|
|
|
 |
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingCEP Report Reflects Reality of Implementing NCLB IdeasRecently, when the Center for Education Policy released its first annual report on state and district progress and problems with implementing No Child Left Behind, observers were reminded of the political reality surrounding implementation of the new law. The highly regarded, influential CEP called for national policymakers to “carefully monitor how the requirements play out in states, schools, and classrooms. If unintended effects emerge, then changes in the law should be considered in later years. For example, if large numbers of schools are targeted for interventions because of test score volatility unrelated to student learning… then policymakers should consider changes that would target interventions and assistance on schools with the highest degree of failure and greatest needs.” The CEP report also urges USED and education policymakers--including the White House--to “tone down the rhetoric” as “challenges” in the implementation increasingly surface. Rather, CEP advises, they should emphasize the soundness of NCLB goals, while recognizing how much effort is being required at the state and local levels. USED also should be flexible and sensitive to state circumstances, particularly in states whose assessment and accountability systems are working. Otherwise, a “rigid, heavy-handed approach” could divert prevailing states’ dedication from the goals of the program, and help create an audit mentality that puts compliance--rather than the needs of students--first. There appears to be a growing consensus among partisan political groups that, as CEP recommends, state and other resources should be targeted to districts and schools in greatest need. On December 11, the Business Roundtable sponsored a panel to address “The No Child Left Behind Act: Where We Stand After One Year.” The panel moderator was former Bush education advisor Sandy Kress. (Kress played the most pivotal role in crafting and enacting NCLB. He is now advisor to the Business Roundtable.) In his opening comments, Kress, who has been consulting with several state education agencies, predicted that “…within the next two to three years we will begin to see the first signs of discernable improvement in the long-stalled student achievement data and continuous and steady improvement from there and thereafter…I’m no Pollyanna about all this. I recognize that this law is complex and a real challenge to implement. And we can’t make these changes overnight, but we can begin.” In his opening comments, Tom Houlihan, Executive Director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, identified as a major issue states’ limited capacities to carry out all the requirements, particularly providing professional development and technical assistance to local schools as they are identified for improvement. He also noted the importance of state accountability systems meeting not only federal requirements, but also local and state needs. He called for the U.S. Education Department to use an “artful” enforcement philosophy rather than a “blunderbuss enforcement of treating bad actors and technical violators exactly the same.” During the Q and A session, Joel Packer of the National Education
Association (who prefaced his question by noting that the President’s
budget for FY 2003 for No Child Left Behind is $90 million less
than the previous one), asked the panel whether all “failing
schools should be treated the same," and whether "states
should have the flexibility to target schools with the greatest
need, and be provided some flexibility to use different models.” While high-level USED officials’ comments on the CEP report reflect a previously stated “hard-line position,” public comments from Kress (who, as primary architect of NCLB, personally negotiated with Democrats and Republicans on behalf of the President) reflect political reality in several respects. Growing opposition at the state level and grass roots to the some of the major provisions could, as the CEP report noted, convert dedicated supporters into operational resistors, thereby creating bureaucratic bickering over compliance issues. Also, while not increasing the FY 2003 or proposed FY 2004 budget to the levels proposed by Capitol Hill Democrats, the President could gain political points by providing states with greater flexibility, thus reducing the additional cost effects of some of the provisions--such as those surrounding adequate yearly progress (AYP). He could then justify a smaller-than-previously promised increase to implement NCLB. As an aide for Senator Kennedy noted this summer, the bipartisan marriage between Senator Kennedy and the White House was separated a year ago when the President proposed an FY 2003 budget with only a million-dollar increase for Title I. When such flexibility is actually communicated and provided to states, two important things should occur. First, there will be less uncertainty in states such as North Carolina, Michigan, and others with strong accountability and assessment systems. District efforts and funds will be redirected, to improving instructional practices rather than to continuing bureaucratic attempts to meet compliance guidelines. Second, next year's limited federal dollars will be targeted even more precisely to schools that show the lowest achievement levels, or that otherwise meet state definitions as having “greatest needs.”
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349. |
|
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
|||
