On Gadfly, Checker Finn suggests modifying No Child Left Behind to measure more than students’ ability to meet an absolute standard in reading and math.
His proposal starts with national standards in reading and math “linked to college and workforce readiness upon completion of high school.” Then states would have to use national tests aligned to the national standards or “show the Secretary of Education how their own standards, tests, and cut scores are equivalent.”
* Tell states that at least 50 percent of a school’s (and school system’s) “adequate yearly progress” rating must depend on students’ performance against fixed “proficiency” standards in reading and math, much like 1.0, except that there’d be a “national” option — and we’d also know how kids and schools are doing in relation to “basic” and “advanced.”* The other half of the accountability formula is up to the states. If they like, they can . . . hinge up to 50 percent of a school’s rating on (take your choice, mix and match): achievement in other subjects, assessed however they like; student growth (including, say, how many kids moved from “basic” to “proficient”; or other school-linked or policy-linked factors that can be calculated at the school level.
I wonder if this is politically viable.
Nope, there’s that pesky little thing called the 10th Amendment which limits the federal govt’s powers.
Plus, I would not want some political hack like Chester Finn, who has never taught in a K-12 school in his life, deciding what my kids learn. Ditto for the others in that cast, Rod Paige, Maggy Spellings, Sandy Kress etc.
Well now there’s the problem with the Constitution as a “living document”. Once it gets frisky enough there’s just no controlling the directions it’ll plunge.
Of course the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply in this case since the federal government isn’t exercising undelegated power. The federal government is merely setting requirements on the use of money it hands out. Don’t want to obey the requirements? Don’t take the money.
Pardon me while I re-establish control of myself; it’s tough to type while laughing uncontrollably.
> Plus, I would not want some political hack
We’ve already been here and a dictatorship of the pedagogiat just ain’t happenin’. Those political hacks already decide what your kids learn, they’ve been deciding since before you were born and all the compressed-lip disapproval you can muster isn’t going to have the slightest effect on their tenure.
Actually Allen, the feds are exercising plenty of undelegated power. The founding fathers were wise enough to know that power corrupts, and made provisions in the Constitution to stop it.
I don’t see a constitutiional amendment to allow the federal govt. to set national education standards and then pay for only 7% of the costs of implementing them.
And once again we agree; states should tell the feds to keep their money.
Sorry, that should have said “I don’t see a constitutiional amendment to allow the federal govt. to set national education standards and then pay for only 7% of the costs of implementing them, getting approved”
I’m torn. I like the “up to the states” thing in that I like states as experimental policy laboratories, and I think there are many viable goals for an educational system and it’s fine if different policies reflect different goals. And I like having devolution of power in systems where diversity is good. And I like the flexibility to underscore the importance of other things. (Plus which, it would be a nice response to people who say that the tests don’t measure what’s really important, and then don’t provide a way to measure what is. OK, well, here’s the power — what will you do with it?) On the other hand, of course the states would pick the other 50% to be the stuff that happens to be easiest for their schools to achieve, whether or not it represents useful student outcomes. I guess that’s always the tension, eh — respect of diverse local models vs. external verification of worthwhile achievement. Sigh.
I do like the basic vs. advanced thing too, though — seems like a way to combat the interpretation of “no child left behind” as “no child gets ahead”.
I know there a quite a few education “pro’s†that read this blog and I have learned a great deal from them along with JJ’s observations, not to mention the really interesting links that she provides. However, in following the education debate I have always had one question for which I have never received a satisfactory answer and it’s this; why do we need a different set of standards, levels of achievements for NCLB across the entire nation? At least for the students in K – 8. To do so seems to me is to allow the bigotry of lowered expectations to prevail. Can some one tell me why a student in Illinois should be held to a higher or lower standards for what we call here in Illinois, Meets Standards, than a student in Ohio, New York Florida, Nevada or any of the 49 other states? My exposure to primary and secondary education tells me that we are attempting to teach basic skills that will enable a student to move on to a higher level of learning that is only achievable, at least in my opinion, when students have mastered the basics. You know things like reading/english and mathematics. Why should a second grader in Valdosta, Georgia be expected to achieve at a higher level, to be able to read better than second grader in Carpentersville, Illinois and fall into the same category? I can’t see any rational reason why we shouldn’t have national achievement standards or K – 8 students. That certainly runs against the grain of local control of education but if local school boards or educators set the bar to low, what does that achieve? The answer in a word, at least for those students unfortunate enough to be attending school whose expectations are to low, MEDEOCRITY!
NCLB certainly can be improved and despite the outcry that would arise, it seems to me that at least in the primary schools of this nation we should have a common standard. If we are teaching basic skills why wouldn’t we? Realizing that I am repeating myself, why shouldn’t a 4th grader in New Jersey be expected to read or do mathematics at the same level as a student in New Mexico. Aren’t the students eventually going to compete in a global environment? Are we not setting out students up for failure by not having a common set of standards? How do you explain to a student that is competing in a global environment that the “A†work he or she has been doing in a school or district that sets the bar to low is really only worth a “C†in the real world? Properly constructed, the NCLB can inform students, parents and educators as to their real achievements and how they stack up against their peers across the nation and the world.
