Peabloggy

One of the major problems I’ve had with No Child Left Behind from the very beginning, before the law even had a chance to prove its inadequacies, was its reliance on numbers; numbers that could be manipulated with remarkable ease by administrators looking to mask their school’s shortcomings.

Case in point, when NCLB was instituted in Texas, while W. was governor there, principals disguised the number of daily student absences by reporting that chronically absent students had transferred to other schools or districts.  NCLB requires a daily attendance percentage in 90’s, and for schools in high poverty areas with high levels of transience and student turnover that number was a bad joke and nightmare all rolled up into one.  The principals did what they had to in order to survive.  I don’t blame them for that.  I also can’t fault NCLB for wanting to enforce what data shows to be a highly determinate factor in student success.  Both were, however, treating the symptoms and not the disease.

The New York Times website ran an excellent article today reporting on the ridiculous amount of manipulation that states do when compiling graduation rates.  One more example of how NCLB uses flowery language to fill stump speeches, while leaving real world implementation of those mandates up to politicians and administrators who will act with their own best interest in mind.

The solution?  Exactly what NCLB asks for.  Implementation of scientifically based teaching methods by highly qualified teachers.  I am writing this blog entry from an education library filled with thousands of ways, stated in theory and proven by practice, to motivate and involve students of every type and persuasion; and help them graduate with an education that prepares them for a competitive global job market.

And this is the moment at which this polemic comes full circle.  Better results need better students need better teachers need better education requires money teachers/schools need more money government needs to give more money government spends money on fruitless tactics (a war maybe?) cuts budgets schools lose teachers/resources students get left behind graduation rates plummet to 60’s public demands better results government demands better results…

I have a headache

–Luke Webb

In the arena of education politics, the debate about national curricula is one of what is arguably a herd of elephants in the room.

From EdWeek:

The National Conference of State Legislatures has taken a hard line against any form of national academic standards, declaring last week that any national attempt to unite school curricula across states would be unacceptable until perceived flaws in the federal No Child Left Behind Act are fixed.

The interesting aspect of this debate to me is the tug-of-war between those who perceive a massive nationwide effort to develop national standards as a necessary step toward global educational competitiveness and those who see the federalism of education as unconstitutional and a threat to the existence of our representative republic.

I tend to straddle the fence on this one (it’s easy to do of course, being a student of these issues and not a primary decision-maker.) First, what most people fail to mention is that nearly all states’ academic content standards already are derived from a single source (though they are not federally mandated to do so). My view, then, is that whether the government prescribes this unity or it comes about as a result of research, it’s bound to happen. The effort it takes to develop a set of content standards needn’t be repeated ad infinitum. Where there is disagreement, of course, states are free to adapt the standards to their needs.

On the other hand, without resistance to federal control, states run the risk of being drawn passively into the wrap of federal legislation that may restrict their freedom to decide their own standards. In general, people tend to want to cooperate and organize - if only to reduce work. In my view, the government does not need to force this kind of cooperation.

The CAAVES project at Vanderbilt is one example of six states collaborating to improve the validity of their assessments, without being required to do so. The research project benefits everyone involved - while contributing to the body of knowledge that informs assessment and lawmaking (namely NCLB). These kinds of consortia should be lauded and encouraged, because they remind us that progress can be made independent of government control.

- Peter Beddow

Over at EdWeek (free subscription required), two Virginia teachers have written a thoughtful commentary about the notion of “teaching to the test”. After learning that their school did not meet AYP requirements of NCLB, they describe the following observations:

Our passionate and progressive staff was stunned. Not making AYP meant that parents could send their children to other schools. We never doubted the potential and abilities of our students; we knew the problem lay elsewhere, and, as a staff, we knew we had to take a long, hard look at our attitudes and approaches to the test.

Rather than move completely into the territory of critics of the law itself (where indubitably they would have had much company) they determined that “state and federal pressures were not the only reasons students needed to learn to pass tests. Test-taking is a life skill.”

The two teachers go on to make several interesting observations. In conclusion, they write:

After so much hard work, we were frustrated and confused by our drop in scores. Then we remembered what we’d learned in the classroom and through our research: Education is not an exact science. Real change and success take time. But we see the difference in our students every year. They’ve gone from fearing tests to approaching them with confidence, excitement, and a set of skills and strategies to use. Now they view the test as a reading challenge for which they are well prepared.

Their commentary is worth reading in its entirety.

- Peter Beddow

A recent article in Cleveland’s Plain Dealer online was entitled Rule lets schools not test disabled.

New No Child Left Behind Act regulations (published in April) allow up to 2 percent of students to take a modified version of the state assessment. The modifications are intended to provide a valid assessment for students who are ineligible for the alternate assessment but for whom the general assessment would not yield valid results because of a disability.

Scott Stephens, the author of the article, draws what strikes me as a glaring misconstrual of both the intended and the likely consequences of the 2 percent regs:

Whatever you call it, the change allows schools to exempt more of their hardest-to-educate children from standardized exams. Officials in school districts with high percentages of those students believe the exemption could provide a more accurate reflection of their progress.

