Grad Data with blog items here and here.
Dropout Campaigns Envisioned for States, 50 Key City Districts
Ed. Dept. Report Show Increase in Tutoring, Choice Under NCLB with blog items here and here
New Chief Brings State Lessons to Title I Office

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bigswifty has posted all the numbers on supplemental educational services and public school choice. You have everything you need to solve the math problem I posed last week.

The issue of participation in these services is about more than math. One potential reason for the participation rates (17 percent in SES and 1 percent in choice) is that districts are doing a poor job of informing parents that their children qualify for SES and choice. That's what advocates for those services say.

Research in last week's reports suggest that they may be right. Fewer than a third of districts notified parents before the beginning of the school year that their children were eligibile to transfer, according to research conducted by the RAND Corp. that was included in the report. On the SES side, RAND found that 27 percent of parents reported that they hadn't been notified about their children's eligibility for tutoring through the SES program. (RAND put out a press release summarizing its findings.)

Communication may not be the main reason for the low participation rates. Eduwonkette lists the reasons why many parents aren't interested in exercising their choice options. Parents are satisfied with their neighborhood schools, she says. I hear from school officials that it's difficult to get kids interested in the tutoring, even if it is free.

The Department of Education is trying to increase participation in SES and choice. States participating in the growth-model project must explain what steps they'll take to promote those programs. States in the "differentiated accountability" project will have to do the same. But those projects reach a relatively small number of states.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has addressed growth models, differentiated accountability, and high school graduation rates. Will SES and choice be next?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

“They’d rather stick with what they’ve got than deal with some wholesale retrenchment" on NCLB, Kevin Carey of Education Sector told me yesterday when we discussed Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings' graduation-rate announcement.

It may be a good strategy. As I wrote back in January, the law is permanently authorized. If Congress doesn't revise it this year, it might not get to it next year, given that the next president is unlikely to take on K-12 issues as his or her first priority. This law could stay in place without big changes until 2010.

But is that a good long-term strategy? Maybe not. The longer NCLB is out there as it is today, the more the people with vested interests in changing it are going to be motivated to overhaul it.

Take, for example, school board members. As Lawrence Hardy reports over at "Leading Source," NSBA members recently reversed their position on encouraging states to seek federal money to create regional networks that would set common academic standards. The reason: Endorsing such compacts could eventually lead to federal standards. "Washington’s not too popular with school board members right now," Hardy writes. (I think he's understating the sentiment.) That's the case, in large part, because school board members don't like NCLB's rules on accountability and highly qualified teachers.

When Congress gets around to fixing NCLB, school board members will be among the crowd pushing for major changes. And the longer they work under the current law, the more changes they may want in it. The same goes for teacher unions, superintendents, and even members of Congress.

Staying the course may be best for the short term, but not the long term.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Consider this word problem:

The number of students using free tutoring and school choice under NCLB increased dramatically between 2002-03 and 2003-04. But the percentage of students choosing those options didn't change.

Explain how that could that be.

You can see the answer in this new report released today by the Department of Education. (Click here for the summary.)

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In a post earlier this week, I raised two unanswered questions about the education secretary's proposed policy regarding high school graduation rates:

Which formula will the Department of Education propose requiring states to use?
Will the department require schools and districts to meet graduation-rate targets for every subgroup of students to make AYP?

This morning, I talked with Bethany Little of the Alliance for Excellent Education, and she added one more: Will the department require states to set goals to increase high schools' graduation rates?

Under NCLB, the department approved state plans to calculate graduation rates using some of the methods that Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings denounced in her Tuesday speech. What's more, the department has allowed states to set goals for graduation rates that require little or no improvement in schools and districts.

Back in 2006, Little called the department's actions "laughable." Now, she is waiting for the department to publish rules in the Federal Register to see whether the department is getting serious.

While we're on this topic, here are some links of note:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy: "The high dropout rate is more than a national problem—it’s a national crisis jeopardizing our strength in the modern global economy."

Kevin Carey: "This new policy is a kind of national standard." Can national standards for academic content be far behind?

Charlie Barone: "In failing to take decisive action on this issue, states and school districts effectively have sent a message to the federal government: 'stop us before we kill again.' "

Sherman Dorn:"Spellings is channeling Adlai Stevenson's approach to governance and proudly announcing bold action on issues that are almost consensual and would happen without her intervention."

AFT President Ed McElroy: "The key issue really isn’t the formula that eventually will be selected but rather the need for a much more aggressive program to reduce the high school dropout rate."

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

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings disappointed policy wonks by not answering my queries about the details of her plans for a uniform graduation rate. No one e-mailed asking if I might have any nuggets on the grad-rate issue in my notebook that I didn't share on the blog. I don't.

But one e-mailer took me to task for failing to answer a question on a more important topic: Is the education secretary a potential source for sweet seats behind a dugout at Nationals Park?

Sadly, the answer is no. After Spellings deflected my grad-rate questions, I asked her if she enjoyed the game. She told me she and her husband went to the game as guests of Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman and his wife, who are season ticket holders.

Baseball and policy aside, the experience is another example of Spellings' semi-celebrity status—something that's rare among lower-level Cabinet secretaries. When the Reliable Source writers scanned the crowd, they recognized Spellings, but not Bodman, who was sitting with her. (Honestly, how many of these people would you know if you saw them in a crowd of 40,000? At my church earlier this year, a couple introduced themselves as visitors from Fargo, N.D. I recognized the man as a former governor of North Dakota. I had no idea he had moved to Washington until I read about his confirmation as secretary of agriculture later that week.)

But people in Washington know Spellings. Part of it is her appearances on "Jeopardy!," Jon Stewart's show, and "Wait, Wait ... Don't Tell Me." Another part is her friendship and professional partnership with President Bush and his family.

She is a unique blend of bold-faced name and policy wonk. That's a good combination when you're trying to get OMB to approve rules about arcane subjects such as high school graduation rates.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings says she will soon propose rules that would require all states to use the same formula to calculate high schools' graduation rates. She said she would require schools to disaggregate data by socioeconomic status, race, and other categories—just as schools are required to do for test scores under NCLB.

She announced the plan in a speech she delivered at an event kicking off a series of summits on drop outs sponsored by America's Promise Alliance. But she left many questions unanswered.

What formula will she propose that states use, I asked her after her speech.

She didn't want to give details, she said, because she didn't want to speak publicly about it while the Office of Management reviews her plan.

Would it look like the formula that governors agreed to use in 2005?

"I don't think people will be surprised by the approach that we take," she added.

Will states be required to use graduation rates in determining whether schools and districts are meeting AYP?

"If I told you now, you wouldn't have anything to do between now and the end of the month," she said.

I assured her that I had plenty of other things I could work on. But she wouldn't budge.

I'll be working on a short story for edweek.org. It will be up by the end of the day. In the mean time, you may want to read Sam Dillon's take for The New York Times. He got an advanced peek at the speech, but not much else.

Also, see this statement from Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. The chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee says he endorses the proposal for a uniform graduation rate, but he's disappointed that the Bush administration abandoned his bipartisan effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind last year.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)