No Child Left Behind is based on dubious data, writes Liam Julian on National Review, citing Fordham’s Proficiency Illusion study. States can game the system by defining proficiency down.
Some states habitually report that upwards of 80 percent of their students score at the “proficient” level on state tests. But when those same students take the national assessment (the scores on which don’t count for anything), only 20 percent reach the “proficient” mark.
Julian, who works for Fordham, is pushing for a national test that would provide comparable data.
There’s all this testing — too much, surely — yet the testing enterprise is unbelievably slipshod. It’s not just that results vary but that they vary almost randomly, erratically, from place to place and grade to grade and year to year in ways that have little or nothing to do with true differences in pupil achievement.
America is awash in achievement “data,” yet the truth about our educational performance is far from transparent and trustworthy.
Low and inconsistent state standards predate NCLB, writes Eduwonk, who thinks Fordham’s “walk to the middle” is a lot less troubling than the “race to the bottom” that apparently isn’t happening.
. . . because national standards, should they come, are a long way off, the real trick in policymaking today is about ensuring some sort of reasonable benchmarking of state standards and real transparency.
There are “boring but effective” solutions for some of these problems, Eduwonk writes.
Update: Julian takes on Michigan’s low standards in a Detroit News op-ed.
The Quick and the Ed says Fordham’s gloomy-gus op-eds confused Herbert.
Those guys at Fordham have it backwards.
This cheating on the achievement data is actually a step in the right direction. Previous to the advent of NCLB it wasn’t worth cheating, by and large, so why bother? Good schools, bad schools, who cares?
Now someone cares. Now it’s starting to matter whether kids get high school diplomas they can’t read. So now the cheating occurs for a somewhat more urgent reason then escaping embarrassment.
Now that there’s NCLB… it’s time to move to a national curriculum and testing regime to prevent the gaming of the system.
Supersub,
Perhaps you’ve heard of the Constitution? Maybe the Bill of Rights?
Our founding fathers were wary of people like Bush and the modern day Republicans abusing their powers.
The US govt. has no constitutional right to impose national standards or a national test.
Oh don’t be ridiculous.
The Constitution doesn’t apply in this case unless somewhere in the Constitution there’s a stealth amendment about the right of states to expect funds from the federal government.
The states signed on for Title I funding and for a couple of decades got to treat the money as if there weren’t any strings attached. But there were strings attached since the money was supposed to be spent on specific activities.
Just like “E-rate” money though, once the check cleared there wasn’t much regard for the purpose behind the money.
Well guess what? Those chickens are coming home to roost and all the new-found strict constructionism in the world doesn’t change the fact that the states accepted the money voluntarily.
You want local control? Then pay for it locally.
Allen,
We actually agree on this, I think the states should tell the federal govt. to take a flying leap. But if you read SuperSub’s comment he is calling for national standards and national tests, a power the federal govt. does not have.
I thought all you conservatives were big on the Constitution and the limiting of the federal govt.?
MiT, the feds have managed to squirm their way into local education matters via the 14th amendment. The achievement gap is an equal protection/civil rights issue. As long as the states take the feds’ money there is a long line of supreme court precedent that permits the feds to attach strings to said money.
Even if TX were to forgo federal money, so you really think TX is going to lessen accountibility measures?
And the chances that any state legislator, governor or education official who suggested that the federal government take a flying leap along with those federal dollars wouldn’t have a butterfly net thrown over them are, what?, somewhere between zero and none? Hillsdale College may tell the federal government to get stuffed but there aren’t too many other institutions that prefer independence to the federal thirty pieces of silver.
> if you read SuperSub’s comment he is calling for national standards and national tests, a power the federal govt. does not have.
Too which my consistent response has been “then may God preserve us”.
National standards won’t be any less of a political football then state-level standards, they’ll be a heck of a lot more political since they’ll directly and indirectly influence $550 billion of annual spending. Yet there can’t be much surprise in the call for national standards.
