Smelling the Coffee at the Century Foundation
Please! Did these guys ever really believe that there was anything at all
in the Bush plan that would encourage integration? Not a whit. In fact,
Wake County has achieved what they have despite of, not because of, the
racist school privatization juggernaut of NCLB.
Perhaps it is not too late for the Century Foundation scholars. I am glad
to see this (NCLB's Poison Pill) on their site today by Greg Anrig, vice
president for programs. It is proof that the the message has finally
broken through. Now will they join the national effort to inform the
American public about what is going on? Or will they take the Hillary
route or the Kerry route into a neutral corner, hoping to avoid any of the
potential bruises or knockdowns that may be inflicted in a real fight?
Ohanian Comment: Hillary in a neutral corner? She was a chief negoiator on America 2000 and Goals 2000, precursors to NCLB. Remember, her husband wanted a national test. Nor is Kerry neutral. He's a corporate politico all the way. His education platform was to dump more money into NCLB and have more testing. The Century Foundation can change its name (from the Twenty-First Century Fund) but it doesn't change its neo-liberal, corporate-allied stripes.
Board of Trustees Century Foundation
Chairman Alan Brinkley
Vice Chairman James A. Leach
Treasurer Lewis B. Kaden Secretary Peter A. A. Berle
Clerk Alicia H. Munnell President Richard C. Leone
H. Brandt Ayers • Peter A. A. Berle • Alan Brinkley • Joseph A. Califano, Jr. • Alexander Morgan Capron • Hodding Carter III • Edward E. David, Jr. • Brewster C. Denny • Christopher Edley, Jr. • Charles V. Hamilton • Matina S. Horner • Lewis B. Kaden • James A. Leach • Richard C. Leone • Jessica Tuchman Mathews • Alicia H. Munnell • P. Michael Pitfield • John Podesta • Richard Ravitch • Alan Sagner • Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. • Harvey I. Sloane, M.D. • Theodore C. Sorensen • Kathleen M. Sullivan • Shirley Williams • William Julius Wilson
NCLB's Poison Pill
by Greg Anrig, Jr., The Century Foundation
This week marked the fourth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind
Act, which was enacted with broad bipartisan support even though
neither attentive conservatives nor liberals liked it very much at the
time. Discussion this week over NCLB's impact has proceeded along
predictable lines, with evidence remaining far from conclusive about
the usual measures of overall student performance and so forth. It's
only been four years. But nonetheless I'm going to declare one clear
victor: the conservative movement.
The reason is that NCLB set in place an accountability regime that, in
essence, requires states to tell their citizens that much of the
public school system is failing—and almost inexorably getting worse by
the year. That's a gift beyond the wildest dreams of even Milton
Friedman and other libertarian voucher supporters.
The word "failing" does not appear in the Act itself, but journalists
invariably invoke it for schools that the law deems to "need
improvement." That transposition seems reasonable since NCLB
encourages parents to take their kids out of such schools. The "need
improvement"/"failing" judgments apply to any school in which even one
subgroup of students—low income, English-language learners, the
disabled, etc.—fail to meet uniform, state-determined benchmarks for
proficiency and adequate-yearly progress required of NCLB. For the
2005–6 school year, according to this report from the National
Education Association (trash them if you like, but they are just
reporting numbers that don't make their membership look particularly
good) 25.8 percent of all schools "failed." The number of schools that
failed for two or more years has doubled since 2003–4.
One of the main sources of the problem with NCLB is that schools
aren't necessarily rewarded if their students make progress from one
year to the next. Rather, they are judged by benchmarks unrelated to
their own past performance. This Times story from last week
demonstrates the injustice of that approach from the standpoint of a
school principal, notwithstanding Eduwonk's somewhat overheated
response to coverage of what is clearly a fundamental flaw in the law.
NCLB requires states to ratchet up their testing benchmarks so that by
2014, they meet a 100 percent proficiency level—across all schools and
for every group within each school. If that ever were to happen,
almost regardless of what standards states used, the depiction of the
public school system as a near uniform failure from coast to coast
would be a direct outgrowth of federal law. Not because the system is,
or would be, a failure. But because the accountability regime was
rigged to set the schools up as having failed.
Look, some state-level innovations with testing and standards seem to
have born fruit, according to studies by liberal researchers like
Martin Carnoy. Inducing schools, mainly with sticks, to demonstrate
that their students are performing better over time on tests is a
strategy that seems to have a positive impact (though by no means a
panacea). But NCLB's overly rigid, ham-handed approach creates all
kinds of perverse incentives for states and schools to water-down
their curriculums (and tests) and shed children who struggle on exams,
as Virginia law professor James Ryan has argued, while further
discouraging good teachers from working in schools with low-income
But the only unequivocal bottom line of NCLB so far is that by
characterizing such a large—and inexorably growing—segment of the
public school system as a failure, the support that has sustained it
throughout the nation's history is in danger.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.