Archives for category: NCLB (No Child Left Behind)
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Elliot Self: Time to Revise NCLB

By dianeravitch
January 15, 2015 //
11

Veteran educator Elliot Self says it is long past time to revise No Child Left Behind, and he urges everyone to make their voices heard.

My first recommendation to Congress would be to restore the original name of this landmark 1965 legislation, whose primary purpose was equity for poor children and districts, not accountability: the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), not President Bush’s colorful NCLB.

Self offers nine recommendations in this article. The balance of the article explains each recommendations.

“I believe that we need a new National policy that supports a 21st century education for our children. I am suggesting nine broad changes to the law that would help schools and teachers across the country better meet the needs of diverse students and schools in a complex 21st century world. The recommendations suggest a very different type of law that, instead of a set of top down mandates, emphasizes collaborative working relationships with states, schools and districts and local flexibility, creativity and innovation. They suggest that NCLB should be focused around a 21st century education mission statement and set of goals and should support the development of high quality standards that make significant learning possible.

“The recommendations promote a broader view of accountability and assessment policies and practices, emphasize the development of a rigorous, expansive, high quality curriculum and school programs, and promote the use of powerful instructional strategies. They are designed to address the deep-seated problems with the current law.

Self’s nine recommendations are the following:

“Create a law designed to encourage and guide states, districts and schools to develop 21st century schools, rather than coerce them into submission.

Create a 21st century education mission and vision statement to focus the law.

Encourage the development of high quality state standards.

Support the development of curricular programs that are consistent with high quality standards.

Reduce the amount of standardized testing and encourage the use of multiple types of assessments to measure success and progress.

Encourage districts and schools to develop and implement benchmark and graduation projects.

Encourage districts to provide a variety of elective courses and comprehensive extra-curricular activities and programs.

Encourage professional development that supports the use of powerful instructional strategies.

Create the means for greater collaboration and sharing among states, districts and schools.”

What are your recommendations for the federal role?

Categories NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, Standardized Testing

Teacher: What Makes a Good School? How Should We Judge?

By dianeravitch
January 15, 2015 //
23

New Hampshire teacher Shawna Coppola wonders how to define a good school. She explains why the school she teaches in is an excellent school that defies all the current reforms and educates all children to meet their needs, not to raise their scores. The school may be closed because of the cost of renovations; besides, it does not have the cachet of the districts with high scores. This crazy notion that beloved community public schools should be closed is recent in our history, dating only to No Child Left Behind. That now discredited law decreed that schools must be subject to a cascade of sanctions, including closure, if their test scores don’t move towards 100% proficiency in grades 3-8. Never before in our history were public schools closed except for shrinking enrollments or consolidation of facilities—but not for test scores. Many states have adopted A-F grading systems, but those are overly simplistic and they rely too much on standardized test scores. How should we judge a school?

 

Here are Shawna’s thoughts on what makes a good school:

 

Recently a news item came out on our local NH station, WMUR, which listed the top 50 elementary schools in the state of NH. Previous to this, Newsweek had published their 2014 list of America’s Top High Schools. Both times, the district in which I live made the list. Our local high school was listed as the one of the best high schools in America, while our two elementary schools ranked near the top in the state of NH, respectively. You can find Newsweek’s list here (http://www.newsweek.com/high-schools/americas-top-schools-2014) and WMUR’s list here:http://www.wmur.com/news/30456516.

 

Over ten years ago, my husband and I moved to this highly-rated district so that our children could attend the schools here, which we had heard wonderful things about. By most accounts, the schools in the district are “excellent” schools. What people tend to mean by this is that the students in our district perform well on state-wide standardized assessments and on AP exams, graduate from the high school, and tend to matriculate at college immediately following graduation.

 

This used to impress me–at least, it did when I was still a wide-eyed classroom teacher only a few years out of college. With each passing year, however, it impresses me less and less.

 

The reason for this is because over the years, and through my experience as an educator, I have come to understand what it really means to be a school of excellence versus a school that is merely good at playing the game (or is lucky enough to be situated in an involved, highly literate, financially stable community). I do not believe ours is a bad or a poor district–far from it–but is it excellent? Does it deserve its place at the “top?” The short answer for me, as a parent to two students in the district, is…well, no. (I would be happy to elaborate further if you are interested.)

