To glimpse NCLB's future, look to the past

Michael W. Kirst / January 8, 2004

At the second anniversary of NCLB, it is useful to think about the historical evolution of the law that NCLB is meant to reform - Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Media coverage of all the unresolved problems of NCLB's design and implementation may engender a shortsightedness. An historical comparison with ESEA Title I circa 1965 makes me believe that a long-run evolutionary view of NCLB is needed.

I was the second program person hired by the U.S. Office of Education Title I Director in 1965. Also, in 1980, Dick Jung and I conducted a 13-year longitudinal evaluation of that program's implementation. (EEPA, Vol. 2, No. 5, 1980) To be sure, NCLB is pupil-outcomes oriented, while Title I focused on inputs, yet the analogy has promise.

In 1965-68, there was evidence of several major operational failures in Title I implementation, but these were mostly fixed over time, through several federal legislative reauthorization cycles and with increased enforcement by state and local Title I coordinators. For example, in the early years not enough Title I money was spent by local districts in the most poverty-stricken schools, or on special Title I interventions. Massive sums were diverted to regular programs or wasted on frivolous extras. In Louisiana, Title I funds built segregated high school swimming pools; Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin rented tuxedos for students to attend the senior prom. Several states did not even send Title I federal

» Continued

To glimpse NCLB's future, look to the past

On still leaving no child behind

Chester E. Finn, Jr. / January 8, 2004

Happy birthday, NCLB! Bells are ringing today at the White House, the Education Department, and the Capitol as the drafters, enactors, implementers, and enforcers of No Child Left Behind observe the second anniversary of its enactment.

Just about everyone has by now acknowledged that this is a major, major piece of federal education legislation, surely the most important since the original ESEA was enacted almost four decades ago. It's also the most controversial development in memory for American K-12 education. What's more, it has occasioned a vast amount of commentary, analysis, and bloviating, and any number of NCLB-focused studies and research projects are now underway. (We at Fordham are co-sponsoring one with the American Enterprise Institute that's examining NCLB's public-school choice and supplemental services provisions. A very interesting set of draft papers and comments will be aired at AEI on January 15-16. To learn more, go to http://www.aei.org/events/type.upcoming,eventID.684,filter./event_detail.asp.)

In the two years since President Bush signed NCLB, the Education Gadfly has run more than 100 pieces examining or commenting on it. A partial bibliography appears below. And it's a fact that, if you read them from beginning to end, you'll observe the Gadfly changing his mind more than once about this law. Because he's not normally plagued by indecision, you will correctly infer that it's absurd to be "for" or "against" NCLB. It's too big and complex to elicit a simple pro-con opinion, at least from a thinking person

» Continued

On still leaving no child behind

New front in the math wars

January 8, 2004

One never ceases to be amazed by the inanity of many so-called "experts" in testing and instruction. In Illinois (which recently adopted a cracker-jack set of assessment benchmarks; see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=120#1514 for more detail), the experts are bemoaning a new testing program that they say will dumb down math by focusing overmuch on basic computational skills. Twenty percent of the new test items will be what snippy math educators disparage as "naked math," i.e. number problems that emphasize computation rather than application to "real world" situations. Such an approach, of course, used to be called "math" before the experts got hold of it. So far, the state testing division is standing firm. Look for the impending Fordham publication, The Citizen's Guide to State Standards, Tests, and Accountability Systems, for a discussion of problems that many states have in developing high-quality, rigorous tests that truly cover what their standards say their kids should know. And keep watching Illinois for this latest skirmish in the math wars that have pitted reformers and concerned parents against the "experts."

"Critics: tests dumb down math," by Tracy Dell'Angela, Chicago Tribune, January 4, 2004

» Continued

New front in the math wars

Accepting the inevitable in NYC

January 8, 2004

Last January, Gadfly warned that New York City stood to lose millions in federal dollars if Mayor Bloomberg and schools chancellor Joel Klein insisted on mandating the unproven and academically dubious "Month by Month Phonics" as the citywide reading curriculum. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=9#383and http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=8#368for more details.) They did it anyway. Now, a year later - and a week before the federal Reading First grant applications are due - Klein has finally announced that the city will scrap Month by Month Phonics in some of its worst-afflicted schools in order to avoid losing up to $34 million in Reading First grants. Keep in mind that, despite warnings from researchers and educators that his preferred reading program would not qualify, the city spent millions training teachers to use Month by Month Phonics and wasted half a year of their - and their students' - time. Rather than admitting error, however, the chancellor is still praising the "balanced literacy" approach and criticizing federal education officials for being dogmatic. "There ought to be some flexibility in deciding what the best way is to get the results," Klein pronounced. Of course, there was some flexibility, just not the flexibility to choose a reading program that has no record of teaching kids to read.

"For U.S. aid, city switches reading plan," by David M. Herszenhorn, New York Times, January 7, 2004 (subscription required)

» Continued

Accepting the inevitable in NYC

The trials of an urban boarding school

January 8, 2004

The SEED school (Schools for Educational Evolution and Development) in Washington, D.C. - America's only urban charter boarding school - is the focus of this article in Time, which calls it "one of the most innovative and expensive experiments in educating low-income students." SEED is an excellent example of how the charter movement encourages innovation and experimentation - and of the need to monitor those innovations to determine how well they're succeeding. Three-hundred and ten 7th-12th graders live on campus from Sunday evening to Friday afternoon, and almost every waking minute is scheduled for them, from rising at 5:45 a.m. to lights out, with only a half-hour of "quiet time" before bed. Dorms are divided into "houses" of 10-14 students named after colleges, reflecting a focus on college preparation, and there are lots of extras like sports, clubs, and overseas trips in the summer. Students grouse about the stringent rules, but parents laud the safe and structured environment, and last year there were 213 applicants for 140 spots. But the school is extremely expensive - per-student costs are twice the District's annual expenditure of $12,000 per student - and is still struggling with achievement. SAT scores are only 34 points above the District's low average and retention is a problem - no doubt because the regimen is a lot tougher than most American teen-agers are willing to endure.

