Education Week
Published Online: May 8, 2007
Published in Print: May 9, 2007
Teachers of the Year Call for Changes to NCLB Law
By Vaishali Honawar
Washington
America’s top teachers are demanding a seat at the table when Congress deliberates the renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act. Fifty of the nation’s 56 state teachers of the year
for 2007 have come up with a list of 10 changes they would like to see in the law, which is due for reauthorization this year.
Many of the changes they are seeking—recasting the definition of a “highly qualified” teacher and using growth models that measure school progress based on the improvement each student makes over the course of the year, among them—are similar to the wish lists put out by the two national teachers’ unions for the NCLB reauthorization.
Critics of the law have often faulted it for lacking teacher input. When a bipartisan Congress
passed the measure in 2001, it had few fingerprints of the unions, which represent a majority
of public school teachers.
In past months, as talk about the reauthorization has intensified, the National Education
Association and the American Federation of Teachers have vowed to make their voices heard
this time around.
The teachers of the year say they commend the work the unions are doing. But the law,
which has a number of deficiencies, could benefit from the experienced voices of the teachers
chosen as the best in their states, said Madaline Fennell, the Nebraska teacher of the year.
Ms. Fennell said there is a long, sometimes rocky, history between the unions and Congress.
“Sometimes you need a new voice at the table. ... We are 50 people with no history, and we
want to bring a new perspective to the debate,” she said at a press conference here April 27.
The Teacher of the Year competition is sponsored by the Council of Chief State School
Officers, but the teachers said they are acting entirely on their own on the NCLB
recommendations.
Recasting Effectiveness
Some education experts say the teachers of the year and their recommendations do not
necessarily represent teachers across the country and their views on the No Child Left Behind
Act.
Amy Wilkins, a vice president of the Washington-based research and advocacy group
Education Trust, which has generally supported NCLB provisions, pointed to a MetLife Survey
from October that found teacher satisfaction at a 20-year high.
Even though the survey did not specifically look at teacher satisfaction with the NCLB law,
Ms. Wilkins said the fact that teachers are the happiest they have been in a long time
indicates there is not a widespread dissatisfaction with its effects.
Also, there appears to be little that’s new and different in the recommendations from what
the unions have been demanding, she said. “They say there’s a need for a new voice,” Ms.
Wilkins said, “but the recommendations are the echo of an old tune.”
One central demand the teachers of the year made is that instead of focusing on educators
having the proper certification to enter a classroom, as the law now requires, it also should
ensure that they receive ongoing professional development. The teachers also want teacher
effectiveness to be based on improved student achievement.
In addition, the teachers are calling for all penalties against schools failing by NCLB standards
to be replaced with such measures as goal-setting, encouragement and monitoring of
individual student growth, and professional development and teacher support; a requirement
that administrators become instructional leaders who can provide regular feedback to
teachers; language that addresses the needs of students with disabilities, such as state
assessment systems that track the academic growth of individual students; and the use of
multiple methods of assessment that evaluate a student’s progress over the entire year.
“Nearly all rewards and punishments focus on how many students are testing at the proficient
level. But if we judge progress over the entire year, we create incentives for the best
teachers to take on low-performing schools,” said Justin Minkel, the teacher of the year from
Arkansas.
Many of the teachers have tales of personal struggles with the law. Isabel Rodriguez, the
teacher of the year from Puerto Rico, said the requirement for all students to read English
proficiently had made it difficult for her high school to make adequate yearly progress, the
law’s key measure of schools’ performance on student achievement.
“It is very hard because English is not our official language,” she said. She added that a
majority of Puerto Rico’s students come from low-income homes, and that parents’
involvement in their children’s education is lacking.
Lobbying Plans
Among their next steps, the teachers plan to lobby policymakers both at the state and
congressional levels.
Melissa Wagoner, a spokeswoman for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the chairman of the
Senate education committee, said that he would look over the recommendations. The senator’s staff has also met with the teacher of the year from Massachusetts, she added.
At least one of the unions says that far from being offended that the teachers are seeking an
individual voice, it welcomes their joining the conversation.
In a statement, Edward J. McElroy, the president of the AFT, called the recommendations
“thoughtful, constructive, and based on teachers’ experiences.”
The NEA didn’t respond.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Pick an Example that Supports Your Position and Ignore the Rest of the Evidence
Bush: 'No Child' law should be renewed
NEW YORK --President Bush, focusing on an overshadowed domestic agenda, urged on Congress on Tuesday to renew and broaden the farthest-reaching education law in a generation.
At a Harlem charter school, Bush lauded the same elements of the No Child Left Behind Act that have made it a tough sell in many places -- yearly testing and consequences for failure.
"Congress shouldn't weaken the bill. It's working," Bush said in the steamy auditorium at Harlem Village Academy Charter School.
"If you're a parent, you should insist that the No Child Left Behind Act remain a strong accountability tool so that every child in this country gets a good education," Bush said.
Bush's trip was part of a concerted White House effort to show he is actively pursuing his goals at home. Yet even on a day when the message was education, there was no escaping the Iraq war -- on his way out of town, Bush announced he would veto a Democratic war spending bill.
The president's education law is up for congressional renewal this year. He appears to have held onto enough bipartisan support to get the law through again with its core elements intact.
Under the law, schools must test students in reading and math in grades three through eight, and once in high school. Penalties come if schools receive federal aid face but do not improve.
The goal is to ensure that all children can read and do math at grade level by 2014. That has forced schools to put an unprecedented focus on the education of poor and minority children.
"I know, people say, 'I don't like to test, you're testing too much,'" Bush said. "I don't see how you can solve problems unless you diagnose the problems. I don't see how you can meet high standards unless you test."
Despite its laudable goals, the law is often derided as restrictive and poorly enforced.
Lawmakers want change. Democrats will push for more spending and looser rules on how schools are graded and penalized. Bush signaled he will compromise on ways to make the law better.
He also dusted off his ideas to expand the law's reach into high schools, and provide private-school vouchers to many kids in struggling schools. Congress has not warmed to either.
Bush's travel took him through the divergent landscape of New York City.
He began with a dramatic helicopter landing in a baseball field in Central Park. His motorcade then made the short trip through Harlem to underscore the theme of his law: poor and minority children can thrive if provided with high expectations and innovative teaching.
After his speech, Bush relaxed at the posh Waldorf-Astoria in midtown Manhattan. He was later to have a fundraising dinner at the Upper East Side home of billionaire Steve Schwarzman. It was expected to raise $1.2 million for the Republican National Committee.
Bush visited Harlem Village Academy, which has posted rising math and reading scores since it opened in 2003.
Charter schools receive public money but operate under fewer restrictions than other public schools. The one Bush toured uses a long school day -- 7:30 a.m to 5:30 p.m. -- each day.
Bush stopped through class after class. He was joined by a sometimes nemesis, Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, the Harlem native who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.
The president walked into a seventh-grade science classroom just after things got messy.
Students learned how pressure builds in volcanoes by compressing liquid in water bottles, shaking them up and opening them. The explosions spewed orange wash all over them.
But they wore giant white T-shirts as shields to protect their school uniforms.
"This is a great school. We're really impressed," Bush told the kids shortly after.
Nationally, test scores back Bush's claims of progress -- but only in part.
In 2005, fourth-graders and eighth-graders posted their highest math scores on a federal test, and black and Hispanic children narrowed their gap with whites in both math and reading.
But the fourth-grade reading performance was essentially flat, and in eighth grade, reading scores actually dropped.
How to be Heard on Capitol Hill
http://www.eschoolnews.com
Contents Copyright 2007 eSchool News. All rights reserved.
