NCLB: Act II

If you think NCLB is harsh, take a look at new English policies.

In its new "National Challenge," the Ministry of Education recently announced that it will shut down secondary schools that don't meet specific test-score targets. By 2011, the goal is for every school to have 30 percent of its student body passing tests in five subjects in the General Certificate of Secondary Education.

That may sound like an easy goal. (After all, states' high school exit exams assess subject matter that is less rigorous than what's expected of high school graduates.) But it's not. If the rules went into effect today, almost 20 percent of England's secondary schools would fail the challenge. Most would be closed and re-opened in the English version of a charter school.

You can read about the policies at the ministry's Web site.

HAT TIP ACROSS THE POND: Thanks to Darleen Opfer, an American teaching at the University of Cambridge. She tipped me off to the policies and helped me translate it into American eduspeak.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Oklahoma City teacher John Thompson took over the Core Knowledge blog yesterday. Thompson, a serial commenter here and elsewhere, has this to say about NCLB:

"Educational reformers often act like a team that is down by several touchdowns late in the game. We abandon any semblance of a game plan and throw one desperation pass after another, creating turnovers and making things worse. When our school addressed the challenge of NCLB by instituting high stakes benchmark testing, the argument was, 'We have tried everything else. Why not try this?' We learned the hard way. On the other hand, it was not nearly as hard on the teachers as on the students who dropped out by the dozens."

At the end, he adds that blogs are the best place to "achieve a proper balance of policy, research, theory, and practical experience." He also warns against drinking while blogging. Good advice.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings wrote appropriators yesterday in a last-ditch effort to save Reading First. She cites the department's data on reading comprehension and urges legislators to talk with educators on the ground about the program.

"You may find, as I have, that the program has helped raise expectations and prepare students, including English language learners and students with disabilities, for academic success," she wrote.

The effort is "too little, too late," Mike Petrilli writes. In a new blog (via TWIE), reading expert Timothy Shanahan is already thinking about what can replace the program. This three-step process would be:

1.) Create a pilot project to find out what works. Searching through Reading First data might give clues to the answer.
2.) Encourage Title I schools to follow the practices in the successful schools.
3.) Use those experiences to change Title I policies so all schools in the program adopt such best practices.

Sounds sensible to me. Shanahan is one of the most informed and reasonable people in the reading debate. I'll be checking back to see what he has to say.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday's Washington Post included a special advertising section on education issues sponsored by the National Education Association. (Memo to Mike Antonucci: Can you find out how much that cost?)

The editorial content included a Reg Weaver column covering the bottom half of the front page and short essays by a who's who of Education Week sources (Linda Darling-Hammond and George Wood on the "Democracy at Risk" report; Jacob E. Adams Jr. and Kati Haycock on school finance; Richard Ingersoll on teacher quality).

The one that caught my eye was written by Richard W. Riley, the secretary of education for all eight years of the Clinton presidency. Riley has played a few roles behind the scenes since leaving Washington in 2001. But now he's heading up a new practice at his law firm that will focus on education issues. Look for him to be more visible in education debates in coming years. You can learn more about his new venture at www.educationcounsel.com.

Here is Riley's list of issues to be addressed under the future NCLB:

"Setting the right standards;
"Strengthening teaching;
"Teaching higher-level skills;
"Making the most of the after-school hours;
"Giving all students a strong start;
"Expanding access to college;
"Developing good data."

NOTE: I couldn't find any of the articles from the supplement online. If anyone else find it, please send over the link.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The possibility that Congress would suspend NCLB's accountability rules brought supporters of the law out of the woodwork. Over at Swift & Changable, Charlie Barone says that civil rights' community's nearly unanimous opposition to the suspension was unprecedented in the history of NCLB.

Today, the Public Education Network released a poll that sheds some light on the reason why. Although the poll focuses on where education stands in the current political debate, the response to one of its questions shows that the minority community likes NCLB.

Forty-one percent of blacks and 39 percent of Hispanics believe that NCLB has helped improve their schools. Only 21 percent of African-Americans and 23 percent of Hispanics say the law is hurting their schools. (The rest says there's no difference.) By contrast, 27 percent of whites say the law is helping schools, 31 percent say it is hurting, and 27 percent say it hasn't had an impact.

