ODYSSEYWARE » No Child Left Behind

Is Zero Tolerance Ever a Good Thing?

Melissa — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:49:41 +0000

Do you remember your high school principal? My high school principal was a brainiac poet who filled in when the algebra teacher was sick. After reading an article in the New York Times about an effective high school principal who was removed from her position in the name of education reform, I can only wonder how my high school’s principal would fare in an environment that’s a bit hostile to public school teachers and administrators.

According to the article, this principal was removed “because the Burlington School District wanted to qualify for up to $3 million in federal stimulus money for its dozen schools.”

The number of children that could benefit from the funding simply outweighed the cost of losing a great principal. I wouldn’t want to have to make that call.

Under the NCLB rules, for a district to qualify, schools with very low test scores must do one of the following: close down; be replaced by a charter; remove the principal and half the staff; or remove the principal and transform the school. (You knew that, right?)

Yes, the school at which she was principal was indeed a low performer when held up to federal standards, but her students were different:

• Thirty-seven of 39 fifth graders were refugees or special ed students.

• About half of the 230 students are foreign-born, collectively speaking 30 languages.

• Many have been traumatized.

• One-third see one of the school’s three caseworkers.

Ms. Irvine, the article said, received rave reviews from parents, peers, and her superiors. She developed a new arts curriculum and often worked 80-hour weeks in service to her students and the district.

Her tenacity to help students succeed simply did not stand a chance against the take-no-prisoners policy currently in place by the Department of Education.

As I see it, it would be hard to allow for exceptions under NCLB, as almost every school can give valid reasons why performance is down. Yet, it seems a tragedy that effective principals like Ms. Irvine must be casualties in the fight being waged to save public education. She was indeed one of the good guys.

Someone smart (whom I don’t know) once said, “There is zero intelligence when you start applying zero tolerance across the board.

So how do we keep the good, get rid of the bad, and still fight the good fight? More importantly, what should we do with the casualties?

Can America Afford to Do the “Whole” Thing?

Melissa — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:15:52 +0000

With the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) looming, Barack Obama and company have been trying to address one of the biggest and most talked about drawbacks in the current version of the law. It seems that everyone agrees that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) places too much emphasis on students’ test scores in core disciplines while ignoring other needs necessary for real learning to take place.

The focus on testing is pushing momentum in the opposite direction, toward “whole child” education. This model not only fills the academic needs of students, but proposes that education should include not only core academics, but the development of children who are healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

In a recent hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, lawmakers heard statements from leaders advocating inclusion of this approach into the newest version of ESEA.

As reported in Education Week, Geoffrey Canada, the president and chief executive officer of the Harlem Children’s Zone, an advocate of holistic education, said schools are no longer just cutting the fat.

They’re cutting the muscle. . . . Are we investing enough in our children in this nation? I think the answer is no. I think there are huge areas of this country where all kids need to be in an early-education [program]. . . . I think that we’ve got to hold people accountable for results, but we also need to be able to pay for realistic investments.

While the theory of whole child education makes sense, the price tag is hard to swallow, especially when budgets are tight and other government programs address the issues of health, social work issues, mentoring, and other components of the whole child model.

The other question that often follows: Where does the job of the school end and the job of the parents and community begin?

While lawmakers review the latest ESEA proposal, it remains to be seen if, and how, this movement will impact education now and in the future.

Title I

ctoppings — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:11:20 +0000

Continuing our look into re-authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, today we look at the issues surrounding Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the legislation responsible for providing education services to students who come from high poverty and disadvantaged backgrounds. Schools have become acquainted with Title I provisions throughout the years as the requirements tied to the funding levels and grant disbursements have long depended on the disposition of schools and their ability to show gains through measured assessments in math and language arts. Adequate yearly progress (AYP), the metric that has entered the lexicon of nearly every teacher throughout the country, is the way the Department of Education monitors the progress schools are making toward proficiency in these topics, assessing whether they are doing so on pace with their peers throughout the country. The defining moment for many schools comes in the next five years when all schools must meet 100% proficiency by 2014.

So how has this portion of education reform impacted schools, and has it worked? Recent reporting by the Chattanooga Times Free Press follows the challenges Ringold High School in Georgia faced in meeting their AYP. Although the early years were difficult in meeting compliance, as one teacher at that school explained, it has paid off in their situation:

“We’ve kind of gotten away from call them ‘failing schools’ and that was the predominant language that you heard in the early years of No Child Left Behind,” he said.

But often schools can’t reach AYP because “there’s a subgroup that may be under-performing,” he agreed.

But what about the schools that are literally drowning under the weight of the requirements and fear they are not going to make their AYP? The vast majority of schools throughout the country are far behind on their requirements to meet AYP and, in addition to endangering their Title I funding, they might lose out on new innovation grant monies through the i3 fund, which ties monies to progress in AYP. For states such as Florida where all 67 districts have failed to meet their AYP, these kinds of requirements could have a disastrous impact on their budgets.

So, moving forward, re-authorization of this legislation will require a close look at the assessments used to determine AYP. Schools generally prepare for a few annual tests that can largely dictate not only whether the schools meet their AYP but how they conduct classroom instruction as well. With regard to the data needed to monitor and track progress, are schools adequately fitted with tools to conduct these reports? These issues will persist in the education reform dialogue driving many of the decisions schools must make in the coming years.

Leaving No Child Behind

ctoppings — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:29:30 +0000

As 2010 appraoches, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal law that has determined much in education policy over the past decades, faces its third year without being reauthorized by Congress. Upon reaching this milestone of sorts, it is worth considering the many percolating proposals and approaches that would reauthorize the landmark legislation. Over the coming weeks, this blog will follow many of the debates over its reauthorization and the possible avenues that will be taken to achieve reform.

Withouth question, NCLB has drawn its share of opponents. Everyone understands, however, that it has changed the playing field in our country, standing as the central legislation by which all schools operate and by which parents and students evaluate education experiences. Prior to its passage, little was available by way of data or student-tracking that provided a clear snapshot of where students were in their progress. With its passage, schools have struggled to keep up with its mandates and aggressive benchmarks, creating frustration (and motivation) in attempts to meet its mandates. Teachers we speak to say, quite succinctly, “NCLB is a mess. But we needed something like it.” So with this backdrop, policy makers can take heart that their work might consist of tweaks, rather than a full overhaul of work completed only eight years ago.

From a 30,000 foot view level, it is hard to determine whether the law has a chance of being brought up in the near future. Congress’ attention has been directed toward health care reform, climate change legislation, financial regulatory reform and oversight of an economy that at times teeters on edge. With this full entree of work, Education reform seems destined to be relegated to the back. This would be a mistake from our perspective. Addressing the future sustainability of this country and providing economic security for students entering a global marketplace is one of the strongest arguments for putting education reform at the front of the queue of tasks.

We hope you’ll return to follow our discussion on NCLB and add your own thoughts in our comment section on how the landmark has affected your classroom and what you would like to see in reform. We’d be glad to hear from you!