Contest: Re-Name "NCLB"

[Chris_Wendt]

Calling the "No Child Left Behind" ("NCLB") Act a "Bad Brand", the Federal Goverment is seeking to re-name it. I don't think there is an actual "contest", at least not one that extends beyond the leadership of the US Department of Education and of Congress.

But, I think we could give it try, here, at least.

What would YOU re-name the "No Child Left Behind" ("NCLB") Act?

I'll start off: "REPEALED"

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Nothing like coming back from a school vacation to a controversial topic...

I guess the re-name all depends on your perspective. Does "Repealed" mean you're fine with accountability going away?

Given I lack creativity in this, I like a few from eduwonk:

Weapons of Mass Education Act
No Excuse Left Behind
The Eyes Down, Pencils Up Act
Mass Overhaul To Holistically Edify Regulations For Universally Competitive K-12 Education Reform (note the impolite acronym)

[Chris_Wendt]

Does "Repealed" mean you're fine with accountability going away?

""ACCOUNTABILITY"", as in, gathering and sending-up numbers to ever higher ""AUTHORITIES"", when all that the gathering and sending-up does is validate the fact that youngsters develop and learn at different rates at different ages and within their individual capacities? I would be fine with that.

Accountability, of the schools in the district to the parents of the children in the district and to the Board of Education, will not be going ""AWAY""; just closer to home.

Regards
Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Feb 23, 2009 15:29:40 GMT -5 Chris_Wendt said:

""ACCOUNTABILITY"", as in, gathering and sending-up numbers to ever higher ""AUTHORITIES"", when all that the gathering and sending-up does is validate the fact that youngsters develop and learn at different rates at different ages and within their individual capacities? I would be fine with that.

That's way too easy. All kids develop and learn at different rates at different ages and within their individual capacities, but without things like statistically reliable measures, norm-referenced tests and whatever else psychometricans dream up or SEA's develop as goals - without accountability and proof of performance data, you won't know what's in the "normal" range and if progress goals were achieved.

The purpose of NCLB was to raise the bar, close achievement gaps among certain minorities and ensure that all kids have a high quality education, no matter what state they live in. I don't think anyone can argue with those purposes, whether you have a child of school age or not. I've always thought of NCLB as a test of a teacher/district/state's ability, not kids' ability to learn.

Unfortunately, to have checks & balances, you can't just measure low performing districts only.

Feb 23, 2009 15:29:40 GMT -5 Chris_Wendt said:

Accountability, of the schools in the district to the parents of the children in the district and to the Board of Education, will not be going ""AWAY""; just closer to home.

I don't think that's pragmatic or realistic since I can't imagine how a district or BOE would prove that accountability. What do you suggest in lieu of NCLB tests?

Has NCLB been blown out of proportion and become unwieldy? That I definitely agree with. Seems to happen a lot when you attempt to wrap standards and parameters around a complex task, particularly when politicians and laws are involved.

[Chris_Wendt]

Accountability, of the schools in the district to the parents of the children in the district and to the Board of Education, will not be going ""AWAY""; just closer to home.

I don't think that's pragmatic or realistic since I can't imagine how a district or BOE would prove that accountability. What do you suggest in lieu of NCLB tests?

I think that there needs to be some recognition and reward for district's like Wantagh that have demonstrated that they deliver high quality education to all students, consistently. That could take shape much like the Free/Reduced Rate Breakfast Program waivers...the BoE passes a resolution to seek a waiver, they poll the community, and given the requisite participation in the poll and the required response to the poll, a waiver is applied for and granted, annually.

I could see this (NCLB Waiver) going slightly differently, with the waiver covering a 3-year period, the district accumulating graduation or exit data during the waiver period, and that data and once-very-four-years modified NCLB-type testing taken in conjunction with the waiver renewal application. After two (2) waiver renewals, the third renewal period goes from 3 years to 5 years, along with the next re-testing date.

Just as a "for example"...

Well?

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Feb 24, 2009 11:00:50 GMT -5 Chris_Wendt said:

I could see this (NCLB Waiver) going slightly differently, with the waiver covering a 3-year period, the district accumulating graduation or exit data during the waiver period, and that data and once-very-four-years modified NCLB-type testing taken in conjunction with the waiver renewal application. After two (2) waiver renewals, the third renewal period goes from 3 years to 5 years, along with the next re-testing date.

