Equal opportunity for all kinds of kids
Sunday, February 18 2007 @ 02:37 PM
Contributed by: pat
Wilmington News Journal: Perspective
By PAT HEFFERNAN
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007
It's the fifth anniversary of No Child Left Behind and we can consider the law a success despite serious flaws.
The federal education law is based on a yearly benchmark test that can't possibly measure real learning for all students accurately. The law is full of underfunded and onerous mandates. The achievement targets are unobtainable and the accountability component has too many problems to even list here.
How, then, can this law be considered a success?
Ask educators and they'll tell you that beyond the implementation problems, NCLB has made an irreversible change in the way the school system treats students. Because of NCLB, all students count -- and literally are counted.
It is a success because it reinforces one of the core principals of our society: All students are created equal -- and all are entitled to a basic public education.
Some people focus on the implementation problems and think No Child Left Behind isn't working. Some say it wasn't necessary in the first place. The truth is that the law isn't necessary for the "haves" -- like the middle-class students who are taking Advanced Placement classes and are bound for college. The law is for the "have-nots" -- students in the groups that have been underserved since Americans began sending all kids to public schools.
Sadly, we need explicit laws like No Child Left Behind to help our society live up to its ideals of equality, just like we needed explicit laws to give women and African-Americans the right to vote.
Before No Child Left Behind, schools were judged on the success of their highest-performing students or the student population as a whole. A school-wide success rate of 90 percent may seem good, but No Child Left Behind forces a more detailed analysis. That 90 percent success rate overall might hide a disappointing 20 percent success rate for a particular subgroup of students.
No Child Left Behind forces schools to consider what needs to be done to improve the success rate of every subgroup population. Often, changes aimed at one group benefit other students, too. Improving outcomes for a subgroup not only improves their lives, it improves society as a whole.
While No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002, it's a direct descendant of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty from the 1960s and the idea that a Great Society helps its underprivileged citizens.
Related to that, we've been trying hard to improve the education of students with disabilities since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was passed in the 1970s. After decades of stalled efforts to help these students, a different approach was needed.
The idea back in 2002 was to draw a line – to take the kids starting school that year, the class of 2014, and set the goal that they’d all graduate with basic proficiency in reading and math. To help reach that goal, the No Child Left Behind law forced numerical achievement targets to check progress along the way.
The fact that we’re missing those interim targets doesn’t mean we should give up. It means we need to strengthen our resolve. We need to throw out the old attitudes that have resulted in low expectations and acceptance of failure. As a society, we need to really believe that all students can get basic reading and math skills from our public education system.
It boils down to a question of our core values. When we shout “all men are created equal,” do some of us add under our breath “except for those over there”?
Because students are individuals, we can’t expect identical results from everyone. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t meet the goal of providing all students with basic proficiency in reading and math by the time they graduate. We must keep expectations for all students high and stretch for achievement from every student.
We have a long way to go before we have an education system that can realize the goal of leaving no child behind, but there is no turning back. For all its problems, we’re better off as a result of No Child Left Behind.
Pat Heffernan is co-president of the Brandywine Special Needs PTA.
Original source on the web:http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/OPINION09/702180303/1110/OPINION
The News Journal editorial board requested opinions from several perspectives on this day as a kind of reflection on NCLB 5 years after its passage. Other contributors whose pieces were included in this reflection are included below:
Valerie Wooddruff, Delaware's Secretary of Education
Ed Czerwinski and Susan Francis, president and executive director of the Delaware School Boards Association, repectively.
Barbara Grogg, president of theDelaware State Education Association - the teachers' union.
Measure learning in multiple ways
Wilmington News Journal: Perspective
By VALERIE WOODRUFF
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007
Delaware was well on its way to holding schools and districts accountable for the achievement of all students prior to the federal No Child Left Behind law. We had already established assessments in the required grades, had developed a strong data system to track student achievement, and were working to improve educator licensure and certification as well as professional development.
NCLB required changes in our accountability system, some of which have helped focus on important issues while others have prevented us from building a robust system of accountability.
Certainly the focus on students from all racial groups, all abilities and all language backgrounds has required every school and district across the country to search for better methods of instruction that will enable every child to learn at high levels. No Child Left Behind has also insisted that states ensure that every child is taught by the best qualified teachers possible.
NCLB is now scheduled for reauthorization by Congress. The law can be improved in several ways.
Congress should encourage states to use a variety of state and local assessment models that can improve teaching and learning while at the same time promoting more reliable accountability.