Combine the three groups and here's what you get: 31 percent say "helping;" 31 percent say "hurting;" and 27 percent say "no difference." (See slide 21 on this powerpoint presentation.)

For all of the red-hot rhetoric against NCLB, it appears that the public hasn't made up its mind. But the minority community is leaning in favor.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Reading First wouldn't get any money from the Senate, Alyson Klein reports in from the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee markup.

The program also has a '0' in its column in the bill awaiting action in House Appropriations Committee on Thursday.

Just two years ago, Reading First received $1 billion. Now, with no money in either chamber's bill, the program's future looks grim.

Alyson is hard at work on a story that will appear on edweek.org later today.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"Has student achievement increased since 2002," the Center on Education Policy asks in its latest report.

The short answer is: Yes. On state tests, the increases are greater than on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The achievement gap between whites and minorities narrowed more often than not across the states, the report says. If you want to see how your state shapes up, CEP has snapshots of all the states.

But does that mean NCLB is the reason for the increase? Not necessarily.

Even though the report bills itself as "the most comprehensive, intensive, and carefully constructed study" of student achievement in the NCLB era, it can't answer that question.

"It is impossible to determine the extent to which these trends in test results have occurred because of NCLB," the report says.

The report CEP released on the same subject last year included similar disclaimers. It also noted that achievement rose faster in the years before NCLB than it did in the years after. But that didn't stop some of NCLB's supporters (including one who works in the Oval Office) from declaring victory.

Sean Cavanagh has more on the latest report in a story now on edweek.org.

UPDATE: Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., issues a statement on the report. It doesn't use the words "No Child Left Behind."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Has Reading First helped elementary students improve their reading comprehension?

Not really, says the Institute of Education Sciences.

Yes, says the secretary of education, who is one of the program's biggest cheerleaders.

Margaret Spellings today released an analysis of Reading First data that says 38 states report reading comprehension gains among 1st graders whose schools received money from the program. A similar percentage of states report increases in comprehension in grades 2 and 3, as well as among English language learners and students with disabilities.

These numbers are at odds with the report released last month by the department's research arm, which conducts research independently of the secretary. Reading First defenders suggest that the study's design was flawed. (See my item and criticisms by Mike Petrilli and Reid Lyon.) Certainly the program's critics will say the same thing about the new data.

Will the new data save the program ? It's too late in the House, where the chairman of the appropriations committee appears to convinced by the first study. We'll see what the Senate does.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Alyson Klein just called in from this morning's subcommittee markup of the fiscal 2009 appropriations bill for the education, labor, and health and human service departments. Here's what she reports:

It doesn't sound as if The plan to suspend NCLB accountability is included in the appropriations bill. Sources tell me that Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee, nixed the bill after Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., voiced his objections to it. You can read what the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee told Alyson in her post from yesterday.

The debate over the idea of suspending accountability isn't dead, though. BoardBuzz is asking for readers to contact their members' offices, while Swift & Changable says that additional civil rights groups are voicing opposition.

On another note, the subcommittee's bill would eliminate all funding for the Reading First program. Rep. Obey's statement on the program's evaluation gave a hint that this was coming.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

So, if you needed any more proof that reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act is absolutely, definitely not happening this year, take a look at the version of an environmental education bill that the House Education and Labor Committee approved today, with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The bill, dubbed the No Child Left Inside Act by its sponsor, Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., originally would have made $100 million in grants available to schools to bolster environmental education and was designed to be part of the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. But the measure approved today was instead a revision of part of the National Environmental Education Act. That law, passed in 1990, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to promote environmental literacy. The change was made, in part because NCLB isn't exactly a moving vehicle this year.

The revised bill would authorize $14 million to improve teacher training and professional development in environmental education, and it would authorize grants to districts and non-profit organizations to expand and improve environmental education prorgrams. Those grants would be doled out by the secretary of education.

Many Republicans on the education committee supported the revised bill, which passed 37-8, in part because, unlike the original version, the measure no longer would create an expensive new program, Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, the top GOP member on the committtee, said.

And both McKeon and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the committee, made it clear that this bill isn't intended as a response to criticisms that the NCLB law's focus on reading and mathematics has pushed environmental education (and other subjects) to the sidelines.

"There is a myth out there that NCLB tells schools exactly what to teach and when to teach it," he said. "NCLB says students need to be proficient in reading and mathematics, but it doesn't say they shouldn't study other subjects."

