Educators await Obama's mark on No Child Left Behind

This from the Washington Post:

Eight years after President George W. Bush signed the bill that branded an era of school reform, the education world is wondering when President Obama will seek to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law.

Obama officials, who for months have been on a "listening and learning" tour, are expected to propose a framework for the successor to a law that is two years overdue for reauthorization. Time is growing short if Obama aims for action before midterm elections, which could weaken Democratic majorities in Congress.

As the anniversary of the law's enactment passed quietly Friday, an occasion Bush marked throughout his presidency as a domestic policy milestone, the regimen of standardized testing and school accountability remains intact.

Every year from grades three to eight, and at least once in high school, students must take reading and math exams. Every year, public schools are rated on the progress they make toward the law's goal of universal proficiency by 2014. And every year, states label more schools as falling short and impose sanctions on them, including shakeups and shutdowns.

"In many ways, [No Child Left Behind] is a compact disc in an iPod world," Bob Wise, president of the Washington-based Alliance for Excellent Education, said in a statement. "It's still around, but it is in desperate need of an upgrade." ...

The Dirty Dozen

This from Politics K-12:

Ed. Dept. Budget Cuts In-Depth

The Obama administration has proposed cutting 12 programs from the Department of Education's budget, for a savings of $550.7 million. By contrast, in his fiscal year 2009 budget, President George W. Bush sought to scrap 47 Education Department programs (such as Even Start, and EdTech state grants) for a potential savings of $3.3 billion. But, as then-President Bush discovered, proposing those cuts and actually getting Congress to go along are two different things.

Let's look at the programs on the chopping block this time around. Notice that the department plans to keep many of the concepts of these programs (like character education) but absorb them into other programs.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants $294.8
Even Start 66.5
College Access Challenge Grant Program 66.0
Mentoring 48.5
Civic Education 33.5
Character Education 11.9
Ready to Teach 10.7
Javits Gifted and Talented Education 7.5
National Institute for Literacy 6.5
Academies for American History and Civics 1.9
Close Up Fellowships 1.9
Foundations for Learning 1.0
Total $550.7

FactCheck Sees Politics in Presidential Punditry

This from FactCheck.org:

Last year, the president [Bush] touted U.S. gains in education, saying that our "fourth- and eighth-graders achieved the highest math scores on record." He bragged that "African-American and Hispanic students posted all-time highs."

Last week, the president [Obama] said those eighth-graders weren't so great at math after all. He claimed they had "fallen to ninth place" in the world, and he bemoaned a high school dropout rate that had "tripled" over three decades.What a difference a year makes...

Whether the education system in the U.S. has improved greatly or needs great improvement may depend on whether a president is nearing the end or just beginning his time in office. In his final State of the Union address, President George W. Bush claimed student test scores had gone up after enactment of his education legislation. As we said at the time, he was mostly correct.

Bush said for example that in 2007, fourth- and eighth-graders "achieved the highest math scores on record." We noted that the "record" of scores dates back only to 1990, and also that Bush failed to note a decline in reading scores for eighth-graders, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. But, in general, test scores have risen since enactment of the No Child Left Behind law. Touting those cheery stats, however, wasn’t exactly on President Barack Obama’s agenda last week when he spoke about education to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C.

Just as Bush left out any mention of less-than-rosy assessments of the nation's education system, Obama didn't say too much about how smart our kids are. And some of his gloomy claims were just plain wrong, or misleading...

For Example:

• The claim that "our high school dropout rate has tripled in the past thirty years"? That's not even in the ballpark. [There was] actually a 34 percent decrease in the high school dropout rate.
• U.S. eighth-graders were in 28th place [in math] and in 2003, they had jumped to 15th place. Now, they're even smarter, comparatively speaking.
• The U.S. already has the second highest percentage of college graduates with a four-year degree in the world (30 percent), trailing Norway by a single percentage point.
• Between 1995 and 2007, average math scores of U.S. eighth-graders have gone up 16 points, while those of Singapore's eighth-graders have gone down by that same amount. In science, U.S. eighth-graders have gained 7 points during that period, while Singapore's have lost 13 points.

Liberal Media Attacks First Dog Barney!

Former Kentucky First Dog Reacts

In the MSNBC video below, Reuters television White House correspondent Jon Decker is seen invading the personal space of President Bush's first dog Barney, who was minding, and doing, his own business during a North Lawn walk this morning. Barney, apparently startled by the intrusion, reacted instinctively.



He "bit my right index finger this morning -- as I reached down to pet him," Decker said. The bite broke skin and the first doctor provided first aide to the wound with antibiotics and bandages. He will get a tetanus shot tomorrow.

Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for first lady Laura Bush said, "I think it was his way of saying he was done with the paparazzi."

But former Kentucky first dog Abby Fletcher was only partially amused. "I can fully emphasize with Barney's desire and natural instinct to chew on a member of the liberal media, however, a truly high-class dog knows how to go out in style," Abby's spokeswoman, Elizabeth Boison quipped.

Arrrrrf.

Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post blamed the 24" dog rather than the 6-foot-tall man for the incident. "Barney, WENT ROGUE and attacked Big Media," Linkins wrote. Then he warned of the possibility of future attacks, "It's all fun and games until Barney, who now has the thirst for journalist blood, strikes again..."

Kennedy Faults Bush Justice Dept.

This from Ed Week:

The lion of the U.S. Senate is roaring.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has published an academic article criticizing the Department of Justice’s civil rights division under President Bush’s administration, including its oversight of school desegregation cases and other education issues.

The senator says in the article, in the current edition of the Harvard Law & Policy Review, that under the current administration, “the vital cooperation between political appointees and career civil servants in the division has broken down, with troubling consequences.”

Sen. Kennedy says the educational opportunities section, which oversees desegregation and other civil rights issues in schools, has been spared political pressures faced by other units within the civil rights division. But the education section, which was once one of the division’s largest, “has been allowed to atrophy” and is now one of the smallest in its number of lawyers, the article says....

Salvaging Accountability

This from Thomas Toch & Douglas N. Harris in Ed Week:

George W. Bush rode to the White House pledging high standards for all students. He’ll leave Washington with the nation’s public education system focused on teaching basic skills to disadvantaged student populations, with the United States lagging in international comparisons of educational attainment, and with his signature education law plagued by so many problems and mired in so much controversy that it has put at serious risk two decades of work to improve public schooling by making educators accountable for their students’ success.

The most important thing Barack Obama or John McCain could do quickly to salvage the accountability movement is change the way that the federal No Child Left Behind Act judges schools. Not by abandoning NCLB’s focus on students’ meeting standards, a move that would be unwise on both policy and political grounds, but by making the law a more legitimate report card of school performance, one that provides a fair and accurate gauge of educators’ contribution to their students’ achievement. Since its inception, NCLB has instead held schools responsible for factors they can’t control and perversely encouraged states to set standards low....

Reading First program could be on its last legs

This from USA Today, AP file photo 2004:

WASHINGTON — Is the federal government getting out of the reading business?

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted last week to eliminate funding for Reading First, the groundbreaking but controversial Bush administration program that has given states $1 billion a year since 2002 to teach low-income elementary schoolers to read. A House committee also had voted to eliminate funding; if money is not restored before the federal budget is approved in the fall, the program could end.

Democrats in Congress say the program was an unproven magnet for corruption. House hearings last year focused on financial ties between its top advisers and major textbook publishers, who account for a large share of materials schools use. A U.S. Justice Department investigation, begun last year, is still pending.

But many educators say the money — about $17.7 million per state in 2007 — was a godsend, allowing them to train teachers in scientifically based reading methods, buy quality supplies and help an estimated 1.8 million children learn to read...

Cronyism First Yields Poor Results

"Well, a Federal study released today shows that President Bush's $1 billion a year Reading First program has done nothing to increase the reading skills of young students. However, his Oil Company First program -- going like gangbusters."

That was Jay Leno's joke following last week's report that President Bush's $1 billion a year initiative to teach reading to low-income children has not helped improve their reading comprehension.

Funny.

Sam Dillon writes in the New York Times:

“Reading First did not improve students’ reading comprehension,” concluded the report, which was mandated by Congress and carried out by the Department of
Education’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences. “The program did
not increase the percentages of students in grades one, two or three whose reading comprehension scores were at or above grade level.”

There's nothing I enjoy quite so much as some good old fashioned Bush bashing. I have trouble finding a whole lot this administration has gotten right.But in the case of Reading First, sober reflection causes me to hold my fire. This is a program President Bush almost got right. But it was also a program badly damaged by unethical practices (and consequently needy children were damaged).

Where did it all go wrong? Just follow the money.

In October 2006, Michael Grunwald wrote in The Washington Post, "an accumulating mound of evidence" suggested "that Reading First has had little to do with science or rigor. Instead, the billions have gone to what is effectively a pilot project for untested programs with friends in high places.

