LA Times Drank the Kool-Aid

October 30, 2007 by dave

I was really disappointed by this Los Angeles Times editorial. I've frequently praised the paper for education stories, but I think with this editorial, they're headed in the wrong direction.

The No Child Left Behind Act has made an admitted mishmash of public education. Yet, like nothing before, the law also has schools and the public paying serious attention to how little is learned by so many students, and how inferior conditions fester in schools that enroll large numbers of black, Latino and impoverished children. They are left to struggle, barely mastering elementary reading skills, passed from one grade to the next like scholastic hot potatoes.

Still, how can one like a law so badly framed and rigidly constructed that it erects unfair and unreachable standards, encourages schools to ignore the children most in need of help, labels many a fine school as failing, and has the perverse effect of shrinking history, science and arts education and badly cutting into programs for gifted kids?

While NCLB isn't perfect, they seem to be throwing it under the bus. They appear to be repeating the anti-NCLB rhetoric that the act is a failure and nearly beyond redemption. I just don't believe that. The editorial then goes on to address some of the changes being considered in NCLB, particularly those proposed by Representative George Miller (D-CA).

One proposed fix is long overdue and widely applauded. Miller would get rid of the arbitrary and useless rule that schools be measured by how many students test as "proficient" each year in reading and math. Proficiency is a meaningless term because each state sets its own standard, and those standards are quite literally all over the map. But the proficiency requirement has had a more insidious effect: Schools tend to ignore students who are truly struggling and concentrate only on those who are just below proficient, who might be boosted over the bar within an academic year. And because they get no credit for pushing students from proficient to advanced, schools are neglecting the top academic performers, and gifted programs have been shrinking or dying nationwide. Miller now wants schools measured by each student's year-to-year progress, which always made a lot more sense.

While I agree that a value added model where the student's progress from year to year is measured is probably better than a status model, the reality is that many states are not equipped with data systems capable of making that analysis. California for example, is still at least a couple years away from any sort of longitudinal data system. The CALPADS system isn't supposed to be running until 2010. Even then, it won't have been designed to do this analysis, so additional work will be needed to make that happen.

I don't think that proficiency is "arbitrary", as the editorial suggests. In many states, including California, proficiency is being at grade-level on the state standards. If a student scores proficient on the California Standards Test (CST), they are determined to have mastered the skills for their grade level. That doesn't sound very arbitrary to me. Isn't our goal to get students to grade level? When we have 60% of the students in the state below grade level, we have a serious problem that just switching to a value-added model isn't going to fix.

Yes, some schools are focusing on those kids just below proficiency, but that isn't a model that is scalable. You only see short-term gains, since as you move the "bubble" kids up into proficiency, the students with lower levels of achievement aren't being similarly pushed upward, so in a matter of a few years, you don't have any more bubble kids to focus upon. That's not the fault of the model. That's the fault of the educators who are looking for a quick bump in test scores regardless of the effect on their students.

As a kid who went through the GATE (gifted) program during my school career, I understand the concern for those students, but the reality is that those students are primarily self-motivated and have parents who will make certain they receive additional educational opportunities. We have limited education dollars that we need to focus on where we can have the most impact. That simply isn't those high achieving kids. We have children without basic skills in language arts or math who are being advanced year after year without urgently needed remediation and intervention. That's where we need to focus our energies.

Miller also has written provisions that encourage states to raise standards and put better teachers in high-poverty schools. The law would no longer hit schools that come close to their growth targets with harsh punitive measures. He includes a modest bonus program that would pay teachers for good performance, including raising test scores. Its reach is limited, but Miller deserves praise for introducing on a formal level the idea that better teachers deserve better pay.

I agree with efforts to improve teacher quality, particularly in high-poverty schools and rewarding superior teachers financially. Research has shown that teacher quality is among the biggest impacts on whether students are gaining ground academically. Teachers who have the most impact on student achievement should be receiving additional compensation to reward their efforts and conversely those who are having the least impact on achievement need intervention and retraining.