 

Alternatively, I believe that the school I work in now, Rollinsford Grade School, is one of the most excellent schools in which I have ever worked–even ever set foot in. If I were not here, working as a literacy specialist in grades K-6, I likely would not be working anywhere (in public school, that is). We have a long way to go, and can always improve, of course, but in all essence, Rollinsford is my dream school. At Rollinsford, we truly attend to the whole child. The social, emotional, and physical development of our students is just as important, if not more important, as their academic growth. We have worked hard to incorporate a sense of authentic inquiry into everything we–and our students– do. Our students have a voice, and their voice is heard and acted upon. We believe that there are a myriad number of ways that students can–and do–succeed. Each member of the faculty and staff identifies as a learner herself. Each of us goes above and beyond what is expected.

 

And yet, Rollinsford Grade School placed 130th out of 243 NH schools–in the bottom half. When I dug into the methodology used to complete these rankings, I wasn’t surprised to learn that it was highly flawed (you can find my somewhat detailed analysis here: http://mysocalledliteracylife.com/2015/01/04/unique-insight-into-schools-um-no/). Flawed not because of the science used, but because of the factors that were analyzed. Not one factor that went into ranking NH’s elementary schools included the factors that I, and most of my fellow educators, value– classroom pedagogy, school culture, student voice and choice, community outreach, etc. Sure, the rankings included analysis of surveys that were sent out to students, parents, and alumni of each school, but a district only needed 11 completed surveys per district to have its results counted toward the ratings. I’m sure it’s no surprise that the most affluent districts in the state, and the ones most likely to have more highly educated parents, fewer transient families, and less poverty (including the one in which I live), came out on top.

 

And now, with our enrollment decreasing each year and the need for minimal renovations that would bring a 78 year-old building up to code, Rollinsford Grade School is in the position of potentially being shut down, our students shipped off to a mediocre school district in the next town over. My colleagues and I–and many of our parents, whose children thrive here–are heartbroken. Not because we could potentially lose our jobs, but because one of the best schools with some of the most thoughtful, knowledgeable, progressive-minded educators may, someday soon, no longer exist. Because we have worked so hard to honor all of our students, not just those who fit the mold of the “typical” student. Because the children of this community will no longer have an alternative to the traditional, testing-focused, CCSS-centric types of schooling they will get in most other schools.

 

What I often write about–and what I think there needs to be a lot more conversation about, not only within the wider community, but within the world–is what truly makes a school “good” (or even “excellent”). (And is this the same everywhere?) Not for the sake of ranking schools, which is not something I believe does anyone any good, but for the sake of identifying those factors that make a school one in which both teachers and students are happy, safe, and engaged in the joy and the challenge of learning. So that schools that are not excellent can aspire to something–can make positive change toward excellence.

 

I think that in today’s educational culture, it is more important than ever to talk about what truly makes a good school vs. one that is only good at “playing” school. I would love to hear your ideas for how to make this happen.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

 

Best,

Shawna Coppola

Literacy Specialist, Rollinsford Grade School

Rollinsford, NH 03869

Categories Closing schools, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), New Hampshire

Doug Garnett: The Absurdity of Testing Every Child Every Year

By dianeravitch
January 14, 2015 //
70

When I spoke to the Texas School Boards Association a few years ago, a member of the audience got up and identified himself as a school board member and an engineer. He said that he didn’t understand why the government tests every child every year. He said that in the industry where he works, it is customary to test the products periodically, on a sampling basis. I will never forget what he said: “If we tested every product, we would spend most of our time testing the product, and we wouldn’t have time left to manufacture or to improve the product.”

 

I was reminded of that statement when I received this comment from Doug Garnett, who is a specialist in marketing, advertising, branding, communications, and technology. Garnett wrote, just minutes ago:

 

Where I’m mystified is this belief that in order to have “accountability”, EVERY child has to be tested in the entire nation.

 

In business, we rely heavily on statistical sampling because it’s flat out too expensive to measure every item. Sampling in manufacturing, sampling in store satisfaction, sampling in purchasing, sampling in advertising impact, sampling, sampling sampling.

