In 2002, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was amended as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) under then-President George W. Bush, few would have predicted that in the 10 years to follow, NCLB would become a household name, both vilified and praised.
In 2002 education was a common ground of sorts for bickering members of Congress. Despite concerns about NCLB and its laser focus on testing-based accountability, it was signed into law in the turbulent months that followed the September 2011 attacks, giving the president and members of Congress an opportunity to demonstrate a bipartisan effort around which they could move forward together.
It did not take long for educators and policy makers to discover that the implementation of NCLB, despite its intent to elevate education as the "great civil rights issue of our time," was difficult to manage well. The law's effort to hold schools accountable for raising student achievement for all student groups set well-meaning but unrealistic targets (e.g., 100 percent of students will score proficient in reading and math by 2014) and made two acronyms, AMO (annual measurable objectives) and AYP (adequate yearly progress), common and frustrating reminders that expectations were high for educators and school leaders, and that the consequences were not pretty. Fear of not making AYP (whether it be real or imagined) became such a pervasive force within public schools that school leaders faced hard choices about narrowing the curriculum and "teaching to the test" so that their students would make the AMOs required by NCLB.
A major criticism of NCLB is that it tends to over-identify schools as failing because of the many hurdles involved in demonstrating AYP. Indeed, in the 2010-11 school year, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) at the George Washington University found that 49 percent of all public schools in the nation failed to make AYP, and that the percentage of failing schools would likely increase in the future.
And though the low-achieving students whom NCLB was designed to save from what George W. Bush famously called "the soft bigotry of low expectations" have made some progress in the last decade, the achievement gap between minority students and their white peers stubbornly remains. (In fairness, it must be noted that the reasons for that are myriad; the shortcomings of NCLB are perhaps one among many factors.)
In 2009 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, keenly aware of the criticisms of shortcomings of NCLB and the gridlock that was permeating Congress, focused squarely on incentivizing states to do better for those students who are most at risk, the Obama administration's Race to the Top program being the poster child for that strategy. Favoring what became known as the "tight-loose" approach (tight on demands, loose on means), Secretary Duncan's Department of Education set out to free states from the tyrannies of NCLB by waiving the most unpopular requirements of the law for qualifying states, including the 100-percent proficiency goal for all students by 2014. With reauthorization nowhere in sight, the federal waiver program is, as of December 2012, the law of the land for 34 states and the District of Columbia.
The question, however, is whether this is a good thing for public schools and the students they serve. While the secretary's Race to the Top program has been widely praised (despite no formal evaluation data to consider yet), the department's granting of NCLB waivers has raised many concerns, especially as it pertains to holding schools and states accountable for student achievement.
CEP's recent report, "What Impact Will NCLB Waivers Have on the Consistency, Complexity and Transparency of State Accountability Systems?" looked at how the new accountability provisions in states with waivers would compare with NCLB requirements and identified key issues to watch for as the new waiver policies are implemented.
For example, because the waivers allow states to develop more complex and multifaceted "indexes" for student progress, there is less transparency to educators and the public about how students are doing. Though capturing more dimensions of school performance to determine achievement is generally regarded as an important aspect of teaching and learning, it can cloud the waters when trying to ensure accountability among student subgroups.
The Obama administration appears confident that the waivers can both offset some of the challenges that states have faced with NCLB and maintain accountability and student achievement. It is still too early in the game for anyone to know what the post-NCLB era of education will mean for students, teachers and the nation, but one thing is for certain: Almost 30 years after President Reagan made the words immortal, we are still trying to figure out what it really means to trust but verify.
This blog post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post and the George Washington University that closely examines the most pressing challenges facing President Obama in his second term. To read the companion article by HuffPost's Joy Resmovits, click here. To read the companion blog post by Michael Lomax, Ph.D., of the United Negro College Fund, click here. To read all the other posts in the series, click here.
Michael Lomax, Ph.D.: President Obama's Next Four Years: Invest in Higher Education
The only "good" thing that will come out of the present "reform" is this: In a few years we'll see that healthy children from stable families do well, while impoverished, poorly nourished children from unstable families do poorly, regardless of the type of school or expertise of the teachers. I have faith in the intelligence of President Obama, so I believe he will act on this information and will initiate changes that really will help low-performing children, such as health clinics for all infants and toddlers, high-quality preschool, community centers in high poverty areas, experienced teachers, two teachers to a classroom, and other actions that will bring some measure of equity to our least privileged children.
Our leaders will look at that gap, and they will blame it on the teachers and administrators of the public schools.
I am a strong supporter of President Obama but do not approve of Arne Duncan and his policies. A Stanford study has shown that only 20% of charter schools do better than public schools, even though the charters can subtly counsel out less desirable students while public schools attempt to educate all students. A huge amount of money is spent on the tests themselves and for study guides, extra tutorials, and extra staff. I don't know a single teacher that doesn't think the testing has been overdone and takes too much time away from class time and creative approaches to teaching critical thinking.
What I wish people knew, especially the people who make policy decisions, is that the teachers in the school now--with the at-risk students--work much harder to help the students learn and pass the tests than we did when we had students who had more advantages at home. Test scores do not indicate how hard-working or sincere the teachers are. Would you judge a doctor's results on stage 1 cancer and stage 4 cancer in the same way?
The positive, hopefully, will be the rise of a labor party that can finally spearhead the needs of the 1%. Dems are now the GOP, and the GOP are extremists.
further, why the verdict is still pending on race to the top, most of the policies promoted by duncan during his time in Chicago have been complete failures, most specifically his chicago renaissance project.
A different three set of R's for education Reason Relationality and rhythm by George Allen and Michael D Evans and Slam school learning through a conflict in Hip Hop spoken word classroom. Bronwen Lowe. and Earth Spell by CeAnne DeRohan. These three book are interesting and counter so much of the typical entrenched myopic strangulation against discussion for gaining a comprehensive treatment of perception building and increasing complexity and experimentalist thoughtfulness. Sorry I am not stupid!!! This stuff is hard to write about!!!! I am not religious so I do not confine myself to a myopic grid across some BS Idealogue non literacy reactionary bulwark.
Birth control in America The career of Margaret Sanger. Which is in Questia which is a digital library I subscribe to $100 a year it has many conservative leaning books as well as progressive so It does for example have Christian Century and things like that all variety of discussions are good. It isn't that we need to agree but that you get enough vocabulary to lay a detailed point. I am assuming your comment was an attempt to make a joke Rap encompasses many kinds of people and situations. Many educators are studying it and laying out progressive curriculum and commitments to get Graph paper into every school in the nation.
http://news.yahoo.com/teachers-seattle-school-boycott-standardized-test-022855633--finance.html
NCLB was horrible. So is RTTT. They come from the same misconceptions.
Nobody could have predicted the future of NCLB? No, teachers all over the country predicted, accurately, what the future held. It's just that, then as now, nobody was listening to them.
"tight-loose"? Seriously, how do these bureaucrats manage to say these things with a straight face? There is nothing-- nothing at all-- loose about RttT.
Race to the Top has been widely praised? Well, yes. By educrats and educatoin-based corporations, congratulating themselves on their program. By people actually working in schools? Not so much.
Reform from DC continues to mean more obstacles for public schools and more opportunities for private enterprise to score some of that public tax money.