On a completely different, but still NCLB-related, subject, Miller told me today that he is vehemently opposed to a bill to temporarily suspend NCLB's accountability provisions that some lawmakers are trying to get attached to the education spending bill.

"I think it's destructive [in terms of] maintaining educational progress," he said.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple of small news items from today ....

1.) A federal judge in San Francisco yesterday ruled that NCLB gives the U.S. secretary of education latitude to declare teachers who are in training for an alternative certification as highly qualified. The decision rejects a group's lawsuit trying to nullify California's definition of a highly qualified teacher.

In response, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings' press secretary sent me a statement. "The decision concluded that our regulation is consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act, and allows districts throughout the nation—particularly those in high-need areas—to meet the demand for highly qualified teachers by tapping into the talents and enthusiasm of experienced experts in various professions and recent college graduates who are committed to devoting their skills, time, and energy into making a difference in the classroom," Samara Yudof wrote in an e-mail.

Mark Walsh has more at The School Law blog.

2.) The House Education and Labor Committee approved the No Child Left Inside Act today. For background, see my posts from July and April.

The bill would require states to improve environmental education. "We need to make environmental education an even more important part of students’ school years," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the committee's chairman, said in a statement. "In addition to getting kids outdoors, we must teach them about the environment as if our society and our local communities depended on it—because the fact is, they do depend on it."

The bill is a scheduled to be debated on the House floor this summer, says this press release from Rep. John P. Sarbanes, D-Md., the bill's sponsor. The bill passed with bipartisan support.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new study documents the steady improvement of low-achieving students (who are disproportionately African-American, Hispanic, or other minorities) in the NCLB era and the small gains made by high achievers (who are disproportionately white or Asian-American). The achievement gap between them is narrowing.

"The general pattern is one of all boats rising; but the boats at the 10th percentile rose more than those at the 90th percentile," Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution writes in the new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

In a survey of 900 teachers, 24 percent said that attention and resources dedicated to gifted students have declined in the past five years; 45 percent said it has stayed about the same.

Mike Petrilli says the report's findings are evidence that Congress should "rethink NCLB's accountability measures" (He also provides links to the media coverage.) Eduwonkette writes that state accountability systems that predated NCLB produced the same results. And Robert Pondiscio "is giddy" the issue is getting attention because bored, gifted kids were his "No. 1 concern as a classroom teacher."

Here's my question: If "all boats" are rising, doesn't that mean student achievement is progressing in ways desired by NCLB's framers? Kids at all levels are improving while the achievement gap is narrowing. Perhaps the achievement of gifted kids isn't increasing as quickly as some would like, but the achievement gap will never narrow if low achievers' performance doesn't increase faster than that of high achievers.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

On Friday, David Brooks asked which one of last week's statements on education policy Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would endorse. Would it be the one that called for a "broader, bolder approach" or the Education Equality Project's call to ramp up school accountability?

I wondered the same thing. I exchanged e-mails with Danielle Gray, the deputy policy director of the Obama campaign (thanks to Alyson Klein for the introduction).

Here's what I found out (other than Gray reads Campaign K-12): Sen. Obama likes both statements. (You can read Gray's comments and the rest of my reporting on both statements in the story that will appear in this week's issue of Education Week.)

Alexander Russo will probably point to Gray's comments as supporting his theory that Obama is a pragmatist who tells people what they want to hear. But it's hard to imagine a Democratic presidential candidate saying anything different. All those who signed the Education Equality Project's statement told me that they supported expanding health care, early childhood education—and all of the other things listed in the "broader, bolder" statement. The central question is whether policymakers should expect more from schools without those additional supports. That's a tough one for Democrats to answer—and one I expect will take longer than this election cycle for the party to sort out.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Commenting on my post from Friday, Monty Neil of FairTest notes that not all civil rights groups will oppose the bill to suspend sanctions under NCLB. He's right. I should have written that "some" civil rights groups are going to fight the bill. To see which ones, read Charlie Barone's post. At the FairTest site, you can see the civil rights groups that are likely to support H.R. 6239.

At BoardBuzz, you can read why the National School Boards Association supports the bill. It would "make sure schools do not continue to be subject to mislabeling and costly sanctions which have not been proven effective," the NSBA blog says.