Except NCLB dictates proof of performance that all children are proficient and math in reading along the way so it's a quality control thing. Graduation rates don't cut it for that. Also, NY NCLB testing is supposed to be an immediate diagnostic tool for the schools (not the kids), so although the # of tests our kids are now taking is ridiculous, once every 4 years modified NCLB testing isn't enough either.

Hope that makes sense. I feel very inarticulate today.

[Chris_Wendt]

The way you said what you said makes perfect sense.
You accurately articulated what the government wants articulated about NCLB.

What you said, meaning, what "THEY" want you to say, is utter nonsense, in my opinion.

Here's the difference between what the government wanted you to say, and what they didn't want me to say. They say that testing the crap out of an entire population of kids over and over and over and over again, ad nausea, actually proves something other than kids develop at different rates and ages and within their own individual capacities, AND that by reacting to these OVER DONE STEAKS tests (other call them "High Stakes" tests), we can somehow contravene the natural childhood development cycles of the human being.

I say, children develop at different rates at different ages and within their individual capacities to learn; you can't change that: it is a FACT OF LIFE! Don't mess with Mother Nature, stop wasting time and effort (and money and teaching resources) on over cooked steaks for tests, and let's all quit grieving over non-statistically significant statistics...

...when 97% of our kids eventually graduate and go on to attend college!

I mean, I'm right, and the government is just wrong on this.
That's why they are acknowledging that NCLB is, in their own words, a "Bad Brand" which needs to be changed.

That's why I say, call it "REPEALED"!

Chris Wendt

[whereiswantagh]

[Chris_Wendt]

NCLBWOTT- No Content Learned But What's On the Test

That's Good!

Welcome...

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Feb 25, 2009 16:57:02 GMT -5 Chris_Wendt said:

What you said, meaning, what "THEY" want you to say, is utter nonsense, in my opinion.

"They" are not telling me what to think. Measuring academic skills along the way is important. Studies show that if a child isn't reading proficiently by 3rd, they will always lag behind their peers and it affects other subjects. I don't get why NCLB is a personal affront to districts and teachers - really. It's not like NCLB is all that dissimilar from proof of performance and accountability challenges in the private sector.

Granted NCLB has its problems but for the few times that educators are held accountable for teaching results, all you hear is bellyaching and whining from the teachers unions to the superintendents association. Boo hoo, cry me a river, it's a "creative process" and any deviations from good results is blamed on the kids' "development" like you did here. That's why there are things like bell curves and such. The premise of NCLB is fine, it's the execution of it, in the hands of politicians and educators that is a mess. As for NCLB being an "unfunded mandate", it costs Wantagh, what $200k for testing & scoring of $60-65m per year? Aren't curriculums supposed to be updated anyway?

Here's a NY Times editorial on HS graduation rates. The move to consistent graduation rates by state is compliments of NCLB.

www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/opinion/30thu2.html?_r=1

Obama said it the other night and the same info in a NY Times editorial. The country has dropped from #1 to #13 in HS graduation rates. Even at a glorious #13, there is a lot of inconsistency in how graduation rates are calculated and reported. Under NCLB reporting, those problem begin to go away now moving towards accountability, consistency and transparency. (There are some very unflattering and alarming statements in this editorial like "For too long the states have been allowed to talk a good game while piling up phony statistics and doing little to improve their schools." and "Most American parents never see these d**ning international comparisons, which are based on census figures and labor force statistics. Instead, parents who want to know how their schools are doing in terms of vital statistics like graduation rates must rely on phony calculations cooked up by state governments that are determined to hide the truth for as long as possible." Ouch.)

Instead of NCLB being the easy thing everyone loves to hate, why don't the educators work on figuring out solutions to the new problems NCLB currently presents instead of what seems to be a constant bellyaching about it? Look at the goals & purpose of it to suggest easier better ways that accomplish the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't think state ed or school districts, are in a strong position to do so.

From this article - www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/education/13child.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=&st=nyt

"The law requires every American school to bring all students to proficiency in reading and math by 2014. When it was first implemented six years ago, it required states to outline the statistical path they would follow on their way to 100 percent proficiency, and about half set low rates of achievement growth for the first few years and steeper rates thereafter."

"Across the nation, far more schools failed to meet the federal law’s testing targets than in any previous year, according to new state-by-state data. And in California and some other states, the problem traces in part to the fact that officials chose to require only minimal gains in the first years after the law passed and then very rapid annual gains later. One researcher likens it to the balloon payments that can sink homebuyers."

