DOC PREVIEW
CSUN SED 610 - A PLEA FOR STRONG PRACTICE

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 6 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

NCLB's Design FlawsWho Inherits NCLB's Problems?What Can Educators Do?An Urgent NeedReferencesA PLEA FOR STRONG PRACTICEEducational Leadership November 2003Knowing how schools actually improve is our most urgent task, especially in light of the design flaws in No Child Left Behind.Richard F. ElmoreIn the past school year, I have visited about a dozen low-performing schools—schools that will probably be classified as failing under the provisions of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I have visited classrooms and observed teachers teach. I have spoken to teachers and principals about their work. I have also spoken to system-level administrators about how they plan to respond to the accountability provisions of NCLB. I have learned something about the problems of low-performing schools and the processes required to improve them (Elmore, 2003).As I look back on my experience, I am struck by the gap between what I observe in these schools and what NCLB says about accountability and failing schools. This gap is not surprising. One of the most robust findings of my 25 years of research in policy implementation is that policymakers usually know shockingly little about the problems for which they purport to make policy. In this instance, however, the degree of separation between the problems of failing schools and the policy prescriptions of NCLB is striking.NCLB's Design FlawsNCLB was an act of extraordinary political hubris. It is the single largest nationalization of education policy in the history of the United States, promoted paradoxically by a conservative administration with the docile cooperation of congressional liberals. Most of the normal institutional processes that precede the reauthorization of a major piece of federal policy got short-circuited prior to its enactment, so most of the expert advice on issues of testing, assessment, school improvement, and accountability that would usually have been brought to bear got ignored. The result is a law that has several profound design flaws (Elmore, 2002), a few of which are as follows:Overinvestment in testing, under-investment in capacity building. NCLB aggravates a trend in state accountability policies. It focuses primarily on measuring growth in school performance against fixed standards—the so-called adequate yearly progress (AYP) requirement—and only incidentally on building the capacity of individual educators and schools to deliver high-quality instruction to students.This flaw is inherent to some degree in the politics of performance-based accountability. Standardized testing is relatively cheap and easy to implement. Capacity building is expensive and complex. Policymakers generally like solutions that are simple and cheap rather than those that are complex and expensive.When we bear down on testing without the reciprocal supply of capacity, however, we exacerbate the problem that we are trying to fix. Schools search for short-term solutions—test preparation, for example—rather than longer-term, more powerful solutions, such as curriculum-focused professional development.Ungrounded theories of improvement. NCLB judges a school's performance by the distance between its current performance level and the performance standard for which the school is being held accountable. The law requires more or less equal increments in growth—disaggregated by type of student—each year, a requirement that has no basis in empirical evidence about how schools improve their performance. The process of genuine improvement does not occur in equal annual increments. The AYP requirement, a completely arbitrary mathematical function grounded in no defensible knowledge or theory of school improvement, could, and probably will, result in penalizing and closing schools that are actually experts in school improvement.Weak knowledge about how to turn around failing schools. The research on how to turn around failing schools is weak, as are the state and local policies and programs designed to address this problem. If one can draw any conclusion from that research, it is that a small number of schools may emerge from classification as failing schools, that some of these will quickly return to failing status, and that only a few will continue to improve after they have emerged from failing status. Many so-called "turnaround"schools are, in fact, functioning only at the minimal level required to keep them from returning to failing status. Turning around failing schools, in other words, is not the same as improving them (Ascher, Ikeda, & Fruchter, 1998; Viteritti & Kosar, 2001).Perverse incentives for quality and performance. NCLB took a wide variety of state accountability systems developed in the traditional laboratory of federalism and converted them into a single design template, using federal funding as leverage. The law ironically introduces strong incentives for states that previously had relatively high standards to lower their standards and adopt lower-level assessments. If they don't lower their standards, states will be in the position of classifying far more schools as "failing" under NCLB than states and localities can actually handle. Most states are playing a delicate game of strategic interaction with the U.S. Department of Education around this problem. The accountability systems that preceded NCLB were diverse for good reasons, not least of which is that we are collectively at the low end of the learning curve around issues of school accountability. When you know less than you need to know to make intelligent policy, the most sensible strategy is to encourage experimentation and variability and to try to learn what works and what doesn't. NCLB has significantly narrowed opportunities for learning.Policymaking by remote control. NCLB contains certain provisions—parental transfer rights from low-performing schools and stringent requirements for teacher quality, for example—that make sense in therarefied ideological air inside the Beltway but make almost no sense to people who are trying to obey the law. Parental transfer rights, if they work, increase instability in enrollments in low-performing schools and adversely affect the distribution of students among schools, without necessarily improving instructional practice in either the sending or receiving schools. Requirements that teachers meet certain federally mandated quality standards—an idea that would have been considered absurdly interventionist not long


View Full Document

CSUN SED 610 - A PLEA FOR STRONG PRACTICE

Documents in this Course
Week 2

Week 2

6 pages

Week 11

Week 11

3 pages

Load more
Download A PLEA FOR STRONG PRACTICE
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view A PLEA FOR STRONG PRACTICE and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view A PLEA FOR STRONG PRACTICE 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?