How to be heard on Capitol Hill
School leaders learn sound strategies for lobbying members of Congress on issues such as NCLB and ed-tech funding
By Corey Murray, Senior Editor, eSchool News
April 25, 2007
Supporters of education reform and increased funding for school technology should make their voices heard on Capitol Hill, but they must make sure their efforts are carefully targeted, on point, respectful, and professional: Those were the key messages delivered during two separate events held just days apart in Washington, D.C.
At a presentation during the American Association of School Administrators' annual Legislative Advocacy Conference on April 20, attendees learned how to communicate as effectively as possible with members of Congress as they state their case for changes to the federal No Child Left Behind Act and other school-reform efforts. Two days later, supporters of educational technology received many of the same lessons at an event hosted by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Nearly 80 ed-tech leaders from more than 20 U.S. states convened April 22 for the first-ever ISTE State Advocacy Capacity-Building Conference, which focused on developing relationships with state policy makers, leveraging conferences and other events, and using communications tools to lobby effectively for state-level policies, programs, and funding for school technology. Most participants, and many of the presenters, were members of ISTE's state affiliate organizations.
Following this grassroots advocacy event, members of ISTE and other leading ed-tech groups took to Capitol Hill April 23 and 24 to meet with their Congressional representatives during a two-day federal Educational Technology Policy Summit. The summit was a joint project of ISTE, the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), and the North American Council for Online Learning.
The timing of the event was significant, as Congress considers next year's federal education budget and looks to reauthorize NCLB. Federal funding for school technology has dropped sharply over the last few years, SETDA notes in a new report--from $635 million in fiscal year 2004 to $272 million last year.
Despite this decline, there has never been a better time for educators, technology directors, and others to make their case to lawmakers, said Don Knezek, ISTE's chief executive.
As national attention shifts to the new global economy and America's precarious hold on economic preeminence, Knezek noted, the issue of school technology fits nicely inside the confines of more politically popular conversations about global competitiveness and the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.
"We no longer have to lead by advocating for technology," he said. Now, educators who come to Capitol Hill in search of ed-tech funding can begin their conversations by talking about issues of central importance--issues that "require the use of educational technology," said Knezek.
Whereas the issue of technology's role in boosting student achievement still is a topic for debate in some political circles, he said, no one openly refutes technology's importance to the future economy.
"There is a real difference between improving students' test scores in math and science and improving how they live and work in the real world," noted Knezek. "If we want to be competitive, if we want to make that commitment, than we have to move to more modern and digital learning environments."
Jill Pierce, director of technology for the Loudon County, Tenn., Board of Education and a member of the Tennessee Educational Technology Association, an ISTE affiliate organization, said she came to Washington for the opportunity to speak with elected officials about the importance of federal ed-tech funding.
"Federal funding for important programs such as the eRate and E2T2 [Enhancing Education Through Technology, the state educational technology block-grant program] are vital for rural school systems," Pierce said.
But politicians don't necessarily know that, she said, adding: "They've got to hear it from the people in the trenches."
With so much information on so many pieces of legislation swirling through the halls of Congress on a daily basis, Pierce said, it's difficult for elected officials to cultivate an expert's understanding of the issues.
But by visiting Capitol Hill and talking with members of Congress and their staffs, she said, educators can make these issues more personal for lawmakers--explaining how programs such as the eRate and E2T2 are critical to their local communities and, importantly, their children.
"I think the No. 1 issue is to talk about the kids," she said.
Though this was her first major advocacy event in Washington, Pierce said she was encouraged by the willingness of elected officials to hear and listen to her concerns. "I was very impressed with how receptive they were," she said. "I really, truly believe that they want to do right for education."
But they need educators' help, she said--and that's why it's important for educators to take advantage of programs offered by groups such as ISTE, CoSN, and others. By working with these advocacy groups, Pierce said, educators can combine their understanding of the classroom with effective communications strategies to deliver messages that are targeted, on point, and--if all goes well--effective.
Making noise--versus making a difference
Although the internet and eMail have made it easier than ever for voters to connect with their representatives in Congress, Washington insiders say educators should use discretion when articulating their concerns to elected officials.
"Members [of Congress] tell us that they do feel communications are important to keeping their fingers on the pulse of the districts they represent," said Kathy Goldschmidt, deputy director of the nonprofit Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), in a presentation to school administrators at AASA's Legislative Advocacy Conference on April 20. But, given the vast amount of electronic information streaming into Congressional offices on a daily basis--some Senate offices have reported receiving as many as 50,000 eMail messages from constituents in a single week--educators need to be selective in their lobbying approach, she added.
"There's a difference between making noise and being heard," said Goldschmidt. "It's a little like walking through the monkey house at the zoo--a lot of noise, but not a whole lot of meaning."
Goldschmidt's organization poses a number of strategies that education advocates can, and should, employ to make their communications stand out.
Though elected officials are doing a better job of embracing technology as a form of communication, she said, it's up to constituents to craft their messages with enough care and intelligence to get them noticed.
In all cases, Goldschmidt said, Congressional communications should target undecided representatives; combine several different advocacy strategies, including face-to-face meetings and print and online campaigns; be timely; and, perhaps most importantly, be personal.
When composing messages to Congress, CMF recommends that every message should come from a constituent. Each message should be timely and sent when it's likely to have the most impact, such as before a major vote or committee meeting. Messages also should be well-informed, demonstrating that the writer has taken the time to research the issue and understands his or her representative's stance on it.
In addition, CMF said, all messages should include the name or affiliation of the constituent and should be sent only to members of Congress who are in a position to do something about the issue at hand.
Among the most effective forms of communication, according to CMF research, are face-to-face visits with members of Congress or their staffs and the drafting of personalized letters or eMails, including personal anecdotes and stories about how certain pieces of legislation are affecting the local community.
Conversely, CMF says the least effective way to reach out to Congress is through the creation of mass mailings or electronic form letters.
Goldschmidt said members of Congress and their staff have complained that form letters are untrustworthy and often lack the emotional pull necessary to sway lawmakers on divisive issues.
"There is a little science about getting in touch with Capitol Hill," said Goldschmidt. "But more than anything, it's about being genuine ... about getting your message heard."
Links:
American Association of School Administrators
http://www.aasa.org
International Society for Technology in Education
http://www.iste.org
Consortium for School Networking
http://www.cosn.org
State Educational Technology Directors Association
http://www.setda.org
North American Council for Online Learning
http://www.nacol.org
Congressional Management Foundation
http://www.cmfweb.org
Contents Copyright 2007 eSchool News. All rights reserved.
How to be heard on Capitol Hill
School leaders learn sound strategies for lobbying members of Congress on issues such as NCLB and ed-tech funding
By Corey Murray, Senior Editor, eSchool News
April 25, 2007
Supporters of education reform and increased funding for school technology should make their voices heard on Capitol Hill, but they must make sure their efforts are carefully targeted, on point, respectful, and professional: Those were the key messages delivered during two separate events held just days apart in Washington, D.C.
At a presentation during the American Association of School Administrators' annual Legislative Advocacy Conference on April 20, attendees learned how to communicate as effectively as possible with members of Congress as they state their case for changes to the federal No Child Left Behind Act and other school-reform efforts. Two days later, supporters of educational technology received many of the same lessons at an event hosted by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Nearly 80 ed-tech leaders from more than 20 U.S. states convened April 22 for the first-ever ISTE State Advocacy Capacity-Building Conference, which focused on developing relationships with state policy makers, leveraging conferences and other events, and using communications tools to lobby effectively for state-level policies, programs, and funding for school technology. Most participants, and many of the presenters, were members of ISTE's state affiliate organizations.
Following this grassroots advocacy event, members of ISTE and other leading ed-tech groups took to Capitol Hill April 23 and 24 to meet with their Congressional representatives during a two-day federal Educational Technology Policy Summit. The summit was a joint project of ISTE, the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN), the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), and the North American Council for Online Learning.
