- Home
- Commentaries and Reports
- NCLB “tweaking” aids voucher wish-list
NCLB “tweaking” aids voucher wish-list
- By Daniel Pryzbyla Columnist EdNews.org
- Published 01/29/2007
- Commentaries and Reports
-
Rating:
Daniel Pryzbyla Columnist EdNews.org
View all articles by Daniel Pryzbyla Columnist EdNews.orgNCLB “tweaking” aids voucher wish-list
By Daniel Pryzbyla Columnist EdNews.org
It was only a short time ago Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was endorsing the current No Child Left Behind education act, even comparing it with the Ivory soap slogan being “99% pure” now. It just needed a little “tweaking,” she had proclaimed.
Of course, she might also think a thunderstorm means just “tweaking” a few rain drops. Authorized in January 2002, it took President Bush’s first education chief Roderick Paige almost the remainder of his 4-year term to rein in numerous state and school district grievances objecting to the hyper-specific NCLB Title 1 high-stakes testing bill. His successor Spellings managed to legitimately “tweak” a few of the education bill’s bureaucratic shortcomings. However, these often came after threats of lawsuits and publications of disgruntlements in reports published the past several years from both sides of the political spectrum. More storm clouds began hovering on the NCLB education horizon since fall, and they have been increasing as reauthorization discussions have begun.
As recently as August 31, 2006 an AP story in USA Today had quoted Spellings and her “Ivory 99% pure” reference to NCLB. Her comments suggested “what amounts to the Bush administration’s starting position as the law comes up for renewal next year.” Not quite. Don’t forget the storm clouds.
Less than a month later on September 21, 2006 in a Washington Post commentary, two former Republicans that had held the top education post, William J. Bennett and Paige, said just the opposite. “Out of respect for federalism and mistrust of Washington, much of the GOP has expected individual states to set their own academic standards and devise their own tests and accountability systems. That was the approach of the No Child Left Behind Act – which moved as boldly as it could while still achieving bipartisan support. It sounds good, but it is working badly.” Equally revealing, their join-statement alluded to a “Fordham Foundation” report saying “most states have deployed mediocre standards, and there’s increasing evidence that some are playing games with their tests and accountability systems.”
“So while the act (NCLB) is clearly starting to get results,” they continued, “it is also starting to suffer from the law of unintended consequences. We can now see that it gives states too much discretion over standards and tests while giving federal bureaucrats too much control over how schools operate. The remedy? As both of us have long argued, Washington should set sound national academic standards and administer a high-quality national test. Publicize everybody’s results, right down to the school level. Then Washington should butt out.”
It’s not too likely Bennett and Paige just happened to bump into each other on the street and began chatting and rehashing their “good old days” at the education department. Then one of them says, “Hey! Let’s write a joint-commentary and send it to the Washington Post.” No. They’re both still GOP team players. They’ve just taken different paths in life afterward. Being asked to do a favor in the political trenches when necessary is not that uncommon.
Other former NCLB supporters and think-tanks have been jumping ship recently. Mike Petrilli, vice-president of programs for the conservative, pro-voucher Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (mentioned earlier) and former President Bush administration education official is one of them. “I’ve gradually and reluctantly come to the conclusion that NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair.”
A most recent NCLB storm cloud could have fit the “title” of the 1967 movie classic “Guess Who’s Coming for Dinner?” Charles Murray, most noted for his controversial education book based on IQ, “The Bell Curve” published in 1994, had a 3-part series published January16-18, 2007 in the Wall Street Journal “opinion” page. The initial segment is titled “Intelligence in the Classroom: Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.” Murray began, “Education is becoming the preferred method for diagnosing and attacking a wide range of problems in American life. The No Child Left Behind Act is one prominent example.” According to Murray, “Today’s simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.” Another problem with the argument that education can be vastly improved, said the W.H.
Brady Scholar at the conservative, pro-voucher American Enterprise Institute, “is the false assumption that educators already know how to educate everyone and that they just need to try harder – the assumption that promoted No Child Left Behind.”
The IQ aficionado’s second installment will offer Spellings some hot coals: “What’s Wrong with Vocational School?” “Today I turn to the upper half, people with IQs of 100 or higher. Today’s simple truth is that far too many of them are going to four-year colleges.” His final opinion page, of course, speaks of those with “superior intelligence,” those with IQs of at least 120. “Of the simple truths about intelligence and its relationship to education, this is the most important and least acknowledged: Our future depends crucially on how we educate the next generation of people gifted with unusually high intelligence.” In short, he says, “I am calling for a revival of the classical definition of a liberal education, serving its classic purpose: to prepare an elite to do its duty.” That, he asserts, includes “wisdom.”
