Lecture 14 POLS 207Outline of Last Lecture:Federal Role in Education I. No Child Left BehindA. Increased federal role B. Federally mandated standardized testing for all C. All children “proficient” by 2014D. Reduced differences among “groups”Outline of Current Lecture:NCLB, the Obama Administration, and Education (Oh My!)I. Continuing issues in NCLBII. The Obama Administration’s educational agendaA. Race to the TopB. National Assessment of Educational Progress (“common standards”)Current Lecture:2001 NCLB Act  Withholding federal funds Failing to make AYP (adequate yearly progress) (with parental choice)Continuing issues in No Child Left Behind:- Re-authorization due in 2007 – but with ’08 and ‘09 financial crisis, ’10 healthcare fight, ’12 elections and continued “divided” national government…- Complicated politics of re-authorization – beyond traditional Republican “ambivalence” about federal involvement…re-authorization esp. stressful for Democratso Minorities traditionally suspicious of standardized testingo BUT….with NCLB and its “subgroup” reporting requirements it becomes hard to cover up failures of different groups by lumping them in with everyone else.- Teachers unions and their professional associations view of NCLB testing requirements range from ambivalence to outright opposition (esp. if test results linked to teacher pay/tenure)- All of this matters for the reauthorization of NCLB because racial and ethnic minorities and teachers are important elements of the Democratic base, and without widespread Democratic support in Congress, NCLB will not be reauthorized. Obama Administration’s educational agenda ( See also D&M 16:541 – 42 )(Note that the federal role in education was not a significant issue of the 2008 election. Neither party addressed it extensively)- Increase federal financial aid- Incentives…disadvantaged schools, math and science teachers- Alternative certification programs- Encourage states to develop “common” subject matter standards - Link teacher pay to student achievement “Race to the Top” – A competitive grant program that is supposed to encourage states and local school districts to use spare money to raise their standards“Competitive” grants ($8 billion) to the states if…- Use international standards as benchmarks…- Implement “turnaround” strategies- Encourage “charter schools”- Develop data systems for tracking individual student achievemento Rewards teachers for improving students’ performance – meant to undercut teacher opposition to linking pay to testscores- Link teacher and principal pay to test scores Some state legislatures had to change their states laws, particularly regarding linking teacherpay to student achievement – Some states had forbidden that sort of policy.Implementing policy changes through “waivers” (a way to get around an inactive congress)Typical provision in legislation authorizing administrative agency (e.g. the Secretary of___) to “waive” part or all of law’s requirements/provisions (e.g. NCLB – “waive any statutory or regulatory requirement”)Obama Administration will “waive” the 2014 “proficiency” requirement IF the state…(45 states expected to request)- Develops rigorous standards for achieving “college or career readiness” (In other words, change the goal to “college or career readiness” rather than grade-level proficiency in reading and math. These new standards might actually be more rigorous than the grade-level proficiency ones, but don’t have to worry about AYP)- Tracks individual student achievement - Evaluates teacher performance, using (in part) test scores, e.g. a “growth” model of student achievementWho defines educational standards? - Old fear of “federal control”- NCLB prohibits federal government nation-wide testso Section 6301: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction, as a condition of eligibility…”  National Assessment of Educational Progress – given to a random sampling of students every other year or so to determine percentage thatare “proficient” – AKA “the nation’s report card”- State-written tests vs. NAEP test  85% of Texas’ fourth-graders “proficient” in reading on state test, 27% on NAEP (cf LA 14% v. 20% BUT MS 87% v. 18% on NAEP)o  These data… State v. NAEP results create pressures for standardized “national” tests (and curricula) since national tests are showing much lower proficiency rates than state tests However, there is some legitimate criticism of national benchmarks- Obama’s Race to the Top initiative encourages states to develop “common