Archives for category: NCLB (No Child Left Behind)

Sorry, once again, I forgot to add the link to the article. It’s here now. Please read it.

Tom Pauken is not only the Texas Workforce Commissioner, he is a prominent member of the Texas Republican party.

Read what he says about NCLB.

He says that labeling schools by test scores based on formulas written in Washington, D.C., and Austin is a sort of “abstract intellectualism” that doesn’t work.

He says there are lots of good jobs that go begging because young people aren’t prepared for them.

Here is his testimony to the state legislature.

His only error is in assuming that the demand for high-stakes testing prepares students for college.

It doesn’t. To prepare well for college, you need far more than the ability to answer bubble-test questions. You need to be well read, able to write well, able to think for yourself, able to figure out complex problems, know a goodly amount of history.

None of these things matter for NCLB–or for that matter, for the Race to the Top.

Both NCLB and RTTT are “abstract intellectualism” at their worst.

Jan Carr, an author of children’s books, is a dedicated public school parent. She wrote a post wondering why the powerful elites in our society are so obsessed with testing and data. She wondered why they care so little for developing critical thinking.

Jan wrote: “I’ve been a scrappy public school mom for 12 years and counting, and I’ve watched the increasing encroachment of the data and accountability business, which would have our kids prepping for and taking deadening tests at every turn, and our teachers endlessly graded and derided for test results that are a meaningless distraction from real learning. A rich and full education digs deeper; it’s inextricably entwined with books, literature, writing, and the life of the mind; it develops critical thinking.”

I read her latest post and asked Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute to respond to it. I have known Mike for many years, and I hold out hope that someday he too will evolve and renounce the reforms he now champions. I think this will happen when his own children encounter them, as Jan Carr’s did.

I invite readers to comment on this discussion.

This is Mike’s commentary:

Dear Ms. Carr,

I enjoyed reading your post about critical thinking; it sounds like you and your son have been lucky to have had some very talented teachers.

l’ve never met Bill Gates, or Eli Broad, or Michael Bloomberg, or Rupert Murdoch; I can’t speak for what lies in their hearts. But I find it very unlikely that they don’t want children to “think critically” because they want to produce a generation of drones. I know that sort of rhetoric is common on the left (including from the late Howard Zinn) but to believe it you have to also believe that Barack Obama, the late Ted Kennedy, the liberal icon George Miller, and countless other liberal supporters of education reform are also out to unplug our children’s minds. That doesn’t pass the “critical thinking” test.

What motivates these folks, as I understand it, is an earnest belief that in today’s knowledge economy, the only way poor kids are going to have a shot at escaping inter-generational poverty is to gain the knowledge, skills, and character strengths that will prepare them to enter and complete some sort of post-secondary education–the pathway to the middle class. And that while reading and math scores don’t come close to measuring everything that counts, they do measure skills that have been linked to later success in college, the workplace, and life.

I suspect that all of these men would like to see students engaged in more of the kind of critical thinking that you describe, and that’s one reason many support the move to the more rigorous “Common Core” standards for English Language Arts and math. The ELA standards, in particular, are designed to push students toward this sort of complex thinking.

The testing movement has caused a lot of harm, I agree, in terms of narrowing the curriculum and encouraging bad teaching. Moving to better standards and tests is one way to address that. But by throwing out the baby with the bathwater we risk going back to the days when poor and minority kids were held to very low expectations–and their achievement plateaued as a result.

In the last two decades, poor and minority kids have made two grade levels of progress in reading and math, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The hope–and it’s really only a hypothesis at this point–is that those greater math and reading skills will help a generation of kids do much better in college and the real world than they otherwise would have. The question for educators and reformers is: How do we keep the good that’s come from testing and accountability while eliminating the bad?

Mike Petrilli

Bruce Baker provides clear and convincing evidence that school reform in New Jersey is heading in the wrong direction, aided by NCLB waivers.

The schools that have been identified as the “priority” schools will be targeted for aggressive interventions, including mass firing and closings. The overwhelming majority of these schools enroll poor black and Hispanic students.

The schools that are identified as “reward” schools serve few needy students. To them them hath, more shall be given.

As Baker shows, the funding formula will take from the neediest and give to those who are already doing just fine.

Reverse Robin Hood: Stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

A reader described the start of the new school year. It began on a sad note:

School started for me yesterday.  We had twos of professional development which meant our principal and a few other suits lecturing us about what we needed to do to keep our school from closing.  At one point the principal said, “if you have a problem with what I’m telling you, maybe this isn’t the right school for you”  very nice on the 2nd day of the new school year.
Today our local superintendent came for a minute.  He seems very sad.  He looked defeated.  He came to wish us well and tell us that NY state is now deciding which schools live or die.  NYC is no longer in the loop.  He said he doesn’t agree with the state but the bottom line is that everything hinges on the results of the ELA and Math state exams.  He said it didn’t look promising.
I work in an urban school with a high percentage of challenging children.  Each year as more children go to Charters we get those who nobody wants.   The numbers of elementary students are declining while the numbers of middle school are increasing as Charters cherry pick the best students and leave us the rest.
This is not considered.  ELA and Math scores only will decide our fate.
To have our Superintendent so defeated before one child has set foot into my school this year is troubling.  He said he just wanted to be honest with us.
What a way to start a new school year.