One last observation. NCLB has revealed the “man behind the curtain†when it comes to really understanding our achievements in educating the youth of the nation. The requirement for all groups, not just the average of the entire student body in a particular school or district, to meet standards, flawed as they are, has revealed the dirty secret in education. Our minority population, and you can read that as African-American and Hispanic, are continuing to under perform White and Asian students, even in highly rated and well funded districts. Until we fix this problem, the social fabric of this nation will continue to be strained. For all of its faults, NCLB is shinning the light of truth on our educational establishment.
JoeH’s question – why shouldn’t we have one set of standards across the entire nation at least for elementary school? – has a very simple answer, I believe – unintended consequences – and this prompts some more thoughts.
I’ve never had really strong feelings about NCLB one way or the other, but I have often wondered if we wouldn’t be ahead to just scrap it. I read Chester Finn’s article. It seems thoughtful, but it’s not a beacon showing the way. To scrap NCLB, of course, would be interpreted in many circles as proof, or at least evidence, that as a society we don’t care about education. I do not accept that interpretation, but it’s inevitable that others would.
Here’s another perspective that I think needs more thought. The schools we have are imperfect, but they are the result of many influences, and at least some of these influences are strong, but relatively invisible. By this perspective the schools we have are the schools we deserve, not in a moral sense but in a practical sense. There are a lot of things that matter to us everyday, a lot of choices we make everyday, and these things that matter and choices we make have an impact on what happens in our schools. But we are unaware of many of these impacts. We go about our daily lives making choices that seem innocuous and inconsequential, while in fact they combine to make the status quo resistant to change, frozen in place even. My thought is that we haven’t really analyzed very well just what the factors are that determine the nature of our schools. Of course there have been zillions of words written about many educational topics, but I still suspect we’re leaving out many important things.
Legal mandates can be very ineffectual when pitted against deeply ingrained cultural values and practices, perhaps especially when those values and practices are relatively invisible. I wonder if our musings and debates about educational reform are like fish dreaming about flying like the birds. A fish cannot fly like a bird. Water, to a fish, is both a cradle and a prison, and very invisible. Culture is the same for humans, both a cradle and a prison, and very invisible. We are all slaves to culture, though our awareness of that may vary considerably. Just as a fish would be the last to discover water, we may be oblivious to very strong factors which severely limit our prospects for improvement.
And what are these strong, but invisible, influences? I don’t know. Perhaps others have some ideas. I am confident, however, that the more we try to impose central control on schools the more we will run afoul of these influences. That’s what unintended consequences is all about. I realize that anytime we make a societal decision on any issue we risk unintended consequence, and I don’t say those unintended consequences are always bad, but experience has shown that some times they are. I am cynical enough to think that in the issue of centrol control of education we’re probably going to lose, on balance. I’ll be glad to be proven wrong.
Is there an echo in here?
No amendment’s necessary for the placing of usage/accountability requirements on the acceptance of federal money. You want the federal worm? You also get the federal hook. No amendment necessary.
> And once again we agree; states should tell the feds to keep their money.
Then we also agree that there’s no Tenth Amendment proscription against NCLB. The acceptance of federal funds is voluntary, therefore constitutional.
Andromeda, the “up to the states” thing *is* a constitutional necessity. The Tenth Amendment is a clear prohibition on a direct federal role in public education. That’s why federal involvement has occurred in other ways. Brown v. Topeka was an equal protection issue and NCLB is due to the misappropriation of federal “Title I” money.
The law creating the public education system occurred on a state-by-state basis and it wasn’t until the 1890’s(?) that every state had mandatory-attendance, tax-supported public education. The variations in the law that occurred due to the differing political climate of each state was just the fortunate outcome of that independence.
JoeH wrote:
> why do we need a different set of standards, levels of achievements for NCLB across the entire nation?
Probably part of the political deal to maintain the part-reality, part-illusion of states political power. Public education’s supposed to be a state-level institution with the feds just shoveling cash in as needed, which is always of course. An obvious extension of federal funding of public education is federal control of public education. But that’s politically dangerous for a couple reasons not the least of which is that it’s unconstitutional.
Shoveling out the federal money is firmly in the gray area between what the federal government is empowered to do according to the constitution and what it’s prohibited from doing, according to the constitution. But who’s going to complain? Certainly not the states. They’re getting a big, fat river of federal money. Who then? Beats me but no one’s successfully challenged the constitutionality of such federal funds disbursements. Acceptance of the money is, after all, voluntary although the thought of any state’s public education bureaucracy refusing to apply for federal money on the basis of the need to maintain independence from federal influence is a pretty funny one if you’re strange enough to find humor in the ironies of federal policy.
My guess is that federal standards would be challenged on a Tenth Amendment basis although there’s that voluntary acceptance of the money as an impediment to the plaintiff’s case.
Then we also agree that there’s no Tenth Amendment proscription against NCLB. The acceptance of federal funds is voluntary, therefore constitutional.
This thread is about imposing national standards, which something entirely different.
And for local school districts there is no voluntary participation, if your state says you participate you have to participate. If you’re in a Republican controlled state that is actually pushing the privatization agenda of NCLB you have no choice.