The timing of the event was significant, as Congress considers next year's federal education budget and looks to reauthorize NCLB. Federal funding for school technology has dropped sharply over the last few years, SETDA notes in a new report--from $635 million in fiscal year 2004 to $272 million last year.
Despite this decline, there has never been a better time for educators, technology directors, and others to make their case to lawmakers, said Don Knezek, ISTE's chief executive.
As national attention shifts to the new global economy and America's precarious hold on economic preeminence, Knezek noted, the issue of school technology fits nicely inside the confines of more politically popular conversations about global competitiveness and the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.
"We no longer have to lead by advocating for technology," he said. Now, educators who come to Capitol Hill in search of ed-tech funding can begin their conversations by talking about issues of central importance--issues that "require the use of educational technology," said Knezek.
Whereas the issue of technology's role in boosting student achievement still is a topic for debate in some political circles, he said, no one openly refutes technology's importance to the future economy.
"There is a real difference between improving students' test scores in math and science and improving how they live and work in the real world," noted Knezek. "If we want to be competitive, if we want to make that commitment, than we have to move to more modern and digital learning environments."
Jill Pierce, director of technology for the Loudon County, Tenn., Board of Education and a member of the Tennessee Educational Technology Association, an ISTE affiliate organization, said she came to Washington for the opportunity to speak with elected officials about the importance of federal ed-tech funding.
"Federal funding for important programs such as the eRate and E2T2 [Enhancing Education Through Technology, the state educational technology block-grant program] are vital for rural school systems," Pierce said.
But politicians don't necessarily know that, she said, adding: "They've got to hear it from the people in the trenches."
With so much information on so many pieces of legislation swirling through the halls of Congress on a daily basis, Pierce said, it's difficult for elected officials to cultivate an expert's understanding of the issues.
But by visiting Capitol Hill and talking with members of Congress and their staffs, she said, educators can make these issues more personal for lawmakers--explaining how programs such as the eRate and E2T2 are critical to their local communities and, importantly, their children.
"I think the No. 1 issue is to talk about the kids," she said.
Though this was her first major advocacy event in Washington, Pierce said she was encouraged by the willingness of elected officials to hear and listen to her concerns. "I was very impressed with how receptive they were," she said. "I really, truly believe that they want to do right for education."
But they need educators' help, she said--and that's why it's important for educators to take advantage of programs offered by groups such as ISTE, CoSN, and others. By working with these advocacy groups, Pierce said, educators can combine their understanding of the classroom with effective communications strategies to deliver messages that are targeted, on point, and--if all goes well--effective.
Making noise--versus making a difference
Although the internet and eMail have made it easier than ever for voters to connect with their representatives in Congress, Washington insiders say educators should use discretion when articulating their concerns to elected officials.
"Members [of Congress] tell us that they do feel communications are important to keeping their fingers on the pulse of the districts they represent," said Kathy Goldschmidt, deputy director of the nonprofit Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), in a presentation to school administrators at AASA's Legislative Advocacy Conference on April 20. But, given the vast amount of electronic information streaming into Congressional offices on a daily basis--some Senate offices have reported receiving as many as 50,000 eMail messages from constituents in a single week--educators need to be selective in their lobbying approach, she added.
"There's a difference between making noise and being heard," said Goldschmidt. "It's a little like walking through the monkey house at the zoo--a lot of noise, but not a whole lot of meaning."
Goldschmidt's organization poses a number of strategies that education advocates can, and should, employ to make their communications stand out.
Though elected officials are doing a better job of embracing technology as a form of communication, she said, it's up to constituents to craft their messages with enough care and intelligence to get them noticed.
In all cases, Goldschmidt said, Congressional communications should target undecided representatives; combine several different advocacy strategies, including face-to-face meetings and print and online campaigns; be timely; and, perhaps most importantly, be personal.
When composing messages to Congress, CMF recommends that every message should come from a constituent. Each message should be timely and sent when it's likely to have the most impact, such as before a major vote or committee meeting. Messages also should be well-informed, demonstrating that the writer has taken the time to research the issue and understands his or her representative's stance on it.
In addition, CMF said, all messages should include the name or affiliation of the constituent and should be sent only to members of Congress who are in a position to do something about the issue at hand.
Among the most effective forms of communication, according to CMF research, are face-to-face visits with members of Congress or their staffs and the drafting of personalized letters or eMails, including personal anecdotes and stories about how certain pieces of legislation are affecting the local community.
Conversely, CMF says the least effective way to reach out to Congress is through the creation of mass mailings or electronic form letters.
Goldschmidt said members of Congress and their staff have complained that form letters are untrustworthy and often lack the emotional pull necessary to sway lawmakers on divisive issues.
"There is a little science about getting in touch with Capitol Hill," said Goldschmidt. "But more than anything, it's about being genuine ... about getting your message heard."
Links:
American Association of School Administrators
http://www.aasa.org
International Society for Technology in Education
http://www.iste.org
Consortium for School Networking
http://www.cosn.org
State Educational Technology Directors Association
http://www.setda.org
North American Council for Online Learning
http://www.nacol.org
Congressional Management Foundation
http://www.cmfweb.org
Defining Proficiency IN NCLB
Education Week
Published Online: April 17, 2007
Published in Print: April 18, 2007
Not All Agree on Meaning of NCLB Proficiency
By David J. Hoff
The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is simply stated: All children should be proficient in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-14 school year. But more than five years after the law was enacted, it remains unclear what “proficient” means.
Because the federal law gives the states the power to define proficiency, there are 50 different definitions of the term. And policymakers are sending mixed messages about how to judge the rigor of each state’s standards.
Some experts criticize the states for not matching the proficiency levels in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and others suggest the goal should reflect grade-level expectations.
“It sounds good, and we think we know what it means,” Laura S. Hamilton, a senior behavioral scientist for the RAND Corp., said of the proficiency goal. “In reality, it’s almost meaningless.”
Still, Secretary Spellings, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and other leading federal policymakers say that universal academic proficiency is one of the most important principles in the law and should be retained as Congress works to reauthorize the NCLB legislation this year. Many endorse adding science to the list of subjects students should be expected to master by the 2013-14 deadline.
“The goal of all children being able to read, do math, and do science at grade level is the right goal to keep our eye on even as we make adjustments in how we get there,” said Aaron K. Albright, the press secretary for Democrats on for the House Education and Labor Committee, of which Rep. Miller is the chairman. “Nothing is more important to our country than providing each and every child with a first-rate, world-class education.”
As Congress considers changes to the law, it will have to address the question of what it means to be proficient and who will write that definition.
State or National?
When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind measure in late 2001, it relied on a long-standing policy of not directing states or school districts on what to teach or how to teach it. The law gives states the authority to set their own subject-matter standards and to define what it means for students to demonstrate they are proficient, using assessments linked to those standards.
The Bush administration says it remains committed to honoring states’ authority to set their own standards and define proficiency as they see fit.
“It’s important for there to be a sense of buy-in and commitment” from states, said Kerri L. Briggs, the Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education and President Bush’s nominee for that post.
But many researchers and other critical observers of the proficiency provisions suggest that states haven’t set challenging standards under the law, especially compared with NAEP. The national assessment tests a representative sample of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in every state, and it reports the percentage of students who score at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels.
Last week, a research group released a study suggesting that states may have lowered their definitions of proficiency since NCLB was enacted in 2002.
In a study comparing state test scores with NAEP results, the research group Policy Analysis for California Education found a widening gap between students rated as proficient on the national assessment and those at the same level on state tests. Of the 12 states studied, that gap grew larger over the past five years in 10 states, according to the study released last week by PACE, which is based at the University of California, Berkeley.
The gap between NAEP and state-test proficiency levels averaged 41 percentage points in the 47 states that gave 4th grade reading tests in 2005, according to an analysis by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. The difference was 71 percentage points in Mississippi, and 61 points in both Georgia and Alabama.
