POLITICS OCTOBER 5, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Everybody hates the No Child Left Behind Act. In the last few weeks, both conservative Republicans and President Obama have announced plans to overhaul George W. Bush’s signature education law by sending power over K-12 schooling back to the states. On the surface, this might seem like a rare moment of bipartisan consensus. Don’t believe it. The two plans actually represent radically different views of the federal government’s responsibility for helping children learn.
To see why, it helps to understand some common misconceptions about NCLB. The law requires schools to administer annual reading and math tests in grades 3-8 and once in high school, and it holds schools accountable for the percentage of students who pass the tests. That target percentage increases steadily over time, to 100 percent in 2014. Since universal proficiency is obviously impossible, the law has been cast as a malevolent force designed to tar public schools with “failing” labels as a prelude to corporate takeover and/or conversion to the free-market voucher nirvana of Milton Friedman’s dreams.
There are, however, three aspects of NCLB that render this scenario very unlikely. First, states were given total discretion to set their own academic standards, pick their own tests, and decide what scores on the tests count as passing. Last year, for example, Alabama reported that 87 percent of its fourth graders had passed the state’s reading test. Yet Alabama is, by all available measures, one of the most academically low-performing states in the nation. According to the federal National Assessment of Education Progress, only 34 percent of Alabama fourth graders are proficient in reading. The lesson: Give state education officials the ability to decide how their performance will be judged, and they’ll respond in predictable fashion.
Second, NCLB decreed that schools where test scores fall short for six consecutive years should be overhauled by a variety of possible methods, including state takeover and conversion to a charter school. But lawmakers left a trap door in the law: The worst schools could also implement “any other” restructuring of the school. What “other” means was left up to the states. In 2008—six years after NCLB’s provisions had gone into effect—over three-fourths of failing schools had chosen “other,” which often means something like “hire a consultant.” Hardly any were converted to charter schools, and the small number that were taken over by the state were disproportionately located in Hawaii, which makes it seem like America’s island paradise is full of unusually tough-minded school reformers, until you remember that, unique among the 50 states, there are no school districts in Hawaii. The failing schools “taken over” by the state were already run by the state in the first place.
Third, NCLB did very little to improve the quality of the teachers in America’s classrooms, and researchers agree that teacher quality is the most important within-school factor affecting student learning. Union contracts often prevent school districts from using student test scores and expert observations to evaluate teachers, or to deny them tenure if their performance falls short. Hiring, firing, and salary decisions are made by seniority, not quality. Without the ability to know which teachers are best, pay them more, and put them in classrooms with children who need the most help, schools are hamstrung in their ability to meet performance standards.
So NCLB has ended up in the worst of all possible worlds—it has the reputation of being a punitive, anti-teacher law without any of the benefits of being so. The danger is not that NCLB will destroy public education if left unchecked until 2014. The danger is that it will be rendered absurd. A law that slaps the same “failing” label on all or most schools will simply be ignored, undermining the rule of law and the federal government’s ability to effectively improve education.
President Obama’s plan, announced last week, would allow states to apply for waivers from the 2014 deadline. In exchange, states would have to adopt policies that the administration has already been advancing via its “Race to the Top” competition for federal stimulus funds. And not coincidentally, the policies are designed to fix the three major NCLB flaws. States will get relief if they adopt real academic standards that prepare students for college and/or careers. Most will do this by signing on to the Common Core Standards, a state-led initiative to establish new, legitimate benchmarks and tests in reading and math. Once states like Alabama convert to the Common Core, the days of pretending that nearly all students are passing will be over.
States will also have to pick from a menu of options to turn around their lowest-performing schools—without an “other” trapdoor. And they will need to start evaluating their teachers in earnest, using multiple measures of performance, including classroom observations and growth in student test scores. So while the Obama blueprint for education is in some ways more limited than the grand visions of 100 percent proficiency embodied in NCLB, it is also more likely to actually work, ensuring legitimate high standards for all children for the first time and making a concerted effort to fix the worst schools in America.