 

The NAEP relies on sampling…because it’s EFFECTIVE!

 

Imagine this: IF we shifted to a sampling test approach an amazing array of issues would be mitigated. The tests would lose their intensely punitive nature – and evolve toward being instructive and enlightening. They would lose the “high stakes” and become simply learning that informs. And, WE could use their reduced presence to focus on the totality of education instead of creating testing farms.

 

So…why don’t these so-called “business people” behind reform endorse smart business approach like sampling? Mind boggling…unless we embrace the conspiracy to redirect all of that government spending into the profits of private corporations.

Categories Accountability, NAEP, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Testing

AFT and Center for American Progress Agree on NCLB “Principles”

By dianeravitch
January 14, 2015 //
22

The American Federation of Teachers and the Center for American Progress issued a joint statement expressing their agreement on what should be contained in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB). The key point is that the AFT agreed to support annual testing so long as it was used for information, not accountability; and the CAP agreed to using grade span tests for accountability instead of the annual tests. As the article below notes, the AFT had previously opposed annual testing. The CAP’s point person is Carmel Martin, a former assistant secretary for civil rights in the Obama administration, who is a strong supporter of testing.

 

My view, for what it’s worth: The mandate for annual testing in grades 3-8 should not remain in federal law. Even though the signatories to this agreement say the scores should not be used for accountability, habits die hard. They will be, even though doing so is inaccurate and invalid. There really is no point to testing every child every year unless you want to know whether they have mastered the art of test-taking. Grade span testing (elementary, junior high school, and high school) should be quite enough. No high-performing nation tests every child every year from 3-8. Unless you happen to be a shareholder in Pearson or McGraw-Hill, it is a massive waste of children’s time and taxpayer’s money.

 

 

***************

 

AFT, Obama-Linked Think Tank Champion Annual Testing—With a Caveat

By Alyson Klein <http://www.edweek.org/ew/contributors/alyson.klein.html&gt; on January 14, 2015 2:41 PM

By guest blogger Stephen Sawchuk. Crossposted from Teacher Beat. <http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2015/01/aft_obama_linked_think_tank_promote_annual_testing.html&gt;

 

UPDATED

 

As you should know by now, the hottest issue over the pending rewrite of the No Child Left Behind Act is whether the law’s core requirement for accountability based on the results of annual student tests should be maintained, or scrapped in favor of fewer exams. <http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/09/nclb-rewrite-could-target-mandate-on-annual.html&gt;

 

Now, the American Federation of Teachers and the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank long associated with the Obama Administration, have proposed a sort of compromise. Their statement <https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AFT-CAP-Shared-Principles-on-ESEA.pdf&gt; , first reported <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/aft-backs-annual-testing-with-an-asterisk/2015/01/14/56a6675a-9c0a-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html&gt; by The Washington Post, says that annual testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school should be maintained. But, the scores from the exams should only factor into state accountability systems once in each grade span (elementary, middle, and high school).

 

This is a big surprise, marking a significant policy shift for both groups. The AFT has been among those leading the charge against the annual testing requirement. See the accountability resolution it passed <http://www.aft.org/resolution/real-accountability-equity-and-excellence-public-education&gt; just six months ago saying such tests should not be given annually, for example.

 

Similarly, CAP’s Executive Vice President for Policy, Carmel Martin, is a former Education Department employee who had supported the annual testing-and-accountability requirements at the heart of the law. (Is the Obama administration signalling what it might be willing to compromise on through a trusted channel?)

 

Both groups add that new state accountability systems should take factors other than test scores into account, a change the AFT has been pushing for a while.

 

“These systems should also include high school graduation rates at the high school level and other academic measures. While academic indicators should be substantial factors, states should also—as some are doing currently–include qualitative criteria such as school-quality reviews, climate and safety measures, success of students on college-preparation curricula, and/or measures of social and emotional learning,” the statement reads.

 

And the groups say that the federal government should double the currently $2.4 million federal teacher-quality grants to invest in better teacher preparation and professional development. New money for teacher quality is something U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan hinted at in a recent wide-ranging speech defending annual tests.