"Department officials and a small group of influential contractors have strong-armed states and local districts into adopting a small group of unproved textbooks and reading programs with almost no peer-reviewed research behind them. The commercial interests behind those textbooks and programs have paid royalties and consulting fees to the key Reading First contractors, who also served as consultants for states seeking grants and chaired the panels approving the grants. Both the
architect of Reading First and former education secretary Roderick R. Paige have gone to work for the owner of one of those programs, who is also a top Bush fundraiser.

On Sept. 22, the department's inspector general released a report exposing some of Reading First's favoritism and mismanagement. The highlights were internal e-mails from then-program director Chris Doherty, vowing to deny funding to programs that weren't part of the department's in-crowd:

'They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive] out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags.'

Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, released the following statement in response to the report on the Reading First program.

"The Bush Administration has put cronyism first and the reading skills of our children last and this report shows the disturbing consequences. Instead of awarding scarce education dollars to reading programs that make a difference for our children, the Administration chose to reward its friends instead. I call on the Administration to put children first by putting politics aside and enlisting high-quality programs in the important task of helping school children learn to read."

I can certainly sympathize with anyone who wanted to wash their hands of the program, NCLB, Spellings and everything else that goes with it.

However, this is a moment to stop - and think about the kids. I say this for two reasons: First, putting high quality teachers in front of needy children is going to be the solution to closing the achievement gap. We need to be persistent and patient. Second, the media has reported the report's conclusions and printed the headlines without much examination. This study was neither randomly constructed nor designed to draw the conclusions it made.

Reading guru Reid Lyon analyzes the limitations of the Reading First study, which found no improvement in reading scores for high-need students. The sample excluded the neediest schools, which presumably would be most affected.

Lyon says: . . . many non-Reading First schools were implementing the same programs and professional development opportunities as the Reading First schools. This impact evaluation is not a true experiment which could have certainly been done given the tremendous financial resources allocated for the evaluation.

As Tim Shanahan, who served on the study's Technical Work Group has pointed out, the comparisons made were not Reading First with non-Reading First schools, but Reading First with less-Reading First schools.Lyon also points out that Reading First schools are spending less than an hour a day on reading instruction, much less than the program calls for, and are devoting more time to comprehension than to phonics.

D-Ed Reckoning has adds:

"Methodological deficiencies notwithstanding, I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that the the interim Reading First Study seems to be showing null results."

NewsHour interviewed Douglas Christensen, commissioner of the Nebraska Department of Education, and Michele Goady, director of the Reading First program for the Maryland Department of Education last week.

Here's the transcript:

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, a multibillion-dollar reading program for struggling students comes under fire. Jeffrey Brown has the story.

JEFFREY BROWN: The idea of the Reading First program is to improve elementary school reading, particularly for low-income children. And it now reaches about 1.5 million students in 5,200 schools nationwide.

The program requires students to spend additional time each day on a set plan emphasizing several skills, including phonics.

In 2001, President Bush described it as a cornerstone of the federal No Child Left Behind effort.

President of the United States: We`re making great progress on what I`ve called a Reading First initiative. The budget I submitted triples the amount of money to help fight illiteracy in schools.

It says that, if a state wants, you can access the federal money. But you develop a K-2 diagnostic tool to make sure kindergarten teachers through second-grade teachers have got the ability to discern which children need extra help.

It means you`ve got to develop a curriculum that works. By the way, phonics needs to be a part of our curriculum in America.

JEFFREY BROWN: But is it working? A new study from the Department of Education found the program has had no measurable effect on students` reading comprehension.

The program has also been under fire over concerns about conflicts of interest in the awarding of contracts. As a result, Congress has reduced its annual budget.

We get two views now. Douglas Christensen, commissioner of the Nebraska Department of Education, and Michele Goady, director of the Reading First program for the Maryland Department of Education.

Well, Ms. Goady, starting with you, first, help us understand this program. How is it different from traditional means of teaching reading?

MICHELE GOADY, Maryland State Department of Education: Well, Reading First is not just a program, but it was a federal initiative to provide funds to the states, to provide an intensive reading program for children who were traditionally struggling in reading.

So we selected both school systems and schools that traditionally needed a lot of support in reading. We went in and provide a comprehensive reading program.

So it includes providing support for teachers through what we call coaching, or mentoring, being with teachers, supervised support. It does include a clear, systematic instruction.

And that instruction would include the full complement of a reading program, a core reading program we want to call it, provide services for children that continue to have problems in reading. And we would call that supplemental and intervention services.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Mr. Christensen, what`s wrong with that? Why do you think it`s been ineffective?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN, Commissioner, Nebraska Department of Education: Well, I think from the beginning it`s been a policy disaster, in the fact that there was no evidence to support heading down this road in the first place.