"Urban preppies," by Perry Bacon, Jr., Time, January 12, 2004

» Continued

The trials of an urban boarding school

CA teachers support schools cuts - at a price

January 8, 2004

This week, after closed-door negotiations with union leaders, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger convinced the California Teachers Association to support a $2 billion cut in education spending to help resolve the state's massive budget deficit. The move is part of Schwarzenegger's plan to curb the "spending crisis" that he says caused this huge hole in the budget. Predictably, however, union acceptance came at a steep cost. First, the governor had to agree not to touch Proposition 98 - a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that K-12 schools and community colleges annually receive an increasing stream of money from the state's general fund. (Schwarzenegger had initially threatened to suspend Proposition 98 to rein in "out of control spending.") Second, officials have said the education cuts will be restored next year, whether the economy improves or not. This deal resembles a band-aid affixed to a tumor.

"Teachers support Gov.'s plan to cut schools by $2 billion," by Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times, January 6, 2004

"Schwarzenegger plans fee hikes, education cuts," by Vincent J. Schodolski, Chicago Tribune, January 7, 2004

» Continued

CA teachers support schools cuts - at a price

More bad news for CO vouchers

The fate of the nation's second statewide voucher program - the first since the landmark Zelman decision was handed down - was called into question again this week, when Denver judge Joseph E. Meyer upheld his own decision to slap a temporary injunction on the state's fledgling voucher program. (In December, the judge ruled that the voucher program violated the "local control over education" clause of the state constitution. For more details see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=125#1566.) Voucher advocates had hoped to have the injunction removed so that they could move forward with the program while the state supreme court considers the matter.

"Judge deals another blow to the voucher plan," by Robert Sanchez, Rocky Mountain News, January 7, 2004

» Continued

More bad news for CO vouchers

Quality Counts 2004

Chester E. Finn, Jr. / January 8, 2004

Education Week

Yesterday, the editors of Education Week released the latest in their annual series of statistical analyses dubbed "Quality Counts." This year's focus is "special education in an era of standards" - a timely topic, considering that Congress is still struggling to reauthorize IDEA and that the Education Department recently issued new regulations for how to handle severely disabled children within NCLB state testing programs. (See http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=126#1583.) We won't claim yet to have read all 150 outsized pages, but it's clear that they do a fine job of setting forth the major issues faced by those who yearn to reconcile special needs with uniform standards. The data reveal vast gaps in the academic achievement of special-ed students vis-??-vis other children (and nobody needs reminding that the other children mostly aren't doing so well themselves). Nor is NCLB the only source of this tension; should disabled youngsters, for instance, have to pass statewide high-school graduation tests? (Half the states allow them to receive diplomas without meeting regular graduation requirements.)

The final third of this report offers a wealth of data on other K-12 education issues, provided both in multi-state tables and state-specific profiles. It's organized under four major headings: standards/accountability, teacher quality, school climate, and resources. You'll find progress on a number of fronts but huge distances yet to travel on others. (For example: fewer than half the states require middle-school teachers to pass subject-matter tests to earn licenses. Fewer

» Continued

Quality Counts 2004

A Tale of Two Systems of Delivering Higher Education

Eric Osberg / January 8, 2004

Robert Holland, Lexington Institute
December 2003

This brief piece provides an overview of the growth of for-profit providers of higher education and contends that Congress should put these schools on equal footing with traditional universities in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. In 1998, Congress made students in for-profit schools eligible for Title IV aid (such as Pell Grants, Perkins and Stafford Loans, Federal work study programs, and more), but has not yet made this allowance for non-Title-IV aid, (such as Title V, which supports Hispanic-serving institutions), "effectively banning" aid for a number of colleges serving minority students. Holland notes that for-profit institutions now run 46 percent of all post-secondary schools, accounting for about half a million students and a large number of minorities. He judges that it's time for them to have full access to every sort of federal aid and attempts to cement his point with a diatribe against the excesses in traditional public colleges and universities, mercilessly recounting extravagant outlays on whirlpools, climbing walls, and the like. The implication is that for-profit institutions may offer a more efficient investment for federal dollars. The argument is logical on its face, but unfortunately the paper doesn't provide more than a cursory explanation of the proposal, or of Federal aid programs in general, in order that the reader can make an informed decision. In the end, it's valuable mainly as an introduction to the for-profit sector of postsecondary education -

» Continued

A Tale of Two Systems of Delivering Higher Education

Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in Fall 2000

Carolyn Conner / January 8, 2004

Basmat Parsad, Laurie Lewis, and Bernard Greene, National Center for Education Statistics
November 2003

This report from the National Center for Education Statistics compares "the prevalence and characteristics" of remedial courses and enrollment in 2- and 4-year colleges and universities in 1995 and 2000. Overall, the percent of institutions offering remedial courses did not significantly change nor did the proportion of entering students who enrolled in such courses (28 percent in both 1995 and 2000). Not surprisingly, the study found that public 2- and 4-year institutions are much more likely than their private counterparts to offer remedial courses, and that students in public 2-year institutions (i.e. community colleges) are likelier to take such courses for longer than students in any other institution. A humdrum report but you may want the data. Surf to http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004010.pdf.

» Continued

Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in Fall 2000