September 2008 Archives

The impact of NCLB's accountability measures is growing, according to a new report from the Center on Education Policy.

The number of schools in restructuring for the 2007-08 school year (i.e. those that missed AYP for five years) rose by more than 50 percent over the previous year, according to the Washington-based policy group, which has conducted some of the most extensive research on NCLB's implementation. CEP estimates that 3,599 schools were in the restructuring process in the 2007-08 school year. That's about 7 percent of all Title I schools nationwide.

CEP researchers expect the number to keep rising as schools fail to keep up with the escalating achievement targets set by states. In its review of 42 schools, CEP found that 19 failed to make AYP even though the percentage of students scoring as proficient increased. In the five states that CEP is tracking closely, 19 percent of restructuring schools made AYP based on test results from the 2006-07 year.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:17 PM | Permalink | 5 Comments | TrackBacks (0)

My post on the "top-down" nature of the debate over the NCLB politics has drawn more comments than usual. While I often respond to commenters in private, I think three of these deserve a response.

1.) Michael Dannenberg—the one who planted the seed for the "top-down" post—clarifies that he counts big-city superintendents as part of the hierarchy that supports NCLB. Yes, that's true (see here). I thought of that about an hour after I posted the item. Maybe the whole thing could be clarified by saying that the closer a person is to the top of the policymaking apparatus, the more likely he or she is to support NCLB. (The converse would be true, too.) Thinking about the debate as a continuum helps explain that why some state superintendents and some local ones love the law, while others on the state and local level don't.

2.) Commenter Allen asks me "to rethink" my hypothesis based on the "crushing, bipartisan" votes for NCLB in both the House and Senate. I don't think I need to. Those vote totals are almost seven years old. Back then, many Republicans voted for NCLB as an expression of support for their first-year president; Democrats sided with the president based on a promise that the money would be there. And both sides acted in the spirit of bipartisanship that emerged after the 9/11 attacks. Today, many Republicans and Democrats would change their votes.

3.) What I'm most interested in thinking about now is what the politics of NCLB will be like in the future. Commenter John Thompson suggests that the next version should "keep the best of NCLB." He specifically mentions the disaggregation of test scores. Others would want to maintain annual testing, continue to focus on a certain goal, and keep the focus on mathematics and reading. Will there be a consensus around those issues? Will there be others that emerge?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 10:56 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

With Monday's news that there's a 10,000 pound gorilla called NCLB, I decided to go out and look for it.

I made stops at an Aspen Institute forum and a Department of Education advisory board meeting. I never found that gorilla.

By yesterday I was asking: Why is it that NCLB is seen as a monstrosity on the campaign trail but not in Washington?

I think I've got an answer, thanks to Michael Dannenberg of the New America Foundation. Dannenberg, who helped write the law as a staff member for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., explained to me that the politics of NCLB are more "top-down" than "left-right."

He means that the policy elites in Washington—President Bush, Sen. Kennedy, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., to name a few—endorse the general principles of the law: standards, testing, accountability for results. You can also put states leaders such as governors and chiefs into that group.

But people on the ground who have to put those things into practice resist them. They don't necessarily believe that tests deliver results that should be used for accountability and see NCLB supplanting the decisions they've usually made.

That's why events where Washington policy folks (like the one put on by Aspen on Monday; see here for some complaints about the lopsided agenda) invited the speakers, the message on NCLB is upbeat. It's also why the NEA and AFT are fighting to change the law; their members on the ground are demanding it.

It's also why Barack Obama and John McCain are either ignoring NCLB or are making promises to change it. When one of them moves into the White House, which side will they choose? The Washington leaders (aka the top) or the teachers, school board members, and district leaders (aka the down)?

P.S. Dannenberg points out that some NCLB issues follow the traditional left v. right debate. Funding and vouchers are the best examples.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:48 PM | Permalink | 6 Comments | TrackBacks (0)

I'm still on my search for the 10,000 pound gorilla that is the No Child Left Behind Act. Even with this photo to guide me, I didn't find it at the U.S. Department of Education this morning.

Instead of being scared of the law, the department officials there seemed to be planning for its future. "We think you're going to be a good resource for the department," Deputy Secretary of Education Raymond J. Simon told members of the National Technical Advisory Council. "You're going to be a good resource for Congress."

All of this bodes well for NCLB, he said. Bush administration officials will set new policies in motion that improve the law, and their replacements will be ready to put their own stamp on those policies. And Congress will have the advice of experts as it decides what to do about reauthorizing it, Simon said.

The panel members then delved into a discussion of how to structure politics to assure that a state's performance index is accurate and whether to make changes in the department's policies over growth models. There was no talk of trying to slay NCLB—or even make major changes to it.

After two days, I'm asking myself: Why is it that NCLB is seen as a monstrosity on the campaign trail but not in Washington?

Maybe I'll have an answer tomorrow.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:29 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

I read in the Washington Post this morning that there's a 10,000 pound gorilla on the loose. It's called NCLB.

I thought I might find it at the Aspen Institute's national summit on education. No one there seemed to have seen it.

When moderator Ronald Brownstein asked a panel of four whether NCLB had a "net positive" or "net negative" impact, three said "net positive." No surprise there. All of them (Kati Haycock of the Education Trust and superintendents Beverly Hall of Atlanta and John Deasy of Prince George's County, Md.) have said similar things in recent months. AFT President Randi Weingarten gave the law an incomplete grade. That's a big difference from calling it “too badly broken to be fixed,” as she did at the AFT convention in July.