It seems to me that the reading panel that was convened prior to this made it very clear that there were multiple methods of reading instruction that were supported by evidence and there was no one particular methodology that came out above the rest.

And yet, Reading First came out to look at direct instruction as just about the only way in which phonemic awareness and phonics and those, structure of language, comprehension, could be taught.

And I think, secondly, it fails from the standpoint of any notion that you can transform practice from such a remote place from the classroom as Washington, D.C.

Geographically, certainly the distance is huge, but from the standpoint of practice, you couldn`t get any more -- any further away from the classroom than you do there.

And then, secondly, or third, the idea that you can prescribe a practice and that you can create compliance conditions and, therefore, teachers will simply become perfect or best teachers they can possibly be, that notion has never been established and is offensive to me as an educator that we would try to be that prescriptive about a program.

JEFFREY BROWN: Let me get a response from Ms. Goady. Have you found specific results that you can -- positive results that you feel you can point to?

MICHELE GOADY: In Maryland, we have had good results. When we look at our Maryland state assessment scores of our children in reading before Reading First, up until last year, we see growth in all of our Reading First school districts and in all of our schools. So test scores is one way that we measure that.

But more importantly, when we go into classrooms and we see teachers who feel more confident about their skills, who are better able to teach a variety of readers with a variety of needs, differentiated needs, and we`re able to see them be successful, and we`re able to see children reading, and reading successfully, we`re making success. We`re moving forward.

JEFFREY BROWN: I wonder, Mr. Christensen, is this a debate over defining what we mean by reading or reading comprehension or what kids can actually read? What exactly is the problem in how to determine success in something like this?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Well, I think that is one of the issues, that`s at the heart of that, is that the measurement of reading looks more at the sub-skills of reading than the actual outcome of reading, which is being able to comprehend, being able to place meaning in the words that are being used, and then to turn around and be able to write on the basis of what you have read.

And I see no evidence that Reading First has done that. In fact, the sole and almost exclusive use of DIBELS, in my opinion, prevents Reading First from accomplishing what it could accomplish.

DIBELS is certainly an indicator that kids are developing some degree of fluency in the ability to recognize and pronounce words, even nonsense words, but it has nothing to do with grasping meaning, or understanding, or being able to take an idea and make it your own.

And I think that, as a result, we`ve prescribed reading to a point where we`re certainly meeting the prescriptions. The indicators are clear, but the outcomes simply are not there. And confusing indicators with outcomes is a guarantee of failure.

JEFFREY BROWN: Ms. Goady, how do you account for the results of this study that came out yesterday from the Department of Education`s research center?

MICHELE GOADY: Well, when you look at the study, first of all, it looked at growth for the first part or first two years of Reading First. This is an interim report, not a final report. So we`re very anxious to see what`s going to happen as we look at the final report.

However, even looking at the report -- it looked at about 18 schools, I believe, which is a small set of all of Reading First -- it did point to -- certainly, the report pointed to things that we can begin to review and we can even look at, in terms of giving more emphasis, more work on.
But more importantly, it did say that teachers understood scientifically based reading research in more comprehensive way. The report did say that there was more time spent in reading instruction, as compared to before Reading First.

So even the report pointed to some advancements that have happened because of Reading First.
JEFFREY BROWN: Mr. Christensen, as I said in the introduction, President Bush
clearly tied this to his larger No Child Left Behind effort. And that, of course, has been criticized by some for its approach and the testing and the standardization. Is part of your problem with this particular program tied up in that larger critique, as well?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Well, in some sense, yes. In another sense, no. In the sense that you can standardize what our students are to learn and how they are to be taught simply, in my opinion, flies in the face of what it is that we`re trying to teach and what our schools should be about.

We`re trying to produce worthy citizens. And fourth-grade math scores or second-grade DIBELS scores are not an indicator of the degree to which we`re producing kids who are competent, and capable, and self-reliant, and so forth.

I certainly don`t want to ignore those things. But to make those indicators be outcomes is a perversion of both Reading First and No Child Left Behind.

JEFFREY BROWN: Did I hear you say -- did I hear you use the word "DIBELS"?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Yes, I did.

JEFFREY BROWN: And what is that?

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: DIBELS is a test -- and I don`t know exactly what it stands for -- but it`s a test that`s used to determine the student`s speed and accuracy in recognizing words that are commonly appropriate for a first-grader, a second-grader, and so forth.

