In several posts over the years, I have wondered aloud about what I thought was a poorly conceived connection between NCLB and politicians concerns with the capacity of the U.S. to compete economically. While getting a higher proportion of students to a minimum level of proficiency is a worthy goal, I have suggested that this goal seemed to me to be different from the goal of generating the creative and advanced types needed to move the economy forward. If resources are limited and fixed and if the goal was to focus on education as economic development, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus more resources on gifted education?
Research just released appears to support my prediction that NCLB would be detrimental to more capable students.
The point is we have so many goals for education and we are cutting rather than increasing resources. I still like what my wife has proposed as a motto – “move every child forward”. It appears that where we focus our limited resources does matter.
Education Week (you may have to register for full access) recently offered several articles on NCLB. Putting the information together, it appears that NCLB has raised average performance, but has not benefited more able students.
The data show, for instance, that from 2000 to 2007, the scores of the top 10 percent of students essentially held steady on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests in reading and math. The scores for the bottom 10 percent of students, meanwhile, rose by 18 points on the 4th grade reading test and 13 points in 8th grade math—the equivalent of about a year’s worth of learning by Mr. Loveless’ calculations.
I have come to think of NCLB in terms of trade-offs rather than improvements. Math and language arts scores may rise, but students have fewer experiences with art or social studies. The focus on avoiding test failure comes at the cost of less interest in improving the performance of those most capable. These are not improvements when one takes a broader perspective. Present policies do not “move every child forward”.
Ironically (I guess this is irony), the GF Herald reported today that more children in North Dakota are being left behind. Every school my children attended (elementary through high school) made the list for not meeting AYP. For the record, I think my kids received a high quality education. Unfortunately, if they were still in school, the data indicate NCLB would mean that their talents would be less rather than more likely to be developed.
While all candidates recommend reforms, the eSchool article appears to indicate the Democrats suggest more extensive modifications. Clinton focuses suggestions on adequate funding and an accountability system related to growth. Obama proposes federal help to develop new assessment techniques.
McCain notes the specific issues in evaluating student with disabilities and those with limited English proficiency.
NAEP results are in and you are likely to encounter a discussion from most news outlets (see NY Times article – I knew open access to the NY Times would be useful). Really short version – math scores are up a little, reading results are mixed, various political groups interpret differently (NCLB may be good or it may be misdirected).
If you are interested in NCLB, I would offer Volume 44, No.3, American Educational Research Journal as suggested reading. This is a special issue on NCLB and there are several analyses to review. I would suggest the following (my bias is obvious in previous posts) – Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. AERJ, 44, 493-518.
One short quote from the conclusion (p. 514):
…, I strongly suggest that the exams used to assess schools have increased the number of high school dropouts. They have no made curricula more rigorous, and neither have they closed the achievement gap …
One of the consequences of the attempt to improve student performance by way of NCLB is that students learn less of content not promoted through legislation. Social studies has been one area that receives less attention because it is not tested. So, on this day when we remember the history of our nation, here is a plea from the National Council for History Education.
Your urgent help is needed by the National Council for History Education
As the future of No Child Left Behind comes to Congress those who care about the teaching of history need to be heard.
This is a moment when every voice can make a difference.
We all need to pitch in to ensure that History is Not Left Behind
Through History Matters! and our website, we have urged all who care about the teaching of history in our schools to write the members of the Educational committees in the U.S. Senate and House, and also their own representative.
As Congress considers reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act it is imperative that our voices be raised so that Senators and Representatives, and especially members of the two Education committees, hear from teachers and others about the importance of making History a meaningful part of the curriculum in our nation’s schools.
At http://www.nche.net/nclb you will find information about Congressional members and guidance for the letter-writing. This is an extremely important undertaking, which may well affect everyone who teaches history throughout the United States.
Strange, isn’t it?
Parade of Boats – a July 4 tradition on the lake we visit in the summer.
The results of the NCLB mandated evaluation of reading and math software is now available (see press release).
On average, after one year, products did not increase or decrease test scores by amounts that were statistically different from zero.
