Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


NCLB Outrages

Fed Law Designed to Fail, Say Educators

The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act is a clever long-range political ploy to discredit public education by branding good schools as "failures" and to drive American education toward vouchers, charter schools -- and even resegregation.


That's the bitter conclusion reached by the leaders of groups representing Massachusetts' school committees, teachers unions, superintendents and administrators.

In February, they formed a rare coalition to lobby to rework the federal law to make it reflect what they see as honest goals and reasonable sanctions for failing to meet them.

But in an editorial board meeting with The Standard-Times, they said emphatically that the current system is designed to fail nearly every public school in America, no matter how good it is.

"I don't think this was an accident," said Phillip F. Flaherty, assistant director of the Massachusetts Secondary School Administrators Association. "This (No Child Left Behind Act) was written by very, very gifted, very bright people."

Glenn S. Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, blamed partisan politics, saying, "The political right has the patience and the diligence to plot a long-term strategy and stay focused on it. It's like a corporate mission."

"If the goal is to starve the beast and the beast is the bill for public education, then you have to create as much of the appearance of underperformance as you can. And what better vehicles to resegregate than vouchers (public funding for private education) and charter schools," Mr. Koocher said.

He and others at the meeting described what it is that is causing the "angst, which becomes anger, which becomes rage" among educators: the setting of impossible-to-reach, wish-list outcomes posing as goals, and the establishment of too-quick triggers to punish "underperforming" schools before they can correct problems.

Ralph T. Devlin, head of the Massachusetts Teachers Association's Center for Educational Quality and Professional Development, said the root of the problem lies in the fine print of the attractively named federal law (which was a rewrite of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act).

It declared that for the first time, schools were to employ tests to measure progress and make required annual improvements or be punished. But to Mr. Devlin, the devil is in the details.

Each state, he said, was left to define what is "proficient." And since Massachusetts had already put in place the MCAS tests, with their own definition of "proficient" (about a B-plus or A-Minus), that's where Massachusetts set the bar. "We got caught up in the rhetoric. Since we already had 'proficient,' people were unwilling to label anything less than proficient as 'proficient,'" he said.

So, under the federal law, Massachusetts schools, by their own strictest-in-America measures, must now show improvement every year, for every group and subgroup of students, leading to 100 percent proficiency by 2014, or be labeled "underperforming." That leads to loss of federal funds as punishment.

Other states were free to -- and did -- set the bar much lower, not only for student performance, but for teacher certification. For them, showing annual progress will be much easier, Mr. Devlin said. They include, he said, "Ohio. And Texas, oddly enough. How about that?"

While Massachusetts demands master's degrees and subject specialization to keep teachers certified, with penalties for not improving each year, other states are miles behind. Mr. Devlin said that officials in some states react to Massachusetts' teaching requirements by exclaiming, "They have to have college degrees?!"

Designed to fail

Members of the coalition, called MassPartners for Public Schools, say they support the goals of breaking out data for ethnic and minority subgroups, to end the practice of hiding discrimination by blending low-performing students in with the whole population.

But some of the requirements are self-defeating, they say.

For example, students with limited English proficiency are scored as their own group, required to make "adequate yearly progress." But, Mr. Devlin pointed out, once they achieve proficiency and score well, they are no longer counted as members of that group.

Those in that group "can never be proficient, by definition," he said. Yet they must be, or the whole school is labeled "underperforming" and is punished.

"What does this accomplish? Who would design a system like this?" Mr. Devlin asked. "We're on a failure track."

That is despite the fact that Massachusetts students have been ranked at the top of the 50 states, the group says in its literature. "The Massachusetts proficiency standard will make schools and students across the state look like failures, even though they are among the best in the country," it wrote.

Mr. Devlin and others said they believe the lower-achieving states, with weaker definitions of "proficiency," are playing a waiting game, expecting the uproar from high-achieving states labeled as failures to result in a rollback of the law or a voucher/charter school push.

Then how did the likes of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy so famously join President George W. Bush in the law's signing ceremony? By believing promises of adequate funding that were immediately broken, and by falling for the trick of removing vouchers from the law and later slipping them in elsewhere later on, the group contends.

"They snuck vouchers into a bill that came along later," Mr. Koocher said.

subhead

Mr. Flaherty identified another facet of the No Child Left Behind Act that sounds good but rarely works in practice: the ability of a student in a "failing" school to transfer to one that isn't failing.

The fact is, he and Mr. Devlin said, that most Massachusetts school systems don't fit that model, with only one to three elementary schools, a middle school and a high school.

There's nowhere to transfer to, and no room in any case.

Where transfer is possible, it can result in more trouble, he said.

"New York City has had some of the best schools destroyed by overcrowding by students from bad schools transferring into the good ones," he said. Meanwhile, "failing" schools become worse as the best students leave and funding is cut.

Dr. Steve Russell, superintendent of the Dartmouth schools, held back from some of the harshest political criticism, but emphasized a pattern he finds disturbing: the relentless criticism of public schools. "I'd like to see the whole issue of public schools get re-energized," he said. "But it doesn't seem appropriate to say anything good about public schools anymore."

"There is a degree of reasonableness that we need to bring to the discussion," he said, adding later, "But there's no evidence of dialogue."

The state Board of Education and Gov. Mitt Romney came under harsh criticism from Mr. Koocher, who ridiculed the board and said the governor is "pathologically ambitious," with eyes on the 2008 presidential race, doing nothing to upset the Bush White House.

Mr. Devlin said that should Sen. John F. Kerry be elected president, change might come soon. ""If Kerry is inaugurated president, there will probably be a substantial administrative order that will begin to try to make more reasonable the regulations regarding the implementation of the law," Mr. Devlin said.

Should Mr. Bush and the GOP prevail, he and the others said, change is less certain. "This is among the things that drove (Vermont Senator James) Jeffords out of the party," Mr. Koocher said.

Some states such as Maine, Mr. Flaherty said, have decided to simply opt out of federal funding rather than allow the federal government to make impossible rules while supplying just 6 percent or 7 percent of their education budget.

The No Child Left Behind Act, Mr. Koocher said, "is being brutalized by a vicious gang of facts."

— Steve Urbon
The Standard-Times
2004-07-11
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-04/07-11-04/a01lo919.htm


INDEX OF NCLB OUTRAGES


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.