Advocates of national academic standards argue that because of such disparities, Congress should set up a process that would establish national standards and tests that states would be able to adopt, knowing that they met a national definition of proficiency.
“The time has come to think beyond this tradition of state dominion … and come up with some national standards and a national assessment,” said Lindsay Clare Matsumura, an assistant professor of education at the University of Pittsburgh.
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington think tank, and the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind propose using NAEP test questions and definitions of proficiency as the basis for any national standards and tests.
“Almost everyone recognizes that NAEP captures what children should be proficient in or at least have a basic understanding of,” said Roy E. Barnes, a Democratic former governor of Georgia and a co-chairman of the bipartisan Aspen Institute commission, which issued extensive recommendations for reauthorizing the federal education law in February.
NAEP’s Flaws
The Aspen Institute panel suggests that national standards and tests be designed around NAEP’s achievement levels. Those standards and tests would be models that states could adopt for accountability purposes under the NCLB law. If states chose to keep their own standards and tests, they would have to submit them to an independent national panel that would compare their rigor with that of NAEP.
In Congress, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., has introduced a bill that would establish national standards in mathematics and science based on NAEP. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has a separate proposal that would require states to compare their own standards against the NAEP’s standards. Sen. Kennedy is the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Dodd is a senior member of the panel.
Most testing experts and researchers say that NAEP shouldn’t be used to create a universal definition of proficiency.
NAEP “wasn’t designed for the purpose we want now, which is accountability,” said James W. Pellegrino, a professor of cognitive psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “What we want to do is establish what we consider proficiency to be.”
Overall, NAEP standards appear to be ambitious. In the 2005 exam given to 4th graders, for example, 31 percent ranked as proficient or above in reading, and 36 percent scored at that level in mathematics.
Given how students perform on NAEP, other researchers say that the national assessment would produce an overly ambitious definition of proficiency if it were used as the basis for national standards or tests.
In a paper last fall, Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based research organization, estimated that students in countries that score highest on international assessments don’t ensure all their students meet NAEP’s proficiency levels.
In Singapore, 25 percent of 8th graders would not have ranked as proficient under NAEP’s standards, according to Mr. Rothstein’s analysis of the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Singapore was the highest-scoring country on the TIMMS test.
NAEP scores also contradict other assessments’ results, Mr. Rothstein said.
In 2000, NAEP reported that 1.5 percent of high school seniors scored at its advanced level in math. By comparison, 2.7 percent of the members of that year’s high school graduating classes earned college credit for calculus based on their performance on Advanced Placement exams.
But supporters of NAEP say that its proficiency levels are an appropriate goal for all students.
“That sounds like an excuse for low expectations,” said Mr. Barnes, the former Georgia governor. “It may be unpleasant [to set a high standard], but it’s necessary.”
Real-World Standards
Other advocates of a different conception of proficiency have called for defining proficiency based on whether students are prepared for either college or the workforce.
Under such proposals, states would define what it means for a student to be ready for college or a career by the end of high school. From there, the states would work to set definitions for proficiency for each grade level leading up to high school to make sure students were on track to meet the high school standards. State officials would set their own goals, working with business leaders and higher education officials.
“The goal ought to be that young people should graduate high school ready for college or the workplace,” said Sandy Kress, a former White House adviser to President Bush on the NCLB law and a lobbyist based in Austin, Texas. Mr. Kress represents the Business Coalition for Student Achievement, a group made up of national business groups and corporate executives that is calling for standards linked to college and workplace readiness.
The Education Trust, meanwhile, in a series of recommendations for the reauthorization of the NCLB law it made last week, proposed amending the law’s goal for student achievement by linking it to new, more challenging standards based on skills needed to succeed after high school.
Under the plan, states would set a goal that at least 95 percent of students meet their states’ definition of “basic” under the 11th grade standards, and that at least 80 percent of students rate as “proficient” at that grade level.
Although the terminology would change, the requirement that the standards be linked to college and the workplace would make such standards more rigorous than they are now, said Kati Haycock, the president of the Education Trust, a Washington-based research and advocacy group that is a staunch supporter of the federal law’s efforts to raise the achievement of disadvantaged students.
“We’re asking most states to set higher standards for basic than they have now for proficient,” Ms. Haycock said in a conference call with reporters last week.
Whether or not states’ standards are modeled after NAEP’s standards, many researchers argue that the federal government should abandon the goal of universal proficiency.
The current goal of getting all students to the same place has some “perverse incentives,” Ms. Hamilton of the RAND Corp. said. Schools are focusing on students who are close to meeting the proficiency goals, she said, and slighting those who are achieving well above or well below the standard.
Instead, accountability systems should track the overall growth in achievement and whether that growth exceeds what can reasonably be expected over the course of a year, Ms. Hamilton said.
“It’s not something that’s easy to explain to the public,” she said. “But it’s a way to look at test scores along the whole distribution of performance rather than whether or not everyone is proficient.”
Vol. 26, Issue 33, Pages 1,23
Published Online: April 17, 2007
Published in Print: April 18, 2007
Not All Agree on Meaning of NCLB Proficiency
By David J. Hoff
The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is simply stated: All children should be proficient in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-14 school year. But more than five years after the law was enacted, it remains unclear what “proficient” means.
Because the federal law gives the states the power to define proficiency, there are 50 different definitions of the term. And policymakers are sending mixed messages about how to judge the rigor of each state’s standards.
Some experts criticize the states for not matching the proficiency levels in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and others suggest the goal should reflect grade-level expectations.
“It sounds good, and we think we know what it means,” Laura S. Hamilton, a senior behavioral scientist for the RAND Corp., said of the proficiency goal. “In reality, it’s almost meaningless.”
Still, Secretary Spellings, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and other leading federal policymakers say that universal academic proficiency is one of the most important principles in the law and should be retained as Congress works to reauthorize the NCLB legislation this year. Many endorse adding science to the list of subjects students should be expected to master by the 2013-14 deadline.
“The goal of all children being able to read, do math, and do science at grade level is the right goal to keep our eye on even as we make adjustments in how we get there,” said Aaron K. Albright, the press secretary for Democrats on for the House Education and Labor Committee, of which Rep. Miller is the chairman. “Nothing is more important to our country than providing each and every child with a first-rate, world-class education.”
As Congress considers changes to the law, it will have to address the question of what it means to be proficient and who will write that definition.
State or National?
When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind measure in late 2001, it relied on a long-standing policy of not directing states or school districts on what to teach or how to teach it. The law gives states the authority to set their own subject-matter standards and to define what it means for students to demonstrate they are proficient, using assessments linked to those standards.
The Bush administration says it remains committed to honoring states’ authority to set their own standards and define proficiency as they see fit.
“It’s important for there to be a sense of buy-in and commitment” from states, said Kerri L. Briggs, the Department of Education’s acting assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education and President Bush’s nominee for that post.
But many researchers and other critical observers of the proficiency provisions suggest that states haven’t set challenging standards under the law, especially compared with NAEP. The national assessment tests a representative sample of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders in every state, and it reports the percentage of students who score at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels.
Last week, a research group released a study suggesting that states may have lowered their definitions of proficiency since NCLB was enacted in 2002.
In a study comparing state test scores with NAEP results, the research group Policy Analysis for California Education found a widening gap between students rated as proficient on the national assessment and those at the same level on state tests. Of the 12 states studied, that gap grew larger over the past five years in 10 states, according to the study released last week by PACE, which is based at the University of California, Berkeley.
The gap between NAEP and state-test proficiency levels averaged 41 percentage points in the 47 states that gave 4th grade reading tests in 2005, according to an analysis by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. The difference was 71 percentage points in Mississippi, and 61 points in both Georgia and Alabama.