Republicans, by contrast, are proposing to abandon the whole idea of federal education policy. Like the administration, they cast their proposal as a way to fix NCLB and give more discretion to the states. But under the plan announced in mid-September by Senator Lamar Alexander, states would simply be required to have some standards and administer some tests, the nature of which would be entirely up to them. They would have to identify the bottom five percent of schools and pick among various options for fixing them, including “other.” Teachers would simply have to be certified by their state, which is redundant, since “state-certified” doesn’t mean anything other than “legally allowed to teach in this state.” And that’s about it.
The bill, to be sure, includes pages of hand-waving at ideas like standards and accountability, but ultimately eliminates any federal authority to make those ideas real. For example, the Alexander plan requires states to provide the U.S. Secretary of Education with an “assurance” that “the State has adopted college and career ready academic standards.” Then, it says that “A State shall not be required to submit any standards developed under this subsection for academic content of student academic achievement to the Secretary for review or approval.” Apparently, the Republican approach to education policy is “Trust, but don’t verify.”
We know what the Lamar Alexander vision of public education looks like. It’s called “the early 1990s,” before the 1994 passage of a previous version of NCLB that required states to start developing real standards and accountability systems. Back then, states could do as they pleased, and as a result, only 14 percent of fourth graders were proficient in math. After two decades of sustained focus on basic subjects in elementary school, that percentage has more than tripled, to 45 percent. Presumably, Alexander hasn’t forgotten those bad old days—he was Secretary of Education at the time. It’s a shame that his nostalgia for the failure over which he presided has resulted in legislation to roll back twenty years of imperfect but significant progress in education policy.
Indeed, the Republican proposal looks in many ways like a caricature of old-school liberalism—billions of dollars distributed via formula to local school districts based on poverty rates, with no accountability for spending the money well. Representative John Kline, chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, complained that by establishing criteria for receiving waivers, Arne Duncan would be picking “winners and losers.” So Republicans are against competition and winning now. Who knew?
In truth, the Republican plan to repeal NCLB and replace it with nothing is best understood as part of their long-term project to limit claims on the federal treasury. Taxpayers like to spend money on public education. In the long run, expanding federal oversight over K-12 schools will increase the ability of K-12 schools to demand federal resources in exchange. Public education is a gargantuan enterprise, costing over $600 billion per year. The distribution of those funds is deeply inequitable, with children in poor districts and states receiving far less money than their more fortunate peers. Only the federal government can level the financial playing field, and that would cost a lot of money.
The prospect is terrifying to anyone whose primary concern is lowering taxes on rich people and corporations—that is, every Republican of consequence in Washington, DC these days. So, step one is to clear away the education policy. To get a flavor of step two, note that tucked away in the Alexander plan is a provision to reduce the maximum amount of money Congress is authorized to spend on the Title I program for poor children by over $10.5 billion each year.
Beneath the similar-sounding NCLB criticisms from folks across the ideological spectrum, in other words, are diametrically opposed visions of federal education policy. One is trying to make the federal government a more effective partner in helping disadvantaged students meet high standards of achievement. The other is trying to abdicate that responsibility at all costs.
Kevin Carey is the policy director of Education Sector, a think tank in Washington, D.C.
17 comments
Interesting. It would help if NCLB did something about the 80% of out-of-school factors, because if you're only acting on the margins, I fail to see how you will succeed. I'm sure it did something, but I guess since the "education reform" movement isn't really interested in most of the problem, there is once again very little to be said about how we can harness improvements there to fix it. Adequately funding Title I and moving closer to equal funding in schools, regardless of location or socioeconomic status, is certainly part of the solution. So too must be increasing parent participation and making sure that poor kids are well-fed and have a supportive environment in which to learn. This piece needs a link from the main page, because I only found it through Ezra Klein.
- chaitless
October 4, 2011 at 8:43am
Class lines in the US are hardening as the economic strata continue to diverge. Children of the affluent go to excellent private schools that prepare them for the top colleges and universities which in turn position them for political and economic leadership. For ten percent of us the future looks pretty good if you don't have to mingle much with the "folk."