In response to a post defining a failing school, Paul Thomas tweeted a definition of current school reform, as exemplified by the ruinous policies of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. It is called “ouroboros.”  See here for further explanation.

After a decade of No Child Left Behind and three years of Race to the Top, officials are getting much better at identifying “failing schools.”

Now we know.

A failing school is one with low test scores and low graduation rates.

A failing school enrolls large numbers of students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch (i.e., poverty).

A failing school enrolls large numbers of African American and Hispanic students.

A failing school enrolls large numbers of students who are English language learners and new immigrants.

A failing school has disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities.

Based on current federal policy, these are the ways to “turnaround” these failing schools.

Fire the principal; fire half or all of the teachers; turn the school into a charter school under private management; close the school.

What, specifically, is done to address the educational needs of the students? See previous sentence.

I am starting an honor roll for hero superintendents.

As of now, there are four.

If you know of others, nominate them with your reasons.

They deserve our thanks and praise.

Paul Perzanoski of Brunswick, Maine, stood up to a bullying governor.

John Kuhn of Perrin-Whitt Independent School District is a national model of bravery in opposition to political meddling.

Vickie Markavitch of Oakland, Michigan, spoke out against the state’s mislabeling of districts.

Here is another: Joshua Starr of Montgomery County (Md) public schools.

He did not want his district to participate in Race to the Top funding, and his board agreed.

His district refused to sign the state’s RTTT application.

He opposes the RTTT emphasis on rating teachers by test scores.

Montgomery County has a widely hailed teacher evaluation system called Peer Assistance and Review, and Starr wants to keep it.

He recognizes that NCLB and Race to the Top are a reversion to an “industrial model” of education.

Faced with the bewildering roll-out of federal and state mandates, Starr proposed a three-year moratorium on all standardized tests, “while we figure all this out.”

According to the Washington Post article about him from last April:

“Starr critiqued the growth models and rubrics being developed as contradicting research on what motivates teachers. He said Montgomery’s current system, which mentors struggling teachers for a year before decisions about termination are made, is a “hill to die on.”

And he said that singling out teachers as the culprit for education failures and shaming them is the most “pernicious part of the national reform movement.”

Accountability for student success should rightly extend to “you, me, and the entire community,” he said.

But in the midst of all the flux and change, he struck a hopeful chord. He said the transition could give Montgomery a chance to carve a distinct path.

“As No Child Left Behind is dying its slow death, it’s an incredible opportunity to fill that void with what we believe we should do for kids,” he said.”

Joshua Starr is an educational leader of the highest caliber.

He doesn’t comply and follow harmful orders.

He insists on thinking what is best for students and teachers and the community.

That’s the title of an excellent new article by Kristina Rizga in Mother Jones.

Rizga spent a year embedded at Mission High School in San Francisco and got to know some of the students and teachers well.

According to the federal government, Mission High School is a “failing” school.

Rizga got there expecting to see “noisy classrooms, hallway fights, and disgruntled staff. Instead I found a welcoming place that many students and staff called “family.” After a few weeks of talking to students, I failed to find a single one who didn’t like the school, and most of the parents I met were happy too. Mission’s student and parent satisfaction surveys rank among the highest in San Francisco.”

She found a “failing” school where the majority of the 925 students are Latino or African-American or Asian-American, a school where 72% of the students are poor. She also discovered that 84% of the graduating class went on to college, higher than the district average.

But it is a failing school!

Of course, the feds would love to close the school and do a “turnaround.” But the principal, relatively new to his job, the teachers, and the students don’t want to lose their job.

If you need convincing that NCLB is a disaster for our schools, and that the “turnaround” demands of Race to the Top are equally harmful, you will enjoy this article.

It is the wisest in-depth journalism that I have seen on education issues in recent memory.

Just in:

Here in Austin, Texas on Saturday, August 25th 7:00-9:00 pm we’ll be having a rally to support the Chicago teachers. Parents supporting teachers. Solidarity!
TexasParentsOptOutStateTests@yahoo.com

Sara Stevenson explained how NCLB is still ruining public schools in Texas.

This reader in New Jersey says that getting the waiver has given unprecedented power to the state, which is now intervening in districts across the state to impose Governor Christie’s will on everyone. Bear in mind that on national tests, New Jersey is typically #2 in the nation (behind Massachusetts) and the governor is acting as if the entire system were a disaster.

Wouldn’t it be great if the politicians stuck to what they know?

I still cannot figure out which is worse. I hear nightmares of the impact of NCLB in states that did not apply for the waiver, but here in NJ the waiver is being used to intervene in massive ways by the state in local school districts, threatening them with take overs, instituting Regional Achievement Centers (RACs) which are really ‘the state is here to tell you how to run your district centers’ funded by Broad money (so read, ‘dismantle your public school system’), focus and priority schools are being made to jump through hoops for crazy reasons, and ‘failing’ charter schools are being doled out to CMOs. Is this better? Maybe the grass is always greener, but right now it is looking brown all over.