For reading products, effects on overall test scores were correlated with the student-teacher ratio in first-grade classrooms and with the amount of time that products were used in fourth-grade classrooms.
For math products, effects were uncorrelated with classroom and school characteristics.
The pdf of the full report is available for download.
A report based on a second year of data collection will be released at a later date.
Shortly before holiday break, I commented on the Dec. 18 issue of Time that considered “How to Build a Student for the 21st Century”. A major source within Time’s coverage was “Tough Choices or Tough Times” – The Report of the Commission of Skills of the American WorkForce (executive summary). I am guessing this report will generate a lot of interest among business leaders and politicians. I purchased the full report and have now read it. I agree with the statement of the problem and I think I understand the basics of the proposed plan of action. My reaction, possibly because I am a member of “the establishment” (translate older and a career educator), is that the plan is naive and based on too many untested assumptions. The plan tends to get vague just where I want details. Rather than launch into a long description, what follows is my interpretation of key points. I encourge those interested in educational policy to read the full report.
The book outlines a growing economic challenge to the US as a consequence of outsourcing – low end or routinized jobs to countries with a cheap labor force or to technology and an increasing number of high end jobs to skilled professionals from other countries who are willing to work for much lower salaries that their US counterparts. The analysis seems very similar to that provided in Friedman’s The World is Flat.
High wages and corporate growth will depend on continuing innovation. It seems our educational system is not producing enough graduates with the knowledge (translate math and science although other content areas are mentioned) and creativity to compete. This is a threat to the future standard of living of many individuals and the general economy of the country.
The solution:
Create an educational system that meets or exceeds the accomplishments of the competition.
a) Assume that students will be ready for college when they are 16 (as I understand the model) because this is what must be regarded as the standard set by “the competition.”
b) Create two levels of examinations (one for what is now the sophomore year and one for what is now the senior year). The first is intended to determine mastery of knowledge and skills roughly equivalent to what we now regard as the traditional high school education. Passing this exam would allow entry into community college or trade schools. Passing the exam would also allow continuation in an advance high school curriculum equivalent to AP coursework.
c) Create a more productive system to meet these expectations.
1) Hire teachers from the top 1/3 rather than the bottom 1/3 of college students.
2) Improve early childhood education
3) Commit more resources to disadvantaged students.
While this system will cost more money, the Commission argues that there is efficiency in doing the job right the first time (moving students on to postsecondary education more quickly, reducing grade repeaters, reducing need for remedial programs).
Proposals likely to be controversial:
a) create a different model for paying teachers that allows a higher entering salary and then increases more dependent on productivity (student performance) than years of service
b) greater authority at the state level – e.g., teachers employed by the state – salary schedule would allow encouragement to work in high need areas
c) performance based system like NCLB but with an emphasis on the progress of all students rather than number of students meeting minimum standards – parents free to move students, more competition among schools, greater freedom for entities to form schools and compete for students
While the economic challenges do seem real, the assumed responsibility of the educational system for economic productivity, the focus on presently available examinations as indicators of the productivity of teachers and schools, and the validity of international comparisons of student achievement have been contested.
For example:
William’s Spady’s Paradigm Trap challenges the assumed consequences of test-based accountability systems (in reference to NCLB).
Critics of the law also can point to frightening evidence about the effects on schools and students of mandated testing-and-accountability programs that had emerged before the law was officially enacted and has been borne out since. These include lower educator motivation and morale; the loss in droves of talented and creative educators who retire or leave the system; a severe narrowing of curriculum offerings;major increases in student stress, dysfunctional behavior, failure rates, and dropout rates; and the wholesale suppression of nontraditional educational approaches.
Some years ago, Berliner and Biddle wrote a book entitled “The Manufactured Crisis” that offered me some reassurance that the US K-12 student was not the international laggard that some politicians and business leaders had contended (an online summary of some key points if you are interested). The date of this analysis is an issue (mid-1990s),
I am sure the debate is just beginning.
– – – –
Here is a follow-up to this post. I now see that Colorado is seriously considering pursuing the proposals of this commission.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