- paskunac
October 5, 2011 at 6:44am
Untrue, paskunac. Most children of the affluent go to excellent public schools because they live in expensive suburbs where schools are great. A minority of these children go to private schools because their parents can't afford or don't wish to live in a neighbourhood with "good schools". Those who can't afford it generally live in decent suburbs that serve a more working-to-middle class population. Those who don't wish to send to public either have a long tradition of private school (parochial or blue-blooded) or live in a large urban system. The vestiges of redlining and an element of indirect class discrimination by residential prices maintain this system.
- chaitless
October 5, 2011 at 7:31am
Actually, the reason for poor public schools is most are run by Cambodian sleeper cells dedicated to the downfall of the West. There is as much solid data for that rationale as there is for P&C's divergent views above. I have no good data on any of our three rationales-- but that puts me no worse off than P or C. From what I do know and have solid data for, I suspect the most important reason is general lack of funding for secondary schools in the US compared to other 1st (or even many 2nd) world countries combined with a shorter school year and 3 month summer breaks.
- drofnats1
October 5, 2011 at 7:53am
Of course, it all goes back to busing. Remember when courts ordered busing of children across school district lines. And the Supreme Court said no can do. And school districts subsequently got smaller. And smaller. And smaller. So along comes somebody who suggests making the entire nation one big school district. No can do. Schools are a local concern. The Supreme Court settled that already. If parents who live in poor school districts don't like it, they should move to rich school districts. It's called freedom of choice. Problem solved.
- rayward
October 5, 2011 at 8:39am
and the funny thing is the US has a birthrate of 2.1 children, which is replacement rate, but in actuality the poor and lower middle class have more children and the richer have less, something like 1/4 of college educated women have no children at all. The banana Republicanization of America continues apace. personally, I would like to see a radical overhaul of America's education system, something more akin to the Japanese or Chinese ones. In China (this is going back a bit) everyone was poor so in schools the most successful ones went to the best schools (starting at Junior High) so children were grouped together by skill set, not income level.
- blackton
October 5, 2011 at 10:42am
I believe the economy is our number one concern and education is number two. But there is no problem big enough for the Republicans to believe we should spend money on it. This reminds me of a story from years ago. A psychologist came up with a plan to cure cancer by putting a bandaid over the area of the tumor and telling the patient to imagine the tumor rising up into the bandaid, after which the band aid would be removed. The person explaining this to me said derisively that patients were told, "If it doesn't work, don't worry, we'll try another bandaid; we've got a whole box."
- Nusholtz
October 5, 2011 at 11:17am
Actually, the biggest crisis in public schools is boys. Indeed, middle school is referred to as the Bermuda Triangle of the public school system. Why? So many boys go missing. For those who haven't noticed, God made boys and girls very different, including different in the way they learn. Girsl, God love em, can sit and listen to the teacher lecture and absorb most of it, girls developing verbal skills early in life. Boys, on the other hand, excell in the physical, and learn next to nothing sitting in the classroom "listening" to the teacher while she bores them to tears. Ever heard mothers proclaim their sons to be deaf. Wives too. Yet, there the boys sit, day after day not listening to the teacher while she lectures. Boys are being left behind in our pubic schoole system, not because they are stupid, but because they are boys, and boys don't learn the easy way; they learn the hard way, by doing. Boys left behind in school become men left behind in society. And everybody pays a high price for that.
- rayward
October 5, 2011 at 12:09pm
Right you are, Ray. And with most school systems dominated at the teacher/principal level by females, this will not change. In the olden days, the females in charge had a "boys will be boys" attitude and accounted for the differences. No more. it's shame, and it has real consequences for the society, as you note. Further, why we adhere to a school year schedule geared to the early 20th century agricultural calendar, as opposed to today's realities is beyond me. Longer school days and years would help.
- butchie b
October 5, 2011 at 1:28pm
The article does an excellent job of outlining the differences between the parties, but I have to quibble with statements like this: "Once states like Alabama convert to the Common Core, the days of pretending that nearly all students are passing will be over." Common Core and the federal initiatives are no panacea. Common Core only covers reading and math (what about science? what about civics?) and says almost nothing about how topics are best taught. The teacher evaluation systems, including the test score formulas, are so confusing they'll be easily manipulated, just as NCLB standards and tests were. And teacher evaluation systems hardly apply to a large subset of teachers for whom there are no good standardized tests. Still, as Kevin notes, this is a better direction than simply abandoning the federal role in education.