There will be more on this to come, I'm sure.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Back when President Bush and top Democrats were declaring NCLB reauthorization to be a top priority, who would have thought that the most important NCLB bill introduced in this Congress would be by a low-profile House member who doesn't sit on an education committee? Things may be shaping up that way.

This week, Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., introduced H.R. 6239, the NCLB Recess Until Reauthorization Act. H.R. 6239 would suspend NCLB's accountability measures for one year or until Congress reauthorizes the law. In other words, in the 2007-08 school year, states wouldn't publish AYP results . Rep. Timothy J. Walz, D-Minn., a freshman who is a former teacher, is co-sponsoring the bill.

Graves (with the support of the National School Boards Association and the National Education Association) is working to get the bill attached to the House's fiscal 2009 appropriations bill. That bill is scheduled for subcommittee markup next week. Civil rights groups are opposed to the bill and will say so later today, I hear.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 7:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Governors say the Department of Education's proposal to require states to use the same method of calculating graduation rates isn't ready to be implemented.

Read the National Governors Association's comments at the NGA Web site.

The deadline for comments on the April 23 rules package is coming up. If you want to pass along comments on graduation rates or any other issue, e-mail them to me at dhoff@epe.org.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Lisa Graham Keegan sat down with Michele McNeil and a bunch of reporters this morning to explain where Sen. John McCain of Arizona stands on education. Keegan, the top education adviser to the presumptive Republican nominee, had a lot to say about NCLB funding, school choice, and intervening in low-performing schools.

Read all about it over at Campaign K-12.

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

Another day, another big statement from education leaders.

Today's comes from a coalition called the Education Equality Project, which has been formed by New York City Chancellor Joel I. Klein and citizen activist Al Sharpton. Unlike "Broader, Bolder" approach released yesterday, the coalition's statement focuses exclusively on the education policies needed to improve educational achievement. It doesn't mention that social programs should assist schools, as the "Broader, Bolder" statement did.

"We don't know yet what schools can achieve," Klein said at a news conference announcing the coalition's formation. "Some schools today are getting entirely different outcomes with the very same kids people tell me you can't educate to high levels of achievement. If that can happen for some, why can't it happen for all?"

Although the back-to-back release of these statements is coincidental, the fact that they're coming out now isn't. Both groups are gearing up to influence the presidential campaign and to put education on the candidates' radar—now and in 2009.

For reactions to the "Broader, Bolder" statement, see Andy Rotherham, Kevin Carey, Sara Mead, eduwonkette, Dana Goldstein, Mike Petrilli, Liam Julian, Charlie Barone, Jim Horn, and a teacher named Doug Noon.

We're waiting on you, Sherman.

UPDATE: Sherman Dorn has updated his blog with comments saying he agrees with Steve Diamond that "Broader, Bolder" statement is an attempt to woo Sen. Barack Obama. Sherman says ditto for the Klein/Sharpton statement and promises to elaborate on both statements later.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings made news of her own today. She announced that Michigan and Missouri will be allowed to use growth models. Michigan can start now, but Missouri has to adopt the same 'n' for all subgroups before it can change over to growth.

Spellings has approved 11 states in the growth model pilot—the secretary's first and biggest effort to provide flexibility under NCLB.

States will have one last chance to win Spellings' approval in the growth-model pilot. She's calling for applications again in the fall and will approve the last ones before she hands over the office keys to the next education secretary on Jan. 20.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Three quick things before I run off and spend the day in downtown D.C.

1. The Center for American Progress holds a one-day conference today on the teacher comparability rules in NCLB's Title I. The center says that the rules are "intended to ensure that federal funds are added to an already-level playing field of state and local funding for schools," but they have "been ineffective and enforced inconsistently." For a primer about how districts sometimes unknowingly funnel Title I dollars to affluent areas, read a story Bess Keller wrote last year and one I wrote back in 2005. I'll be there all day. The panelists look great—and the brownies CAP serves are always excellent.

2. A group made up of 60-plus big names in education today releases a new statement calling for a "broader, bolder approach to education." A central theme is that NCLB assumes that schools are the central ingredient for improving achievement. But the group believes other factors—socioeconomic background, lack of access to other social services, among other reasons—contribute to some students' academic struggles. Of the people who signed it, five used to work for the Clinton administration, and two are in the current Bush administration.

