[Editor’s note: Peter Goodman blogs at Ed in the Apple, where this post originally appeared.]
“Every farmer knows you don’t fatten a pig by weighing it.”
-aphorism
No Child Left Behind has dominated the national education scene for years. A bipartisan law that was hailed as a major step forward is increasingly assailed by virtually all.
The law relies on states to establish goals, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and sets increasingly severe penalties for schools that fail to reach AYP. Not surprisingly, schools have moved to “drill and kill” curricula to achieve AYP, to the detriment of the subjects not tested.
The NEA and the AFT have increasingly criticized the law; in fact, supporters of the law continue to shrink.
New Talk sponsored a three day online discussion, “Do we need a basic re-write of NCLB?” – the discussants included Randi Weingarten, (UFT/AFT President), Chris Cerf (DOE Deputy), Diane Ravitch, Sol Stern (City Journal), Checker Finn (Thomas Fordham Foundation), Philip Howard (Common Good), Arthur Levine (Woodrow Wilson Foundation, formerly Teacher College President), Sara Mead (New American Foundation) and a list of other “voices” in the educational community.
The discussion was hosted by John Merrow.
It is a must read!
The discussion evolved from spanking the law to offering a range of specific “new ideas,” both relating to the law and to educational policy in general. And, my dose of schedenfreude, watching Sol Stern skewer Chris Cerf as he tries, really hard, to be the neutral scholar-type instead of his true role, the Joel Klein hatchet man.
The original 1965 law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) drove federal dollars, Title I, to schools based on poverty. The dollars could not supplant tax levy dollars, and frequently paid for “specialty” teachers in Reading, Math and Bilingual/ESL education. The 2003 reauthorization changed the name of the law and added the AYP driven sanctions.
States are slow to make change, they are making incremental progress, for example, according to the National Governors Association, in establishing common measurements of graduation rates.
On the NCLB front views are across the spectrum.
Randi Weingarten laid out her “community school” plan and Checker Finn called it a distraction, lacking evidence.
Diane Ravitch addressed the testing issue in detail with targeted recommendations.
The New Talk discussion raised many questions, and answered few…
- What should be the role of the federal government?
- Can we trust States to measure their own progress?
- Do sanctions work?
- Should the law simply post test results and leave enforcement to the States?
- Shouldn’t we measure all students progress rather than the AYP concept?
While education has not emerged as an issue in the presidential election, aside from McCain attacking teacher unions, the reauthorization of NCLB will become a major issue in the next Congressional legislative session. The New Talk discussion clearly shows the lack of any consensus, but, it continues an increasingly public dialogue.
The outcome of this discussion, the still amorphous reauthorization, will shape American classrooms, for years, perhaps decades.
4 Comments:
1 cor123
· Dec 3, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“Six years ago when I started this school,” my principal announced on the last day of the 2007/ 2008 school year, “we had many problems. This, however, has been the best year ever.” My fellow teachers and I were sitting through the final staff meeting, although staff lecture is more accurate. Some staff members were smiling as he made his announcement. “S. received an award for the best new teaching fellow.” She glowed as he looked in her direction and commended her for being highlighted on cable television. I had been on sabbatical the year before and colleagues whose work to educate students was untiring told me class-sizes were increasing and the number of periods teaching went from 5 to 7 per day–for some teachers–those the principal focused on. Not the fellow who won best new teacher.
When I returned from sabbatical, I watched the library get turned into classrooms, the books shoved into cardboard boxes, a librarian never hired. Teacher collaboration, heterogeneous grouping of students, and portfolios culminating in student presentations were stopped. They were scrapped in favor of regents’ preparation and discussions of data. How much can change in six years. These were the things I was reflecting on in the final meeting. My principal culminated his end of the year statements with, “It was such a great year because the hallways were so quiet.” More smiles and head nodding from the staff. He asked, “Would anyone like to say something?” and glared at the colleagues remaining who had started the school in 2002. None of us said anything. A different teaching fellow made tearful parting remarks about how great our principal is. Then he headed back to California with his free masters.
In addition to no library and little to no access to technology, my classes, which had been heterogeneously grouped pre-sabbatical, were now homogenously grouped, leaving the average age of one of my ninth grade classes at 17. The award winning fellow, a special education teacher, used to push in to do team teaching in my literacy classroom. When I returned from sabbatical, she told me she now only does a pull out scripted reading program, Wilson. I would, however, have the students she pulled out for the first half of my 90-minute literacy block. Then they would leave halfway through to go work with her. There was no discussion. Collaborating on comprehension and writing skills for all 27 students was decidedly pedestrian. Fragmenting 90-minute blocks was not her concern, nor the administrators. It was a great year! In her four years of teaching, she had learned quickly.
We opened our school one year after the passage of NCLB. It took five more years to completely destroy its mission. The principal had never bought into the mission to begin with and NCLB gave him the mandate he was looking for. He began chipping away at it until he finally succeeded in producing the regents-driven traditional high school that he always wanted. We now talk data, acuity and regents scores. Actually, we just listen. We do very little talking. It makes for quiet hallways.
2 mf99583p
· Dec 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Marcus Franklin 12/4/08 ESC 502 Open –ED
I agree with Mr. Goodman that “you don’t fatten a pig by weighting it”. This concept directly relates to the No Child Left Behind Left Behind Act (NCLB). In other words, you can’t just “shove” a whole bunch of laws and requirements on both students and schools hoping they can improve. The NCLB was passed by President George Bush in 2001 in order to improve test scores throughout the country. In addition, schools who meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) would receive more federal funding. However if these schools failed to improve their students’ test scores, they would lose their federal funding. As Mr. Goodman explains in his blog, schools are “drilling” curriculums for students and teachers to follow in order for students to receive high test scores. As he explains, the NCLB at first was praised because it was a major step by the Federal Government to help improve schools. Unfortunately over the past couple of years, the NCLB has been gradually losing support by many people.
Mr. Goodman also explains how New Talk sponsored a three day online discussion on how to basically rewrite the NCLB. Most of the participants who were involved in this discussion were teachers, writers, and others who discussed the NCLB. Most of them discussed new ideas on how to either rewrite or get rid of the NCLB. Also these participants discussed how the Fedral Government should be involved in education. They also discussed the role on states under the NCLB. They explained that most states were slow in adjusting to the NCLB. Finally towards the end of the blog, Mr. Goodman explains how the Election of 2008 will be crucial to the NCLB’s future.
My personal opinion on the NCLB is very negative. I do agree with most people that the NCLB isn’t the answer on fixing the American Education System. As Mr. Goodman stated, “You don’t fatten a pig by weighing it”. I believe that you can’t just force both students and schools to follow certain standards in order to help the education system. It’s unfair that schools have to “drill” strong curriculums on both teachers and students to follow. Standardized Testing has been well debated on for many years. Some people explain that Standardized Testing is a good “measuring tool” on how to improve students’ education. However others including myself believe that Standardized Testing doesn’t help measure students’ educational abilities. During this Fall Semester (2008) at Lehman College, I was required to watch several videos based on the NCLB. In the first video called “ NCLB: Truth and Consequences”, many teachers and even principals explained that this act isn’t the right solution. In this video, one teacher even explained she stopped teaching because of this act. Many of these teachers and principals explain that they are only teaching their students information that’s only going to be on the test. One of the teachers stated, “We are just spoon feeding” them on what’s going to be on the test.
Another video called “Tom Chapin brings musical message to NYSUT convention”, is based on a song explaining the NCLB. The Song describes how teachers are only teaching students information that’s only going to be on the tests. It further shows how teachers are “drilling” students the information that’s going to be on the tests. Also, the song shows how other studies such as music and art are being wiped away in schools because there isn’t no federal funding being provided on these studies since they aren’t going to be on the test. Its shame that the NCLB are taking away these studies. Also I believe the NCLB is wrong on only funding those schools who are producing high student test scores. Even student is different. In other words, some students learn faster than others. Sometimes other students take awhile in order to learn things. It’s unfair that many teachers who do their best in order to help students learn, to be criticized if they all don’t learn at the same pace. For example, I was never good in Math during my years in Elementary and High School. All my teachers tried to help understand this subject. Most of them even stayed after school with me several days during the week. My mother even hired tutors in order for me to understand this subject. I managed to pass this subject, but usually by the last “mark”. For example, I took the Math A Regents three times and I barely passed with a 67 on the third time. By this happening were all my Math Teachers bad? I explained that most of them stayed after school with me in order to help. My mother even hired professional tutors to help me. It’s not fair that the NCLB even allows papers to publish schools that are failing. Don’t get me wrong not all teachers and schools are perfect, but most of them try very hard including the ones I went to. Each student is different. Many have different skills and talents then others. But the NCLB can’t help this solution. And everyone knows that even though you try to “shove” people to do their best, it doesn’t help all the time
3 Peter Goodman
· Dec 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Thanks for your kind comments, unfortunately I fear that the world of assessment is escalating, not retreating. Calls for a national assessment are louder see (http://mets2006.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/a-crossroads-does-the-demise-of-the-uaw-offer-lessons-for-teacher-unions-what-path-will-obama-take-who-will-define-change/)
Creating a school with a rigorous curriculum, high standards for staff and kids, engaging instruction, nurturing and firm behavior standards are not antithetical to high test scores, in fact, they encourage high test scores. Too many school district and school leaders, to be perfectly honest, are intellectually lazy; test prep is “easier” than creating a demanding school environment.
4 jstaf
· Dec 5, 2008 at 1:34 pm
NCLB has plenty of problems, the same can be said about most legislation, but it has been an advancement in understanding where the worst schools system are located.
What is slowly being discovered is that the school system of equally timed periods of study, summers off and a talking head at the front of the class is not going to make it past 2020.
There are solutions being developed that will change the educational process just as it has changed industry. For those that cry out that business is not education you have to point out that it most certainly isn’t, schools are based on an industrial model that has been almost completely wiped from the landscape over the past 50 years.
Ford and Carnegie had a need for a system that prepared people for assembly lines and time oriented task completion, and that is what they got, and we are still living with today.
In the global economy work is continual, and custom, and almost no one learns what to do, they learn how to learn. Toyota, Samsung and even IBM have recognized this change and adjusted their models.
Education will do the same, or we will continue to expect the old ideas to some how produce different results than those that have seen US students fall behind by every measure. If you remember Einstein’s definition of that behavior you can see that is not the path to success for our children, it is the path to mediocrity by way of insanity.
Leave a Comment