But, again, it`s a word recognition. It may be primer to fluency, but it doesn`t in any way constitute a measure of understanding or the ability to purport meaning to it. And almost all the projects are required to use DIBELS as its outcome measure, and DIBELS is not an outcome. Comprehension is an outcome.

And I think that`s the other part of it. When you try to change practice from so far away from our classrooms, you use indicators as outcomes and it becomes a practice of remote control.
And I`m going to oppose anything, whether it`s a No Child Left Behind, Reading First, Math First, or whatever else comes along, when it begins to diminish the professionalism and judgment of teachers, I simply can`t support that. We should be informing them, not taking that away from them.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Ms. Goady, we have time for a brief response to all of that.

MICHELE GOADY: OK. Well, I think DIBELS, just to answer that, is one of the measures that we use to take a snapshot, to look at where children are at a point in time in their reading.
Teachers use that information. We talk about using data to inform instruction, to inform the instruction that a child is going to receive.

So based on what we see from DIBELS, it helps direct, to some extent, what we`re going to do next. And I think that`s important.

When we think about progress monitoring, DIBELS is one progress monitoring instrument. There are many. There`s also the SAT 10 and other kinds of outcome measures that are used across the state.

What to me is the real story of Reading First is that we have teachers that, because of the systematic training we`ve provided, are better able to teach children, coaches that are able to support teachers.

In Maryland, we have a system of community colleges, universities, institutions of higher-ed, which are getting some of the same information so that it can help train our pre-service and our in-service teachers.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Michele Goady and Douglas Christensen, thank you both very much.

DOUGLAS CHRISTENSEN: Thank you.

Taking it to the Streets

Fordham Foundation demands investigation

into real Reading First scandals

Calls for Secretary Margaret Spellings, Rep. David Obey

and ED's Office of the Inspector General

to account for their actions

Washington--At a press conference held outside the U.S. Department of Education headquarters today, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute demanded an inquiry into scandalous efforts by the executive and legislative branches to sabotage the Reading First program.

Designed to help poor children learn primary-reading skills, Reading First is the only program among the many contained in the No Child Left Behind act to receive stamps of approval from both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Yet, Reading First's funding has been slashed by two-thirds, the Bush Administration has gone AWOL on this once-loved program, and its first director, Christopher Doherty, was forced to resign--all purportedly because of a "scandal" uncovered by the Education Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

Fordham's latest report, Too Good to Last: The True Story of Reading First, written by City Journal contributing editor Sol Stern, reveals the real scandals that have yet to be brought to public attention...

Catholic School Closures Linked to Growth of City Charters in DC

This from Education Week (subscription):

Planned White House ‘summit’ raises enrollment-trend issues.

Whether the proliferation of charter schools in urban areas is fueling the demise of inner-city Roman Catholic schools is not a new question. But it came into sharp focus following last month’s State of the Union address, in which President Bush said faith-based schools “are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America’s inner cities.” In his speech to Congress, the president called for a White House “summit” meeting on inner-city children and religious schools. Ironically, some analysts say, charter schools, which the Bush administration has strongly supported, may have effectively helped undermine Catholic schools—the nation’s largest provider of faith-based education. Among those listening to the speech from the House galleries was the Rev. Ronald J. Nuzzi, the director of the Alliance for Catholic Education leadership program at the University of Notre Dame, who has called charters “one of the biggest threats to Catholic schools in the inner city, hands down.”

Budgetary and Legislative Complexities Confound Solutions for Kentucky Schools.

I was just wondering. Is No Child Left Behind "just what you get" when liberals and neocons agree on something? ...a big-hearted, empty-headed power trip?

Maybe it was just the one thing Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush could agree on.

It's the right idea, (insisting on a quality education for every child) warped by a wrong idea (that student achievement can be coerced "on the cheap.") where the end is supposed to justify the means.

As a result, Kentucky schools, which were already examining the performance of all subgroups of students under Senate Bill 168, saw its attempt to build a performance-based, school-centered assessment system disheveled by the combination of NCLB's bad method and unrealistic targets.

And, none dare oppose.

The Climate of Reform

The most prominent strategy employed in the schools under NCLB has involved a climate of coercion; the assumption being that students weren't doing better because of racist (or perhaps, classist) teachers. To some unmeasurable extent, this must surely have been true. But in my experience, for the vast majority of teachers it clearly was not.

The situation called for leadership. What it got was top-down management.

A lot of good teachers got the implicit (sometimes explicit) message that if a student failed, it was their fault. Period. No excuses.

