|
|
Brookline CARE Forum describe
how implementing NCLB will undermine public education and split
communities
By Tom Crowder and Lisa
Guisbond
At a forum attended by
nearly 200 concerned parents and
teachers, panelists described in precise detail how
implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) of 2002,
the "No Child Left Behind Act," would lead to quality public
schools being reported as "failing", disruption of
local school systems, and school constituencies pitted against each
other.
The forum was moderated by Bill Delaney, Brookline
parent, Host of WBUR's "Here and Now," ex-Foreign Correspondent
for CNN. The panelists were Dr. Jennifer Fischer-Mueller,
Deputy Brookline Superintendent for Teaching and Learning; Dr.
Kevin Lang, Vice-Chair, Brookline School Committee, Professor of
Economics; Dr. Ron Fitzgerald, Superintendent of Schools,
Minuteman Regional (Vocational) High School, Lexington; Dr.
Larry Ward, Parent Test Reform Advocate, FairTest.
A. Draconian Requirements:
Dr. Fischer-Mueller: Outlined the five aims of [Title I.] of
NCLB, which start with:
100% of students will be "proficient"
by 2014 and end with:
100% of students will graduate from high school in 2014
These are to be
implemented by a State Plan (filed with and approved by the Federal
Dept. of Education) which will include a set of academic standards,
compliance with which will be determined by testing students in all
grades 3 through 8 and 10 every year in at least English language
proficiency and Mathematics. Science testing will be required
beginning in 2007-08.
[It is to be noted that it is up to each State to define, in its Plan,
the standards and the testing criteria: that is, not only the content
of each of the (two) subjects at each grade level, but also the tests
used and the method of determining the scores obtained by students
from the answers they give to test questions, as well as the scores
which correspond to "proficient" (or any other named level
of competence, such as "failure").]
Educational unit (school, district, etc.) and State performance are
determined by aggregating (averaging) the scores of the students for
each such educational unit, but more important, the aggregate
scores for each unit must be disaggregated for the following groups
if the subgroups include 20 or more students:
Male: Female:
White: Black: Hispanic: Asian: Native
American: Limited English Proficiency (LEP): Special Education (SPED):
Economically disadvantaged students (free or reduced payment
lunches)
(These groups obviously overlap; conceivably there may be more
(non-empty) groups than students in a unit, i.e., one student's
failure to score "proficient" on the MCAS could count
several times against his or her school if he or she falls into
several subgroups, e.g., special needs, limited English proficient and
Hispanic.)
The determination of whether any given educational unit has
met the standard for a given year is a four-step process [see DOE
web page at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/sda/sprp/cycleIII/ayp_determination.html
for an explanation and flow chart depicting this process]
A. Participation in the tests must equal or exceed 95% of
the students in the unit (including all LEP and learning disabled
students in the unit); otherwise the unit fails and is subject to
sanctions.
B. If the unit passes A., a
Composite Proficiency Index (CPI) is computed for the unit. This
is the aggregate of the scores of all students (who took
the test) in the unit (including those with Alternate Assessments).
(It is not clear how much leeway is allowed in computing the CPI;
there is obviously some, since the scaling of raw scores to the scores
reported is always possible; like the DOE, this scaling may be
determined after the tests have been scored.)
If the unit CPI is above the State (aggregate) CPI
[target], the unit is home free, and passes, ie., is not subject
to sanctions. Do the CPI's of the disaggregated scores for each of the
eleven groups listed above have to exceed to State CPI target, or the
State CPI of the disaggregated scores of the same group? We
don't know. (Neither of these would make much sense, though that
doesn't seem to be a consideration in this process.)
C. If a
unit fails B. above, then it is tested for satisfying Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). AYP of a unit, or of any disaggregated
group of a unit, is whether its aggregated score has increased enough
over the last testing period that if this increase were
extrapolated linearly to 2014 the score(s) would then meet the
"proficiency" requirement. Additional criteria for
determining AYP may also be used.
If a unit has a lot of groups, particularly if some of the groups are
small, this requirement will, as pointed out by Dr. Lang in the next
presentation, be almost impossible to meet.
If this
criterion is failed by an educational unit, it will be subject to
sanctions. If it passes, it still must pass the following test
to avoid sanctions.
D. For elementary schools, they must have 92%
attendance. For high schools, they must have 70% attendance.
Failing this, they will be subject to sanctions, even if they have
passed A. and C.
Do they require that all groups individually meet these
attendance requirements? We don't know.
(The Federal DOE appears to be resigned to high dropout rates in high
schools. Note: Graduation rates are tracked and figure into the
NCLB accountability plan, but studies such as one done by the Urban
Institute conclude that the criteria are so flexible as to allow for
widely varying graduation rates based on the same raw
data.)