The federal law should encourage states to use multiple measures of student learning. States should be encouraged to use a variety of accountability models focused on individual student achievement. Student growth models should be encouraged, not restrained.
Consequences for schools and districts should be fair, and should differentiate depending on whether they missed making the government standard of "adequate yearly progress" by a little or a lot.
For example, a school that misses adequate yearly progress because of one group of students should not be subject to the same consequences as a school that misses the mark because of several groups of students. Neither should a school that is showing growing achievement for groups of students be treated the same as a school that is showing little or no growth.
Such consequences should be determined by the state and districts together, so long as they are addressing the specific needs of the students and action is being taken to ensure improvement.
The U.S. Department of Education has permitted states to use alternate or modified assessments aligned with alternate achievement standards for a small number of students with significant disabilities. Pending the long-awaited final regulations, the federal department is now allowing an additional 2 percent of students with disabilities to be measured against state academic content standards, but using modified achievement standards.
We do not know if that 2 percent is adequate, and the delay in receiving regulations has been frustrating.
Greater flexibility is also needed regarding inclusion of new immigrant students with limited English, who often have had no formal schooling in their own language.
Testing a student with a learning disability or a child who does not understand English in a way that frustrates the student and gives little meaningful data about his or her achievement must stop.
Assessments must be valid. They must be educationally meaningful for each student. Federal law should reflect that.
No Child Left Behind has rightly focused on the importance of having highly qualified teachers in classrooms. That requirement has made states and local districts ensure that teachers have sound knowledge of their subjects.
However, the federal law does not value the importance of knowing "how to teach." Knowledge of academic subjects without skills that make that content meaningful for students is not adequate. Continued support for high-quality professional development for teachers and other educators will allow states and districts to build a more competent and effective corps of instructors.
In addition, Congress must ensure that appropriations to states and local districts are congruent with expectations at each level. States are required to provide support and technical assistance to districts, as are districts to schools. However, the financial resources to do so in a quality manner have not been provided.
Finally, greater focus on research designed to evaluate promising practices and provide useful information for schools and districts must be a priority. Educators in Delaware and across the country deserve to receive the resources and support necessary to meet the goals of the federal law.
Valerie Woodruff is Delaware's secretary of education.
Original source on the web: http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/OPINION09/702180302/1110/OPINION
Pressured to make the grade
Wilmington News Journal: Perspective
By ED CZERWINSKI and SUSAN FRANCIS
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007
As the education community approaches reauthorization of the 2002 Elementary and Secondary Education Act -- otherwise known as No Child Left Behind -- there are issues with which we are struggling.
The education system in Delaware is luckier than most other states. With the support of the Legislature, it has worked collaboratively for over 10 years to develop an accountability system that measures student achievement and provides support for schools and children.
When testing was mandated through the federal No Child Left Behind law, Delaware did not need to develop a test. We did not need to develop a database to track student achievement. We did need to adjust calculations to meet the mandates. We also needed to expand the testing system.
While the concept of intense testing of every child was not a shock, and the cost of developing a system to comply did not begin from ground zero in Delaware, some details of this mandate have become difficult for the schools.
Delaware had clear expectations of continuous improvement, with support and collaboration to make that happen. Under No Child Left Behind, the issue of improvement has been replaced by a time-certain deadline that school board members believe is impossible to achieve.
Sanctions -- such as placing a school "under watch" -- can actually hurt a school. Sanctions do not adequately take into account gains made. They are sometimes unfair when schools with particular demographics need not count small groups of high-risk students.
The No Child Left Behind labels can drive achieving students from a school. Many low-achieving students come from homes where parents are not involved in the schools or do not have good enough educations themselves to understand the options.
There are factors that affect the education of children that cannot be addressed appropriately within the current structure and finances of public schools. Under the specifications of NCLB, special education is one of the most critical. While schools have made some significant advances in this area, it remains one of the most difficult to conquer as student needs change.
Growing numbers of families move to Delaware to enroll children in our schools for the exceptional special-education services they provide.
School board members across this state are committed to providing for all children to the best of our ability. Our issue is an "absolute" percentage of special-education students allowed to be exempted from the standard tests when our programs are attracting more students with exceptional needs.
The ranking of an entire school and district based not on ability to continuously improve but rather on a target number in every student category -- and sometimes on a single category -- is not productive.
Another significant issue some of our schools are facing is the growing number of students who do not speak English. Many of these children are entering our classrooms directly from countries where they got little or no education. Their parents also have had little or no education and do not speak our language.