The misuse of federal funding led to NCLB and the state’s response to NCLB of achingly clever standards reductions leads to national standards. National standards are a perfectly obvious and defensible next step. After all, what’s the rationale for deciding to forgo accountability measures after it’s been made blindingly clear that the money’s being misspent?
> I thought all you conservatives were big on the Constitution and the limiting of the federal govt.?
We are but but he who pays the piper, etc.
If there’s no Constitutional issue in ladling out the funds then there’s no Constitutional issue in reasonable demands to demonstrate proper and efficient use of the funds. It’s an “either/or” situation and no one’s crazy enough to suggest that the states refuse federal funding to avoid the standards that go with them.
If a state legislature decides that publicly-funded education is a pretty good idea that creates no obligation on the part of the federal government to kick in.
No, I don’t think Texas would forego any federal money. Our current guv. is a Bush protege and in the pocket of Sandy Kress and the companies he hawks for.
You can claim civil rights issues, but the truth is, the federal govt. has no constitutional authority on education, as the 10th Amendment restricts the federal govt.’s power.
State politicians may wake up like they have in Conneticut, when they realized NCLB is costing them more to implement than they receive in federal funds.
Allen, I think you’ve understated what implementation of national standards would be like. Every senator and representative, Democrat and Republican, would be fighting to whore for the big education companies.
I think my child and the children I teach deserve better.
You can claim civil rights issues, but the truth is, the federal govt. has no constitutional authority on education, as the 10th Amendment restricts the federal govt.’s power.
I can’t find any constitutional authority for much of what the federal government does and yet here we are.
You can claim civil rights issues, but the truth is, the federal govt. has no constitutional authority on education, as the 10th Amendment restricts the federal govt.’s power.
The achievement gap was part of the political case made for NCLB by its proponents. The legal footing on which the law is based, with which you implicitly agree since you’ve carefully ignored the subject, is that accountability requirements are set by the grantor not the grantee. If there’s no constitutional issue handing out the money there’s no constitutional issue in setting conditions on the use of them money.
It’s been better then six years since NCLB was passed and legal challenges have been uniformly failures. There’s no constitutionality question despite your efforts to make it so via repetition.
State politicians may wake up like they have in Connecticut, when they realized NCLB is costing them more to implement than they receive in federal funds.
I’d ask for a link about that “Connecticut” reference but I already know where it’ll lead: a fawning editorial about a law suit that’s going nowhere and will be dismissed once it gets to the point that it can be dismissed.
Feel free to call my bluff by providing a link.
Every senator and representative, Democrat and Republican, would be fighting to whore for the big education companies.
That would be the critically underfunded education system the big education companies are planning on plundering, right? Also, those Democrat and Republican senators and reps wouldn’t be whoring for just the big education companies. They’d also be whoring for the NEA as well, right?
I think we’re just about on track for a response along the lines of “once again my brilliance has reduced you to hurling insults”.
http://www.conncan.org/matriarch/MultiPiecePage.asp_Q_PageID_E_83_A_PageName_E_IssueBrief4
http://www.edutopia.org/its-revolting
Please note, both articles mention that districts and states can opt out by refusing to take federal money, a point I have already discussed.
And if you believe the federal govt. will just let states walk away by not taking any federal money, then there’s a bridge in New York I’d like to sell you. If states walk away, then Sandy Kress and Bush’s good buddies at Pearson and McGraw-Hill stand to lose money
Hmm, Mike, here’s what one of your links says:
“Prospects for Connecticut’s suit appear poor. As Cheshire’s actions make clear, Title I is a voluntary program—no state or district must accept federal funding through the program, and thus every state and district can exempt itself from the strings attached to the money. And while the question of whether NCLB is adequately funded is complex, the best answer seems to be that any gaps in funding are specific to certain localities, and not state- or nation-wide.20
The larger question is whether the lawsuit indicates that Connecticut has taken seriously the need to close what amounts to the largest achievement gap between rich and poor students in the nation.21 Indeed, this was the ground on which the Connecticut chapter of the NAACP intervened to oppose the suit, arguing that the state was trying to shirk its responsibility to poor and minority students.”