The sanctions to be applied to a unit which
fails to satisfy AYP (there is some confusion in the use of this term;
while it would seem to refer to the test of C. above, it is also
used to refer to the whole process, A. through D.) increase in
severity as a unit fails only two or more years in a
row.
After the second year of failure, students of the failed unit
are free to transfer to any (non-failed) unit in the same district,
with transportation charged to the failing unit. After the
third year of failure in a row, the unit must pay for
remediationêtutoring, etc.ê;
[To my knowledge, this is the schedule for NCLB's more severe
sanctions and interventions for "failing" schools: Schools
that lag behind in AYP for two years in a row enter an improvement
stage that requires them to write and implement school improvement
plans. After three years, schools enter the corrective action stage,
which entails intensified district intervention. After five years of
inadequate progress, they move into the restructuring phase, also
under district supervision. School districts that fail to make AYP are
subject to a similar staged approach, also ending in restructuring.
States are responsible for overseeing districts as a whole,
identifying those needing improvement, and taking corrective actions
when necessary-TC].
The law specifies a set of "alternative governance arrangements"
for persistently "failing" schools after five years.
Districts may choose to:
á Reopen the school as a public charter
school.
á Replace
all or most of the school staff, including the principal.
á Enter into
a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with
a demonstrated record of effectiveness to operate the school.
á Have the
state directly manage the school. LG]
The State must report on all of this to the Federal Department of
Education, and presumably receive its approval of compliance with
NCLB; in return, the Federal Government will provide (minimal) funds
to contribute to the costs to the State.
Perhaps curiously, NCLB does not say anything about using the results
of all this testing to deny, to students who fail, promotion from
class to class or diplomas on completion of high school, though
equally, they do not forbid States from using those results for such
purposes. [Note: It is true that NCLB does not mandate high-stakes
testing uses for individual students. But given the logic behind
high-stakes testing in general, i.e., that high stakes are necessary
to motivate teachers and students to improve academic achievement, it
is not unlikely that states will choose to expand high stakes testing
for individuals to ensure that students "take the tests
seriously" and improve the state's chances of meeting NCLB
mandates. LG]
(Dr. Fischer-Mueller
had limited time to describe the workings of NCLB; I have taken the
liberty of expanding on her remarks, and raising questions which
were not raised either by her or members of the audience at the
meeting.)
B. Statistical Pitfalls:
Dr. Lang described the pitfalls of using statistical indices
of performance of groups of the population to draw conclusions about
the working of the system in which those groups work. He pointed
particularly to the fact that the variation from group to group, or
year to year for the same group, increases
drastically as the size of the group decreases. He mentioned the
Edgerley Awards, monetary awards provided by the business community,
granted some years ago to schools and their administrators where the
school performance had increased substantially from one year to the
next. Since most of these increases were simply random
variation, the performances of the same schools typically declined the
following year.
He also pointed out that
Bad Accountability, ie., the framing of the performance criteria,
leads inexorably to Bad Incentives: unless one is careful, the
side-effects of your incentives are just as liable to be destructive
as beneficial to the ends you are trying to promote.
C. Standardized test-based decisions undermine student-centered
education:
Dr. Fitzgerald opened his spirited attack on MCAS and NCLB by
stating that if students perceive the relevance of the material they
are studying they will succeed; this is particularly true in the
vocational schools, where the students have very clear ideas of where
they are going and what
they expect to get out
of school. "MCAS is killing this."
"Let us give the test
when the youngster is ready for it. There's a complete insensitivity
to learning styles. . . . A complete misuse of high-stakes
tests. . . . Nothing should be based on a single high-stakes
test. All but one of the New England states are
doing portfolios. . . .
"It's wrong for
citizens to take what goes for accountability. They [the
Massachusetts Department of Education] play hanky-panky with the
scores. . ."
"The State
and the Feds are demonizing the Vocational Schools: 'Vocational
Schools don't do good academics . . . '"
Having
struggled with the Board of Education over this for some years now, he
advised, "Forget the Board of Education; concentrate on
NCLB."
"NCLB will be one of the most destructive things that ever
happened to Education. NCLB is an actual Educational crime.
We've met AYP every year, but the staff is about to
die."
Dr. Fitzgerald referred to a document, distributed at the Meeting,
which was prepared by the Minuteman Regional School District,
"The Mismanagement of Testing Under the NCLB Law," January
2004. Copies of this document had been sent to every member of
Congress. This document, which provided the slides used in
the balance of Dr. Fitzgerald's presentation, included the
results of scientific studies of student performance, statistical
analyses of MCAS scores, experience with appeals to the Massachusetts
Board of Education and the Federal Department of Education,
and proposed actions that the Congressional leaders should
take now to improve the NCLB program.