A (brief?) philosophical interlude

It used to be that if a student came into a teacher's classroom and was unprepared, unwashed, unfed, and undisciplined and uncooperative - it was a parent's or student's responsibility.

Theoretically, the school provided equal opportunity. It was up to the student to take full advantage of what the system had to offer and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. The problem with this philosophy was that it produced a system of "good schools" and "bad schools" and it put little pressure on teachers to work harder to reach "difficult" students. There was genuine effort but inadequate funding and no system-wide "stick."

In NCLB, President Bush found a piece of hickory; and he did not spare the rod.

Under the new logic, all children can learn - and if one does not, it is because the teacher hasn't done enough. Any teacher perceived to NOT be "on the bus" is said to be "making excuses" - proof of one's lack of dedication...or racism...or classism...you name it. It's what some school administrators call motivation.

The philosophical shift from equality of educational opportunity to equity of student achievement outcomes is about twelve years old. Is it also on its last legs?

Results (writ large) fall short

What about the results? Well, most of the results of a quality education are unmeasurable. But using what does get measured, three different 2007 studies ranked Kentucky's student achievement at 34th or better. Not the penthouse, but out of the basement. Today's goals are skyhigh and not only include overall growth, but growth and excellence for every subgroup of students.

KSN&C reported in March,

This year, Kentucky Department of Education officials told the [state] board that fewer than 40 percent of the state's public schools are on target to meet those goals.

So what have Kentucky's educational leaders said about it?

Board members said the state needs to develop a "sense of urgency" to find a solution. "I think it's a doable task," [former state board Chair, Keith] Travis said. "That will be the main objective of whoever the new commissioner will be."

[Almost Commissioner Barbara] Erwin - drinking deeply from the Kool-aide - said she [thought] it [was] possible for every child to be proficient by 2014. "Absolutely," she said. "I believe it is our moral and ethical responsibility (to see) that all children can reach those goals."

A More Rational Approach Meets a Deteriorating Budget

Jon Draud, most recently named the commonwealth's education commissioner, took a more reasoned approach that acknowledged both the possibilities and the realities.

Draud's top priority is to assure that Kentucky students meet proficiency standards by 2014, as NCLB requires. "But that must become a goal for more than educators if it is to be reached," Draud told H-L.

"We have to create a sense of urgency, to have people concerned about this again, like they were in 1990 for Kentucky's education reform. The business community has to lead the way," said Draud."Most research says for education reform to work, the business community has to be involved. It takes collaboration and cooperation. Without getting all the stakeholders involved, we're not going to reach proficiency," he said.

Those comments were made at the time Governor Fletcher was touting a much rosier fiscal outlook. Now the state is predicting a tepid 2.4 percent growth in revenue for the first year of the next biennial budget. That's a sharp decline from revenue growth of more than 9 percent in 2005 and 2006.

The budget crisis throws a major shadow over future prospects. Having neglected education funding in the mid to late 1990s, when there was no crisis, the legislature now finds itself in a box.

The Casino Gambling Solution

Will casino gambling solve the problem? No, but it sure will help - if we're all very patient. Assuming Kentucky voters approve such a measure, it will take several years to realize the $500 million in annual fiscal support Governor Steve Beshear estimates.

What happens until then?

President Lee Todd informed the UK campus by Email Friday,

We will continue to make the case as strongly as we can that the state must support the UK Business Plan as the mechanism for achieving our statutory mandate to become a Top 20 public research institution and for making the gains we all want in education, health care and economic development for Kentucky.

Todd's laser-like focus on quality is commendable - and the only "right" position a top-notch university president can take. But if the state coffers are empty, and there is no retreat from the pursuit of excellence, then the only remaining option includes large tuition increases.

But tuition increases pose affordability problems for many Kentucky students who are operating in the same economic climate as the schools, and will keep the goal of doubling the number of college graduates out of reach.

Surely by next year - with the budgetary shortfall estimated at $525 million - cuts will bite into P-12 education, which has largely escaped, so far. But P-12 won't be raising tuition.

How deep will the P-12 cuts be? ...and for how many years? If NCLB goes down (while I don't advocate it, that's OK by me) and Kentucky reduces its financial commitment to reform, and the hickory stick is put away, how many more schools will fail to meet their 2014 targets?

Will poor fiscal stewardship at the state level spell the end of real education reform in Kentucky?

What now?

What happens in the long run depends on the people of Kentucky. It seems clear that Frankfort politicians advocating tax hikes will be as rare as hen's teeth. But clearly, some kind of taxation has to be a part of any real long-term solution. The alternative is the abandonment of reform - which would galvanize Kentucky into the bottom realms of state economies for decades to come.