3. In its latest step in reauthorization-through-administrative action, the Department of Education is telling states they can apply to allow districts to offer supplementary services one year before school choice in schools failing to make AYP. That's the reverse of what the law requires. Before last week's notice, only a select few could do this as part of a pilot project. (I'm a bit behind the curve here; Title I Monitor reported this last week.) BoardBuzz is happy with the change but says the move shows that Congress should reauthorize NCLB rather than letting the Bush administration make changes on its own.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Friday's face-off between education advisers left a lot of us wanting more. Jeanne Century of the Obama campaign and Lisa Graham Keegan of the McCain campaign gave an overview of their candidates' stands on NCLB and other education issues. But they didn't clear explanations on some nitty-gritty policy questions.

At Campaign K-12, Alyson Klein complains about their lack of specificity, but highlights their differences on teacher performance pay, funding, and Reading First—all issues at the heart of NCLB's future. At USA Today's political blog, Greg Toppo says their proposed fixes for NCLB are ones "only education wonks can appreciate."

But two sets of potential Obama supporters aren't happy. At the Quick and the Ed, Chad Aldeman calls Keegan "competent and commanding" and Century "vague and elusive." A self-professed Dem, Aldeman was disappointed that he was more impressed with what Keegan had to say.

Meanwhile, folks at the Educator Roundtable say that Obama's campaign doesn't "seem to get it." They say the campaign is is too closely aligned with the Gates Foundation and the ED in '08 campaign that is trying to increase the visibility of issues such as academic standards and other issues.

There's more to come. Keegan promised McCain would have more to say about education—specifically NCLB—in coming weeks. Maybe that could help drive education into the forefront of the campaign.

P.S. Jim Zellmer at School Information System digs through the edweek archives and finds that Jeanne Century of the Obama campaign is a fan of baseball and statistics.

UPDATE: It looks as if Obama will beat to McCain to the punch with a detailed K-12 plan, according to Michele McNeil's latest item at Campaign K-12. Also, you can watch Friday's forum at After Ed.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ed Week's self-appointed ombudsman Mike Petrilli alerts everyone that NEA is advertising its newest podcast/blog here and on other blogs on this site. (Hey, Mike, edweek.org wouldn't take advertising, either, if we had an endowment paying our salaries.)

But anyway. Joel. I've like what the commenters are saying on your site. MM has some questions for you over at Campaign K-12. Here's one I'll add: How do you feel about John McCain's top education adviser, Lisa Graham Keegan, saying one test is enough to make accountability decisions? (Thanks to Jim Horn for the link.) Oh, wait, I just found the answer on page 20 of this pdf.

OK, Joel, here's another easy one. Your most recent entry left me confused about one thing: What's your favorite Beatles album? Is it "Sgt. Pepper's" or "A Hard Day's Night?" I prefer "Abbey Road," myself.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 6:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Charlie Barone's reacts to the Center on Education Policy's report warning that some states will ask schools to make "rapid and steep jumps" in student achievement. (See Steep Climb to NCLB Goal for 23 States.)

Barone's headline: "100% Bull$#!%"

In the item, he explains that schools will be able to get around the achievement goals through a safe harbor. Under safe harbor, a school can make AYP by producing a 10 percentage point decrease in students who are not proficient in any subgroup or subject matter where the school fell short of its AYP goals in the previous year.

"Safe Harbor (aka the poor man’s growth model) will be the central driving force in determining which schools make AYP in the years to come," Barone writes. He produces a chart detailing how a Philadelphia school could achieve AYP under safe harbor with 61 percent proficiency in 2014. That's the year all students are supposed to be proficient, according to NCLB's lofty goal.

Eduwonk chimes in to say safe harbor is one reason "the sky won't fall" under NCLB.

Barone is correct is pointing out that schools relying on safe harbor to make AYP would never reach the goal of 100 proficiency. In fact, it's mathematically impossible. But I ask: Will it be easy for schools to meet goals under safe harbor? In schools where achievement is so low—say 90 percent of students not proficient—producing a 10 percent reduction of that amount would be extremely difficult. Even if they make their mark for one year, it'll be hard for them to do every year until 2014.

Maybe the sky won't fall. But many schools will face a steep climb over the next six years—or until Congress changes NCLB.