 

Read the full statement here. <https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AFT-CAP-Shared-Principles-on-ESEA.pdf&gt;

Categories Accountability, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Testing

DFER: Without Annual Testing, How Can We Compare States?

By dianeravitch
January 14, 2015 //
38

According to Politico.com, Senator Lamar Alexander is considering eliminating the federal mandate for annual testing in grades 3-8. Charles Barone of the hedge fund managers’ “Democrats for Education Reform” is alarmed by this proposal, claiming it is an “equity” issue that would make it impossible to compare states.

Why the need to compare test scores is an equity issue is unexplained. Apparently Barone–who used to work for Congressman George Miller, senior Democrat on the House Education Committee–is unfamiliar with NAEP. That is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which has been testing American students since 1969. It has been comparing states since 1992 and disaggregating scores by race, gender, language, and disability status. I hope proponents of annual testing will soon explain how comparing states creates equity. We know that Mississippi has lower scores than Massachusetts, whether we test annually or every three years. The gap is not changed by knowing about it more frequently but by funding schools attended by low-performing students so they can have smaller classes, more arts programs, more specialists, better paid professionals, and amply supplied and staffed libraries.

Here is the story:

THE GOP DRAFT YOU’VE BEEN WAITING FOR: Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander unveiled a discussion draft Tuesday night detailing his plan for reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. It borrows heavily from his 2013 proposal [http://1.usa.gov/1C4GZNS ] and if passed, it would take the federal government right out of some of the Obama administration’s most contentious policies – providing relief to states that haven’t met the administration’s bar for accountability systems and teacher evaluations. The bill would give states the option to make more than $14 billion in Title I funding portable across public schools. Alexander’s draft also makes clear that the federal government would have no involvement in states’ academic standards – although states would have to set high standards. When it comes to testing, one option would allow districts to forgo annual exams. Maggie Severns reports: http://politico.pro/14SYoPQ Read the discussion draft here: http://1.usa.gov/1swgqBH

– Some feel that testing option would make it impossible to compare results at the state level. “This, by extension, becomes an equity issue,” said Charles Barone, policy director for Democrats for Education Reform. “Any effort to advance equity requires comparability of student circumstances across zip codes, incomes, race, disability, etc. Any accountability system that drives to improve the achievement of those students and target resources toward them is out the window if every school or district is held accountable based on a different set of numbers.”

Categories Democrats for Education Reform, NAEP, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Testing

What Education Policy Do Civil Rights Groups Want?

By dianeravitch
January 14, 2015 //
37

Now begins the great wrangle over federal education policy.

Senator Lamar Alexander, the senior Republican in the Senate on the HELP (health, education, labor, and pensions) Committee is at work revising No Child Left Behind. On January 20, he will hold hearings on testing. He is deciding whether to eliminate NCLB’s annual testing mandate and allow states to make their own decisions, to switch to grade-span testing, or to leave the current system in place. The Obama administration is lobbying hard to keep the current system, designed by the second President Bush’s administration, intact. In other words, Secretary Duncan wants to preserve the status quo, over the opposition of parents and educators, and despite the fact that no high-performing nation tests every child every year.

Earlier this week, nearly 20 civil rights groups endorsed the status quo. Valerie Strauss wondered what these civil rights groups were thinking.

She wrote:

“There are important problems with this thinking.

“It presumes that high-stakes standardized testing has led to more equity for students. There is no evidence that it has. It presumes that high-stakes standardized tests are valid and reliable measure of what students know and how much teachers have contributed to student progress, but assessment experts say they aren’t. It presumes that requiring testing is the only way to ensure that minority and disabled students get attention. That’s shallow thinking.”

After 13 years of NCLB, have we learned nothing?

A few days ago, I questioned whether the civil rights groups understood that standardized tests never close achievement gaps: they measure them. The children who have the greatest disadvantages are not served by stsndardized testing; the tests accurately reflect family income. They confer privilege on the privileged.

Most curious to me is that some of the leading civil rights groups issued a statement opposing high-stakes testing in October 2014!

What changed their views between October and January?