NCLB storm clouds began creating their own identities, but also the possibility of creating too much confusion for Spellings & Co. to cope with. Giving the impression NCLB was “99% pure” was losing validity in all political camps. Probably earlier than planned, a 3-page brief titled, “Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act” appeared on the department’s website, “last modified 1-26-2007.” The key word here, of course, is “blueprint.” It’s not exactly what a student or teacher would consider handing in as a concise outline for a mid-term project. “Highlights of Building on Results: Every Child Performing at or Above Grade Level by 2014.” “Accountability: States will be held accountable for ensuring that all students can read and do math at grade level by 2014. They will disaggregate test scores, participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and report state and NAEP results to parents on the same report card.” This test, of course, has been on every pro-voucher advocate’s NCLB “must have” list. However, don’t expect them to demand the same for all their private, religious and private charter schools. That would constitute “invasion of privacy.” In addition, testing and their administrative duties cost money – just in case you forgot.
Not in exact order of the “blueprint,” but here’s several others to ponder. “Flexibility for Innovation and Improvement – Growth Models: States will be able to use growth models to measure individual progress towards grade-level proficiency by 2014, as long as they have robust data systems and well-established assessments, and set annual goals based on proficiency, not on students’ backgrounds.” Obviously, pro-voucher folks just can’t accept socioeconomic and race factors in education. Of course, the “IQ only” stalwarts have the same disregard.
“Challenging Our Students and Preparing Them to Succeed – Rigorous Coursework: By 2010-11, states must develop course-level academic standards for English and mathematics that prepare high school students to succeed in college and the global workplace. By 2012-13, states will administer assessments aligned to these standards for two years of English and mathematics and publicly report the extent to which all students are on track to enter college or the workplace fully prepared.” No comment. Well, on second thought – it is only a “blueprint.”
Last but not least; save the “best” for last. “Strengthening Public Schools and Empowering Parents – Promise Scholarships: Public schools that go into restructuring status will be required to offer private school choice, intensive tutoring, or inter-district public school choice through Promise Scholarships to low-income students in grades 3-12. Federal funds will follow the child to his or her new school, to be supplemented by a federal scholarship of $2,500.” You still think NCLB isn’t voucher driven?
Pro-voucher Alliance for School Choice is moving its headquarters from Phoenix, AZ to the nation’s capital, according to David J. Hoff’s story in the recent edition of Education Week newspaper. “It recognizes the growing role that the Alliance plans to play in D.C.,” said Clint Bolick who will leave his post as president amid the changes. Replacing Bolick as ASC president is Charles R. Hokanson Jr. A former House Republican aide, he is currently the chief of staff for the Department of Education’s general counsel’s office.
It was only a short time ago Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was endorsing the current No Child Left Behind education act, even comparing it with the Ivory soap slogan being “99% pure” now. It just needed a little “tweaking,” she had proclaimed.
Of course, she might also think a thunderstorm means just “tweaking” a few rain drops. Authorized in January 2002, it took President Bush’s first education chief Roderick Paige almost the remainder of his 4-year term to rein in numerous state and school district grievances objecting to the hyper-specific NCLB Title 1 high-stakes testing bill. His successor Spellings managed to legitimately “tweak” a few of the education bill’s bureaucratic shortcomings. However, these often came after threats of lawsuits and publications of disgruntlements in reports published the past several years from both sides of the political spectrum. More storm clouds began hovering on the NCLB education horizon since fall, and they have been increasing as reauthorization discussions have begun.
As recently as August 31, 2006 an AP story in USA Today had quoted Spellings and her “Ivory 99% pure” reference to NCLB. Her comments suggested “what amounts to the Bush administration’s starting position as the law comes up for renewal next year.” Not quite. Don’t forget the storm clouds.
Less than a month later on September 21, 2006 in a Washington Post commentary, two former Republicans that had held the top education post, William J. Bennett and Paige, said just the opposite. “Out of respect for federalism and mistrust of Washington, much of the GOP has expected individual states to set their own academic standards and devise their own tests and accountability systems. That was the approach of the No Child Left Behind Act – which moved as boldly as it could while still achieving bipartisan support. It sounds good, but it is working badly.” Equally revealing, their join-statement alluded to a “Fordham Foundation” report saying “most states have deployed mediocre standards, and there’s increasing evidence that some are playing games with their tests and accountability systems.”
“So while the act (NCLB) is clearly starting to get results,” they continued, “it is also starting to suffer from the law of unintended consequences. We can now see that it gives states too much discretion over standards and tests while giving federal bureaucrats too much control over how schools operate. The remedy? As both of us have long argued, Washington should set sound national academic standards and administer a high-quality national test. Publicize everybody’s results, right down to the school level. Then Washington should butt out.”