"But the California state school superintendent, Jack O’Connell, said he also bet that Congress might change the law in 2007, perhaps by removing its 100 percent proficiency goal. “It’s true that was in the back of my mind when we negotiated our plan with the feds,” Mr. O’Connell said. “And I’d do the same thing again. I’m still hoping a new administration will change the law.”

Apparently, the educators were counting on the NCLB law being revised in 2007 and oops, it wasn't. Remember that NYSED was delinquent in supplying results to the feds - leaving the big question "why" hanging out there. It's all about gaming the #'s which needs to stop.

[Chris_Wendt]

Instead of NCLB being the easy thing everyone loves to hate, why don't the educators work on figuring out solutions to the new problems NCLB currently presents instead of what seems to be a constant bellyaching about it? Look at the goals & purpose of it to suggest easier better ways that accomplish the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't think state ed or school districts, are in a strong position to do so.

Because the States, NOT the Federal Government, are constitutionally responsible for Education in America. The States are constitutionally responsible to The People of their own state, but especially to the children of their own state, for education.

States, school boards, are not constitutionally responsible to the Federal Government for education, and States and School Boards have no "DUTY" to fix the bungled meddling of the Federal Government in the State function of education.

States and School Boards are correct if they "love to hate" the NCLB. Except that it would cost too much money, States should ask the U.S. Supreme Court to kill NCLB and to put the U.S. Department of "EDUCATION" totally out of business on constitutional grounds.

That (eliminating the U.S. Dept of Education) would have happened had Clinton not won a second term as President. It's the right thing to do. Still is.

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

I don't think you and I are going to agree on this subject. I actually care less about the philosophical debate over US Ed's constitutionality and more about what US Ed does provide.

I said this before on this message board, I shudder to think of NY's kids left at the hands of NY SED without the small degree of direction, policy clarification, whatever, etc. from the feds. And although the 100% proficiency by 2014 NCLB goal is a federal mandate (and highly debatable), each state was allowed to choose their own path getting there. The NCLB tests vary by state - there is no cookie cutter national test, the messy problematic execution of NCLB has been handled by the state ed depts.

Acc to US Ed, it's been around in one form vs. another since 1867 with its current name since 1979 and became a cabinet agency in 1980.

www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Here is US Ed mission:

"Mission

Despite the growth of the Federal role in education, the Department never strayed far from what would become its official mission: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

The Department carries out its mission in two major ways. First, the Secretary and the Department play a leadership role in the ongoing national dialogue over how to improve the results of our education system for all students. This involves such activities as raising national and community awareness of the education challenges confronting the Nation, disseminating the latest discoveries on what works in teaching and learning, and helping communities work out solutions to difficult educational issues.

Second, the Department pursues its twin goals of access and excellence through the administration of programs that cover every area of education and range from preschool education through postdoctoral research."

And the first incarnation of NCLB started with "In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act launched a comprehensive set of programs, including the Title I program of Federal aid to disadvantaged children to address the problems of poor urban and rural areas."

Actually, with your thinking wouldn't Pell grants would be considered unconstitutional?

Anyhoo, while I have opinions on it, nothing I would die on the sword about.

So, back to renaming NCLB. From www.eduwonk.com/2009/02/a-contest-name-that-law.html since I lack creativity in this, how about:

Pearson Stimulus Package or PARP Pearson Assets Relief Program
TEACh Teach Every American Child

Face it, education is a big business in America. The educational publishers have benefited most. Pearson's bottomline has benefited enormously, enthusiastically rubbing their hands together anticipating the next state level NCLB incarnation. They make serious $ from all new NCLB-related texts and workbooks as well as (I think) printing all those tests. It's like they lay in wait, preying on making $ off it.

[Chris_Wendt]

I don't think you and I are going to agree on this subject. I actually care less about the philosophical debate over US Ed's constitutionality and more about what US Ed does provide.

I said this before on this message board, I shudder to think of NY's kids left at the hands of NY SED without the small degree of direction, policy clarification, whatever, etc. from the feds.

It is okay for us to disagree on this or anything else.

However, I do NOT consider the constitutionality of NCLB or even the very existence of the US Department of Education, to be a "Philosophical" debate. To me, it is a very real and valid question. Perhaps in the inevitable conservative (small 'c') backlash to the glaring failures of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Biden Administration, the cry will be renewed--and this time effectuated--to dump the entire U.S. Department of Education.