At that time, civil rights groups wrote:

““he current educational accountability system has become overly focused on narrow measures of success and, in some cases, has discouraged schools from providing a rich curriculum for all students focused on the 21st century skills they need to acquire. This particularly impacts under-resourced schools that disproportionately serve low-income students and students of color. In our highly inequitable system of education, accountability is not currently designed to ensure students will experience diverse and integrated classrooms with the necessary resources for learning and support for excellent teaching in all schools. It is time to end the advancement of policies and ideas that largely omit the critical supports and services necessary for children and families to access equal educational opportunity in diverse settings and to promote positive educational outcomes.”

They called for “Appropriate and equitable resources that ensure opportunities to learn, respond to students’ needs, prioritize racial diversity and integration of schools, strengthen school system capacity, and meaningfully support improvement.”

Among the needed resources, they said them, are:

“Qualified, certified, competent, racially and culturally diverse and committed teachers, principals, counselors, nurses, librarians, and other school support staff, with appropriate professional development opportunities, including cultural competency training, and support and incentives to work with students of greatest need; and

Social, emotional, nutritional, and health services”

But now they support the Bush-Obama emphasis on test-based accountability, with testing that exempts only 1% of children with the most severe cognitive disabilities and that exempts English learners for only one year.

Very puzzling.

Categories NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Testing

AFT’s Randi on Reauthorization of NCLB

By dianeravitch
January 13, 2015 //
55

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, takes issue with Secretary Duncan in reauthorization of NCLB. Duncan said last week that annual testing was “a line in the sand,” that is, non-negotiable. This, of course, ignores the views if educators and parents, who SES how the testing obsession has harmed teaching and learning and narrowed the curriculum.

Randi on Secretary Duncan’s ESEA Reauthorization Remarks

WASHINGTON— Statement from American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten on Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s speech regarding the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

“As I’ve said before, any law that doesn’t address our biggest challenges—funding inequity, segregation, the effects of poverty—will fail to make the sweeping transformation our kids and our schools need. Today, it was promising to hear Secretary Duncan make a call for equity, stressing, as we did through the Equity and Excellence Commission, the importance of early childhood education and engaging curriculum. It was encouraging to hear him laud the hard work of educators, who have had to overcome polarization and deep cuts after a harsh recession. And it was heartening to hear him acknowledge the progress our schools have made. However, the robust progress we saw in the first 40 years after the passage of ESEA has slowed over the last 10 years.

“On testing, we are glad the secretary has acknowledged that ‘there are too many tests that take up too much time’ and that ‘we need to take action to support a better balance.’ However, current federal educational policy—No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top and waivers—has enshrined a focus on testing, not learning, especially high-stakes testing and the consequences and sanctions that flow from it. That’s wrong, and that’s why there is a clarion call for change. The waiver strategy and Race to the Top exacerbated the test-fixation that was put in place with NCLB, allowing sanctions and consequences to eclipse all else. From his words today, it seems the secretary may want to justify and enshrine that status quo and that’s worrisome.

“Yes, we need to get parents, educators and communities the information they need. And all of us must be accountable and responsible for helping all children succeed. That’s why we have suggested some new interventions, like community schools and wraparound services; project-based learning; service internships; and individual plans for over-age students, under-credited students and those who are not reading at grade level by third grade.

“If one test per year can cause an entire school to be shuttered or all the teachers fired, something is wrong with the way that test is being used. Even in the District of Columbia, where the secretary spoke from today, the school district has pulled back from the consequential nature of these tests.

“At the end of the day, the most important part of the debate shouldn’t happen in big speeches. It should happen in real conversations with parents, students and teachers, who are closest to the classroom. Communities understand the huge positive effect ESEA had for impoverished and at-risk communities 50 years ago. Those communities are saying loudly and clearly that they want more supports for students and schools, and data used to inform and improve, not sanction. It’s my hope that, in the coming weeks, leaders in Congress and the administration will listen to these voices and shape a law that reflects the needs of all our kids.”