Advocates of national academic standards argue that because of such disparities, Congress should set up a process that would establish national standards and tests that states would be able to adopt, knowing that they met a national definition of proficiency.
“The time has come to think beyond this tradition of state dominion … and come up with some national standards and a national assessment,” said Lindsay Clare Matsumura, an assistant professor of education at the University of Pittsburgh.
The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington think tank, and the Aspen Institute’s Commission on No Child Left Behind propose using NAEP test questions and definitions of proficiency as the basis for any national standards and tests.
“Almost everyone recognizes that NAEP captures what children should be proficient in or at least have a basic understanding of,” said Roy E. Barnes, a Democratic former governor of Georgia and a co-chairman of the bipartisan Aspen Institute commission, which issued extensive recommendations for reauthorizing the federal education law in February.
NAEP’s Flaws
The Aspen Institute panel suggests that national standards and tests be designed around NAEP’s achievement levels. Those standards and tests would be models that states could adopt for accountability purposes under the NCLB law. If states chose to keep their own standards and tests, they would have to submit them to an independent national panel that would compare their rigor with that of NAEP.
In Congress, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., has introduced a bill that would establish national standards in mathematics and science based on NAEP. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has a separate proposal that would require states to compare their own standards against the NAEP’s standards. Sen. Kennedy is the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Dodd is a senior member of the panel.
Most testing experts and researchers say that NAEP shouldn’t be used to create a universal definition of proficiency.
NAEP “wasn’t designed for the purpose we want now, which is accountability,” said James W. Pellegrino, a professor of cognitive psychology and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. “What we want to do is establish what we consider proficiency to be.”
Overall, NAEP standards appear to be ambitious. In the 2005 exam given to 4th graders, for example, 31 percent ranked as proficient or above in reading, and 36 percent scored at that level in mathematics.
Given how students perform on NAEP, other researchers say that the national assessment would produce an overly ambitious definition of proficiency if it were used as the basis for national standards or tests.
In a paper last fall, Richard Rothstein, a research associate at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based research organization, estimated that students in countries that score highest on international assessments don’t ensure all their students meet NAEP’s proficiency levels.
In Singapore, 25 percent of 8th graders would not have ranked as proficient under NAEP’s standards, according to Mr. Rothstein’s analysis of the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. Singapore was the highest-scoring country on the TIMMS test.
NAEP scores also contradict other assessments’ results, Mr. Rothstein said.
In 2000, NAEP reported that 1.5 percent of high school seniors scored at its advanced level in math. By comparison, 2.7 percent of the members of that year’s high school graduating classes earned college credit for calculus based on their performance on Advanced Placement exams.
But supporters of NAEP say that its proficiency levels are an appropriate goal for all students.
“That sounds like an excuse for low expectations,” said Mr. Barnes, the former Georgia governor. “It may be unpleasant [to set a high standard], but it’s necessary.”
Real-World Standards
Other advocates of a different conception of proficiency have called for defining proficiency based on whether students are prepared for either college or the workforce.
Under such proposals, states would define what it means for a student to be ready for college or a career by the end of high school. From there, the states would work to set definitions for proficiency for each grade level leading up to high school to make sure students were on track to meet the high school standards. State officials would set their own goals, working with business leaders and higher education officials.
“The goal ought to be that young people should graduate high school ready for college or the workplace,” said Sandy Kress, a former White House adviser to President Bush on the NCLB law and a lobbyist based in Austin, Texas. Mr. Kress represents the Business Coalition for Student Achievement, a group made up of national business groups and corporate executives that is calling for standards linked to college and workplace readiness.
The Education Trust, meanwhile, in a series of recommendations for the reauthorization of the NCLB law it made last week, proposed amending the law’s goal for student achievement by linking it to new, more challenging standards based on skills needed to succeed after high school.
Under the plan, states would set a goal that at least 95 percent of students meet their states’ definition of “basic” under the 11th grade standards, and that at least 80 percent of students rate as “proficient” at that grade level.
Although the terminology would change, the requirement that the standards be linked to college and the workplace would make such standards more rigorous than they are now, said Kati Haycock, the president of the Education Trust, a Washington-based research and advocacy group that is a staunch supporter of the federal law’s efforts to raise the achievement of disadvantaged students.
“We’re asking most states to set higher standards for basic than they have now for proficient,” Ms. Haycock said in a conference call with reporters last week.
Whether or not states’ standards are modeled after NAEP’s standards, many researchers argue that the federal government should abandon the goal of universal proficiency.
The current goal of getting all students to the same place has some “perverse incentives,” Ms. Hamilton of the RAND Corp. said. Schools are focusing on students who are close to meeting the proficiency goals, she said, and slighting those who are achieving well above or well below the standard.
Instead, accountability systems should track the overall growth in achievement and whether that growth exceeds what can reasonably be expected over the course of a year, Ms. Hamilton said.
“It’s not something that’s easy to explain to the public,” she said. “But it’s a way to look at test scores along the whole distribution of performance rather than whether or not everyone is proficient.”
Vol. 26, Issue 33, Pages 1,23
Education Trust's Push on NCLB
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 11, 2007
CONTACT:
Claire Campbell (202) 293-1217, ext. 351
Education Trust Recommendations for No Child Left Behind Reauthorization
“In the months ahead, many education groups will argue that the current law demands too much and that Congress should return to something closer to its traditional role of providing money, while asking only for bookkeeping in return,” said Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust.
“Giving in to that argument would be a terrible mistake and a huge step backward in
AYP and Standards Choices for States
Some have complained about NCLB’s approach to standards and accountability. The Education Trust’s recommendations offer states three choices:
· States may keep the current status model AYP system and the goal of 100 percent proficient by 2014. However, states with particularly large proficiency gaps between their own assessments and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) would be required to set achievement goals for increasing by 50 percent the proportion of students achieving at the advanced level, including goals to close gaps at the advanced level; or
· States can choose to move to a growth model that counts students as proficient if they are on a trajectory to meet proficiency in three years. States electing this choice would have to have data systems that link student and teacher records, publish certain reports annually, and be required to set growth targets for all students, including those already at the proficient level; or
· States could move to new accountability goals if they raise their standards to a “college- and career-ready level” by convening a task force of K-12, higher education, and business leaders to develop high school proficiency standards that would guarantee a student’s placement, upon admission, into credit-bearing courses at the state’s public colleges and universities. The high school standards would have to be mapped backwards into lower grades and evidence of their rigor would have to be accepted by a peer review panel appointed by the Secretary of Education.
According to Haycock, the third option—getting students to college- and career-ready standards would be “a serious stretch” for states. “The standards in too many states are just too low--so low that meeting them doesn’t even come close to ensuring that students are adequately prepared to meet the real world challenges of college and careers. Some states are telling parents that their children are proficient even when those same children are performing below even the basic level on the NAEP.”
In recognition of the challenge that states choosing “college- and career-ready standards” would face, the Education Trust recommends that states that are “doing what’s right” be given 12 additional years to get no less than 80 percent of the students from each group to a level of preparation that would ensure their placement in credit-bearing courses upon admission to public colleges and universities. In addition, no less than 95 percent of the students in each group would need to be educated to at least a basic standard, indicating preparation for active citizenship, military service, and entry into postsecondary education or formal employment training.
“If we want to encourage higher level teaching, and diminish educational practices that focus inordinately on low-level instruction and rote learning which have characterized too many of our classrooms in both the pre- and post-NCLB era, this step is essential. More than three-quarters of our high school graduates are entering college now, and the numbers are growing every year. Yet, more than one-third of them land in remedial courses that provide them with no college credit, cost them precious tuition dollars, and imperil their chances of ever earning that critically important college degree.”