If you have issues with the way you think the NY State Education Department is discharging their responsibility to your/our children under the NY State Constitution, then you should work feverishly to raise those issues and have those perceived problems fixed. But calling in the U.S. Department of Education to somehow make whole or fix New York's or any state's own responsibility to educate its citizens is just...mistaken thinking.

I am not saying NYSED is perfect. Far from it. But please go back to the very top post in this string...even the Federal Government has recognized the disaster that has become of their centerpiece "MANDATE", NCLB, labeling it a "BAD BRAND"!!!

Even they know they suck.

Chris Wendt

[lilly]

Mar 3, 2009 12:59:05 GMT -5 Chris_Wendt said:

Even they know they suck.

Funny.

It seems like NCLB is just one thing in a long list from the last 8 years that has been unpopular and/or have questionable constitutionality.

I don't think NCLB is going to be gutted with this administration. Overhauled yes. Going away, nope. So, we'll be living with NCLB in some reincarnation for the next several years if & when an overhauled NCLB passes this year. And can't predict that far out into the future but if the GOP (another very "bad brand" lately) comes back 4 years from now, I'm not entirely convinced of a small c backlash so that NCLB goes away due to unconstitutionality - although there is a certain irony that NCLB in its current "bad brand" state is a product of a GOP administration.

Actually, the thing that really scares me and I don't know enough about is Arne Duncan. He has very mixed reviews, mostly bad, about what he did in Chicago public schools and their subsequent performance changes. Nice "radical" or fresh approaches but execution and translation of that fresh thinking and its impact on the kids is highly questionable.

Here is some more NYSED "bashing".

www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/education/02graduation.html

Click on the chart in the above link. Under NCLB, states can set their own goals for HS graduation rates. NY's goal of 50% graduation is in the bottom 10% of the 50 states in terms of goals. We're in the company of VA, CO, Nevada and Alaska at a 50% graduation rate goal vs. other states that are in the 90%+ range.

www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/education/20graduation.html

Now, look at the chart in the above link. NY SED reported a 77% graduation rate to US Ed. US Ed's calculation of NY's rate was 65.3%, 11.7% lower. Not only was the 77% overstated but hey, never write a goal that you can't achieve and let's set those standards high at a 50% goal, right?

Note that in Wantagh, based on what I know of my neighbors and friends' and one of the reasons I chose to live in Wantagh, 97% graduation rates are a "gimme" - haven't met a Wantagh parent yet that doesn't reinforce HS graduation in their kids. It's one area where home/school involvement and parent influence pays off without question.

Mar 3, 2009 12:59:05 GMT -5 Chris_Wendt said:

If you have issues with the way you think the NY State Education Department is discharging their responsibility to your/our children under the NY State Constitution, then you should work feverishly to raise those issues and have those perceived problems fixed. But calling in the U.S. Department of Education to somehow make whole or fix New York's or any state's own responsibility to educate its citizens is just...mistaken thinking.

I do get involved.

I'm not suggesting that US Ed can make whole or fix NY's problems at all but I do like the benefits of the reporting and policy clarification that US Ed currently offers. Given the state of NYSED, letting them off the hook for anything with regard to reporting on standards is not a solution. And, without the national comparisons, none of these issues would even come to light. NYSED would continue being, well... NYSED.

[Chris_Wendt]

www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/03/20/us/20graduation.web.html
Lilly

This just proves my point. The US Dept of Education has set up a dopey reporting system for states to report graduation rates, then they, the US Dept of Education, go ahead and use A DIFFERENT METHOD of calculating graduation rates, followed by THE NEW YORK TIMES publishing the variances between the two methods of calculating graduation rates, and then blaming the states for cheating, lying, shading, or fibbing about their graduation rates to...their own citizens, or...to the Feds...and YOU can go try to figure to whom.

Foolishness.

But what the heck does this have to do with Wantagh...?

Nothing!

Our graduation rate is historically in the very high 90's, at least since the 1980's.

NY State's graduation rate includes the dismal experience of places like New York City, Yonkers, Rochester, cities with really crappy graduation rates, and, the western and upstate areas which contain the Seneca and Mohawk Indian Nations where the historical high school graduation rates may approach zero, by dint of cultural choices.

Respectfully,

Chris Wendt