Postscript: An advanced copy of Secretary Duncan’s remarks today included a quote from Albert Shanker, former president of the AFT, on accountability. To this, Weingarten responded, “If the secretary wants to invoke Shanker on accountability, then invoke him on his proposals for grade-span over annual testing. Shanker once called for ‘an immediate end to standardized tests as they are now,’ instead favoring testing over five-year intervals.”

###

Randi Weingarten

American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO

Categories Duncan, Arne, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Unions

NEA’s Lily on ESEA

By dianeravitch
January 13, 2015 //
26

This is the NEA commentary on Congressional rewriting (reauthorization) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka NCLB).

NCLB is the name that President George W. Bush gave to ESEA. The federal law is supposed to be revised every seven years. NCLB was passed by Congress in the fall of 2001 and signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002. It is years overdue for reauthorization.
**********

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2015

NEA CALLS FOR MORE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REAUTHORIZATION
***

WASHINGTON—The National Education Association, the nation’s largest union with 3 million educators, has been a staunch critic of the failed No Child Left Behind system since its implementation more than 12 years ago. The following statement can be attributed to NEA President Lily Eskelsen García:

“We are pleased the Administration is calling for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We all know that 12 years under a broken No Child Left Behind system has failed students and schools by neglecting to close the achievement and opportunity gaps as promised. Our students, especially those most in need, should not have to wait any longer.

“We are looking forward to working with Republicans, Democrats, the civil rights community, educators and other partners in ensuring that all students have equal educational opportunity—the original focus of ESEA. Our focus is on providing equal opportunity to every child so that they may be prepared for college and career. A child’s chances for success should not depend on living in the right zip code.

“In order to do this, we must reduce the emphasis on standardized tests that have corrupted the quality of the education received by children, especially those in high poverty areas. Parents and educators know that the one-size-fits-all annual federal testing structure has not worked. We support grade span testing to free up time and resources for students, diminish ‘teaching to the test,’ expand extracurricular activities, and allow educators to focus on what is most important: instilling a love of learning in their students. We must give states and districts the flexibility to use assessments they feel are best for identifying achievement gaps, rather than forcing them to live with a one-size-fits-all approach that often ignores high needs children.

“And we should move toward a smarter accountability system that looks at more than just a test score, but focuses on the many factors that are indicative of school and student success, and highlight gaps in equity that must be addressed.”

###

______________________

Categories Accountability, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Unions

NCLB Architect Defends NCLB

By dianeravitch
January 13, 2015 //
70

The ever valuable Politico.com published an interview with Sandy Kress, the Texas lawyer who is widely recognized as the architect of No Child Left Behind. NCLB is viewed by many as a failed law that set unrealistic goals (100% proficiency by 2014), administered harsh punishments to schools that could not reach those goals, launched a testing frenzy, benefited consultants and testing corporations, and promoted charters and privatization as a “remedy,” based on no evidence.

In the interview, Kress strongly defends NCLB and takes issue with its critics.

Politico writes:

NCLB ARCHITECT FIRES BACK:

Politicians and pundits from left, right and center have been beating up on No Child Left Behind. And Texas lawyer Sandy Kress has had enough. Kress, a longtime adviser to George W. Bush, was an original architect of NCLB. He stands by the law – and says it’s being blamed for a heap of problems that it did not in any way cause. “It’s sad to see all the brickbats,” Kress told Morning Education. “And worrisome.” Kress argues that the federal testing and accountability provisions were designed to prod district bureaucracies into demanding more qualified teachers, better instruction and top-notch materials. Instead, he said, administrators took the easy way out and bought loads of practice tests and test prep products in a frenzied rush to boost student scores. Kress used to lobby for Pearson, which of course sells many of those tests and test prep products. He doesn’t work for the company now, though, and says he can freely share his view: Yes, there are too many tests (and too many bad tests) – but no, it’s not the fault of NCLB. “Why [states and districts] chose to have tests on top of tests on top of tests” instead of improving instruction “is beyond me,” he said. The testing mania not only spurred the anti-NCLB backlash, but it flat out didn’t work, Kress said: “If you spend all your time weighing your pig, when it comes time to sell the pig, you’re going to find out you haven’t spent enough time feeding the pig.”

