iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Gary M. Ratner

GET UPDATES FROM Gary M. Ratner
 

NCLB Waivers Should Not Be Unconditional: New Accountability Strategy Needed

Posted: 08/25/11 12:02 PM ET

Focus on Common Elements of Successful School Turnarounds Must be Included

As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) "is creating a slow-motion train wreck for children, parents and teachers." This is due particularly to NCLB's unrealistic, ineffective, punitive and harmful accountability requirements. States must bring virtually 100% of students to academic "proficiency" by 2014. Schools that fail to reach the increasingly high interim percentage targets for all groups of students are labeled failing. And if they fail for two or more consecutive years, they must implement escalating sanctions such as staff replacement, charter school conversions or state takeovers.

As the number of schools deemed failing skyrockets -- already about 38,000 schools in 2009-
10, projected to increase to about 85,000 of our 100,000 schools by 2014 -- states object to the accountability system and lack the capacity to comply. Thus, absent overdue congressional action, many states support having the Secretary exercise his statutory authority to waive these requirements. He should.

But the waivers should not be unconditional. Our poor, minority, and other public school students, teachers, administrators and parents have already suffered enough from the years of misconceived NCLB-driven "school reform." While NCLB's specific accountability strategy has seriously failed to achieve its goal of raising all students to academic proficiency, the executive branch has a legal and moral responsibility to do whatever it lawfully can, through granting waivers or otherwise, to help achieve NCLB's goals.

What is desperately needed is a new accountability strategy: not one, like NCLB, that continues to demand that schools dramatically raise student achievement and then abandons them to flail on their own. Instead, one that actually helps schools improve and students learn.

Can this be done? Absolutely. We already know that it is possible to turn around low-achieving
schools. Moreover, we know that successful turnarounds share a set of common elements:
1) leadership by the principal, teachers and other stakeholders 2) instructional improvement 3) curriculum that is challenging, rich, culturally relevant and aligned within and between grades 4) climate of high expectations, respect, support and safety and 5) parent and community involvement and support.

Further, we know a range of concrete policies and practices that successful turnarounds typically use to implement these elements. These sub-elements include having a skilled, strong and committed principal as the catalyst for change and getting teachers to work together to analyze individual students' work and performance, develop lesson plans and coordinate curriculum within and between grade levels.

These elements embody not only the process for turning around low-achieving schools, but also, to a vast extent, the characteristics of good schools. There is compelling reason to believe that adopting them would dramatically improve low-achieving schools and students' learning.

Therefore, waivers should be conditioned on states agreeing to focus their policies and practices on implementing these common elements/sub-elements where absent in their Title I-funded schools. In exchange for being relieved of NCLB's rigid and widely ineffective escalating sanctions, schools and districts would be held accountable through: publicly reporting their implementation actions and results achieved, including assessment data disaggregated by student groups; professional external evaluations; and ultimately, states taking responsibility for intervention where necessary.

Unfortunately, the administration's proposed waiver principles do not even mention that successful school turnarounds share common elements, let alone propose to require states to focus on implementing these elements in their Title I-funded schools generally.

The closest the administration comes is its proposed principle that states agree "to take on the lowest-performing schools [.]" Two of four school turnaround models the administration might require states to use for these schools include some, but not nearly all, of the common elements and sub-elements. (Those models are also defective in other respects.) Further, this condition predictably would apply to only about the bottom 5 percent of schools.

As to helping all the other low-achieving schools among the remaining 95 percent improve, the
administration proposes to give the states great "flexibility." But such "flexibility" would only perpetuate our wasteful and destructive practice of continually "reinventing the wheel" in how to turn around schools -- failing to learn from our past successes.

Instead, the administration should require waiver requests to address how, within budget limitations, states will focus their Title I-funded schools and districts on implementing the common elements of successful turnarounds, and help them do so.

Such a condition would not only dramatically help schools improve and students learn. It would
greatly strengthen the Secretary's legal grounds for granting waivers, because such a condition would directly accomplish the two critical goals the Secretary is statutorily obligated to promote in granting NCLB waivers: to " (i) increase the quality of instruction for students and (ii) improve the academic achievement of students [.]" 20 USC 7861(b)(1)(B).

We know what works. Now we must do it.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kent Brockman
11:57 PM on 08/26/2011
This law EXPIRED in 2007. I fail to see why it, or any of it's unrealistic targets/requirements are still considered law. If it wasn't reauthorized, it has no right to exist in any form any longer.

These waivers are useless because by definition this expired law is null and void.
12:39 PM on 08/25/2011
Just get rid of NCLB and Arne Duncan and the test manufacturers. That's a real start on stopping the destruction we have seen in public education.
09:57 PM on 08/25/2011
Getting "rid" of NCLB gets rid of a law (ESEA of 1965) that intended to "strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunity." The old law put in place elements of support for "educationally deprived" children and the testing in the law was ONLY of those targeted children (Title I) and was to be used to monitor the effectiveness of the programs and services provided to them.....somebody press the reset button!
12:27 PM on 08/25/2011
You could increase the instructional quality for students by granting a blanket waiver to all American schools, with no strings attached.
09:59 PM on 08/25/2011
No strings - no accounting for unequal opportunity, no improvement for those most in need. History has proven that.
07:14 AM on 08/26/2011
Oh, there could be strings attached that would make things better. But I have no confidence that those are the strings Arne Duncan would attach, and while an unconditional blanket waiver for all schools, releasing them from NCLB requirements, might not be the best possible thing to do, it would certainly be a net positive for the country's education system.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lrobb
Gold Standard = four paws and a tail
12:26 PM on 08/25/2011
There is no mention in the article about how a school can require an uninvolved or incapable parent to suddenly provide a supportive home learning/studying environment for their children. Unless the federal government is going to provide extra funds for tutoring children who are falling behind, all of this is just a lot of hot air.

State tax and property tax revenue is cratering all over the US. It is just this kind of unfunded mandate that is turning more and more voters against Washington.
10:11 PM on 08/25/2011
Part of creating a school climate supportive of teaching and learning is through authentic "stakeholder" engagement and there are multiple proven ways to do it (too many words for one article or post). But you are right, there is a whole lot of hot air floating around and the largest amounts have come from our congressional representatives.

There are excellent ideas on the table for improving NCLB (including this one) and have been since at least 2005. The American people have given lawmakers a "pass," a get out of jail free card. Meanwhile, children, teachers, and schools sit in AYP jail. Where is the big bad wolf when we need him? Instead of the hot air coming out of DC, it's time the People blew their own in Congress' direction.

Isn't it time their gig was over?