Where does NCLB go from here?

November 10, 2008 by dave

I thought this San Diego Union-Tribune story was interesting. It contained a bunch of the usual "NCLB is too punitive" and "under-funded" comments but it also contained some positive comments on NCLB.

I thought this quote from County Superintendent Randy Ward was particularly good:

Sanctions have become “a very tiny chihuahua barking behind a 12-foot cinder-block wall. It barks every once in a while, but it never bites you,” Ward said.

I think that unfortunately, the way NCLB has been implemented in most states, it really only gives the appearance of accountability. In California, other than the 97 school districts, in Program Improvement Year 3 that the state has identified as consistently low performing, no schools have really received any sanctions. Even in that group of 97 districts, only Coachella Valley Unified got a state administrator. The other 96 simply had to hire a new outside group to help them fix things in their district.

I wouldn't mind some changes to NCLB. Here are the changes that I would make in NCLB if I were President Obama's Czar of Education:

1. Change the name. The NCLB brand is too tarnished to do anyone any good. A better name would be something like "Closing Achievement Gaps for All Students" or CAGAS Act. At least then we have an acronym we can say instead of one we have to spell out.
2. Abandon the arbitrary 100% proficiency by 2014 deadline. While it is a noble goal, schools lack the sense of urgency that the goal was intended to create. It really only serves as an excuse for educators to call the act's requirements impossible to achieve.
3. Change the focus of the act's measurement from straight grade-level proficiency percentages to improvement in academic achievement and achievement gap closure. There should be minimum requirements for improvement and gap closure for each subgroup. These requirements should be consistent instead of starting low and rapidly rising as most states have done with NCLB.
4. There need to be consistent guidelines for determining how many students are required before a subgroup becomes significant. States have set the criteria too high. The performance of millions of students is being ignored because there are too few of that subgroup at a school. Their parents don't think those students are insignificant and neither should educators.
5. By removing the straight grade-level proficiency requirements, the arguments that English learners are being unfairly measured is gone. Those students need to improve just like all the other subgroups. They'll now have time to acquire English language skills.
6. Special education students need to be divided into groups based on their abilities. Many special education students are completely able to meet the same academic standards as other students. Other students are too impaired to be able to meet those requirements. Those dramatically impaired students need to be measured on a different scale.
7. States like California should be required to abandon their separate state accountability systems and focus their reform efforts in meeting the requirements of the new federal system. Having two systems gives states the ability to confuse the issue and build parental support in spite of poor performance.
8. Make sanctions real. Eliminate the "any other major reform" option that almost every school and district takes in order to avoid any real reforms. People trot out the various sanctions like fire the principal, fire the staff, close the school, etc., as reasons why NCLB is too hard, yet those sanctions almost never get implemented. Almost everyone chooses the "other" option and continues the same practices that didn't work before. No wonder they're not improving.
9. Make school or district reform plans more available by requiring the school or district to send a copy to every parent. Require the state to approve the school-level plans. Right now, those school-level plans are approved by the district, so no outside entity has any responsibility to review them.

Hopefully, some of these suggestions will end up in President Obama's plans for revising NCLB. My fear is that changes will be made to reduce accountability and give low-performing schools a free ride rather than holding them accountable, but I'll give the President-elect the benefit of doubt for the moment. Hopefully, his administration's changes will at least let the "very tiny chihuahua" out from behind that wall to nip at the heels of low-performing schools and districts.

Permalink