– Kress, a longtime Democrat turned political independent, said he’s disappointed in conservatives who want to delete huge chunks of NCLB. Sooner or later, he said, true conservatives will second-guess the impulse to significantly shrink the federal role in education. “Do we want to continue to have the federal government borrow money … and send it to local and state bureaucracies … without any guarantee of efficiency and effectiveness in how it’s spent?” he asked.

– Kress said he also sees huge irony in the marriage between teachers unions and the tea party in opposing federal testing and accountability mandates. The left fought so hard to defeat conservatives in the midterms, he said, and is now “getting in bed” with them to further policy goals. He also predicted that gutting NCLB would end up hurting public education advocates in the long run. Voters, he said, will eventually rebel against sending tax dollars to teachers and schools that aren’t held to account for students’ performance. “If that kind of position is allowed to prevail in the end, it will be extremely negative for public education,” he said.

– Morning Education had one more question for Kress: Did the NCLB authors truly believe that all children would be proficient in reading and math by 2014, as the law required? “For the country in 2001 to have had that aspiration I think was noble and right,” he responded. No one ever expected all schools to actually hit 100 percent proficiency, he said, but the authors thought they would get close just in time for Congress to tinker with the law when it was up for reauthorization in 2007. Kress expected that the scheduled reauthorization would raise standards and then reset the clock for achieving universal proficiency. “It wasn’t that we thought we would be rescued by Congress in 2007,” Kress said, “though… we kind of did.”

Categories NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

Why Did Civil Rights Groups Demand Standardized Testing?

By dianeravitch
January 12, 2015 //
143

Civil rights groups issued a statement expressing their support for annual testing. The statement makes assumptions about the supposed benefits of testing that are surprising. After 13 years of federally mandated annual testing, how could anyone still believe that testing will improve instruction and close achievement gaps? Tests measure achievement gaps, they don’t close them. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. A bell curve has a top half and bottom half. It never closes. Standardized tests accurately measure family income. One need only look at the correlation between SAT scores and family income to see how closely the scores are tied to wealth and poverty. For reasons incomprehensible to me, these worthy organizations believe that children have a right to take standardized tests, even though such tests disproportionately benefit the privileged, not children who are poor or children with disabilities or children whose families have been discriminated against because of race or ethnicity. How can one look at the results of Common Core testing in Néw York—where 97% of English learners, 95% of children with disabilities, and more than 80% of black and Hispanic students failed to meet the standard of “proficiency”—and conclude that these children are well-served by standardized testing?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 11, 2015
Contact: Jeff Miller, 202-466-4281, miller@civilrights.org

Nearly 20 Civil Rights Groups and Education Advocates Release Principles for ESEA Reauthorization:
“The Federal Role Must Be Honored and Maintained”

Washington – Today, nearly 20 civil rights groups and education advocates released shared civil rights principles for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

In the principles, the groups highlight the important and historic role the federal government has played during the 50 years since the ESEA was originally passed in promoting educational opportunity and protecting the rights and interests of students disadvantaged by discrimination, poverty, and other conditions that may limit their educational attainment. The groups say that this role must be maintained in any bill to reauthorize the ESEA, along with ensuring that each state adopts college and career-ready state standards, aligned statewide annual assessments, and a state accountability system to improve instruction and learning for students in low-performing schools.

The full text of the principles is below.

###

Shared Civil Rights Principles for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

January 2015

The United States has played a historic and critical role in promoting educational opportunity and protecting the rights and interests of students disadvantaged by discrimination, poverty, and other conditions that may limit their educational attainment. For more than five decades, Congress has consistently recognized and acted on the need to promote fair and equal access to public schools for: children of color; children living in poverty; children with disabilities; homeless, foster and migrant children; children in detention; children still learning English; Native children; and girls as well as boys. Much progress has been made, but educational inequality continues to quash dreams, erode our democracy, and hinder economic growth. This federal role must be honored and maintained in a reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which must ensure the following:

I. Each state adopts college and career-ready state standards and provides:

All students a fair and equal opportunity to meet these standards, including:

Access to early childhood education for economically disadvantaged children and those with disabilities (ages birth to 5 years).

Equal access to qualified and effective teachers and core college-prep courses.

