Well, they've gone and done it again. Read on...
The White House (that is to say Obama and Duncan) just released their blueprint for an "overhaul" of No Child Left Behind, due to be renewed shortly. Some pretty apalling things about this proposal:
a-Obama's statement in the introduction that the SOLE indicator of whether or not a child will succeed in school is how good his or her teacher is, and that socio-economic status and skin color have NO effect. This is just a blatant falsehood according to all research I've read, and it's a stupid one. Have some common sense. Adults don't work well when they're constantly in stressful situations, hungry, homeless, or surrounded by violence. This is true no matter how much they love their jobs. Why would kids be any different?
b-requirements for states and districts to complete detailed "report cards" of existing teachers and principles, and also to make sure that the "high performing" teachers are equally accessible to schools with high needs. This just isn't going to work, partly because once you publish those report cards, guess who's going to be pushing to be the ones in those "high performing" classrooms? Middle class parents. And guess who has more clout in communities? Those same middle class parents. The other reason this won't work is:
c-giving all schools except those that score in the bottom 5% much greater flexibility than they had under NCLB. That, in addition to the requirements set out for solutions to low performing schools (not one of them involves keeping the principle who's been there, and only one doesn't involve firing at least 50% of the teachers), will keep high performing teachers out of low performing schools, honestly. NCLB has been an insult especially to high performing teachers who have been forced to read scripted lessons instead of exciting kids and getting them to learn-I don't think they're going to voluntarily work for schools that are still that way. High performing teachers are also rated high performing in part because of student scores-and every teacher out there is aware that SES DOES have something to do with academic achievement. Poorer schools=poorer kids=kids who need extra support-and those kids do absolutely need the best teachers. Problem is, teaching a class that's low-performing under this plan will transform you into a "low performing" teacher, and also remove both your autonomy to practice your profession and any chance of job security. This is even more true for principals-not one option set out in the plan allows for keeping a principal during a restructuring of a low performing school. See what I"m saying?
d-the funding for subjects other than math, science, and reading is all grant based, and the bill doesn't require that schools teach or score them. It's nice that there are grants for extra-currics for high risk students, but the end result will be that schools with time and money to write grants will get grants. Others will just continue de-emphasizing anything other than math, science, and reading.
e-a continual use of the words "evidence," "research based," and "proven" without explaining exactly what these mean. On the upside, in all but the lowest 5% schools, states and districts are being encouraged at least nominally to create their own rubrics in collaboration with stakeholders (and teachers are even listed among these stakeholders, which is a first), and to partner with colleges to figure out what will make students college ready. This could be great if the teachers and communities do really have a voice, and if researchers and profs,not just administrators, from the colleges are represented. On the other hand, I have a niggling feeling that "evidence" to Arne Duncan means test scores put together by his testing corp buddies. The bill also indicates that programs with "stronger" evidence of success will be more seriously considered-perhaps meaning the ones supported by test scores?
f-The word "vocational," as in "vocational training" is not mentioned once in this entire document. There is no federal funding you can apply for to start or maintain programs like this.
g-although much reference is made to the "diverse needs" of disabled or ELL students, there is no acknowledgement ANYWHERE that disability may mean that certain students are not going to progress beyond a certain point, and that they need care and teaching too. A lot of the rhetoric around these students continues to be about "improving performance," which is great as far as it goes, but...
h-in addition to various other accountability measures, the bill talks about not funding the kinds of professional development for teachers that "hasn't been proven to have results in the classroom." I think, but am not sure, that this is in response to teacher complaints that they can't the National Board certification tests because it is based on the old (thoughtful, diverse, nonscripted) way of teaching and requires them to do things in their classrooms that they are no longer allowed to do. I've spoken with people who went through this process, which involves a lot of writing and thinking about the abilities of individual students, and reading up on educational research and talking about how one would help specific students to learn specific things. It's kind of like a teaching dissertation, and sounds really brilliant to me-one person I spoke to said that it did really help her to approach her kids in a new way and bring new teaching methods to the classroom. well, says Duncan, we want more standardization, not less.
i-a lot of rhetoric about increasing teachers' time and support so they can do professional development or pilot new programs-but, of course, no actual provision for doing so. A lot of recommendations for lengthening school days, though.
There are a couple of good things in the bill, though-
a-funding and grants for a cradle to college approach, like the Harlem Children's Zone, which is a great program and can probably help a lot of kids. Early support for parents and kids in SES areas really means everything in a lot of cases.
b-some fellowships for grad students to put together more effective, (actual) research based programs for ELL students. (Not sure why they didn't see fit to add provisions for research on the learning of other students?)
c-a renewal of the support for Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Native Alaskan schools in their efforts to crreate curricula that will speak to their kids and work with the communities' culture. It is required (maybe it always was) that parents be involved in the construction of curricula. (I wonder why we can't have this kind of thing for other minority kids as well? I mean, politically the answer is obvious, but educationally it would be fairly brilliant, I think).
d-as I said above, the partnering with universities thing could turn out to be great if it's the teachers, not the admin, who comes to the meetings. As could the mention (even if it's possibly only window-dressing) of bringing all stakeholders, including teachers and principals, into curriculum and assessment discussions.
e-some money for teacher training programs that focus on the needs of high need schools (I suspect a lot of teacher training programs will want the grants-and not all of them do a great job at this, so it could be really useful.)
So that's my take...it's mostly pretty bad, with some hidden good stuff. Which is I guess what we'll have to be content with, given that I suspect it'll pass without a murmur.