Eliminating "harsh punitive measures" on schools that come close to targets is a bunch of crap. First, if you don't designate schools getting near to the goals as needing improvement, then you've simply lowered the standards. It would be like saying that we're going to give every student who get a "B" on the test, credit for an "A", since they were close. Life just doesn't work that way. Second, at least in California, there are no "harsh punitive measures" beyond simply being designated as a "program improvement (PI) school." The reality is that these schools get increased funding, so they have no incentive to ever get out of this designation. The "harsh" measures that are supposed to happen in year 5 of PI almost never happen because no one is responsible for making them happen outside of the local school district. CDE isn't required to approve these PI plans, so many school districts simply go through the motions without making any real reforms or taking the more drastic steps called for under NCLB.

His approach to standardized testing is clumsier. Yes, a single standardized test measuring two subjects -- reading and math -- is an inadequate measure of a school's mettle. Yes, teachers tend to "teach to the test." But at least mastering the subject matter for these tests is more than many students were doing before. Given more wiggle room, schools invariably devise ways to make their students look good while selling them short. That's a major shortcoming of Miller's plan for a pilot program that would allow local districts to come up with their own assessments. Local assessments were what we had before the accountability movement, and they failed. The way the bill is written, a majority of students nationwide could be covered by what's supposed to be an experimental program.

I actually agree mostly with this part. Locally developed assessments won't cut it. Just look at the grade inflation that we've seen as proof of that. We need a standardized test as an impartial measure of the student's academic success. By the way, while NCLB only focuses accountability on language arts and math, the states individually assess other things. For example, in California, we assess science and history/social science as well. Those assessments inform students, parents and educators on whether the student is at grade-level in those subjects, even if they aren't part of NCLB. I think until we start to see much higher proficiency rates in basic language arts and math, we need to focus our energies there. Once we're getting most kids to proficiency in those subjects, then let's look at adding other subjects to the NCLB mix.

Miller also has written in an extensive list of other objective measures schools could use, in addition to their reading and math tests, to bolster their standing. The list is so broad, though, and can be manipulated in such different ways from school to school that it greatly complicates an already complicated law and could be used to cover up failure. Say a school does great on Advanced Placement tests -- that tells us nothing about its work with low achievers.

Again, I agree with some of this. Adding "multiple measures" beyond objective assessments is similarly crap. These other measures are typically evaluated by teachers at the school. For the most part, they're not objective or impartial and all we'll end up with are high-scoring students who don't have mastery of basic skills.

There's one other essential flaw in the act that Miller does not address: It still aims to bring all students up to proficiency by 2014. Let's face it. The nation will never make all of its students academically proficient, as long as proficiency is a reasonably high standard. That's like saying all Americans will be above average. Continued growth is realistic; so is narrowing the shameful gap in achievement between white and minority students. Academic stardom for all is not. The public will not trust this law until it at least is honest.

It isn't like saying all Americans will be above average. It is saying that all students will be at their grade-level. I don't believe it is unreasonable to expect all students to reach grade-level. That's why we have these standards in the first place. If these standards aren't reachable by all students, then perhaps the standards are too tough. As I've said before, people in other professions don't get to set low standards of performance. Firemen attempt to put out 100% of fires. Police try to solve 100% of crimes. Attorneys try to win 100% of the time. None of these other professions get to strive to a low standard. Why do we think educators should be able to ignore some of their students?

Do I think that 100% of students in America are going to be proficient in 2014. No, I don't. Most educators aren't willing to try. Most parents aren't willing to hold their local schools accountable. The 100% proficiency goal isn't what most people dislike about NCLB. They've just been told by "those who should know" (teachers and administrators) that the law is unreasonable. Yet not one of those parents believe their child is one of those that shouldn't be at grade-level. They think it is the other children who won't be at grade-level . They expect their child to be at grade-level. If that isn't a great example of Garrison's "every child is above average", I don't know what is.

There will be some schools that will reach that 100% proficient level. Lowering the bar however isn't the answer. One-hundred percent of our students deserve the opportunity to receive a high-quality education. One-hundred percent of our students deserve an opportunity to prepare them for higher education and the world of work. Any other goal condemns some of our children to lives filled with poverty and unfulfilled desires. That's not a goal that I'm willing to accept.

Permalink