Equal access to technology including hardware, software, and the Internet.
Safe and healthy school climate with inclusionary discipline best practices.
Supports and services needed by English learners and students with disabilities.

Protections for the most vulnerable children, e.g., those in juvenile or criminal justice systems, those in child welfare systems, pregnant/parenting students, and foster, homeless, and migrant youth.

Annual, statewide assessments for all students (in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school) that are aligned with, and measure each student’s progress toward meeting, the state’s college and career-ready standards, and

Are valid and reliable measures of student progress and meet other requirements now in Sec. 1111(b)(3) of Title I.[i]

Provide appropriate accommodations for English learners, who should be exempt only for their first year attending school in the United States.

Provide appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities.

Limit alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards only to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, up to 1 percent of all students; terminate assessments based on modified achievement standards; and prohibit the use of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to measure academic achievement under ESEA.

Allow, during a transition period, alternatives to computer-based assessment for students in schools that have not yet provided them with sufficient access to, and experience with, the required technology.

II. Federal dollars are targeted to historically underserved students and schools.

Title I is used to provide extra (supplemental) resources needed by high-poverty schools to close achievement gaps and improve student outcomes.

States, districts and schools serving the highest-need student populations receive more funding than others.
Targeted funding is provided to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children including youth in juvenile and criminal justice systems; Native American children; English learners; and foster, homeless, and migrant students.

III. State accountability systems expect and support all students to make enough progress every year so that they graduate from high school ready for college and career.

States set annual district and school targets for grade-level achievement, high school graduation, and closing achievement gaps, for all students, including accelerated progress for subgroups (each major racial and ethnic group, students with disabilities, English language learners, and students from low-income families), and rate schools and districts on how well they meet the targets.

Effective remedies to improve instruction, learning and school climate (including, e.g., decreases in bullying and harassment, use of exclusionary discipline practices, use of police in schools, and student referrals to law enforcement) for students enrolled are implemented in any school where the school as a whole, or any subgroup of students, has not met the annual achievement and graduation targets or where achievement gaps persist. The remedies must be effective both in improving subgroup achievement and high school graduation rates and in closing achievement gaps.

IV. States and districts ensure that all Title I schools encourage and promote meaningful engagement and input of all parents/guardians –regardless of their participation or influence in school board elections – including those who are not proficient in English, or who have disabilities or limited education/literacy – in their children’s education and in school activities and decision-making. Schools communicate and provide information and data in ways that are accessible to all parents (e.g., written, oral, translated).

V. States and LEAs improve data collection and reporting to parents and the public on student achievement and gap-closing, course-completion, graduation rates, school climate indicators (including decreases in use of exclusionary discipline practices, use of police in schools, and student referrals to law enforcement), opportunity measures (including pre-K and technology), and per-pupil expenditures. Data are disaggregated by categories in Sec. 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of Title I,[ii] and cross-tabulated by gender.

VI. States implement and enforce the law. The Secretary of Education approves plans, ensures state implementation through oversight and enforcement, and takes action when states fail to meet their obligations to close achievement gaps and provide equal educational opportunity for all students.

Submitted by:

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

American Association of University Women

American Civil Liberties Union

Children’s Defense Fund

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

Easter Seals

The Education Trust

League of United Latin American Citizens

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

NAACP

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

National Center for Learning Disabilities

National Council of La Raza

National Urban League

National Women’s Law Center

Partners for Each and Every Child

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

United Negro College Fund

[i] This section includes requirements to ensure the quality, fairness and usefulness of the statewide assessments. For example, they must assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding; provide for the inclusion of all students (including students with disabilities and English language learners); be consistent with professional and technical standards; objectively measure academic achievement, knowledge and skills; and provide information to parents, teachers, principals, and administrators so that they can address the specific academic needs of students.

[ii] This section requires assessment results “to be disaggregated within each State, local educational agency, and school by gender, by each major racial and ethnic group, by English proficiency status, by migrant status, by students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled students, and by economically disadvantaged students as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged.”

Contact information: Scott Simpson, The Leadership Conference, 1629 K St NW Ste 1000, Washington, DC 200061639

Categories Common Core, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, Standardized Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »