Better or Worse than NCLB?

Will the new federal education act be better or worse than No Child Left Behind? 

Now that the Senate version has moved out of committee, we are being assured by Senators on both sides of the aisle that it represents a broad compromise that eliminates problems with current legislation. 

Not all observers agree.  Leaders of five key national education groups express concern that the new version of the ESEA still does not give states the necessary leeway in measuring student growth and continues too much emphasis on high-stakes testing.  They worry that teacher and principal evaluation processes are being mandated that create “forced distribution of professionals” rather than provide really helpful information that can be used to improve performance or eliminate non-performers.  In other words, they see the law leading to evaluation systems that force each group being evaluated to be distributed on a normal curve regardless of how proficient they are.

I do not know enough about the present bill to know whether these concerns are legitimate but I have increasing doubt that solving whatever our national problems with education are is best done in Washington by people who are far removed from the classroom. 

I was born in Iowa and grew up in Wyoming.  Everything I remember about the culture of those two states, and everything I have observed in working in them in recent years, makes me wonder if the Iowa and Wyoming Senators who have developed the new bill have been away from their home states for too long.  Neither state is populated by many people who put a lot of faith in the federal government to solve all their problems.

I worry that with all the focus on jobs and other economic issues, continuing world conflicts, and the upcoming Presidential election, changes will be made in the federal role in education that not only fail to cure the ills created by NCLB but generate new problems.

Can anyone provide information that will tell me I am worrying needlessly?

A common disease for hospitals and schools

Some people continue to believe that the best way to improve schools is to provide ratings of how good they are.  Now the medical profession is experiencing the same kind of thinking.  An MSNBC report on October 17, 2011 asked: “How safe is your hospital?”  And then reported that “New website lets you check."

We are told that "the new data on patient safety moves Medicare further along toward its ultimate goal, which is to base payments on the actual medical outcomes for patients.”

Not surprisingly, hospital professionals have concerns about the approach being taken.  The report noted that: “… the latest data is intensifying objections from the hospital industry and some academic researchers that Medicare is using dubious and unfair measurements in ways that will hurt some hospitals, particularly those with sicker patients.”

In language that is similar to objections raised by educators about the mis-measurement of schooling, a hospital expert said, “we believe the data is fairly seriously flawed in the way it’s calculated.”  Nancy Foster, a vice president at the American Hospital Association, continued, “when inaccurate data is out there, it both misleads the public and generates a lot of activity that is unproductive in the hospital.”

As one of my wiser professors liked to say, just because you attach numbers to something, doesn’t mean you have said anything accurate about it.  Whether it is hospital safety or school quality, look carefully at claims from people who insist their measurements tell the truth. 

NCLB Waiver the Answer?

This morning's paper reports that 37 states have requested "relief" from NCLB requirements.  In order to obtain permission to ignore requirements that are impossible states are promising to do some things that are stupid.

Which is worse-- failing to comply with a law that is poorly conceived or promising to do unwise things to avoid the law?  It seems to me that there is no good choice here.  Maybe the federal administration should do what it has just done with a portion of the health care law and declare there is no feasible way to implement the requirements of NLCB and move on to a more reasonable approach to improving schooling?

Does somebody have a suggestion for what states should be doing?

Civic Mission of Schools

The Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools  is  committed to improving civic learning in American schools.  The campaign involves 40 organizations that share a commitment much like the National Network for Educational Renewal and the National League of Democratic Schools for improving both the quality and quantity of attention to learning that will prepare children to become contributing members of our democratic society.

Read their report "Guardian of Democracy:  The Civic Mission of Schools" that can be downloaded from their web site linked above.

Shame on Us

Considering the potential for unfair and unconstitutional treatment of children, it is amazing there has not been a louder outcry about state actions that target immigrant children.  The most recent case is that of Alabama (see the October 3 New York Times editorial for one view that should be more widely discussed.)

As the Times points out, the nation cannot justify harsh treatment of the children of immigrants -- treatment that is likely to lead to their increasing alienation from our society. 

We all need to support efforts to see that such laws are overturned and to focus instead on providing exceptional education for all children.

Try listening to everyone

The Sept 29 Public Agenda Alert introduces some core principles to consider when engaging a community.  It says in part:

 

 “…where to begin? Whether you are an expert on the policy issues facing your community or simply someone eager to start productive dialogue and actually get things done, there are a number of principles to keep in mind. First and foremost:

Begin by listening

Be alert to the issues that nonexperts in your community care about, the language they use to discuss them, and their concerns, aspirations, knowledge base, misperceptions and initial sense of direction with respect to solutions. Doing so will allow you to engage people in ways that are meaningful in light of their interests, concerns and natural language. It will help you avoid making faulty assumptions about people's positions or using jargon that, however useful to experts, is counterproductive when it comes to engaging the public.”

  

Listening is certainly something we all need to do more and better.  However, I am not clear why people who know something about a subject because they have studied it in depth should not be listened to as well as those who are “nonexperts”?  Or are they saying, we need to listen to more than just the experts?  If the latter is the case, then I agree, and would emphasize as they do at the beginning of the statement, that experts need to listen to these people as well.