It makes no sense to continue sending so many students off to college unprepared, said Haycock. “Too many states are telling schools they are successful when their students are not.”
Among the other recommendations put forward are:
Better Tools for Teachers and Administrators:
- A new $750 million curriculum fund for states to develop high-quality, high-level curriculum materials linked to their standards and assessments, and to provide teachers with professional development in using the new materials. Fifty percent of this fund would be set aside for high schools, where the need for innovative and effective materials is most acute.
- $400 million annually in continued federal support for state assessment development so that states can improve the quality of their assessments, with special attention to improving assessments for English-language learners and students with disabilities.
- A new $100 million annually for state data systems to support growth models, and – just as importantly – to link student data to teacher data over time so administrators and policymakers can make informed evaluations of budget and policy choices, and so teachers themselves can use data to improve their own practice.
“Teachers and administrators need substantially more help,” Haycock said. “The law’s challenge to the profession is the right one, but it needs to be balanced with more support. Educators need well-designed curricular materials, diagnostic assessments, and intensive assistance in interpreting data and acting on it.”
More Resources for
- Fifty percent of all Title II funds would go to high-poverty schools to support school-based initiatives to improve teacher quality.
- School districts would be required to focus their use of Title II funds on systemic efforts to address staffing issues at high-poverty schools
- New Title I funds would be sent to states through a formula that rewards states that have been successful in narrowing the funding gaps between high- and low-poverty school districts. States that failed to address funding inequities would see their share of new Title I dollars decrease.
- The comparability provision of Title I would be amended to require school districts participating in Title I to end all practices that shortchange high-poverty schools within five years. During the interim, school districts would be required to publicly report the names of Title I schools that they are shortchanging and the amounts by which such school are shortchanged.
Of the recommended change in the comparability rules Haycock said: “Schools that serve concentrations of poor, minority or English-language learners need more resources than other schools, not less. The federal government can and should help provide the extras that such students often need, but federal funds should not be forced to make up for an inequitable base of state and local funds. At the moment, though, that’s exactly what Title I of NCLB does. Because of a so-called “comparability requirement” that is full of holes, districts can claim their full share of federal dollars even if they woefully shortchange high poverty schools. That’s wrong, and Congress ought to fix the comparability provisions now.”
Better Teaching in High-Poverty Schools
Title II would be amended to require that states write and publish plans, with annual measurable goals for ensuring that low-income students and students of color are not taught at higher rates than other students by teachers who are not highly qualified, who are novices, or who are teaching on emergency credentials. In cases in which states were not making significant progress in reaching their goals, the Secretary of Education would withhold Title II funds from states and distribute those funds directly to schools with the most acute staffing needs.
“Good teachers are the most important educational resource there is, yet too often low-income and minority students are denied this resource. Current law asks that that these students get at least their fair share of qualified and experienced teachers, but the Department of Education has been slow to act on this requirement and states and school districts have all but ignored it. For students to learn at high levels they must be taught at high levels. It’s time to put some teeth in the teacher provisions of the law.”
Conclusion
“No federal education law has been more maligned or misunderstood than the No Child Left Behind Act. Yet, no federal education law has accomplished more,” Haycock said. Although we have not yet reached the law’s goal of universal proficiency, schools all around the country are focused on student learning as never before and educators are working hard to raise the achievement of all groups of children.
We must continue to work to close gaps between groups of students. Nothing is more important. But we must simultaneously press to ensure that the standards our students are working toward are genuinely high enough to support success beyond school. Again, we must do more, not less.
Haycock said: “We believe that our recommendations, which marry higher goals with better supports, are the right next step for Congress, for our country, and most importantly, for our students.”
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/NCLB+Recommendations.htm
Hearing on the teacher-quality provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act
Published: March 14, 2007
Education Week
Senators Seek ‘Highly Qualified’ Refinements
Reducing teacher-quality gaps in public schools is central topic of hearing.
By Bess Keller
Washington
Lawmakers and educators alike showed interest here last week in supplementing the federal requirement for teachers to be “highly qualified” with ways of tagging and rewarding teachers who are also demonstrably effective.
At a hearing on the teacher-quality provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, senators asked eight experts from different walks of education how to tackle the gap in teacher quality between high- and low-poverty schools.
“I don’t think any of us minimize the challenge and difficulty of attracting people into underserved areas,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said.
Questions of teacher quality, especially as they affect the drive to close achievement gaps and to strengthen mathematics and science teaching generally, are expected to draw attention when Congress reauthorizes the NCLB legislation, scheduled for this year.
Under the 5-year-old law, all teachers of core subjects are supposed to be “highly qualified,” meaning they hold a standard state teaching license and have demonstrated knowledge of the subjects they teach. States are also held responsible for ensuring that until that standard is met, high-poverty schools fare no worse in teacher qualifications than low-poverty ones.
Amy Wilkens, speaking for the Education Trust, a nonprofit Washington-based advocacy group that was influential in shaping the law, told the panel that Congress’ intention to finance efforts to recruit and retain teachers for high-poverty schools had been undermined. She faulted the Department of Education for lax enforcement, states for their resistance, and a flaw in the statute.
The law should state clearly, she said, that districts have met the measure’s fair-funding requirement only when school budgets take into account the real costs of teacher salaries. In most districts, schools with a more experienced and thus higher-paid faculty are given the same nonsalary budget allotments as schools with less-experienced teachers, all else being equal. Federal anti-poverty money in the form of Title I grants help make up the difference in resources rather than providing additional money to the schools with the most disadvantaged students, according to the group.
“The current system represents a theft from Title I kids,” Ms. Wilkens said.
Several of those who testified stressed that it takes time and professional collaboration to make teachers reach their personal best at each stage of their careers.
Linda Darling-Hammond, a nationally recognized advocate of the teaching profession and an education professor at Stanford University, recommended that states support mentors for every beginning teacher and that all teachers be provided with 10 to 15 hours a week to work with one another.
More Incentives Sought
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., noted that efforts two decades ago to pay teachers more for doing their jobs exceptionally well had foundered in part because of difficulties measuring an individual teacher’s effect on students’ achievement. He asked the panel whether there was a consensus now around such measurements.
In response, William L. Sanders, a statistician at the private SAS Institute in Cary, N.C., who pioneered a statistical approach for measuring teachers’ contributions to student academic growth, said requests for his analyses and others of its ilk have been growing at a fast clip.
But even with more reliable ways of identifying skilled teachers and money to pay them, he cautioned, the challenge of getting the best teachers in the schools that need them most remains.
The panelists focused mostly on policies aimed at reducing turnover and helping teachers get better where they are. In addition to extra pay for raising student test scores or winning advanced certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, incentives to stay could include bonuses for teaching in a low-performing school, smaller class sizes, and intensive professional development. Paying educators more for teaching in shortage subjects such as math, science, and special education was also a popular idea.
Solutions that include firing teachers and finding promising replacements hardly figured in the discussion.
The Commission on No Child Left Behind, a private panel formed by the Aspen Institute, has endorsed such an approach.
Several witnesses seemed to shrink from that more punitive policy, warning that teachers are tired of “jumping through” paperwork hoops and being what they perceive as shut out of the teacher-quality discussion.
Vol. 26, Issue 27, Page 21
Education Week
Senators Seek ‘Highly Qualified’ Refinements
Reducing teacher-quality gaps in public schools is central topic of hearing.
By Bess Keller
Washington
Lawmakers and educators alike showed interest here last week in supplementing the federal requirement for teachers to be “highly qualified” with ways of tagging and rewarding teachers who are also demonstrably effective.
At a hearing on the teacher-quality provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, senators asked eight experts from different walks of education how to tackle the gap in teacher quality between high- and low-poverty schools.
“I don’t think any of us minimize the challenge and difficulty of attracting people into underserved areas,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said.