- polcereal
October 5, 2011 at 1:29pm
Not really. Name one good eductaional idea that has come out of Washington since the DoE was established. An idea equally applicable to VT and WY, CA and OH. The feds do no real good in K-12 education. It has never been a federal concern throughout our history and we should return all responsibilities to the states. Why do we assume that governors care less about their kids than DC does?
- butchie b
October 5, 2011 at 1:34pm
Personally I think we should do away with education altogether for children born into families whose net worth is less than the top 5% of wage earning parents. Since we are heading for the inevitable slide into serfdom, children really won't need to learn how to read 'My Pet Goat' when they're too busy herding the goat to the local market. Children need to be taught real world skills that will prepare them for a life in indentured servitude. Skills like weeding, planting crops, tilling soils by hand hoe, digging ditches, cleaning the small parts of machinery, polishing silverware, working the rare-earth elements mines, shallow reef diving to catch rare parrot fish for upscale sushi markets in New York, the Hamptons and Bangkok.
- singlspeed
October 5, 2011 at 2:59pm
Singlspeed As they say, "My butler does not need to read."
- Nusholtz
October 5, 2011 at 4:07pm
Mr. Carey's article is interesting because it notes the flaws of NCLB, particularly that states get to decide what is 'proficient' and what is not. However it doesn't change the fact that the law, which results in our students being tested more often than hospital patients, results in actually LESS thinking and more rote behavior. As someone who left the corporate world to teach in an urban title one high school, I have had the pleasure of watching edict upon edict come down from on high within the district I teach in their efforts to not be labeled a failure. And in terms of teaching students how to take a standardized test my district has been successful at least in one grade for the past two years. I guess that makes us a success. In truth, I often find my colleagues in math and English working on those 'bubble kids', students who only need one or two additional correct answers to move from basic to proficient. Hardly teaching the whole student or the whole student body. (It's at those moments that I'm grateful for being a history teacher.) In addition, Mr. Carey notes that studies demonstrate that 'highly effective teachers' do make a difference in what and how students learn. What he doesn't say, and what NCLB does not address, is that the vast majority of educators who are deemed highly effective did not learn this in the plethora of barely useful educational programs that churn out teachers by the drove. We learned these techniques from other highly effective educators. If there is a crisis in education (and there are several) one would be the highly ineffective teacher training programs in the United States. (Teach For America, by the way, is not a solution.) It takes time and training to create a highly effective teacher, something the cash-strapped school districts do not wish to – nor can many afford to –invest in. Finally, America must look beyond the standardized test – particularly those created by the two major testing agencies – and look for real solutions from innovative AND successful programs that address the needs of children, identifies how each child learns, and uses this information to help those children succeed not just in school but in life as well. And this would not be, as blacktop suggests above, emulating the dysfunctional and stratified systems of Japan or China, but rather the humane and holistic programs like those developed in Finland.
- saulstraus
October 5, 2011 at 4:59pm
It's called pedagogy. It's like the fellow who goes to law school and learns a little Latin (res ipsa what?), and becomes a "lawyer". Here's what I ask a teacher: do you teach the lesson or do you teach the student? The silence that follows provides the answer.
- rayward
October 5, 2011 at 5:25pm
Thank heavens for abandoning fed education policy. I may have to vote Republican this time around. In case you haven't been doing your due diligence and checking on author backgrounds, Carey's a member of a think tank that would like to privatize schools for his master, Bill Gates. They're out of their league on the issue.
- jet
October 5, 2011 at 9:23pm
It's always surprised me how little comparative analysis there is in the diagnosis of American schools' shortcomings. So we're worried about how other nations are out-pacing us in education. What is it they're doing that we could learn from? Seems like a pretty basic question. It almost never gets asked, though. It's as if what happens in other places has no relevance for us. (Sort of like health care in that respect, isn't it? Must be the 'American Exceptionalism' thing. We are simply beyond compare.)
- Haole45
October 5, 2011 at 10:13pm