Haycock summarized what she's looking for in an NCLB reauthorization in four words: "Same principles, better details."

For Hall, the "better details" would include growth models as well as better assessment and accountability of special education students and English language learners. For Deasy, the fixes would include setting national standards and so that teachers will have a clear idea of what they need to teach and tests to help them determine whether students are learning what they need to know.

So, why is everyone afraid of this 10,000 pound gorilla called NCLB?

Maybe I'll find out tomorrow morning when I'm at the first meeting of the Department of Education's National Technical Advisory Council.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:52 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Mike Petrilli links to the latest news story to taint the NCLB brand.

The Bush administration set out to stamp the NCLB brand on everything it could, as my former colleague Misha Galley so helpfully pointed out in 2003. You hear the phrase from top officials all of the time. It's been attached to the Blue Ribbon Schools program, among others. At one point, www.ed.gov looked more like a full page ad for NCLB than a portal to a government agency.

But perhaps they've gone too far. Whenever bad things happen, the NCLB brand is attached to them. The latest story case involves a teacher who had won recognition under the federal Star of Teaching program. When he was arrested and charged with forcing a student to perform a sex act, copy writers put NCLB in the headline because they know about the program and assume their readers do too. Then your brand is associated with a teacher who is accused of committing an indefensible act. Eventually, every problem in schools is traced back to NCLB. That's inevitable when you brand a term to everything in American education.

It will be interesting to watch is what happens to the NCLB brand when the Bush administration is over. Rep. George Miller appears ready to abandon it in legislation. Will it live on as the acronym attached to stories about what's wrong with schools?

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:36 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Barack Obama broke the presidential candidates' silence on NCLB. In what his campaign promoted as a major education policy speech, he uttered the phrase "No Child Left Behind." To precise, he said it five times. See the excerpts below.

The headline on most stories about the speech highlighted Obama's promise to double funding for charter schools. That was indeed the news; as Michele McNeil points out, Obama's education plan doesn't mention charter schools.

What's more, everything Obama said yesterday about NCLB is similar to what he's said before. (See samples from this entry or this one.)

Yesterday's speech, left some policywonks wanting more. Checker Finn suggests that Obama's speech (given in Checker's hometown, no less) fails to address the major issues facing the law. In the world according to Checker, those issues are "who sets standards, what constitutes adequate progress, what exactly to do about failing schools, etc."

And Kevin Carey chastises Obama for focusing so much on money: "Even a 'fully funded' NCLB would provide less than five percent of what it costs to run the nation's K-12 school system. The debate is about how best to measure educational success and what do when we determine that success is insufficient."

Carey and Finn are right. Then again, one could say the same things about McCain's plans related to NCLB. They don't systemically address Checker's "to do" list, and they focus on the issues to choice and tutoring—a set of issues that is as narrow as money.

You wouldn't expect candidates discuss the big picture in stump speeches, but past candidates have explained their ideas in other ways. Both Bill Clinton and George Bush campaigned with comprehensive ideas of how to shape federal policy, using the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the lever. Neither Obama nor McCain is doing that. What will that mean for NCLB's reauthorization? Comments welcome.

Here are the quotes from Obama's speech yesterday:

"You don’t reform our schools by opposing efforts to fully fund No Child Left Behind."

"Of course, we also have to fix the broken promises of No Child Left Behind. Now, I believe that the goals of this law were the right ones. Making a promise to educate every child with an excellent teacher is right. Closing the achievement gap that exists in too many cities and rural areas is right. More accountability is right. Higher standards are right.

"But I’ll tell you what’s wrong with No Child Left Behind. Forcing our teachers, our principals, and our schools to accomplish all of this without the resources they need is wrong. Promising high-quality teachers in every classroom and then leaving the support and the pay for those teachers behind is wrong. Labeling a school and its students as failures one day and then throwing your hands up and walking away from them the next is wrong."

"We must fix the failures of No Child Left Behind. We must provide the funding we were promised, and give our states the resources they need, and finally meet our commitment to special education. But Democrats have to realize that fixing No Child Left Behind is not enough to prepare our children for a global economy."

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 4:30 PM | Permalink | 6 Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Now that the national nominating conventions are over (and my professional life is back to normal), I'm going to be posting here again.

If you've read the the work my Ed Week colleagues and I produced out of Denver and St. Paul, you'll notice that Republicans and Democrats alike are not inclined to utter four words: No Child Left Behind.

When Laura Bush addressed Republican delegates, she said that President Bush led "the most important education reforms in a generation, holding schools accountable and boosting funds for reading instruction." But she didn't mention NCLB by name.

Indeed, when I interviewed Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., in Denver, he talked hopefully about reauthorizing the law next year. He believes that its next version will keep accountability and add some form of pay for performance for teachers. But that bill is unlikely to pass under the name the No Child Left Behind Act.

“I’ve always said you get 100 votes if you change the name,” he told me.

With that as a background, I promise to keep this blog going in the next few months. Posting won't be as frequent because most of my reporting will focus on what the presidential candidates are saying.

But I'm sure there will plenty to report about what the Bush administration is doing in its final months and what the next administration may do in the coming years.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 12:56 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | TrackBacks (0)

The Republicans aren't talking much about NCLB this week in St. Paul. Democrats didn't have much to say about it last week in Denver. But take a look at these two items on Campaign K-12, based on interviews with two principals in the current debate over the future of the law.

Spellings Glad NCLB Reauthorization Didn't Happen

Miller Optimistic About Obama and NCLB's Future

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 1:23 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)