After a year, these children must take the same tests as the children who have been in Delaware schools since kindergarten. While we have the ability to issue tests in other languages, it is often difficult to adjust for the different educational experiences of such children in a year.
It would be helpful in coming deliberations if all the education needs of non-English- speaking students could be addressed along with the language barrier.
Finally but most important, the mandates currently in NCLB are not adequately funded. The appropriations provided are not even close to the allocations defined as necessary in the federal law.
The stakes and their costs have increased for the State of Delaware and local school districts in the past five years, while the federal funding remains at fiscal 2005 levels. The results of this gap is that local money that could be used for programs appropriate to a school or district -- and for which the citizens passed referenda -- is being used to support federal law and regulations.
The school systems cannot conquer all issues that impede education of all the children who come from homes that do not value education, where there is neglect or abuse, no supervision or lack of parental support. Yet the federal government has said we must by 2014 or we will have failed.
Every day, we keep trying, adjusting teaching for students to meet the standards and more. We keep providing all of the other learning experiences -- beyond those that are tested -- that are critical for children to become well-balanced, healthy adults.
Ed Czerwinski is president of the Delaware School Boards Association. Susan Francis is the executive director.
Original source on the web: http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/OPINION09/702180304/1110/OPINION
Test data don't tell enough
Wilmington News Journal: Perspective
By BARBARA GROGG
Posted Sunday, February 18, 2007
The good news is that the No Child Left Behind law challenges teachers to continually examine whether each child is making satisfactory academic progress. If we weren't already doing so, it has forced us to add specific assessment data to our educational tool kit.
The bad news is that No Child Left Behind -- unlike teachers and parents -- overly uses data like statewide test scores to judge the success or failure of a school and its students. The Bush administration's message is that the law is working. Yes, scores are going up -- on overly rigid data results. But, no, No Child Left Behind will not make public education better for each child.
One mathematics test, one science test, one social studies test and one English test cannot measure the value of a total school experience. This is why No Child Left Behind presents obstacles to its original purpose. The very fact that the law measures all children in the same simplistic manner fails to recognize a basic educational tenant: that students are not the same.
They have different needs and different learning styles. For example, special-education students and children learning English as a second language are expected to perform the same as everyone else at their grade level.
Sometimes affluence or poverty matters; sometimes it does not. Often a native language other than English or a learning disability presents unusual challenges.
But you can’t use test data to determine why Johnny is absent more than he is present in school; or why Katie finally learned to love reading in fourth grade and not the third. Or why Julio hasn’t mastered English well enough in two years to do his best on the tests.
Yet the progress that Johnny might make the following year because of help from school staff and social service agencies, or a positive change at home; or that Katie progressed significantly in reading at age 9 instead of 8; or that Julio will show significant improvement the next year is not noted.
It’s tragic because No Child Left Behind will punish that school and those students when there is reason for celebration.
Under No Child Left Behind, we’re operating in two worlds: the world of steady progress seen every day in school; and the world translated to the public through one-size-fits-all test data.
What is not measured is what every mom and dad wants for their children: enthusiastic teachers who care and can connect with students and can help students learn critical thinking skills. Also not measured is the influence of teachers who help students discover interests that make children care about learning and their futures. Classes teach students how to work together in teams. This 21st-century survival skill may be just as important as the curriculum.
The No Child Left Behind law is further flawed because of its unfunded mandates. Congress authorized $111 million for No Child Left Behind in Delaware for 2007, but budgeted $47.1 million – leaving a $56.8 million shortfall.
We urge Congress to not only fully fund No Child Left Behind mandates, but critical education and children’s programs in nutrition, Head Start, the Individuals with Disabilities Act and day care.
Shift from the current focus that labels and punishes schools with a flawed uniform accountability system to one that includes common-sense measures of progress and innovation, and supports educators to improve learning, reward success, and provide meaningful assistance to schools in need of help.
We welcome President Bush’s acknowledgment that it’s time for more flexibility and funding in No Child Left Behind. Make sure that every school has the resources to improve. Make the law flexible enough to take a school’s improvement into consideration. Looking at data over time to see if and where improvement is happening will give a more complete picture of how well schools are doing. This “growth model” helps educators determine how and where to modify instruction to reach every child.
Barbara Grogg is president of the 11,500-member Delaware State Education Association, the union representing public school teachers and other employees. She is on leave from her fourth-grade teaching position at Eisenberg Elementary School in the Colonial School District.
Original source on the web: http://delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/OPINION09/702180301/1110/OPINION
0 comments
http://bsnpta.org/geeklog/public_html//article.php?story=Equal_Opportunity_for_All_Kids