Five Thoughts About No Child Left Behind on Its 10th Anniversary

This from Michael Petrilli atThe Huffington Post

The federal law that everybody loves to hate turns ten on Sunday. Here's what to think about it:

It worked! As Mark Schneider shows in his recent paper for Fordham -- and as Eric Hanushek and others demonstrated before him -- poor, minority, and low-achieving students made huge progress in math, and sizable progress in reading, during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their most recent scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate all-time highs for most grades and subjects. These students are typically performing two grade levels ahead of where their peers were fifteen years ago in math, and are reading at least one grade level higher. So how to explain these historic gains? While we can't draw causal conclusions from NAEP, we can make educated guesses. What's clear is that states that adopted "consequential accountability" in the nineties saw big test-score jumps, and the late-adopter states saw similar progress once No Child Left Behind kicked into action. So, while other factors could have been in play, too (such as efforts to reduce class size or the cessation of the crack-cocaine epidemic), there's a pretty good case that testing and accountability succeeded in spurring higher student achievement, at least at the bottom of the performance spectrum.

But it couldn't work forever. As Schneider argues, the test score gains sparked by NCLB-style accountability appear to have hit a plateau. We're back to anemic progress in most grades and subjects, particularly in the states (like Texas) that embraced testing and accountability first. That shouldn't be too surprising. While the initial pressure (and shame) provided by consequential accountability appears to have changed behavior at the district and school level, after a while being called a "failing school" loses its sting. Furthermore, holding "schools" accountable has rarely equaled holding individuals accountable -- real live teachers and principals who might lose their jobs. Once it became clear that NCLB was all bark and no bite, schools could return to the status quo ante.

The trade-offs are real. The good news is that we've seen enormous progress for our lowest-achieving students. The bad news is that we've seen languid progress for our highest achievers. The good news is that math scores are way up and, to a lesser degree, reading scores are up, too (especially for poor and minority kids). The bad news is that history and science have been squeezed out of the elementary school curriculum, particularly in high poverty schools. Whether these trade-offs were worth it depends on your point of view. Personally, I'd prefer a policy that aims for more balance: achievement gains across the performance spectrum, not just at the bottom and a more holistic view of what it means for students to be well educated. Literacy and numeracy are (obviously) not enough.

Pet ideas from both parties crashed and burned. The Democrats gave the country the "white elephant" gift of the "highly qualified teachers" mandate, a policy that succeeded in turning the nation's teachers against NCLB from the very beginning, managed to tie up myriad schools (including charters) in all manner of red tape, and gravely threatened Teach For America, one of the most promising reforms of the NCLB era. From the Republicans we got "supplemental educational services," a.k.a. free tutoring. This was more of an impulse than a fleshed out idea. It was never clear whether SES was meant to be a sanction for failing districts (if you don't improve your test scores, we'll take some of your Title I money away from you), a serious effort at parental choice, or a way to "extend" learning time for needy kids. Regardless, its entire design was predicated on cooperation from school districts, which were responsible for facilitating the flow of funds away from their coffers and into the hands of nonprofit and for-profit providers. As my Italian grandmother would have said, "Fatta chance."

It's time for something new. On this point, virtually everybody agrees. But what should the next phase of education reform entail? The contours are now taking shape. First, there's agreement that, for accountability to be real, it has to be placed upon real live people, not just amorphous "schools." That means, first and foremost, holding teachers accountable for their performance. Thus the interest in: more sophisticated teacher-evaluation systems, tenure reform, performance pay, and all the rest. Second, there's broad consensus that we need to balance the "tough love" approach of accountability with the "helping hand" of capacity-building: Providing teachers with tools like a coherent curriculum -- linked to the new Common Core standards -- so they don't have to make it all up on their own. And third, we can all glimpse the promise of digital learning, if technology can be harnessed effectively and if the political and governance roadblocks can be removed. But what's the appropriate (and politically feasible) federal role in all of this? In all of these reforms, Uncle Sam's involvement will be -- and should be -- minimal. The political thirst for aggressive federal involvement in education has been quenched, and the dollars to fund it spent. Plus these "next wave" reforms require nuance, care, and thoughtfulness to get them right -- attributes not associated with Uncle Sam. In other words, reform will continue, but the federal government will lead from behind. As well it should.

Happy birthday, No Child Left Behind. And here's hoping that you don't make it to eleven.

Fordham Foundation wants to Give Deasy a Pass

National education blogger Mike Petrilli over at the Fordham Foundation's Flypaper blog says,

"Don’t get queasy about John Deasy"

And what does Petrilli base his opinion on? Decent numbers, and he met Deasy once. No argument with either, but it's not much of a comfort in the face of other evidence.

Maybe Deasy is a terrific guy who just got a little greedy and was seduced by Felner. He would not have been the first to be sullied by that guy.

Deasy responsed perfectly:

If the university made errors in the awarding of the degree, I do hope they rescind it. My responsibility is to do everything I was advised and told to do. If I was advised wrong and given wrong information, the university needs to take responsibility for that. I certainly would not want anything unearned.

But talk is cheap. There is no way Deasy could have been unaware he was getting a sweetheart deal - and he took it - he took it, put it on his resume, shopped it and signs his name with a Ph D.

This should only be a concern for those who insist on ethical behavior.

Has Deasy renounced his doctorate and taken his diploma off the wall? Has he acted on his pitch perfect words?

In the wake of a the last superintendent's scandal - where former Prince Georges County Superintendent Andre J. Hornsby, was convicted of wire fraud, witness and evidence tampering, and obstruction of justice some Marylanders may prefer to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing and chose to try again.

Reading First Press Conference

Yesterday KSN&C reported on the Fordham Institute's call for an investigation into the Reading First scandal.

Reading First, one of President Bush’s highest priorities under the No Child Left Behind Act, came under fire in a series of highly critical reports by the Education Department’s inspector general that found favoritism for certain textbook publishers and other management problems in the program’s early years...

With typical DC overkill, rather than fixing "the problem" and keeping the program, the Reading First budget was slashed from about $1 billion per year to less than $4oo,000. That means upwards of 4,000 of America's toughest schools will lose one of the more effective federal efforts ever to reach public school children.

Fordham is touting a recent report that they say tells, "The True Story of Reading First."

In this You Tube clip former Bush Ed Department appointee Mike Petrilli, now a vice president with the Fordham Institute, speaks from the steps of the US Department of Education.

Education Trust or bust?

Mike Petrilli writes in the Fordham foundation's Education Gadfly blog this week about the Education Trust, it's influence in Washington and it's recommendations for changes in NCLB.

~

If history is a guide, there's every reason to believe that Congress will follow Ed Trust's lead. After all, its president (and recent Fordham excellence-in-education prizewinner), Kati Haycock, was voted the most influential individual in American education save for President Bush and Secretary Spellings (see here). She and her organization are respected by many Republicans and worshipped by lots of Democrats. Their pronouncements are taken seriously. But should this one be?

Let's start with the good part. 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.

Regarding "proficiency," it would provide incentives for states to boost their standards and require those with particularly weak-kneed definitions of "proficiency" to get at least 50 percent more of their kids to the "advanced" level. Plus, it would count as "proficient" those students who are "on a trajectory to meet proficiency in three years"--an acceptance of student growth as a cornerstone of any sensible accountability system.

As for the 2014 deadline, Ed Trust would allow high-standards states to reset NCLB's 12-year timeline, giving them until 2019 to achieve the law's goals.