Questions of teacher quality, especially as they affect the drive to close achievement gaps and to strengthen mathematics and science teaching generally, are expected to draw attention when Congress reauthorizes the NCLB legislation, scheduled for this year.
Under the 5-year-old law, all teachers of core subjects are supposed to be “highly qualified,” meaning they hold a standard state teaching license and have demonstrated knowledge of the subjects they teach. States are also held responsible for ensuring that until that standard is met, high-poverty schools fare no worse in teacher qualifications than low-poverty ones.
Amy Wilkens, speaking for the Education Trust, a nonprofit Washington-based advocacy group that was influential in shaping the law, told the panel that Congress’ intention to finance efforts to recruit and retain teachers for high-poverty schools had been undermined. She faulted the Department of Education for lax enforcement, states for their resistance, and a flaw in the statute.
The law should state clearly, she said, that districts have met the measure’s fair-funding requirement only when school budgets take into account the real costs of teacher salaries. In most districts, schools with a more experienced and thus higher-paid faculty are given the same nonsalary budget allotments as schools with less-experienced teachers, all else being equal. Federal anti-poverty money in the form of Title I grants help make up the difference in resources rather than providing additional money to the schools with the most disadvantaged students, according to the group.
“The current system represents a theft from Title I kids,” Ms. Wilkens said.
Several of those who testified stressed that it takes time and professional collaboration to make teachers reach their personal best at each stage of their careers.
Linda Darling-Hammond, a nationally recognized advocate of the teaching profession and an education professor at Stanford University, recommended that states support mentors for every beginning teacher and that all teachers be provided with 10 to 15 hours a week to work with one another.
More Incentives Sought
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., noted that efforts two decades ago to pay teachers more for doing their jobs exceptionally well had foundered in part because of difficulties measuring an individual teacher’s effect on students’ achievement. He asked the panel whether there was a consensus now around such measurements.
In response, William L. Sanders, a statistician at the private SAS Institute in Cary, N.C., who pioneered a statistical approach for measuring teachers’ contributions to student academic growth, said requests for his analyses and others of its ilk have been growing at a fast clip.
But even with more reliable ways of identifying skilled teachers and money to pay them, he cautioned, the challenge of getting the best teachers in the schools that need them most remains.
The panelists focused mostly on policies aimed at reducing turnover and helping teachers get better where they are. In addition to extra pay for raising student test scores or winning advanced certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, incentives to stay could include bonuses for teaching in a low-performing school, smaller class sizes, and intensive professional development. Paying educators more for teaching in shortage subjects such as math, science, and special education was also a popular idea.
Solutions that include firing teachers and finding promising replacements hardly figured in the discussion.
The Commission on No Child Left Behind, a private panel formed by the Aspen Institute, has endorsed such an approach.
Several witnesses seemed to shrink from that more punitive policy, warning that teachers are tired of “jumping through” paperwork hoops and being what they perceive as shut out of the teacher-quality discussion.
Vol. 26, Issue 27, Page 21
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Public Schools for Tomorrow weighs in on NCLB
Supes call for wholesale changes to NCLB
National advocacy event highlights school leaders' efforts to reform U.S. education law
By Corey Murray, Senior Editor, eSchool News
April 24, 2007
As Congress sets about the difficult task of revamping the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the six-year-old education law once considered a hallmark of President Bush's presidency, several school superintendents are calling for wholesale changes to the bill.
Speaking at the American Association of School Administrators' annual Legislative Advocacy Conference in Washington, D.C., on April 20, members of Public Schools for Tomorrow (PSFT), a group of current and former school administrators in favor of educational reform, said NCLB, though well-intentioned, has failed to close the achievement gap between rich and poor students and has not delivered on its promise of measurable academic gains for all children.
"In fact, we are convinced that NCLB is harming the education of many of the children it is intended to help," wrote the group in a statement.
Like many of the law's critics, members of PSFT--led by Columbia Teachers College President Tom Sobol--say NCLB places too great an emphasis on standardized testing, while doing little to measure students' progress effectively over time.
Rather than continue along a path they deem destructive, reformers have identified six core problems with the law and, in each case, have offered potential remedies.
Their suggestions come about two months after a high-profile bipartisan commission co-chaired by former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, a Republican, who served for 14 years as the governor of Wisconsin, and former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, released a report outlining some 75 recommendations for lawmakers to consider as they reform the legislation. (See story: http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showstory.cfm?ArticleID=6871.)
Though many Washington insiders believe it's unlikely Congress will vote on a new education bill before the 2008 presidential election, members of PSFT say now is the time for educators in favor of change to voice their concerns.
"The goal really is to marshal a bully pulpit of superintendents everywhere to make sure NCLB represents what it means to be an effective citizen," said PSFT member Judith Johnson, superintendent of the Peekskill City Schools in Peekskill, N.Y.
Among the problems identified by the group are standards, testing, teachers and teaching, sanctions for struggling schools, community involvement, and funding.
"We believe in standards, but the existing system does not work," declares the PSFT statement handed out during the April 20 event. "In many places, standards are not aligned with testing and accountability, thus frustrating their purpose. Further, standards vary from state to state, making comparisons useless."
To better align existing federal testing and accountability rules with state benchmarks, the group suggests that a commission be established to craft a set of national standards for learning. Set by leaders representing various educational groups, with participation from state and local governments, these national standards "should be broad and challenging enough to encourage a wide variety of curricular and instructional practice," PSFT says.
Unlike past proposals, the group says, this is not something the federal government should have a hand in. "Nothing in what we say suggests that this should be turned over to the federal government to create these things," said Robert Rochelle, superintendent of the Ossining Union Free School District in Ossining, N.Y.
Testing is another prominent aspect of the law the superintendents' group takes issue with.
"Too much testing is corrupting the educational process and is driving the curriculum downward, especially in middle and high school grades," it said.
Rather than rely almost exclusively on students' standardized test scores, as is the case with NCLB, these superintendents suggest that states employ new and different means of assessing educational progress, looking at students' success on a longitudinal basis as well as through grade-by-grade comparisons.
An outspoken critic of the law--and the federal Education Department in general--writer and independent researcher Gerald Bracey told attendees during a morning presentation that there is little scientific evidence to suggest students' performance on standardized test scores is an effective indicator of future success.
Though U.S. students often test in the middle of the pack when compared with students in other industrialized nations on standardized tests for such core subjects as reading and mathematics, he says, a host of other factors contributes to a student's ability to succeed in life--few of which can be accurately predicted by existing forms of academic measurement.
"A lot of what we value in this society is difficult to measure in the form of a standardized test," noted Bracey, who said students in other countries often are not encouraged to develop certain intangible traits such as creativity, diplomacy, and entrepreneurship--even though these attributes are known to be just as, if not more, critical to their ability to live and work in the 21st century.
Bracey chided U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings for encouraging American educators to teach to the test. He said much of what sets U.S. schools apart from their counterparts in other nations is the inquisitive nature of their classrooms. It is teachers encouraging students to speak out, to voice their opinions and engage in a form of two-way dialogue that fosters higher-order thinking, he said, adding: "Taking a test is almost the exact opposite of asking a question."
As a supporter of NCLB and one of the legislation's founding architects, Danica Petroshius, senior vice president of Collaborative Communications Group in Washington and former chief of staff to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was scheduled to refute Bracey's argument that the law is ineffective. But a scheduling conflict reportedly kept her from presenting.
PSFT also criticized NCLB for failing to train and promote a larger number of high-quality instructors.
"The quality of students' achievement is closely related to the quality of their teachers, but we lack the number of well-trained teachers that we need, especially in difficult teaching situations," explained the group's report.
Despite an increased effort to train and retain high-quality teachers, critics say, schools must do more to ensure the best teachers are up to the challenge of working in America's toughest classrooms.