Dr. Fitzgerald further pointed out that NCLB in no wise prescribes a
uniform standard of performance for education in the United States [as
can be seen from Dr. Fischer-Mueller's description above], since it
leaves the standard for each State up to that State, and the several
States are each playing games to avoid the penalties NCLB
prescribes [and as the various districts and schools are now playing
the same games in Massachusetts for the same reasons].
Dr. Fitzgerald called foor a national campaign focused
on Congress to correct the defects of the NCLB.
Dr. Larry Ward:
"What's going to happen when the thing falls apart? They sold
this thing to poor kids and SPED's, they were going to get their
'share' of the pie. We're talking about losing a generation of
kids.
Dr. Ward made
clear the likelihood that schools would pressure subgroups that
were responsible for schools not meeting the NCLB
standard, to leave the system. Already one could see schools
rejecting METCO programs becauser of concern over MCAS
scores. He viewed parents being divided against each
other as one of the more dangerous consequences of implementing
the NCLB.
"Look at Chicago: They have lots of Metco-type
groups. They look at the groups and say 'Get rid of the
non-performing groups.' It [NCLB] is not going to bring anyone
together
""I don't think we should give up the local fight; the
local Legislators shouldn't get a walk.
Get with your Legislators. This thing is based on isolation.
28% of schools nationwide failed to make AYP last year.
Where are you going to go? They are using this to pit people
against each other. Keep the pressure on locally and
nationally. The prison population is rising.
"Don't lose hope---our
kids are our future. This struggle against the NCLB is developing
around the nation. We hope to link up Massachusetts communities
through MassCARE and other statewide advocates for public
education. The next stage will be to link up nationally"
Question Period:
Q: "What about all this being an
attempt to privitize the public school system?"
Dr. Ward: "Of course. A while back Lehmann
Brothers published a pamphlet urging the Health Care model of
privitization of the $600 billion
Education Business: 'First: Show that the public schools
are failing.'"
Q: "What is
the time line . . . ?"
Dr. F-M:
"AYP each year. Upon failure:
"1st year: Plan; Title I. schools;
student choice . . .
"2nd year: [discussed
above]."
Q: "What
can we do?"
{Lisa Guisbond} Sign the petition that is circulating!
Dr. Fitzgerald: " Don't speak against
Accountability. Don't criticize NCLB. Have a
Plan."
Dr. Ward: "Get with
groups. People are jockeying for position when NCLB is
rewritten."
L. Guisbond: Rep. Karen Spilka has filed
legislation to determine the costs to MA of implementing NCLB. House
2031.
Jonathan King (MassCARE): There is a long history in
the US of powerful consitutencies opposing broad based
public education. Edgerley et al. understand the dangers of
educating everyone so that they can think critically, understand
their economic and political rights, and be able to fight for
them effectively. The intention of the NCLB proponents is to
undermine public education, limiting access to
quality schools, and settingthe stage for driving families
into privatized schools.
Delaney:
"Can Brookline schools actually fail? Wouldn't this be a
powerful incentive to get rid of NCLB?
Dr. F-M:
"Yes . . . " [to the first question
Q: "How
many schools don't make AYP?"
Dr. Lang:
"One-half of Massachusetts schools failed to make AYP last
year. [Statewide, 67 percent of districts failed to make AYP for one
or more subgroups.] It causes the schools and districts to
invent strategies."
L. Guisbond: "Four districts
in Connecticut have opted out of NCLB; also some in Vermont."
Q: "Is Brookline trying to enforce a policy to require
students to meet the 95% participation requirement?"
Dr. F-M:
"Parents have the right to keep their child from taking the
test."
Q: "There is a real possibility of destroying the system.
Don't look to the schools for direction; they need direction from
us."
Dr. Lang: MCAS has already been responsible for resistance
to Metco.
COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS FOR Representatives of Senators Kerry &
Kennedy: We need a plan of action to take back [to Washington].
----: "Tell them that more money [for NCLB] is
not the answer!
----: "Why did they vote for NCLB in the first
place?"
Dr. Ward: "They thought that money would solve any
problem."
E. What Can We Do?
-As a first step,
Brookline CARE is circulating a petition calling for changes in the
NCLB. We expect such petitions to move across the state and to other
states. Out of this we will have the skeleton of a national
network to call for change in the NCLB. Teacher's unions and
organizations across the country are also mobilizing. Together
we can change this law which, if left in place, will do great
damage to our children and our schools.
-Sign up for ParentsCARE
e-newsletter at this website, which will keep you abreast of
efforts to change the NCLB and protect our public
schools. -Join MassCARE, the statewide network of public
school parents and teachers supporting excellent and
equitable public schools.
|
|