Only a strong push to continue improving the quality of Kentucky's schools and workforce from the grassroots citizenry will provide the motivation our state leaders need to do right by our children. ...all of our children.

Building that support will require persistent leadership over time. Citizens need to be informed about the successes our schools have produced, the looming budget crisis and its likely impact on our future economy. Teachers need to wake up. Kentucky needs champions who will tirelessly dedicate the time it takes to travel the state and regenerate the kind of support for reform we saw in the late 1980s.

Draud has the right approach in mind. Drawing support from the business community is critical. Going community to community is critical. Building alliances is critical. Spending time is critical. His plan is reminescent of earlier State Superintendents Robert J Breckinridge and John Grant Crabbe who used the bully pulpit to rally support we need. It's what a champion does.

The people of Kentucky need an education on the value of investing in education.

The ultimate constitutional responsibility lies with the legislature. But in the end, Kentuckians will get the schools they support; the schools they insist upon. In that sense, Kentucians will get the schools they deserve.

Tombstone will read: Here lies NCLB. Killed by Unrealistic Targets.

I'm what they call a podcaster.

Actually, that's not a very accurate term for what I really am...which is a podcatcher. I listen to a series of weekly podcasts that others have produced. ...so, in that sense, I catch them. I get them through iTunes. (I may podcast my "Foundations of education in Kentucky lectures" from EKU this spring...but that's not a done deal...and is another story anyway.)

One of my regular programs is KCRW's "To The Point," with host Warren Olney.

This past week, Olney was interviewing President Eileen Claussen of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, about the recent Global Warming Conference in Bali, Indonesia, and the scientists' talk about long-term goals for curbing the negative effects of climate change (and replacing the Kyoto Protocol). At this meeting targets were discussed -much like the targets imposed by No Child Left Behind - and the European Union's growing frustration with the United States.

It was a remarkable example of how natural scientists eschew the kinds of heavy-handed and unrealistic targets that have made NCLB the object of so much derision from teachers and many others.

The prevailing sentiment among developed nations is that mandatory targets are necessary for success. The Bush administration opposes any targets claiming that the other nations are "prejudging the outcome" and therefore America won't agree to anything. President Bush prefers an aspirational long-term goal ...and then leaving each country to do whatever it thinks best.

But when it comes to prejudging the outcomes in America's schools - the Bush administration has no such problem.

During the discussion Olney asked Claussen a question that might have come right out of NCLB discussions.

Olney: "What's the point of setting targets that are so difficult to meet that it might be impossible?"

Claussen: "Well, I think, myself, that that's really silly. We ought to set targets, and I believe that they ought to be mandatory. But they have to be something that is possible to achieve. Otherwise, the currency is worth nothing. I mean, you say you're going to do things, and you never do them."

There you have it. NCLB's twisted logic and the resulting rejection of an otherwise worthy ideal, exposed in a nutshell.

It's big-hearted, but empty-headed.

As Kentucky School News and Commentary reported in May,

"Education Trust has finally admitted that "every child proficient in reading and math by 2014" is much better as a slogan and aspiration than as the operating principle for a serious accountability regime.

It's the classic overreach, the epitome of excess. This pronouncement-cum-policy has encouraged states to play games: mucking around with "n-sizes" and "confidence intervals" to avoid the "every child" component, racing to the bottom with their definitions of "proficiency," and back-loading their timelines in the expectation of a miracle in the last year or two before the 2014 deadline.

Ed Trust appears to have gotten the picture. Regarding "every child," its proposal would allow states with high standards (those that indicate readiness for college and work) to aim for 80 percent of students in every subgroup achieving proficiency rather than 100 percent. (Ninety-five percent of students would have to achieve a "new basic" level, "indicating preparation for active citizenship, military service, and entry into postsecondary education or formal employment training.") Furthermore, it would differentiate between those schools that miss their performance targets by a mile and those that fall short by a few inches."

But it's too late for NCLB.

A reasonable scheme might have saved it, but the locked-down position taken by Margaret Spellings on behalf of the Bush administration appears to be its undoing.

As the New York Times reported yesterday,

"Teachers cheered Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton when she stepped before them last month at an elementary school in Waterloo, Iowa, and said she would “end” the No Child Left Behind Act because it was “just not working.”

Mrs. Clinton is not the only presidential candidate who has found attacking the act, President Bush’s signature education law, to be a crowd pleaser — all the Democrats have taken pokes.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has said he wants to “scrap” the law. Senator Barack Obama has called for a “fundamental” overhaul. And John Edwards criticizes the law as emphasizing testing over teaching. “You don’t make a hog fatter by weighing it,” he said recently while campaigning in Iowa.

