November 2008 Archives

In my quest to find out where the players in the next presidential administration stand on NCLB, I watched a Sept. 24 debate at the Fordham Institute. (See embedded video below.) In it, Jon Schnur, a key adviser to President-elect Obama, teamed with former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer to argue for a stronger federal role in education policy.

In general, Schnur said he believes the federal government should play a role in setting "national standards and assessments, not set by the federal government, but supported by the federal government. We have a real problem right now with bad assessments that actually don't measure what we care about, and that's got to be addressed."

Later, at about the 32nd minute, when asked about NCLB, he said:

"Some of the key goals and components ought to be retained, but there's some policy that needs to be changed. Most importantly, we have to invest in the capacity of our educators to be able to execute and implement policies."

Schnur wasn't as specific about NCLB as Linda Darling-Hammond—the leader of the transition team's review of education policy—when she wrote about the law for The Nation and testified before Congress, both in 2007. That probably has to do with the forum.

But Schnur's proposal for "common American" standards and tests is much different than Darling-Hammond's idea that locally developed assessments can be part of several measures determining a school's success under NCLB. See her congressional testimony for more.

Coming soon: Where does Barack Obama stand on NCLB?

Resolved: A Larger Federal Role in Education is Needed in the 21st Century. Lessons from NCLB. from Education Gadfly on Vimeo.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:55 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, I wondered how major players in NCLB's future would answer the following question: "What will the next version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act look like?"

Today, I give you two links that outline the ideas of Linda Darling-Hammond—the Stanford University professor whom President-elect Barack Obama has tapped to lead the review of federal education policy. Darling-Hammond also has been mentioned as a potential education secretary and appears to be the choice one member of a NEA affiliate's staff*, according to Chad Aldeman.

So, what does Darling-Hammond think about NCLB? Although she's been circumspect in recent public appearances (see my reporting on a speech she gave Tuesday), she was giving her opinion on the law in 2007, both in The Nation and in testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee.

In The Nation, Darling-Hammond briefly praised NCLB. She said it made "major breakthroughs" by focusing on minority students' achievement and highly qualified teachers. But she went on to make a litany of complaints against it. Here are two quotes:

"NCLB seeks to improve the schools poor students attend through threats and sanctions rather than the serious investments in education and welfare such an effort truly requires."

"Even if NCLB funding were to increase, its framework does not allow for important structural changes—for example, a system of teacher preparation and professional development that would routinely produce high-quality teaching; curriculum and assessments that encourage critical thinking and performance skills; high-quality preschool education, libraries and learning materials; and health care for poor children. Instead, the law wastes scarce resources on a complicated test score game that appears to be narrowing the curriculum, uprooting successful programs and pushing low-achieving students out of many schools."

She also says the law has led to a narrowing of the curriculum, discourages "instructionally useful" tests, and distracts schools from "productive reforms."

In her congressional testimony, Darling-Hammond told the Education and Labor Committee that she supported three specific changes to the law that had been proposed in a discussion draft released by the panel's leaders:

1.) Allow for multiple measures to determine schools' success: "The proposals in the reauthorization draft to permit states to use a broader set of assessments and to encourage the development and use of performance assessments are critical to creating a globally competitive curriculum in U.S. schools."

2.) Improve teacher quality: "Unfortunately, unlike other industrialized nations that are high-achieving, the United States lacks a systematic approach to recruiting, preparing, and retaining teachers, or for using the skills of accomplished teachers to help improve schools."

3.) Measure growth of students: The law should have "the means for measuring school progress from year to year, which I believe need to become more publicly comprehensible and more closely focused on evaluating continuing progress for students and schools."

These are just the highlights. If you're interested in the details, I'd encourage you to read both documents all the way through.

* UPDATE: I've changed this sentence to say "one member of a NEA affiliate's staff." The NEA itself is not endorsing any candidate to be education secretary, according to Miguel Gonzalez, a spokesman for the union.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 6:14 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Over at New Talk, the usual suspects are discussing the question: Should we scrap No Child Left Behind?

Although the debate is interesting, you won't be surprised by the answers. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute and Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute say yes. Former Bush adviser Sandy Kress, eduwonk Andy Rotherham, Stanford's Eric Hanushek, and several others say no. All of them want changes, but they would keep much of its core principles intact.

Isn't NewTalk asking the wrong question of the wrong people?

The real question is: What will the next version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act look like?

And here are the people I'd want to answer it: Barack Obama, George Miller, Ted Kennedy, Linda Darling-Hammond, Jon Schnur, and the next U.S. secretary of education (if that person isn't already listed above).

Those people aren't ready to answer that question, at least publicly. When they are, I'll be back to the daily grind of blogging.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 2:55 PM | Permalink | 6 Comments | TrackBacks (0)

David Brooks of The New York Times is dreaming of an Obama administration that defies traditional Democratic policies.

He'd like to see "liberal Republicans" like Diane Ravitch, McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, and former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent working for the new president.

These people will be take stances that are neither conservative nor liberal. Among other things, "they’ll insist on merit pay and preserving No Child Left Behind’s accountability standards, no matter what the teachers’ unions say."

Like a lot of dreams, this one doesn't make sense. Diane Ravitch is about as anti-NCLB as commenter John Thompson (see his latest argument against the law and two Washington insiders' forecast for it).

Take a look at some of the things Ravitch has written or said about NCLB in the past year:

"By now, even [NCLB's] defenders understand that the people who must implement the law are hostile to it and know it is unworkable." On Bridging Differences, Oct. 27

"NCLB has narrowed the curriculum, made a fetish of testing and test prepping, and has invaded the classroom in ways that are harmful to teaching." During a Sept. 24 at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Watch the debate in the video embedded below. The quote is at about the 12 minute mark.

"Despite the rosy claims of the Bush administration, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 is fundamentally flawed." Writing in The New York Times, Oct. 3, 2007

If David Brooks actually wants accountability to survive in the next generation of NCLB, he better hope his dream doesn't come true.

Resolved: A Larger Federal Role in Education is Needed in the 21st Century. Lessons from NCLB. from Education Gadfly on Vimeo.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 5:35 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Lots of people want answers to specific questions about the future of NCLB during today's chat on what Tuesday's election will mean for NCLB and other education issues.

I explained that the president-elect's stances on the law are vague. I could predict some things: the accountability system will morph into some sort of growth model, and that the next version of the law still will track students by various subgroups. But I have no sense of exactly what those changes will look like. I don't think anybody does.

As I responded to questions, I was listening to the Gadfly Show, where Kevin Carey of the Quick and the Ed and Mike Petrilli of Flypaper analyzed the political impact of election.

Carey agrees that Obama's education policy may look a lot like President Bush's—something first suggested by Jay Mathews of The Washington Post. "He could have run hard against No Child Left Behind, but he did not," Carey said.

Here's Petrilli's take: Obama built his own political organization so he won't be indebted to the teachers' unions. Congressional Democrats relied on the unions to pad their majority. That may mean Obama may need help from Republicans, many of whom "will be running away from that law as fast as they can" now that Bush is out of the White House.

Well said, gentleman. But the Gadfly Show just isn't the same without Checker Finn's voice in the intro music.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 3:54 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | TrackBacks (0)