It’s not too likely Bennett and Paige just happened to bump into each other on the street and began chatting and rehashing their “good old days” at the education department. Then one of them says, “Hey! Let’s write a joint-commentary and send it to the Washington Post.” No. They’re both still GOP team players. They’ve just taken different paths in life afterward. Being asked to do a favor in the political trenches when necessary is not that uncommon.
Other former NCLB supporters and think-tanks have been jumping ship recently. Mike Petrilli, vice-president of programs for the conservative, pro-voucher Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (mentioned earlier) and former President Bush administration education official is one of them. “I’ve gradually and reluctantly come to the conclusion that NCLB as enacted is fundamentally flawed and probably beyond repair.”
A most recent NCLB storm cloud could have fit the “title” of the 1967 movie classic “Guess Who’s Coming for Dinner?” Charles Murray, most noted for his controversial education book based on IQ, “The Bell Curve” published in 1994, had a 3-part series published January16-18, 2007 in the Wall Street Journal “opinion” page. The initial segment is titled “Intelligence in the Classroom: Half of all children are below average, and teachers can do only so much for them.” Murray began, “Education is becoming the preferred method for diagnosing and attacking a wide range of problems in American life. The No Child Left Behind Act is one prominent example.” According to Murray, “Today’s simple truth: Half of all children are below average in intelligence. We do not live in Lake Wobegon.” Another problem with the argument that education can be vastly improved, said the W.H.
The IQ aficionado’s second installment will offer Spellings some hot coals: “What’s Wrong with Vocational School?” “Today I turn to the upper half, people with IQs of 100 or higher. Today’s simple truth is that far too many of them are going to four-year colleges.” His final opinion page, of course, speaks of those with “superior intelligence,” those with IQs of at least 120. “Of the simple truths about intelligence and its relationship to education, this is the most important and least acknowledged: Our future depends crucially on how we educate the next generation of people gifted with unusually high intelligence.” In short, he says, “I am calling for a revival of the classical definition of a liberal education, serving its classic purpose: to prepare an elite to do its duty.” That, he asserts, includes “wisdom.”
NCLB storm clouds began creating their own identities, but also the possibility of creating too much confusion for Spellings & Co. to cope with. Giving the impression NCLB was “99% pure” was losing validity in all political camps. Probably earlier than planned, a 3-page brief titled, “Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act” appeared on the department’s website, “last modified 1-26-2007.” The key word here, of course, is “blueprint.” It’s not exactly what a student or teacher would consider handing in as a concise outline for a mid-term project. “Highlights of Building on Results: Every Child Performing at or Above Grade Level by 2014.” “Accountability: States will be held accountable for ensuring that all students can read and do math at grade level by 2014. They will disaggregate test scores, participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and report state and NAEP results to parents on the same report card.” This test, of course, has been on every pro-voucher advocate’s NCLB “must have” list. However, don’t expect them to demand the same for all their private, religious and private charter schools. That would constitute “invasion of privacy.” In addition, testing and their administrative duties cost money – just in case you forgot.
Not in exact order of the “blueprint,” but here’s several others to ponder. “Flexibility for Innovation and Improvement – Growth Models: States will be able to use growth models to measure individual progress towards grade-level proficiency by 2014, as long as they have robust data systems and well-established assessments, and set annual goals based on proficiency, not on students’ backgrounds.” Obviously, pro-voucher folks just can’t accept socioeconomic and race factors in education. Of course, the “IQ only” stalwarts have the same disregard.
“Challenging Our Students and Preparing Them to Succeed – Rigorous Coursework: By 2010-11, states must develop course-level academic standards for English and mathematics that prepare high school students to succeed in college and the global workplace. By 2012-13, states will administer assessments aligned to these standards for two years of English and mathematics and publicly report the extent to which all students are on track to enter college or the workplace fully prepared.” No comment. Well, on second thought – it is only a “blueprint.”
Last but not least; save the “best” for last. “Strengthening Public Schools and Empowering Parents – Promise Scholarships: Public schools that go into restructuring status will be required to offer private school choice, intensive tutoring, or inter-district public school choice through Promise Scholarships to low-income students in grades 3-12. Federal funds will follow the child to his or her new school, to be supplemented by a federal scholarship of $2,500.” You still think NCLB isn’t voucher driven?
Pro-voucher Alliance for School Choice is moving its headquarters from Phoenix, AZ to the nation’s capital, according to David J. Hoff’s story in the recent edition of Education Week newspaper. “It recognizes the growing role that the Alliance plans to play in D.C.,” said Clint Bolick who will leave his post as president amid the changes. Replacing Bolick as ASC president is Charles R. Hokanson Jr. A former House Republican aide, he is currently the chief of staff for the Department of Education’s general counsel’s office.
