Whither NCLB?

A few days ago, I had the pleasure of reading one of the most thoughtful pieces about NCLB that I've ever read, and I'd like to share it with you.

In this piece in National Review Online, Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (disclosure: The Fordham Foundation provides funding to GreatSchools) describes himself as a backer of the core ideas behind NCLB, which he describes as follows:

"First, that virtually all children (even those living in poverty) have the capacity to achieve a reasonable level of proficiency in reading and math by the time they turn 18 — and that it’s the education system’s job to make sure they do. Second, that everyone benefits from having someone looking over his shoulder and that schools and school systems need external pressure — i.e., accountability — in order to improve; good intentions aren’t enough. Third, that good education is synonymous with good teaching. This requires good teachers, which every child deserves, but which today’s education bureaucracies, licensure rules, ed schools, and union contracts too often impede. Fourth, that giving parents choices within the education system has all kinds of positive benefits, from creating healthy competitive pressures to allowing educators to customize their programs instead of trying to be all things to all people. And fifth, that improving education is a national imperative, and that the federal government can and should play a constructive role."

But then he acknowledges that he may have overestimated the role that the federal government can play in bringing these ideas to practice in schools around the country:

"Using sticks and carrots to tug and prod states and districts in desired directions has proven unworkable. It was worth trying but experience has taught us that this approach suffers from too much hubris and humility at the same time. Instead of this muddle, the feds should adopt a simple, radical principle: Do it yourself or don’t do it at all."

He continues by suggesting that the Feds restrict themselves to two major responsibilities: distributing funds to the neediest students, and collecting and publishing transparent information about the performance of U.S. schools. To be able to do the second, we need to establish clear national standards with a national test, and develop a common approach to school ratings. "Then," he writes, "everyone would have a consistent and fair way to distinguish good schools from bad. We would have consistently high expectations for all students and all schools, and would end the federal/state cat-and-mouse games being played over accountability."

Then, he continues:

"Into the 'Don’t Do it At All' bucket goes everything else. No more federal mandates on teacher quality. No more prescriptive 'cascade of sanctions' for failing schools. No more federal guarantee of school choice for children not being well-served. The states would worry about how to define and achieve greater teacher quality (or, better, teacher effectiveness). The states would decide when and how to intervene in failing schools. The states would develop new capacity for school choice. These are all important, powerful reforms, but they have proven beyond Uncle Sam’s capacity to make happen. These policy battles should return to the state level, where governments can actually do something about them and do them right. And if the federal government just can’t help itself and wants to 'promote' these causes, let it offer competitive grants for states and districts that want to move in these directions.

The Do It Yourself or Don’t Do It At All Act doesn’t have the same ring as leaving no child behind. But its zeitgeist is the same. It would also be a better fit for our federalist system and a more effective vehicle for the reform ideas that we NCLB supporters hold so dear. In this new year, let us resolve to be humble enough to admit the law’s limitations and brave enough to stand up for its ideals."

Since Petrilli published this, he has collaborated with Fordham Foundation President Chester Finn to write this follow-up piece describing their position further; check it out for more details.

Pretty compelling I think: Maintain the essential goal of the law to bring more students to proficiency, but leave it up to states and local districts to figure out how to get there.

Comments

[mel]

How are we as parents supposed to trust the educational system? When teachers are fixing tests to make their students pass exams due to the “No Child Left Behind” mandate. This is ridiculous. Check out dailycents.com at http://blogs.dailycents.com/?p=819

[Michelle Baker]

I love the KISS idea, (Keep it simple etc), that Petrilli is promoting when suggesting the federal government get out of the state's business regarding school performance. Unfortunately, how many times has this been suggested in the past. The school system should be made to perform in much the same way as a commercial business - there's no guarantee of a job tomorrow unless one maintains their worth to the company today. Throw out the paternalistic unions and let the cream rise to the top!

[Ken Gibson]

The idea of the Federal government directing funds to the students with the greatest need is a good one. The law actually does that pretty well, just by directing Federal funds to a given school based on the income of families of students attending that school.

The idea of a one-size fits all assessment of student performance is ludicrous. If every person in the country had the same talents and skills we would be thrown back into the pre-industrial era. There would certainly be no foundation for the neo-digital (I made that up) age.

A monolithic testing system whether based on bad science from Princetonian elites evolved into the Educational Testing Service or based on bad science from Monsiuer Binet and west coast Stanford elites evolved into the Stanford-Binet tests is bad for America.

Evaluation of school perfomance should be made based on aa understanding of the school objectives as presented to the students and their families. Students should be assessed coming in and along the way as they progress at that school.

Standards should probably be developed by various universities around the country, by large districts or by particular schools. All the students in a state should not be learning the same thing at the same age. That is a strange expectation in this country the admires the rugged individualist.

Real universities, too, will want to admit students with varied backgrounds. How much more interesting the intellectual conversation when you are not talking to a mirror image of yourself.

Real employers, too, want employees who bring a new perspective to the mix.

In educating children we should not be cutting out donuts.

KG

[Mimi Miller]

I agree that some changes need to be made.
One of the issues with NCLB is our limited ability to assess student performance. Few would deny the importance of critical thinking and problem solving in becoming a successful citizen. And yet these essential higher order skills are forgotten in the current accountability system.

[KC Jones]

A simplified, focused NCLB would be a great idea. I wonder what the odds are?

I'm a die-hard believer in the need to empower and enable local leaders at the site and district levels. In that light, NCLB is an unwanted federal intrusion that layers on many more mandates and requirements, further complicating reforms.

But the idea of focusing the federal effort on promoting transparency and accountability using consistent metrics strikes me as appropriate and feasible.

But what are the odds?

[Stephen Cook]

All interesting proposals. I would feel compelled to try these systems as the need presses to try something NEW in our education system. It is such a debatable topic as so many factors will have to be adressed to make the slightest change. However I do feel change is needed, something must be done as our world becomes more globalized and those who cannot perform basic reading and writing functions will be undoubtably left behind. A site I found for those interested in educating themselves: http://www.careersandeducation.com