A 100 Week 9

Sit someplace you don’t usually sit

Sit next to someone you don’t usually talk to

New Topic: NCLB

Just the facts – The Context of NCLB

• Federal government involvement in schools starts with 1965 ESEA

• Fears of federal intervention weakened its role in decentralized system

• Reauthorized every 6-7 years, NCLB latest reauth.

• Federal expenditure always less than 10% of the total

• States moved towards “standards-based reform” in the 1990s

• 1994 ESEA set the framework for NCLB

• 2001 ESEA (NCLB) introduced greater accountability

• Federal law builds on top of state laws – states set standards and tests, feds mandate pace of improvement and consequences.

• NCLB passes with bipartisan support

What Motivated NCLB?

• Broader context: International economic competition, civil rights

• Need to move from “inputs” to “outputs”

• Sense that schools need to try harder, focus more:

What Motivated NCLB?

• Sense that schools need to try harder, focus more:

First, this book and many of the other readings (Elmore, Meier) operate with the assumption that teachers and administrators are operating at their maximum capacity. This was absolutely untrue at my school. I’ll admit that our teachers (including myself) would surely benefit from better professional development or guided collaboration. However, regularly showing non-academic movies, effortlessly relying on horribly written book lessons/assessments, and spending no time building classroom culture are surely inexcusable. If you teach, you should know how to do these things. If you don’t do them, you should be fired. As is the motto of NCLB and standards era – no excuses. Our kids deserve better.

Jessica Tucker

• Key political cleavage: Not left vs. right, but schools vs. outsiders

Just the facts – NCLB the law

• States must test students annually in grade 3-8 in reading and math, once in high school (starting in 07-08, 3 tests in science as well, )

• Tests must be aligned with state standards

• States must gradually move students towards proficiency so that all are proficient by 2014

• To make AYP, students, and all subgroups of students, must have an ever-raising bar hitting proficiency + attendance.

• Subgroups include race, economic-disadvantage, english language learners, and special education

• Failure to make AYP two years in a row kicks in accumulating sanctions (year 1 – student transfer, year 2- supplemental services; year 3 – corrective action; years 4-5 (restructuring).

Just the facts – Key conceptual points

• Complex inter-governmental policy

• Feds set the context, states set the standards, districts provide the means

• AYP creates lots of subgroups• Schools see it as unfair that they can be brought down by failure of a subgroup

• Special education students included

• States set the bar (national standards?)• States choose the tests and the definitions of proficiency. Which means that states can look better by lowering the bar.

• No measure of individual progress• The requirement for annual progress means that this year’s 3rd graders are compared to next year’s 3rd graders. Not tracking the improvement of individual students.

•

Just the facts – Highly qualified teachers

• To be highly qualified under NCLB, you must (middle and high):

• Have a bachelors

• Full state certification

• Know the subject you teach, which is shown by:

• Degree in the subject matter (bachelors, equivalent in grad work, or graduate degree)

• Test in the subject matter

• State determined uniform standards (for existing teachers)

• Challenges have been

• Rural areas (teaching in multiple subjects)

• Science and math

Just the facts – Test Scores

• State test scores are clearly mostly up

• See CEP report: 10 big effects of NCLB in class sessions tab

• Critics see teaching to the test as rampant

• NAEP scores -- Progress in math, 4th grade reading, not 8th grade reading

• Math•http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0002.asp?subtab_id=Tab_1&tab_id=tab1#chart

•http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0002.asp?subtab_id=Tab_2&tab_id=tab1#chart

• Reading •http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0003.asp

•http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/ltt0003.asp?subtab_id=Tab_2&tab_id=tab1#chart

Interpreting Test Scores

•Detractors emphasize

• Little movement in reading at 8th grade

• Less gains as time has gone on and NCLB really kicked in

• Persistence of large gaps

•http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2007/m0009.asp?tab_id=tab2&subtab_id=Tab_3#chart

• Do no harm -- Unintended consequences (see Tested)

•Proponents emphasize

• Progress in scores on NAEP, particularly in math

• Say that earlier gains also attributable to “standards”

• What was it like before?

Just the facts – Other aspects of schooling

• More time on reading and math, less on social studies

•71% of districts reducing time in other subjects

• More teachers meeting highly qualified definitions (up to 88%)

•Problems persist in special ed, high school math and science, rural areas

• Other provisions

• Few students using choice option (2%)

• Few students using tutoring option (20%)

Temperature Check

• Do you support NCLB? Why? Why not?

Reasons to Support NCLB

• Provides concrete measurements of the performance of all schools

• Provides continuing pressure for improvement on the achievement gap

• Schools should be accountable for results

• States, districts, schools, have not produced results in the past, not worthy of trust or discretion

Five Critiques of NCLB

Inside the Beltway Policy Talk The Technical Critique The Federalism Critique

Critiques from the Field The Distrust Critique -- Meier The Capacity Building Critique -- Elmore

With International Perspective The Sectoral Critique -- Mehta

Technical Critiques of NCLB

Problems

1. Growth vs. absolute standards

2. “Bubble kids” vs. the moving the whole distribution

3. Too many subgroups

4. Bad tests

Solutions

1. Growth models

2. Credit for moving the curve

3. Forgiveness on some subgroups

4. Better assessments

Federalism Critiques of NCLB

Problems States engaged in “race to the bottom”

States set cut scores Challenge: resistance to national standards

Solutions Common core standards Common core assessments Both funded and incentivized through RTTT

Distrust is the Problem

Problems Teachers not trusted to do the work; response is highly

prescriptive problematic policies, which generate perverse incentives.

Too often, teachers have to choose between two options: comply with the authorities or engage in subversive behavior for your kids.  When word walls, bulletin boards, and even daily lessons become so highly regulated, teachers lose ownership over their work and the students suffer.  Rather than assuming that teachers are inept and incompetent, which I feel is an underlying premise of many policies, teachers should be allowed and encouraged to develop their professional expertise and autonomy.

-- Shannon Fox

Distrust is the Problem

Solutions Charter schools, tight-loose visions of management Networked models of reform

Lack of Capacity is the Problem

Problems Teachers can’t do what they don’t know how to do External accountability without internal

accountability generates perverse consequences

Solutions Reciprocal accountability: greater external coaching

and support along with accountabiliity Recognition that progress comes in fits and spurts Invest in school leadership

The Pyramid is Upside Down

The current pyramid

1 Congress

50 States

15,000 districts

100,000 schools

3,000,000 teachers

Logic: Implementation+ accountability

The Inverted Pyramid

1 Congress

50 States

15,000 districts

100,000 schools

3,000,000 teachers

Logic: Support driven by needs of practice

From Command and Control to Knowledge Driven Profession

1. Knowledge driven by practice – Teachers as knowledge workers

2. Improve human capital

3. Use of data and continuous improvement at the site level

4. Accountability system driven by the previous three

This is the future: Finland and also the leading charter networks

See Jal Mehta, “Inverting the Pyramid of School Reform,” Harvard Ed Letter, November/December 2010