|
|
|
||
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingOpposition to Some NCLB Provisions Arises; Publishers Take NoteA number of recent articles and polls strongly suggest growing opposition to several key provisions in No Child Left Behind--not only among educators but also among others, such as urban parents. The October issue of Phi Delta Kappan includes several articles critical of NCLB requirements. While Alfie Kohn, author of Education Inc., Turning Learning Into a Business, takes a shot at corporate takeovers and profit making in education (naming corporations that support the Bush administration), other articles identify effects--both intended and unintended--of specific provisions. In his “12th Bracy Report on the Condition of Public Education,” Gerald Bracy notes that some superintendents and principals have begun to feel there's a “big brother” character to No Child Left Behind, beyond just the testing requirements. As he notes, “Aside from those provisions, NCLB is a trap, a Trojan Horse, whatever--choose your metaphor. Behind its idealistic name lies the cynical reality. Schools will fail in such numbers that those on the Right will once again shout, ‘The public school system as we know it has proved that it cannot reform itself. It is an ossified government monopoly.’ In fact, Chester Finn, former assistant secretary of education, screamed precisely those words in the Wall Street Journal four years ago, so we know my conclusion is not hyperbole.” Regarding the use of the NAEP as a benchmark assessment (to reduce the possibility of states using dumbed-down tests for their assessments), Bracy states, “We already know that in most states a much higher proportion of students reaches the proficient level on state tests than on the NAEP tests. The verification process, therefore, will lead to accusations that schools are still failing and that state and local officials have been lying to parents about school quality for years… . They [NAEP achievement levels] have been rejected [for the purpose of measuring achievement in schools and individuals--as NAEP was originally designed to measure national educational trends, not individual performance] by everyone who has ever studied them, which includes the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) , the Government Accounting Office, the National Academy of Education, and the National Academy of Sciences.” Another article by "Wendy Darling" (a teacher's pseudonym), provides an insightful “street level bureaucrat” perspective regarding the new diagnostic assessment requirements. She notes, “On the second day of training, we ‘analyze the data.’ We spend nearly two hours examining a grid of our test scores for the last four years for grades 2 through 6. We look horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. We discuss one- or two- point score differences as if they actually mean something. As recently pointed out, from 50% to 80% of scores can be attributed to random influences… .The real analysis comes as we disaggregate the naked numbers… . And one concludes, ‘You know, the new teachers can’t teach to the test because they didn’t see them the year before.’ ” A recent poll of slightly more than 500 adults in urban areas, including parents, conducted by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University (see our 11/5/02 edition), suggests that parents of children enrolled in urban districts also oppose certain provisions. And only 47 percent of the parents have heard of the No Child Left Behind Act. (This is not too surprising, as an earlier Public Agenda report found more than 60 percent of parents of special education students stated they were not familiar with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.) While 60 percent of parents in the Annenberg poll rate the quality of education offered by urban public schools as either “fair” or “poor,” almost four out of five feel that singular approaches, such as performance standards and other “quick fix” solutions, will not improve struggling urban schools. They also reject the “one school at a time” approach, and strongly prefer district-wide solutions that target all schools within a community. Of course, one of the major provisions of NCLB is to target specific schools that are failing. While slightly more than 70 percent of parents and other adults were favorable to the No Child Left Behind Act generally when it was explained, about three in four expressed concern about a provision that allows students from under-performing or failing schools to transfer to high-performing schools, because this “will harm the struggling urban schools from which the students transfer.” Among minority respondents, an even higher percentage expressed concern. This finding may explain why, in most urban districts, less than five percent of parents who have children in schools targeted for improvement are requesting transfers to other schools, as allowed under the new Title I. Slightly more than 70 percent of respondents agree that standardized test scores are usually not available in time to help individual students or schools that are struggling, a problem that the new law does address. However, implementation thus far suggests that states have a long way to go, when it comes to reporting results quickly, in a form that can be used by teachers and parents. A number of highly respected education policy analysts, such as Jack Jennings, have questioned the justification for No Child Left Behind and the realpolitik of many of its provisions--such as choice being a “lead-in” to non-public school vouchers. And those in the field who are actually attempting to implement the law are beginning to express frustration about their futile efforts, particularly over specific provisions. Software and supplemental materials publishers--as well as hardware vendors--need to be aware of this frustration and resistance when approaching, for example, district Title I officials and principals in Title I schools targeted for improvement. Several tactics are suggested. First, emphasize that you want to work as a partner with the district or Title I program in “coming up” with solutions that address their immediate problems. To be successful, a “comfort level” in dealing with you and your services has to be developed. Second, you should be in the business of “improving student performance” by continually using staff school officials respect, not junior-level replacements, to provide necessary materials and support. Third, as a partner you should make it very clear that your firm is willing to bend with the “political wind”--and that any contracts are subject to renegotiation--as federal or state policy-makers formulate changes. Fourth, proposed pricing arrangements should be flexible, in order to accommodate the way funds are allocated, and local budgeting processes, as well as other constraints. (For instance, extend special reduced-price offers to such time as districts receive final Title I, or other, allocations.) Finally, you need to build on your strengths--such as brand names, corporate stability, reputation and financial wherewithal--so that the client does not become concerned about your firm being acquired, or otherwise “disappearing.”
Questions, ideas, or in need of information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org. |
||
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|||