For some special education advocates, that low-hanging fruit is more like the biblical apple, a temptation that has more to do with raising a school’s ranking than providing children with disabilities the education they need.

As I mentioned a couple of weeks back, this summer, researchers convened at Peabody for the second phase of a major project aimed at validating the 1 percent “alternate” assessment from seven states and modifying general assessments to satisfy the validity requirements of the “2 percent” assessment.

The primary form of modification the participating state assessment experts plan to use is to reduce the number of distractors - or wrong answers to a multiple choice question - from 4 to 3. Other common modifications are increasing the size of the text, adding pictures (e.g., if the question refers to 7 pennies, a drawing of the coins might be included to the side of the question). A third modification may involve reducing the number of items on a page for easier readability, ensuring text is written concisely and with grade-level vocabulary, increasing color contrast, implementing simple interfaces for computer-based tests, creating Braille versions for blind students, etc.

Despite Mr. Stephens’ implication, the 2 percent assessments are standardized. In fact, the questions for the modified assessment are drawn from the exact same standards as the general assessment. In other words, the material being tested in the modified assessment, if the test is valid, remains the same. To as large an extent as is possible (due to the fact that the test is being altered), the skills being assessed are not what is modified. The test is simply being filtered through a strict set of accessibility checks that ensure the test measures only what it purports to measure.

In all of the conversations I’ve heard in meetings with state administrators from Hawaii, Indiana, Idaho, Arizona, Mississippi, and Nevada, no one has ever mentioned wanting to generate a test that increases their state test scores. In fact, recent validity studies have shown that the rate of students reported as proficient is actually lower for students who took alternate assessments than for students who took the general assessments.

In short, extant evidence does not support the notion that states are designing assessments for students with disabilities with the aim of increasing their proficiency rates.

As I’ve mentioned previously, there certainly are problems to be found with No Child Left Behind. Simply hearing the word “modified” and making inaccurate assumptions as Mr. Stephens has done, however, precludes honest debate from occurring.

-Peter Beddow

Previous:
From taking tests…
NCLB: Creating a new gap?
NCLB: When in doubt, bake cookies
Investigating the validity of alternate assessments

EdWeek has a new series of blog posts on what they refer to as NCLB: Act II and they’re already going full steam. The primary blogger is a gentleman named Mark Walsh.

The first of the recent posts is called You’ve been YouTubed and describes the set of 4 questions devoted to K-12 education issues in the recent Democratic candidates’ debate. They’ve linked to video highlights from those questions, and the answers by the candidates.

Personally, I felt CNN embarrassed itself and the candidates by posting questions straight from YouTube. I couldn’t imagine Lincoln and Douglas ever agreeing to subject themselves to silly amateur skits instead of pre-written questions when they engaged in their famous debates in 1858. To me, it was tantamount to permitting participants to rollerskate through the forum in chicken suits while screaming questions at the potential future Presidents.

The second post reflects briefly on Secretary Spellings’ recent foray into the debate on testing.

EdWeek has become a useful source for links to, and opinion pieces on a variety of education-related issues. Take a look at the blog when you get a chance.

-Peter Beddow

The new NCLB regulations released in April detail the newest form of alternate assessment. In sum, the government now allows states to report up to 2 percent of their annual Annual Yearly Progress data based on student performance on a modified version of the grade-level assessments in reading and math. By 2011, this will include science as well.

Currently, most states have general assessments (those “bubble tests” we’re all so familiar with) and some form of an alternate assessment for students who are unable, due to significant disabilities of a variety of sorts, to sit for these tests. Alternate assessments generally involve some sort of evidence collection to support a school’s conclusion as to whether a student with a disability is proficient in reading or math when his or her performance is judged against grade-level academic content standards. Based on current law, 1 percent of student AYP data from these alternate assessments may be reported as part of NCLB’s requirements.

As I’ve written about previously, I’ve been involved in a major consortium study, the first aspect of which was an examination of the validity six states’ alternate assessments. The second aspect of the consortium was a study of how to modify existing grade-level test items to increase their accessibility to students for whom the general assessment may not be valid but who are not eligible for the alternate assessment. On July 12-14, the consortium convened in Wyatt for a 3-day working session to modify existing test items. Essentially, the purpose was to create a test that we will look at experimentally. One of the primary questions will be to ask whether our “modified” test items are more accessible for students with disabilities. Additionally, we will plan to examine whether conclusions based on the modified items are as reliable as those drawn from scores on the original items.

This was my first experience leading a group of teachers and education professionals on the seemingly monumental task of changing test items to allow children with disabilities to really “show what they know”. It was, at times, an arduous process, but overall it was a terrific weekend. As always, I’ll keep you all posted on how this and our other related projects progress in the near future.

-Peter Beddow

Previous: Investigating the validity of alternate assessments

Conventional wisdom has it that unless NCLB gets marked up and reauthorized soon, preferably before the summer recess, the legislation will likely have to wait until after the elections. Yesterday, Congressional Quarterly suggested that the prospects for that happening are growing fainter.

The top House Republican negotiating a renewal of the landmark 2002 education law said legislation won’t be ready until fall and he won’t support it unless it’s backed by a majority of GOP members.