Other NCLB stories in the June 4, 2008, issue of Education Week:
Hurdles Remain High for English-Learners
ACT Test-Prep Backfiring in Chicago, Study Warns
‘Reading First’ Research Offers No Definitive Answers (Mike Petrilli can barely contain his excitement. I bet that Reid Lyon feels the same way.)

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The National Association of Secondary School Principals is the latest group to endorse national standards.

In a position statement released yesterday, the group is calling on Congress to establish an independent group of experts to create national standards and "authentic, reliable" national assessments. They also ask for federal money to underwrite states' work to implement the standards and to pay for the administration of the national exams.

Add NASSP to the growing list of education groups that are endorsing national standards. The most prominent so far are the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Council of the Great City Schools. But Congress must sign on before they'll become reality. Back in 2007, prominent lawmakers introduced bills to support the development of national standards. Not much has happened since. Judging from the debates of the 1990s, getting Congress' endorsement won't be easy.

For a sunnier view. read what Robert Pondiscio writes at the Core Knowledge Blog. He suggests that the nation could simply follow the curriculum already established by, well, Core Knowledge, of course. That would leave plenty of eduwonk's imaginary $5 billion to pay for one-on-one tutoring for disruptive students.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last fall, Madison, Wis., teacher David Wasserman was reprimanded for refusing to proctor a state test with high-stakes implications under NCLB. This spring, Seattle teacher Carl Chew was suspended after he refused to give the Washington state tests. Chew explains the reasons for his protest in this item.

But now the stakes are getting higher.

Last week, a North Carolina school board fired special education teacher Doug Ward because he had informed them he wouldn't be giving the state tests to the severely disabled students in his class. Even though the test was adapted to measure disabled students' performance, Ward believed his students would fail.

“Basically, the way it was set up, my kids have no chance of passing,” Ward told a local newspaper in mid-May. “If you have a kid that is 11 years old and only developed to the level of a 1-year-old—I think I am a decent teacher, but I am not good enough to develop him to pass the test.”

Ward is being treated like a hero by commenters to the story about his firing. One wants to clone him. Others offer kudos and other support. Just one says he got what he deserved.

For the story of another teacher in trouble over testing, see this item on the SchoolFinder blog. (Note that the item hasn't been updated to say Ward's contract was not renewed.)

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The NEA's NCLB guru, Joel Packer, is the newest voice in the education blogosphere. He's posted three podcasts and their transcripts under a banner ad that brags: "Joel Packer Has All the Answers."

The education bloggers' club has read Packer's first three entries and is offering (mostly predictable) reactions. Sherman Dorn says the blog's name is "a bit disconcerting" because Packer can't possibly have "all the answers." Alexander Russo says giving Packer a blog is "a wise move" for the NEA. Eduwonk crowns Packer as the "Washington's top anti-NCLB propagandist." At the bottom of a post on Barack Obama's education speech last week, Charlie Barone reads Packer's smile in the banner and tells us he's pretending to be happy. Kevin Carey reacts to Packer's latest podcast on education funding and says "Packer's rhetoric fails the seriousness test."

In her post on Packer's blog, Eduwonkette says that "75% of teachers are women, but 75% of ed policy bloggers are men." Looking at the previous paragraph, I'd say she should recalculate.

For my money, Packer's blog hasn't told me anything that I didn't already know about where the NEA stands on NCLB. What is interesting, though, are the comments. They give a quick glimpse into the the political divide over NCLB.

Responding to the May 13 entry, commenter Lisa Linn said: "Unfortunately, you're preaching to the choir!" That's probably the case if NEA members are the only readers.

But that apparently is not the case. Later, an anonymous commenter writes that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy supported the policies of NCLB in 2001 and remains committed to them today. "Your political rants and 'glass half empty' perspective does not help solve anything," the commenter writes. "NCLB has helped schools focus on student achievement which is a good thing."

After the May 21 entry, janet b points out that Sen. John McCain doesn't seem to want NCLB to change. "If McCain is elected, NCLB could undermine schools forever! That's a scary thought." Forever may be an exaggeration, but four years would be a safe bet, based on what what McCain has said on the campaign trail.

NEA may think Joel Packer "has all the answers." But the comments on his blog suggest there are more questions than answers about NCLB's future.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)