The Feds to Rule on States' Plans for NCLB

ISSUE 56 | MAY 5, 2003

[This free e-mail newsletter about school information, accountability and the public is provided by School Wise Press. To add a colleague's name to the distribution, please send us their names and e-mail addresses to: stever@schoolwisepress.com. If you'd rather not receive this, simply notify us by phone at (415) 337-7971, or by e-mail, including the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line of your message.]

Last week the Federal Dept. of Education started to return verdicts on state's proposals for bringing to life No Child Left Behind. This owl has heard that some state's proposals are likely to get the thumbs-down. Some officials leading state departments of education are feeling disgruntled. Those preparing to push the limits of the possible are finding that Federal folks are ready to take on all challengers.

Last July, Nebraska was rumored to be considering opting out of Title I funding altogether. The benefit would have been freedom from many federal education laws that come as strings attached. (This rumor did not come to pass, but its existence was telling.) Read more background information on the friction between state and federal officials.

DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS OF STATE PLANS TO IMPLEMENT NCLB

Even California is chafing at the bit. Although our state's testing and accountability systems are already close to NCLB standards, California's Consolidated Application contains a small but telling refusal. CDE officials (with the state board's okay) refuse to report high school graduation rates. Instead, the CDE proposes to report the passing rate on the high school exit exam, a test that is certain to be delayed, and likely to get spiked by legal challenges or state board action. This defies the NCLB's direction to adhere to the accepted federal standard for reporting graduation rates. That standard has been established for a decade by the National Center for Education Statistics.

Read further resources on graduation rate debates in the School Wise Press Virtual Library.

This refusal to report graduation rates may seem small, but it is symptomatic of two larger problems evident in many states. First is a philosophical opposition to federal direction altogether. Many states simply believe that education is their business alone, and that federal folks should butt out.

Second is a disregard for the public's right to know. When a measure of success the public wants and understands like high school graduation rates is deliberately hidden from view, unreported even in state mandated school accountability report cards, one wonders why. The facts in California have been steady for a decade: seven out of ten freshmen graduate four years later. This happens to coincide with the national average. Read more.

SUPES TRUER TO THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF NCLB

As I fly through the nation's press, this owl finds enlightened education leaders implementing the most practical and affordable elements of NCLB. These include parent notifications of Program Improvement schools and "persistently dangerous" schools, school and district level accountability reports, provision of supplemental services like tutoring, enabling parents to choose schools.

These leaders also affirm the core principles of the federal law. Even if NCLB stretches into the realm of the absurd at times, for instance insisting that all children will reach proficiency in reading and math by the year 2014, wiser education leaders are not throwing out the entire law solely because some of its elements are flawed.

Supt. Robert G. Smith of Arlington County, Virginia, is one such moderate. He was profiled in the Washington Post by the leading K-12 journalist, Jay Mathews, who quotes Supt. Smith's positive spirit:

"I am positive about establishing clear standards. I am positive about assessing clearly what we hope to accomplish. I am also positive about disaggregating data and making sure all of our children are doing well. But like so many other things, the devil is in the details."

Consider his response to the accountability reporting provision of NCLB that calls for a measure of qualified teachers. Supt. Smith isn't waiting for his state's education officials to decide what makes a qualified teacher. He has budgeted $150,000 to survey his teachers, asking for their college majors and minors, and gathering data on out-of-field assignments. And he has set aside $153,000 to help his teaching assistants complete two years of college. Read this worthwhile article.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCES

There is much you can do to lead your district into the era of Federal accountability. Whatever your views of NCLB, the laws guiding principles are worth affirming: enabling all students to achieve, freeing parents with kids in troubled schools to choose another, managing teacher assignments, reporting results to your public with candor and clarity.

Step ahead of state leadership, and trust that your public will support you.

Budget for compliance, and seek Federal funds to meet the requirements of Federal law.

Unify your board around the parts of NCLB that fit your districts mission best.

Distinguish between the realizable and worthy objectives of NCLB, and the impractical and expensive ones. Act now on the easy objectives.

Not recommended: mutiny or passive resistance. The last leader to defy Federal law was Orville Faubus, ex-governor of Arkansas, who in 1957 opposed Pres. Eisenhower bringing in federal troops to desegregate Little Rock schools. With the bipartisan backing NCLB enjoys, and the tough Eugene Hickok assisting the tenacious Rodney Paige in carrying the message, this would not be a good time to pick a fight.

And read, read, read for inspiration, ideas, and guidance. Here are some suggestions.

Bruce Fuller from PACE on Federalism from Republicans

Rural states are concerned about NCLB's impracticality

Education Commission of the States: Database comparing states preparations for meeting NCLB requirements

Denis Doyle in the Doyle Report on the ironies and meaning of NCLB

Remarks of Hayes Mizell to the Maryland Council of Staff Developers, April 25, 2003. It is a balanced view of the debate, which urges creative adaption to NCLB.

OWL ARCHIVE | BACK TO NEWSLETTER REGISTRATION PAGE