As part of its movement, PSFT is asking Congress to fund a nationwide campaign "to recruit, train, support, and retain" a larger crop of experienced, committed, high-impact instructors.
The group also came out strong against the law's current policy of leveling sanctions-- including withholding federal funds--on schools that fail to meet its stringent requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a controversial stipulation that sets national benchmarks for students in reading, math, and more recently, science.
"The sanctions for not achieving AYP are flawed and unfair … No serious person believes that all children will be proficient in reading and math by 2014," wrote the group in its outline.
Presenters went on to criticize the federal government for singling out and "embarrassing" struggling schools and said a better approach would be to revise AYP to reward schools for "substantial progress," as opposed to punishing them for perceived failures.
Whereas schools are the "chief instruments" of any student's formal education, PSFT said, local communities also have a responsibility to help students become better learners. As part of its reform effort, the group is encouraging schools to work with health and social services to better meet students' needs and, in turn, improve the mental and physical conditions under which they are expected to learn.
As a final condition of its report, PSFT says Congress should work to fund NCLB at the level originally intended. Since the law's inception in 2001, educators have criticized NCLB for saddling historically cash-strapped schools with what amounts to a bevy of unfunded mandates, arguing that the amount of money schools receive to implement NCLB programs still is billions of dollars less than what originally had been promised.
"Money alone will not reform the schools, but the schools will not be reformed without it," said the report.
Links:
Public Schools for Tomorrow
http://www.publicschoolsfortomorrow.org
American Association of School Administrators
http://www.aasa.org
National advocacy event highlights school leaders' efforts to reform U.S. education law
By Corey Murray, Senior Editor, eSchool News
April 24, 2007
As Congress sets about the difficult task of revamping the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the six-year-old education law once considered a hallmark of President Bush's presidency, several school superintendents are calling for wholesale changes to the bill.
Speaking at the American Association of School Administrators' annual Legislative Advocacy Conference in Washington, D.C., on April 20, members of Public Schools for Tomorrow (PSFT), a group of current and former school administrators in favor of educational reform, said NCLB, though well-intentioned, has failed to close the achievement gap between rich and poor students and has not delivered on its promise of measurable academic gains for all children.
"In fact, we are convinced that NCLB is harming the education of many of the children it is intended to help," wrote the group in a statement.
Like many of the law's critics, members of PSFT--led by Columbia Teachers College President Tom Sobol--say NCLB places too great an emphasis on standardized testing, while doing little to measure students' progress effectively over time.
Rather than continue along a path they deem destructive, reformers have identified six core problems with the law and, in each case, have offered potential remedies.
Their suggestions come about two months after a high-profile bipartisan commission co-chaired by former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, a Republican, who served for 14 years as the governor of Wisconsin, and former Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, released a report outlining some 75 recommendations for lawmakers to consider as they reform the legislation. (See story: http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showstory.cfm?ArticleID=6871.)
Though many Washington insiders believe it's unlikely Congress will vote on a new education bill before the 2008 presidential election, members of PSFT say now is the time for educators in favor of change to voice their concerns.
"The goal really is to marshal a bully pulpit of superintendents everywhere to make sure NCLB represents what it means to be an effective citizen," said PSFT member Judith Johnson, superintendent of the Peekskill City Schools in Peekskill, N.Y.
Among the problems identified by the group are standards, testing, teachers and teaching, sanctions for struggling schools, community involvement, and funding.
"We believe in standards, but the existing system does not work," declares the PSFT statement handed out during the April 20 event. "In many places, standards are not aligned with testing and accountability, thus frustrating their purpose. Further, standards vary from state to state, making comparisons useless."
To better align existing federal testing and accountability rules with state benchmarks, the group suggests that a commission be established to craft a set of national standards for learning. Set by leaders representing various educational groups, with participation from state and local governments, these national standards "should be broad and challenging enough to encourage a wide variety of curricular and instructional practice," PSFT says.
Unlike past proposals, the group says, this is not something the federal government should have a hand in. "Nothing in what we say suggests that this should be turned over to the federal government to create these things," said Robert Rochelle, superintendent of the Ossining Union Free School District in Ossining, N.Y.
Testing is another prominent aspect of the law the superintendents' group takes issue with.
"Too much testing is corrupting the educational process and is driving the curriculum downward, especially in middle and high school grades," it said.
Rather than rely almost exclusively on students' standardized test scores, as is the case with NCLB, these superintendents suggest that states employ new and different means of assessing educational progress, looking at students' success on a longitudinal basis as well as through grade-by-grade comparisons.
An outspoken critic of the law--and the federal Education Department in general--writer and independent researcher Gerald Bracey told attendees during a morning presentation that there is little scientific evidence to suggest students' performance on standardized test scores is an effective indicator of future success.
Though U.S. students often test in the middle of the pack when compared with students in other industrialized nations on standardized tests for such core subjects as reading and mathematics, he says, a host of other factors contributes to a student's ability to succeed in life--few of which can be accurately predicted by existing forms of academic measurement.
"A lot of what we value in this society is difficult to measure in the form of a standardized test," noted Bracey, who said students in other countries often are not encouraged to develop certain intangible traits such as creativity, diplomacy, and entrepreneurship--even though these attributes are known to be just as, if not more, critical to their ability to live and work in the 21st century.
Bracey chided U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings for encouraging American educators to teach to the test. He said much of what sets U.S. schools apart from their counterparts in other nations is the inquisitive nature of their classrooms. It is teachers encouraging students to speak out, to voice their opinions and engage in a form of two-way dialogue that fosters higher-order thinking, he said, adding: "Taking a test is almost the exact opposite of asking a question."
As a supporter of NCLB and one of the legislation's founding architects, Danica Petroshius, senior vice president of Collaborative Communications Group in Washington and former chief of staff to Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was scheduled to refute Bracey's argument that the law is ineffective. But a scheduling conflict reportedly kept her from presenting.
PSFT also criticized NCLB for failing to train and promote a larger number of high-quality instructors.
"The quality of students' achievement is closely related to the quality of their teachers, but we lack the number of well-trained teachers that we need, especially in difficult teaching situations," explained the group's report.
Despite an increased effort to train and retain high-quality teachers, critics say, schools must do more to ensure the best teachers are up to the challenge of working in America's toughest classrooms.
As part of its movement, PSFT is asking Congress to fund a nationwide campaign "to recruit, train, support, and retain" a larger crop of experienced, committed, high-impact instructors.
The group also came out strong against the law's current policy of leveling sanctions-- including withholding federal funds--on schools that fail to meet its stringent requirements for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a controversial stipulation that sets national benchmarks for students in reading, math, and more recently, science.
"The sanctions for not achieving AYP are flawed and unfair … No serious person believes that all children will be proficient in reading and math by 2014," wrote the group in its outline.
Presenters went on to criticize the federal government for singling out and "embarrassing" struggling schools and said a better approach would be to revise AYP to reward schools for "substantial progress," as opposed to punishing them for perceived failures.
Whereas schools are the "chief instruments" of any student's formal education, PSFT said, local communities also have a responsibility to help students become better learners. As part of its reform effort, the group is encouraging schools to work with health and social services to better meet students' needs and, in turn, improve the mental and physical conditions under which they are expected to learn.
As a final condition of its report, PSFT says Congress should work to fund NCLB at the level originally intended. Since the law's inception in 2001, educators have criticized NCLB for saddling historically cash-strapped schools with what amounts to a bevy of unfunded mandates, arguing that the amount of money schools receive to implement NCLB programs still is billions of dollars less than what originally had been promised.
"Money alone will not reform the schools, but the schools will not be reformed without it," said the report.
Links:
Public Schools for Tomorrow
http://www.publicschoolsfortomorrow.org
American Association of School Administrators
http://www.aasa.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)