So Cheshire did walk away from the money, right?
And the funding issue seems to be a non-starter.
I think I’ve finally figured out what you’re doing, Mike; you’re actually on our side, and you advance these silly arguments to make the unions and public schools look silly.
Thank you, Mike, I’m sorry it took me so long to figure that out.
And I’m beginning to doubt your ability to comprehend what you read. . .
. .is exactly what I wrote.
Once again, education is a state matter, not a federal, as per the Constitution. My position is clear, the states should tell the federal govt. to drop dead.
You DO understand the difference between state and federal powers, don’t you?
As always, I’m glad you to see you still retain the ability to warp reality to fit your own ideals. Good for you, Allen. Stick to what works for you.
My apologies, Allen. That should have said Ragnarok
MiT, it’s good to see that you are an originalist when it comes to Constitutional scholarship; however, the current interpretation of the Constitution permits federal interference in plenty of state powers, mostly through generous interpretations of the commerce clause and equal protection amendments.
KDeRosa,
If you’re a conservative you should be appalled at these intrusions.
I found the most interesting aspect of the entire discussion the comments of Michael Petrelli, the VP for policy at Fordham, regarding math scores. Even though math tests are harder. the scores are improving. And that comes as no surprise to Petrelli. See
http://www.openeducation.net/2007/10/09/nclb-proficiency-illusion/
Tom Hanson
Editor
OpenEducation.net
Mike’n'Taxes,
If a state takes the money then it must also fulfill the requirements. Clear?
A state can refuse the money and opt out. I thought we agreed on this, but then there’s this pesky paragraph of yours:
“And if you believe the federal govt. will just let states walk away by not taking any federal money, then there’s a bridge in New York I’d like to sell you.”
Yet your own article says that “…and thus every state and district can exempt itself from the strings attached to the money.”
So who’s right? Your source - or you, yourself, and thou? 3-to-1 in your favour, I don’t think.
MiT, I am appalled, but that fight has been lost for quite some time such that stare decisis comes into play.
Rags,
The problem is, the feds make their own rules. A school district or state can’t just opt out of NCLB funding and lose only that money. They also lose their Title I funding. Title I is a whole different kettle of fish, but the feds are holding the states and districts hostage with it. NCLB is not about improving education for Title I kids, its about the feds asserting their power into an area they have no right to mettle in.
“Title I” is Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which was reauthorized as NCLB. NCLB adopted all of ESEA and merely added the much-hated accountability provisions and distributed additional funding to pay for implementing said accountability measures, i.e., testing.
If I understand your rather muddled rant, Mike, you’re saying a couple of different things.
First, the states should refuse federal education money. Right?
Second, if they refused the additional NCLB funding, they’d lose all Federal funding. Right?
Can you point me at something that confirms the second claim? That would be good. But if you can’t, please admit that you’re wrong. It’s OK, Mike, stout unionoids can be wrong all the time, it’s somethin’ to be proud of.
Next: Even if it were true, what’s the problem? Tell the Feds to …take a flying leap”, as you so elegantly put it. You don’t need none o’ their stinkin’ money, do you?
Oh yeah, can you parse this here fragment fer me, Mike?
“…its [sic] about the feds asserting their power into [sic] an area they have no right to mettle [sic] in.”
I be a non-native English speaker, Mike, so cut me some slack, willya?
I can’t see where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to give money to state and local school systems, either. But if you take someone’s money, you’ve got to follow their rules.
I agree that the federal government will probably make a bigger mess of educational standards than most states would - and it probably already has. IIRC, there wasn’t a significant federal education agency until I was halfway through school, and the schools have been going downhill ever since.