This was to be the year that Congress renewed the law that has reshaped the nation’s educational landscape by requiring public schools to bring every child to reading and math proficiency by 2014. But defections from both the right and the left killed the effort.

Now, as lawmakers say they will try again, the unceasing criticism of the law by Democratic presidential contenders and the teachers’ unions that are important to them promises to make the effort even more treacherous next year.

“No Child Left Behind may be the most negative brand in America,” said Representative George Miller of California, the Democratic chairman of the House
education committee...

...Republican lawmakers...say the law intrudes on states’ rights, and...Democrats, ...say it labels schools as failing but does too little to help them improve...

...Even though the candidates hedge their criticism of the law with statements supporting accountability, it is hard to imagine their accepting revisions that fall short of a thorough overhaul — and that could be difficult for Mr. Bush to stomach, said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Even Mr. Bush’s catchy name for the law is likely to disappear in any rewrite, he said.

“I can’t imagine that Democrats could write a bill that would satisfy their caucus but not be vetoed by President Bush, at least in the current environment,” Mr. Petrilli said.

Miller: No Child Law Should Be Changed

WASHINGTON — A revised No Child Left Behind law should include merit pay for teachers and new ways of judging schools, the chairman of the House education committee said Monday.

"We didn't get it all right," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif.

The law, which is now up for renewal, requires annual math and reading tests in grades three through eight and once in high school. Schools that miss progress goals face consequences, such as having to offer tutoring or fire their principals.

Miller said the law places too much emphasis on the math and reading tests, although those are still important indicators. Other tests or graduation rates could also be used to judge how schools are doing, he said.

The teachers unions have called for that kind of change, but the Bush administration and some Republicans in Congress say it could weaken the law.

Miller also said the law should pay teachers extra for boosting student achievement, an idea generally opposed by the national teachers unions.

Miller said he hopes the full House will vote on the legislation this September.

Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy, who chairs the Senate education committee, said he hopes the bill gets through his committee in September.

The legislation is a priority for President Bush, who pushed for its initial passage in 2001.

A majority of Americans want the law to be renewed as it is or with minor changes, according to a poll out Monday by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and Education Next, a publication of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

This from the Associated Press @ Newsvine.

A Pop Quiz for the Education Secretary

Poor Margaret Spellings!

The secretary of education was ready to talk student loans, No Child Left Behind, blah, blah, blah, when she came into The Post for an interview with editors and reporters last week.

So maybe she was taken aback when a reporter (not us, we swear!) asked why she turned down Karl Rove when he asked her out back in the early '80s. (Rove later joked it took his ego "decades to recover.")

Spellings paused, reports our colleague Amit Paley, then said: "Have you met Karl Rove?"

"He was so inept and so inartful," she added. "I mean, I couldn't even understand."

We should note that our mean old co-workers brought up the Rove thing only to change the subject after they had inadvertently made Spellings cry.

When asked to describe a side of President Bush the public doesn't know, the secretary started telling an old story about how then-Gov. Bush consoled a Texas official who had broken down while eulogizing a colleague. "Oh, I'm going to cry just telling you the story," she said, removing her glasses and dabbing her eyes with a napkin. "Y'all, I can't believe you did this to me!"

She left the interview still a little weepy and mulling the potential impact of crying in front of the press. "Now you'll take sympathy on me," she said. "Maybe."

This from Reliable Source at the Washington Post.

More High School Moxie: Presidential Scholars urge Bush to ban use of torture

WASHINGTON -- President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program (video) urging a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the United States.

The White House said Bush had not expected the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who handed it to him.

"The president enjoyed a visit with the students, accepted the letter and upon reading it let the student know that the United States does not torture and that we value human rights," deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

The students had been invited to the East Room to hear the president speak about his effort to win congressional reauthorization of his education law known as No Child Left Behind.
The handwritten letter said the students "believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions."

"We do not want America to represent torture. We urge you to do all in your power to stop violations of the human rights of detainees, to cease illegal renditions, and to apply the Geneva Convention to all detainees, including those designated enemy combatants," the letter said.

The designation as a Presidential Scholar is one of the nation's highest honors for graduating high school students. Each year the program selects one male and one female student from each state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Americans living abroad, 15 at-large students, and up to 20 students in the arts on the basis of outstanding scholarship, service, leadership and creativity.

High Praise from Keith Oberman

This from the Seattle Post Intelligencer and YouTube.