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California, the ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, said the latest draft he viewed July 12 included Democratic proposals that troubled him.

By demanding that the bill win a majority of the minority, McKeon is setting a threshold that could prevent the White House and Democratic-led Congress from achieving bipartisan success on President Bush’s top domestic policy priority in his final months in office.

Via NCLBlog.

–Kurt Brobeck

David Keyes, a second-grade teacher in Washington, D.C., wrote an article posted on Washington Post Online called Classroom Caste System which blames No Child Left Behind for the creation of a “new gap between poor and minority students…and largely wealthy and white students…” From what I’ve read, his assessment of the law received both praise an admonition from both sides of the aisle. An excerpt of the article:

Students in largely wealthy and white schools are learning to ask larger questions; students in poor and minority schools are only being taught to answer smaller ones.

The No Child Left Behind Act is creating a caste-like system in which students’ future prospects are likely to be similar to those of their parents. This undemocratic development is at odds with a society that prides itself on being a meritocracy. As Congress debates the renewal of the law, members should consider not only whether the act is reducing the achievement gap but also the skills gap it is creating.

I think Mr. Keyes has gotten it wrong. My take: the only implicit solution in Keyes’ article is to go back to the way things were before NCLB. No accountability and no measurement of achievement to help us understand what is working and what is not. For Keyes, it sounds as if ignorance was bliss - particularly considering his only argument against NCLB relates to mandated testing.

A new Center for Education Policy report shows that state test scores have increased significantly since NCLB. Of course, there is currently no way to tell whether there is a causal relation between NCLB and these improvements, but NCLB is the reason we are even able to have a discussion based on evidence.

The kind of hyperbolic anti-discussion conceived by Mr. Keyes doesn’t serve to amplify essential points of contention about the bipartisan legislation that is NCLB. It only widens the gap between already intractable opinion-holders. It’s tremendously easy to write an article that aggrandizes a generations-old problem and ostentatiously places all of the blame on a single piece of legislation. Offering suggestions on how to improve the legislation - that is what is difficult. In short: Pontificating is easy. Problem-solving is hard.

- Peter Beddow

Previous:
CEC on NCLB (FYI)
NCLB: When in doubt, bake cookies

President Bush met with supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in the White House’s Roosevelt Room in April. In the meeting, he answered to some sharp criticisms of the legislation. Namely, it seems some legislators believe that NCLB is intended as a system of punishment. A current student of assessment and accountability practices, I agree with the President’s response:

“It is important for all of us to make it clear that accountability is not a way to punish anybody,” Bush told supporters of the law in a meeting at the White House. “It’s an essential component to making sure that…our education system, frankly is not discriminatory.”

Essentially, NCLB requires states to report annual yearly progress data on every student in reading, math, and science at three time points: third grade, eighth grade, and at some point in high school.

To those who are against renewing the law, a serious question lingers: In the past, we pumped federal money into the public education system with nominal accountability. If NCLB were to fall by the wayside, how would we ensure the system is working? Namely, are we to take it on blind faith that our students are learning?

Below: One of Margaret Spellings’ homemade NCLB cookies. The Education Secretary gave them out during her recent meeting with the chairs and ranking minority House and Senate Education committee members regarding NCLB reauthorization.

- Peter Beddow

Hat tip/Cookie pic: EduWonk

Last semester, Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont, my childhood stomping ground) introduced a budget amendment that would have increased IDEA spending by $44 billion, beginning with a $10 billion increase effective 2008.

Mikulski’s and Sanders’ selling point for the amendment was that the funding would be paid for by eliminating “President Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy” (“Special Education must not be a hollow promise”, from Mikulski’s weblog).

Certainly we would (should) all agree that promises should be kept. If the government has promised to shoulder the financial burden of adherence to federal education legislation, it should keep its promise, and Congress should hold itself to account for that.

Mikulski wrote:

The federal government is supposed to pay 40 percent of a state’s special education costs, with the rest subsidized by the state and local governments.  However, the federal government has not made good on its commitment!  This means local districts must make up the difference by skimping on special education, cutting from other education programs, or raising taxes.

The amendment was denied by a vote of 35-58.

Others - not only libertarian-minded folks but others on both sides of the aisle - feel that education is a burden that states should bear alone, and federal money only serves to generate leveraging power from above. Essentially they argue that a central Department of Education is unconstitutional.

This is not a political blog by any stretch, but the issue of funds is an important one. With NCLB extending its reach deeper into state education systems with the inception of AYP requirements for Science beginning shortly, Mikulski and Sanders certainly make a good point about funding, even if Congress doesn’t agree with them (at least in practice.) I honestly don’t know where to stand on the issue.

What do you all think? Does the government “owe” states more money for special ed? Is anyone suggesting states go it alone, sacrificing their federal dollars for freedom from what some may see as the oppression of the powers-that-be? If the federal government is able to regulate education at the state level, should it also subsidize the implementation of these regulations to a greater extent than it does currently?

- Peter Beddow

Hat tip: Charles Fox, an Illinois attorney with a special needs child who maintains a blog about Special Education.